Week 16: The Soul of America

 

In his speech at the Democrat Party National Convention, as well as in his speeches along the virtual campaign trail, Joe Biden has asserted that the forthcoming election is about the soul of the nation. This is to say the party that lays claim to victory on third of November also lays claim, to great extent, to the soul of America. To a certain degree, I am inclined to agree with his assessment.

 

I do qualify my agreement with Mr. Biden’s assertion with “to a certain degree,” because we, good citizens, continue to benefit from the collective wisdom of the Founders. Because our elected representatives must seek our approval through elections every two, four or six years, there are regular opportunities to refresh our government and breathe new life into our nation’s collective soul.

 

To be a bit more precise in terms of the significance of this particular election, the winning party will be in a position to continue or discontinue the economic, regulatory and foreign policies that ushered in widespread prosperity prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and have prevented our engagement in new military conflicts. The winning party will be in the likely position of appointing multiple justices to the Supreme Court. The winning party will set the tone for how we, the citizens of this land, see and interact with one another.

 

In last week’s post, you were introduced to Jo Jorgensen, the Libertarian Party candidate for president. We discussed, at a high level, the idea of Classical Liberalism. I know, as anyone familiar with the Founders and their writings knows, that Libertarianism is the only contemporary political philosophy that genuinely nurtures and is nurtured by the soul of the nation, as conceived by those men and women of 1776 and 1789 and as imbued with Enlightenment principles.

 

Alas, pragmatism awakens me from the blissful slumber of the philosophical world, and it calls me to the realities of the political world. In the political world, I fear that the electorate is not yet ready for Libertarianism and the responsibilities for which it calls and the benefits it confers.

 

Consequently, we are left with the Republicans and the Democrats. Pray consider, gentle reader, which party – which candidate – not only understands the soul of our country but also has a record of nourishing and lifting up that soul. 

 

First, let us explore the nature of the soul. The word “soul” comes from the Proto-Germanic word saiwalō, meaning “life” or “living being.” In this context, Mr. Biden could be talking about the very life of our nation. Let us explore the concept a bit further.

The Pythagoreans looked on the concept of soul as harmony within the body. For our purposes, might we conclude that it could be harmony within the body politic?

Plato considered the world-soul as a harmony of “sameness,” which is the universality of “Ideas.” When we consider the fundamental tenant of our nation’s founding, that “all men are created equal,” it is clear that the notion of “sameness” or universality is at play.

In Aristotelian ethics, as it relates to the concept of soul, the idea of rationality is included. This idea of a rational soul includes possessing and being obedient to reason. In their “History of Political Philosophy,” Strauss and Cropsey write, “The proper function of man is therefore the putting-to-work or activity (energeia) of the soul in accordance with reason, or rather the most excellent form of such activity.” They continue, “happiness or the human good can be defined then, as activity of the soul in accordance with excellence or virtue (arete) and, if there are several virtues, in accordance with the best and most perfect.” We will return, momentarily, to the virtues, as they seem integral to our evaluation of those who would lay claim to the soul of America.

In Scholasticism, Saint Thomas Aquinas brings forth the principles of the soul as considered in Aristotelianism into Christian ethics. It is important to note that, according to Aquinas, the soul is created at a specific point in time in an organism’s development. Augmenting the Greek’s conception, Aquinas teaches that the soul is immortal, surviving past the time it leaves the earthly vessel that is our physical body. For our purposes, we may consider the organism to be our society or nation and that point in time to be the one at which a social contract is promulgated, such as our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.

While a discussion of the nature of the soul could go on for days and days, or – as it in fact has – for millennia, let us return to Aristotle.

What does it mean to possess and be obedient to reason? Aristotle tells us that, in part, it is acting in accordance with excellence or virtue. Virtue has a special, well-defined meaning in the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle. The virtues include: courage, temperance, liberality, magnificence, magnanimity, proper ambition, patience, truthfulness, wittiness, friendliness, modesty and righteous indignation. Attendant to each of these virtues are two opposing vices – a vice of deficiency and a vice of excess. The goal is to live in the mean between the two vices.

I encourage you, kind reader, to look up a table of Aristotelian virtues and to consider your candidate and that of the opposition. Based on their deeds, not their words, evaluate where they fall on each virtue: in the mean, in excess or in deficiency. I suspect you will find that neither Mr. Biden nor Mr. Trump is the virtuous leader we deserve. In my own evaluation, based on the virtues, I do believe one is more grounded in the mean than the other, but sharing my personal assessment of the two is not the point of today’s message.

One may be confounded by the dilemma at hand. If neither candidate is the virtuous person we need to preserve, protect and defend the soul of our nation, how can one rightly choose the best candidate for this purpose? Again, let us turn to Aristotle.

Exploring the virtuous person, Strauss and Cropsey write, “Aristotle’s intention emerges with particular clarity in a passage in the Eudemian Ethics. He there distinguishes between two sorts of virtuous men, the ‘good man’ (agathos), who acts virtuously for the sake of acquiring the naturally good things of life (i.e., primarily wealth and honors), and the ‘noble and good man’ (kaloskagathos), who performs the actions of virtue for their own sake, or because they are noble.” Strauss and Cropsey pick up this thread later in the passage, writing, “Aristotle indicates that the majority of ‘political men’ are ‘good men’ in this sense, while denying their right to be called such: ‘For the political man is one who chooses to perform fine actions for their own sake, but the majority of them take up this sort of life for profit and personal aggrandizement.’”

Strauss and Cropsey encourage us, based on Aristotle’s ethics, to distinguish between the person who seeks office for his own enrichment and honor and the person who seeks it for a higher purpose.

Neither candidate is completely virtuous – and to be true, none of is so, as we are all human. Of the two major political parties’ candidates for President, one became wealthy as a result of his public office; the other became wealthy as a result of his private life and then sought public office. The former, Mr. Biden, is a multimillionaire. The latter, Mr. Trump, is a billionaire, who is not accepting the remuneration due him for his work as President, instead, donating each check to charity.

Make no mistake, I begrudge no one his or her wealth. I applaud people who are successful, by any measure. Generally, a person acting in a private capacity obtains wealth through voluntary exchange – making something of value that another person agrees to buy. A person acting in a public capacity becomes wealthy through coercion and corruption, pressuring people into financial arrangements in exchange for political favor.

As the election nears, candidly reflect on the actions of each candidate – words aside – and determine whose actions reveal a “good man” and whose actions reveal a “noble and good man,” and then vote accordingly.

p.s. I would entreat you again to look at Dr. Jorgensen through the same lens of Aristotle’s virtues and through his comparison of a person who is “good” and who is “noble and good.” I would venture to guess that the choice among the candidates would quickly become clear.

 

 

 

Week 17: Vote "for" instead of "against"

Week 17: Vote “for” instead of “against”

Discuss politics with nearly anyone today, and it becomes readily apparent that few people are actually planning to vote “for” any party or any candidate. Some people on the left do not seem enamored of Joe Biden, a doddering curmudgeon who spends his time trying to string together a coherent sentence and belittling potential voters who dare question his record. They are not voting for Joe Biden; they are voting against Donald Trump. Some people on the right do not seem enamored of Donald Trump, a caustic character who spends his time calling his opponents names on Twitter and bucking the political establishment. They are not voting for Donald Trump; they are voting against Joe Biden.

As for the two major political parties, I would suggest that there is relatively little difference between the two. Despite their rhetoric, both spend more and more money in a never-ending scheme to control more and more of our lives. 

In his book, “Rules for Radicals,” Saul Alinsky provocatively, and probably accurately, states, “That perennial question, ‘Does the end justify the means?” is meaningless as it stands; the real and only question regarding the ethics of means and ends is, and always has been, ‘Does this particular end justify this particular means?’”

It is shameful that the major political parties use all manner of scare tactics as means to influence us, the People, to accept government control over our lives, which is the ultimate end for them. What are these means? They say we will die without their involvement in the relationships between us and our doctors. They say we will live in squalor without their handouts, marketed as hand ups. They even sink to the foulest depths – convincing us that we are out to get one another, based on no more than the color of our skin, our gender, or any other number of superficial traits.

For the two major parties, We the People – you and I, are little more than pawns to establishment politicians.

My perception is that there are more people voting “for” Mr. Trump precisely because he is not part of the establishment. His policies and record to date, which have lifted the socioeconomic conditions of so many Americans, threaten the power of the establishment. The employment and wage rates for women and minorities, for example, were at all-time highs prior to the novel Coronavirus pandemic. The dysfunctional Veterans Administration health system is beginning to run more effectively and is including care choice for its patients. Affronts to the Natural Rights of Native Americans are being addressed. Things are getting done; things which the establishment politicians have discussed for years but have not remedied for fear of losing an issue with which to bait the American citizenry. The list of his administration’s accomplishments are not lost on Mr. Trump’s base.

What will be an important footnote in history, the novel Coronavirus, certainly has impacted the prosperity our nation was experiencing during the past few years. This, too, shall pass, and if our economic policy continues to tend toward laissez-faire conditions, we will likely be back on good footing quickly.

Mr. Biden’s record after 48 years as a career, establishment politician seems to demonstrate fewer tangible impacts on the lives of citizens, with the exception, of course, of higher taxes and greater government involvement in our lives. For example, he claims to be a lifelong proponent of Civil Rights, yet despite that, he claims that civil rights are as bad as ever. He claims to champion healthcare, yet despite the growth of Medicare and Medicaid since he began his political career, he’s among the first to decry our broken healthcare system.

On July 4, 1786, Massachusetts revolutionary Jonathan Loring Austin delivered a speech to the citizens of Boston on the anniversary of Independence Day. In his rousing speech, set in the now-legendary Faneuil Hall, he cautioned those assembled: “But as similar causes will always produce similar effects; so may we rest assured, that no nation will long continue free, after it has lost its virtue.” The preeminent virtue intimated by Mr. Austin to the good people of Boston was individual liberty.

As we think of whom to vote “for” in the upcoming election, consider who are the advocates of the “similar causes,” or means, as Alinsky would describe them? Mr. Biden’s failed policies are most assuredly likely to fail again. Mr. Trump’s divisive rhetoric is likely to reinforce the political discord that has existed for decades. 

Unless one falls into the small groups voting “for” Mr. Biden or Mr. Trump, I might suggest, kind reader, that it would feel much better to have a candidate for whom one could enthusiastically for “for” in this election. Furthermore, in a pragmatic sense, it would also produce favorable results for you, me and our fellow citizens.

May I introduce you to Jo Jorgensen, MBA, Ph.D. Dr. Jorgensen is the Libertarian candidate for President. [www.jo20.com] She is an industrial and organizational psychologist, who lectures at Clemson University. She is a former employee of IBM, and now she owns her own business. She is a Classical Liberal. Unfortunately, the term “liberal” has been misappropriated by the political left (another Alinksy tactic) and used to mean something it etymologically does not mean.

In the simplest terms, Libertarianism – or Classical Liberalism – is a political approach to executing the social contract in which each individual is free to pursue his or her own interests and objectives, no matter what they are, as long as such pursuits do not adversely impact another individual’s ability to pursue his or her own interests and objectives. In other words, you are free to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn’t hurt someone else. [www.lp.org] 

In the Libertarian model, coercion is minimized. Government activity is strictly limited, and personal accountability and responsibility are restored. The abuse of the Constitution’s “general welfare” clause is remedied, as it is not carelessly interpreted to mean the government has a legitimate role in where one may receive healthcare, how much water one may use to flush a toilet, whom one may marry, etc., etc., etc.

Because, in a Libertarian model, there aren’t these and myriad other intrusions into our lives, there is no need for the expansive and costly departments and bureaus to administer them. Consequently, the need to coerce hard-earned money from you and me in the form of taxes is minimized.

Because, in a Libertarian model, government – and thereby power – is limited. Consequently, the need for politicians to divide and conquer the citizens is limited. At long last, you and I and our fellow Americans can live in harmony, without the power-hungry convincing us that we should hate one another. 

I propose that Classical Liberalism, viz. Libertarianism, is the model that will promote individual well-being and societal harmony. In this day and age, it is the anti-establishment choice.

Gentle reader, prior to casting your vote for one of the establishment parties, I pray your kind indulgence to follow the links above and to explore Dr. Jorgensen and the Libertarian Party. I think you’ll like what you read.

Week 18: Individuals or Masses

Are we, the men and women of this nation, individuals with our own interests, hopes and dreams, or are we collective masses whose interests, hopes and dreams are determined by our gender, the color of our skin, etc.?

One candidate for president tipped his hand in terms of his view on this question, which, by way of example, I shall quote here.

On Aug. 6, former Vice President Joe Biden stated, “By the way, what you all know but most people don't know, unlike the African American community with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly different attitudes about different things. You go to Florida; you find a very different attitude about immigration in certain places than you do when you're in Arizona. So, it's a very different, a very diverse community.”

Consider this, kind reader, for just a moment. In such consideration, you may, like me, find this presumptuous assertion to be repugnant and to be an affront to individualism and to individual dignity. Because you may have one shade of skin pigment, you are incapable of independent thoughts, hopes and dreams. Because I’m a different shade, I may be capable of greater independent thought than you. And someone who is yet a different shade of skin may be a completely free thinker. Skin color being just one superficial way for free people to be separated from and pitted against one another en masse.

This is precisely the evil belief, based on junk pseudoscience espoused by the eugenics practices of the Nazis and the likes of Margaret Sanger, that has led to the extermination of tens of millions of individual human beings during the past century alone.

Servitude and extermination are actions that may seem far-fetched in this day and age. Some survivors of the Holocaust recalled the same sense in the 1930s and ‘40s that the horrors they would face seemed far-fetched, if not impossible. German culture, after all, was refined and enlightened. Such evil as that visited upon Europe and the whole of humankind, could not have been imagined. It was; it did; and it all began with a twisted belief that ascribed a common set of characteristics to a group of people, much like that described in the quoted above.

Evil begins with an idea. One of the truly evil ideas is that we are not individuals created in the likeness of God. We are, instead, masses to be manipulated for the “common good.” Who, though, decides what that good is? Never has there been, nor ever will there be, the philosopher kings whose judgment is so perfect as to solve all human conditions. We are, therefore, left with the words and deeds – the ideas and actions – of plain old men and women, who are flawed, just like you and me.

History demonstrates, time and time again, that it is a relatively short period of time from idea to action.

Our system of government, brilliantly devised by the Founding Fathers, was designed with the express purpose of protecting the individual from the government and from the tyranny of pure democracy, which is a system that can easily be used to target one group against another. Ours singularly in the annals of political history is the form of government formed to fully appreciate the rights and dignity of each and every individual. Granted, this has been corrupted by power-hungry politicians over time, but this doesn’t mean we should give up on it. We must continue to improve it so that we may pursue that more perfect union.

Biden, as other politicians who express the notion that we are not individuals but masses, often backpedal and explain how we misunderstood what they said. This is disingenuous at best. As you consider candidates at any level, explore who understands you as a free, individual human being and who views you as one of the masses to be glorified or vilified for his or her own benefit.

Week 19: Cui bono?

 

In 80 B.C., Sextus Roscius (Roscius the younger) was on trial for patricide and was defended by Marcus Tullius Cicero. A focal point of the trial for both the prosecution and the defense was the question, cui bono? Who benefits?

 

Roscius’ father (Roscius the elder) had been murdered, and his name was subsequently – and fraudulently – put on a list of proscribed citizens, who essentially were political opponents of the tyrant Sulla. Such citizens were put to death and their properties (of which Roscius the elder had 13 estates) were confiscated and put up for public auction. Enemies of Roscius the elder, who orchestrated and committed his murder, purchased the 13 estates and evicted Roscius the younger from them, denying him his birthright.

 

To make a long story short (“Too late,” to quote Col. Mustard in the movie, Clue), Cicero demonstrated that Roscius the younger would realize no special benefit from murdering his father. After all, they were on good terms and the elder had not disinherited the younger. Furthermore, Roscius the younger was neither in the same town as his father at the time of the murder, nor had he the wherewithal to engage someone else to murder this father. He had no motive, and he had a strong alibi.

 

Roscius the younger was acquitted and Cicero bravely shone the light of justice on the perpetrators of Roscius the elder’s murder. Cui bono had been an integral component of a successful defense.

 

You, kind reader, may be asking what a 2,100-year-old legal case has to do with this year’s election. It is simply my admonishment – or rather my plea – to examine each candidate and his or her policy proposals and to ask the simple question, “who benefits?”

 

In asking this question, do not stop at the prima facie beneficiary. Like Cicero, thoroughly examine the issues and policy proposals. Pick them apart. Understand them. Honestly assess them. In the previous 33 posts, we’ve examined how many, if not most or all, policies and proposals are, at their heart, designed to strengthen and sustain the power of the political class. In so many cases, those who are said to be the beneficiaries turn out to be the victims.

 

Education, healthcare and equality, to name just a few issues, are the foci of politicians’ policy proposals every two and four years. Despite this, our public education system continues to fail too many children, our public healthcare system continues to fail the sickest and poorest among us, and as we are seeing today, hatred and animosity based on race, gender and any other characteristics that are irrelevant to the moral worth of an individual are destroying our social contract.

 

Compounding these and other problems, anyone who speaks out and suggests that We the People (i.e., individual citizens) are not to blame but those in office, especially at the federal level, is labeled a bigot of one form or another and effectively bullied into silence and servile submission.

 

I contend, gentle reader, that the disharmony we are experiencing today benefits one group and one group only. That group is not White men, Black women, gender-fluid Brown pangenders, blonde atheists, blue-eyed Baptists, bald Democrat voters or hazel-eyed Republicans, etc., etc., etc. The group to which I am referring is the group of elected officials, namely Representatives, Senators and even presidential candidates of the two major political parties, whose principal interest is in maintaining and augmenting power. In such maintenance and augmentation, they thereby pave the road to their own corruption and, subsequently, your destruction and mine.

 

In the securing the harmonious execution of our social contract, neither you nor I – simply being citizens – benefit in any way from any “-ism.” Each “-ism,” when one really thinks about it and looks at root causes, serves no individual self-interest. Each “-ism,” though, serves the interests, which is to say the benefit, of the political class. Without the ability to drive us apart and to set us at one another, politicians of today have no issues on which to campaign. With very few exceptions, they lack the creativity, virtue and understanding of individuals as fundamentally good and free agents to run on a platform of protecting the social contract, fostering individual liberty and, as Adam Smith would suggest, promoting the common good through that contract and through such liberty.

 

I know this is a controversial stance, but I am certain it is a true and provable position.

 

As you enter the polling booth – actually, well before you enter that sacred space – look at your candidates’ positions and consider who they benefit. Cui bono? Are benefits derived by you, me, our fellow citizens, or are they designed for the candidates and the political class? Consider this well, then vote accordingly, lest we be wrongly accused and evicted from our metaphorical lands, which is to say denied the rights and liberties to which we, as American citizens and as human beings, are entitled.

Week 20: Equality, revisited

In the Week 51 essay, we explored the fool’s errand of trying to legislate equality of conditions and outcomes, drawing parallels to the lessons gleaned from dystopian literature and recorded in the historical record of the failed policies of our government and governments around the globe.

I still maintain that equality of outcomes is a dangerous pursuit, as it encourages sloth, discourages initiative, and would surely be a death knell to the better angels of our nature. It turns people into takers as opposed to givers; taking being an act of compulsion, giving being a voluntary act.

One may ask how this conforms with the most fundamental principle of our republic, which is the equality of all people. It is a worthwhile question indeed.

The answer may be found in Euclidean Geometry.

Euclid of Alexandria was a Greek mathematician, who lived during the mid-fourth to mid-third centuries B.C., and was among the first to present a comprehensive and coherent treatment of mathematics. 

Euclid’s first axiom is stated as thus, “Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another.”

This axiom provides, I think, a solution to Socrates’ examination about disputes over the equality of things. For simple things, such as the relative lengths or weights of two items, we could measure or weigh them. But what about two things that cannot be measured with such ease, such as what is more or less pleasing to god or the relative nature of human beings?

The most base and vile way some people attempt this is by assessing another’s age, color, gender or some other superficial and utterly meritless characteristic.

Humans, some say, rule the Earth, but as we look comparatively at the rest of creation, do we not find that the cheetah is swifter, the buffalo stronger, the flower more beautiful, and the ant more industrious? As we consider every creature, it is miraculous indeed that we claim dominance over these.

Within our own species, some are swifter, stronger, more beautiful and more industrious when compared one to another. I have no problem whatsoever thinking of many friends I have who exhibit such traits to a greater and better degree than I in each of these areas and in many more, including keenness of intellect and depth of soul. Knowing this to be true, how can we claim that all people are equal?

Examine carefully Euclid’s axiom. He does not say A equals B. He introduces a third element to his equation. If A equals B and C equals B, then A must equal C.

I propose, in the arena of human interaction and social contracts, that “B” is the law, specifically in terms of the protections and guarantees it affords. If A and C, no – let me put it to you, kind reader, another way – if you and I are afforded the same protections and guarantees under the law, we are by this axiom equal.

In his chapter on Justice in “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle discussed the fact that we may discern what is equal from our understanding of what is unequal. Likewise, we can discern what is unequal from our understanding of what is equal. Consequently, it stands to reason that if any law offers different protections and guarantees to you and me, we cannot axiomatically be equal.

The Fourteenth Amendment, one of the “Reconstruction Amendments” (i.e., the 13^th, 14^th and 15^thamendments to the Constitution), guarantees “equal protection of the laws” to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” This amendment, very simply, makes A equal to B and C equal to B. In other words, you and I are equal relative to the law.

Unfortunately and, in my opinion, treasonously, states passed segregationist laws that falsely claimed “separate but equal” protections and guarantees under the law. Rather than prosecute states and their lawmakers for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress began passing all manner of legislation, designed to treat one group differently from another. Laws intended to level the playing field in housing, employment, healthcare, suffrage, etc. were, I hope, well intentioned.

As is often the case, unintended consequences have arisen and, I believe, have led to the crisis we now face. Our system of laws has reduced We the People to criteria such as the pigment in our skin, our genitalia, our age, our sexuality, our marital status, our employment status, and the list goes on and on. Consequently, the government, which is supposed to represent each citizen in the execution of our social contract, pits us against one another. Furthermore, all of these laws and regulations are implemented by armies of bureaucrats who are neither elected by nor are accountable to We the People. If you, kind reader, have not worked in the government, permit me to inform you that these public servants, regardless of their role or level, wield tremendous power; and it is power, in my opinion, that is relatively unchecked.

Think of these criteria. What do they mean in terms of who we really are? Can I truly divine a person’s ideas, hopes or dreams from the color of his or her skin or from his or her gender? True racism comes from any misguided belief that such divination is possible. Such beliefs are antithetical to equality. Enlightened minds, by which I do not mean “woke,” understand that the monolithic attribution of characteristics or beliefs to groups, based on superficial qualities, is inappropriate and unfair. However, that is what our representatives, their bureaucrats, and many of our nation’s laws do. It is downright immoral; at the very least, it is unvirtuous.

As elections draw nigh, examine the candidates’ proposals, records, words and deeds. Scrutinize them for a commitment to equality, not in the sense of making each person a replica of the other but in the sense of being afforded the same guarantees and protections of the nation’s laws.

Week 21: Independence Day: Canceled

This past Saturday was the Fourth of July, also known as Independence Day. It marks the signing of the Declaration of Independence, a document that was informed by Enlightenment concepts and that was written in the spirit of the Magna Carta. It declares the intention of the British colonies to become separated from Great Britain, and it lists the reasons that prompted the separation.

The Declaration of Independence started the United States down the path of freedom. As the Founders knew full well, they and the fledgling nation they were to form were far from perfect. The birth of this nation was based on high ideals that, out of political necessity due to the political conditions of the time, were compromised, namely the inherent freedom of all people. 

Thirteen years later, the Constitution was ratified. Among its purposes is the intent to form a “more perfect Union.” The Founders knew that governments, like the people who form them, are imperfect, but they had a view of the long game. They created a document that would enable the people of the United States to improve themselves and their government over time. 

Students of Aristotle, they realized, that “happiness requires not only excellence or virtue, but also a full term of years for its exercise.”

What a testament to the virtues of Righteous Indignation, Truthfulness, Proper Ambition, Liberality and Courage would it have been had the Founders all agreed that equality and freedom were the inherent rights of all human beings, regardless of race or gender. Sadly, this was not to have been the case. Compromise, or perhaps capitulations, set for our nation a hurdle over which to come in our pursuit of that more perfect Union. It was a hurdle that we are still striving to overcome today.

Let us take a step back, though, for a moment. Ours has become a “cancel culture,” and I think it is important to know what we are canceling, lest we throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater.

In his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson included the following, which was stricken from the approved version by way of unfortunate compromises, among those in the Continental Congress, to secure its passage.

“He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.”

This is in no way intended to excuse Jefferson or any others of that time for the purchase, possession, breeding, sale and murder of enslaved persons. His commentary on persons of African descent, specifically enslaved Black people, describe opinions and beliefs that were likely not uncommon to White people of the day, especially those in the South. This commentary is made clear in “Notes on the State of Virginia.” In mentioning this, it is only intended to show that Jefferson and others of his day were not one-dimensional characters. They knew that slavery was indeed an evil institution, and Jefferson himself sought to expose it and call for its end in his original draft of the Declaration.

Will today’s society “cancel” Thomas Jefferson? Perhaps. But I hope they take into account the full measure of his ideas before doing so.

Abolitionists of the day, such as British author Thomas Day, wrote about the inherent contradiction in the document, which in one sentence declares that “all men are created equal,” and which silently gives consent to the practice of institutionalized inequality upon which slavery had its foundation. He wrote in 1776, “If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves.”

There is truth in Day’s statement. If you, kind reader, knew that Day also found fame (or infamy) for his “educational” project on wife training and that he adopted two girls, aged 11 and 12, from an orphanage, so that he would train them to become a perfect wife for himself (he adopted two, figuring that one of them must surely learn from his training), would you believe that his views on abolition should be canceled because of his repugnant, twisted and pedophilic practices on wife training?

Hopefully none of us has a sin as dastardly as slavery or misogynistic pedophilia. I can rightly presume, though, that none of us is without sin. Consequently, we should be mindful before casting stones, stones that might cancel the good a person may think or do, such as speaking out for human rights and for exposing hypocrisy. 

Let us return to Aristotle and his “Nicomachean Ethics” for a moment. He states that the pursuit of happiness or excellence in something requires knowledge of what is to be done, choosing to apply that knowledge, and acting on that knowledge.

In the Declaration of Independence, particularly that first draft, the Founders possessed the knowledge that slavery was wrong. Some applied that knowledge to prepare the words above, from that original draft. They failed to act on that knowledge in a way that was consistent with what they knew. To be sure, this was a missed opportunity of terrible proportions.

In spite of this tragedy, the Declaration contains principles around which, I believe, we can all rally and upon which we can build our more perfect Union. I invite you to explore these principles with me.

The term “life” comes from the Old English, meaning the period of a person’s existence from birth to death. This comes from a Proto-Germanic word that carries with it the notion of perseverance, and this has its root in a Proto-Indo-European word meaning adherence. While there is no dearth of challenging issues we face, perseverance is a national characteristic that we can leverage to progress toward a more perfect Union. If we adhere to the principles that we all share, those that define our shared humanity, we will find peace and harmony.

The term “liberty” comes from the Old French, meaning freedom and free will, as well as a freedom from the bondage of sin, which, in turn, has its origin in a Latin word meaning the condition of being free and an absence of restraint. Each of us has the authority exercise his or her free will to choose peace and harmony over hate and division. If we respect each individual’s right to exercise their will, insomuch as it does not impede others from doing the same, true freedom can be achieved.

The “pursuit of happiness,” has two key components. “Pursuit” comes from the Old French word for a search. Happiness comes from the Middle English and earlier the Old Norse, meaning favorable fortune or chance, which has its origins in the Proto-Indo-European word for suiting, fitting or succeeding. With respect for life and liberty, our chances to find success in our search for good fortune must be increased. As with Adam Smith’s “invisible hand,” the good fortune of each of us has a beneficial effect on the good fortune of society as a whole.

Since then end of the Civil War, we have looked to the government to implement programs to change the hearts and minds of all people. Such reliance, as we see today, fails to heal the deep wounds of the past. It appears, instead, to pick at the scarred tissue and re-infect the wound. In every part of life, save one, I am an eternal and unrepentant optimist. The exception may be summed up in the old adage, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

Name any area of life in which the government today promotes Life. Abortion and the death penalty persist. The so-called Affordable Care Act has proven otherwise, with insurance costs exploding, making it less affordable for many than before the act was passed. When care is delivered, such as in our VA hospitals, it worsens with any increase in government involvement. Welfare policies put forth perverse incentives that discourage marriage, leaving children without the benefit of two parents, a condition of development that is proven to be favorable in life.

Name any way in which the government advances Liberty. On our public university campuses, we now have “safe spaces” to shield people from words they do not like, and we have so-called “free speech zones” that tolerate speech, as long as it “triggers” no one. And recall Voltaire’s exposure of toleration as an evil in that it connotes a notion of putting up with someone as opposed to engaging with them and understanding them and their perspectives and beliefs. Government spies on us and our associations with people and groups. They use us, and the record of history is clear on this, as guinea pigs in all sorts of experiments. Government’s purpose is no longer service to the people but control over them. 

Name any program that eases the Pursuit of Happiness. In some ways our tax system is progressive, reducing the capital of the wealthy and impeding their ability to innovate and grow the economy. In some ways it’s regressive, hurting the poor and their access to the basics of life. The government, through its Byzantine policies and programs, favors some ventures and discourages others. Take its stands on school choice and drugs. Quality education is the best way to assure one of success in his or her pursuit of happiness; however, the government does all it can to maintain as much of a monopoly on education as possible. It enables them to indoctrinate the young to their ways of thinking. And who suffers? The poor, who haven’t the means to choose a better option for their children than the ramshackle public schools can offer. Take drug restrictions. Some people, I am told, enjoy them. Has the government’s restrictions on drugs stopped their use? No. If anything, government has made the use of drugs more dangerous, and it has directly contributed to the prison population.

The point in all these examples is not to discard the principles of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. On the contrary, the point is that the time has come to stop abdicating our responsibility for these principles to the government. It is high time that we reclaim them as our own. 

Only by discussing these ideas with our fellow citizens, regardless of background, can we hope to heal our nation and to make progress on forming our more perfect Union. 

As we consider candidates for office, who will represent us, consider who will be true partner in the reclamation of our core principles. Who will, to paraphrase Thoreau, govern best by governing least?

Week 22: Convention of States

For the past 30 weeks, I have offered my perspective on topics that have arisen during the course of this election cycle. Some topics seem as perennial as the wildflowers that line the highways and byways of middle America. Some, like the novel Coronavirus, are annuals, that appear during a single campaign season and are not to be debated again.

In this week’s examination of issues, with your kind indulgence, I would like to bring forth a topic that is never – neither annually nor perennially – discussed by either of the two major political parties. I would entreat you to consider a convention under Article V of the Constitution, commonly referred to as the Convention of States.

Why would I bring up a topic that almost certainly will play no role in the 2020 election? Permit me to explain.

I know of absolutely no one who is satisfied with the political class of today. I venture to guess that most consider them, at best, ineffectual and obsessed more with their own power than with the general welfare of We the People. At worst, they are corrupt miscreants plotting their own welfare at the expense our yours and mine. To make matters worse, we have a two-party system that, almost as if by design, foments disharmony and despair.

Those on the left bemoan the same problems they’ve bemoaned for 50 years, and they offer the same failed policies they’ve offered for 50 years, only on a grander scale. Those on the right claim to be successors to the Founders’ legacy of individual liberty and limited government, yet under their leadership, time and time again, government has grown astronomically and our freedoms have been curtailed. Neither party demonstrates any adherence to a cogent set of fundamental, governing principles.

During the past 50 years, what social concern has been solved by those who sit in the chambers of Congress? Poverty and homelessness continue to exist. Welfare programs continue to teeter on the verge of bankruptcy. Disharmony among the races and genders continues to simmer beneath society’s surface, waiting to boil over. In the media, the query is even posed: are we entering a new period of civil war?

A new civil war…it is astonishing to contemplate. How can this be?

Whilst Rome burned, it is said Nero fiddled. And so it is today with our elected officials and their appointed bureaucrats. Our “city on a hill” is burning, and the Neros of today, the members of the ruling class, appear once again on the ballot, seeking to aggrandize their power.

As with the Great Fire of Rome, after which rumors swirled and legends formed about Nero, for whom the tragic burning of Rome was seen as a benefit (some even saying he may have planned the fire) in that it cleared needed space for his Domus Aurea, or Golden House, the same is sometimes suspected of our leaders today. They benefit from the evils and hatreds they see in our citizenry. To them, we are, by nature, wicked and need them to save us from destroying one another.

I have found, in my family and among my friends, and in my travels across the nation and around the world, that individuals want the same fundamental things: to be at liberty to live their lives and to be free from strife and conflict. As individuals, we are predisposed to harmony with others. This is a Lockean viewpoint, to be sure, but I maintain, from my experience, that it is a correct viewpoint. It is when tyranny and totalitarianism are introduced, that groups of people are manipulated so as to embrace hatred and engage in violence. The introduction of these evils into human interactions warp and dissolve the social contract.

I would suggest, kind reader, that for us in America these evils are born out of the two-party political system. Permit me to share some observations from George Washington, Hannah Arendt and Lord Acton as a way of priming our examination of this assertion. Their insight will lead us to consider why a Convention of States is so important.

Washington said of two-party systems, “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissensions, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purpose of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wish people to discourage and restrain it.”

In her work, “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” Hannah Arendt spoke of “party above all parties” in terms of fueling of the flames of anti-Semitism in pre-WWII Germany’s Social Democrat party. This meant that the goals of National Socialism transcended the various political parties and factions and served as a unifying cause for those in the Reichstag, making National Socialism a party above all the other parties of the time.

Lord Acton famously said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Almost immediately following Washington’s two terms as President, the two-party system began to take shape. Along with this formation, politics as a profession in America began to rear its ugly head. Although it has taken a little more than two centuries for the parties to form and differentiate, it seems that we are now at a point where the differentiation has given way to convergence and singularity of purpose. They have, in a sense, become a single party – a party above parties – which just happens to have two factions. These factions are essentially the same, being different in name only. Yes, although Democrat politicians speak of social justice and Republicans speak of individual freedom, their penchant for taxing and spending and controlling our lives leaves little, if any, daylight between the two.

If we accept this notion, that the two parties are for all intents and purposes one party, what is their guiding principle. I would suggest, kind reader, that it is power – amassing it and maintaining it – leading, as Lord Action warned, to a state of nearly universal corruption.

I am well aware of the media’s and the public’s obsessive preoccupation with the presidential race. Biden is racist and senile. Trump is racist and narcissistic. For this week’s examination, I am not focused on the candidates for that office. After all, the most damage they can do is over the course of four or eight years.  Instead, I’m thinking of the candidates for the House and Senate.

In the House and Senate, approximately 25 percent of members in both chambers have been in office more than twelve years. Nearly another 25 percent have been in office between six and twelve years, according to the Congressional Research Service. Politics is indeed a profession for approximately half of Congress.

[As an aside, it is interesting to note that, of the 535 members of Congress, more than 200 have a net worth of more than $1 million.]

With massive political machines behind career politicians, it is easy to understand how they are elected over and over again, despite producing few, if any, favorable results for the American people. I may suggest that they actually do more harm than good.

Feeding these political machines are lobbyists with deep pockets, making politics a big-money game. Lobbyists and the companies, individuals and governments funding them are knowingly making what they believe will be long-term investments (i.e., funding politicians who will remain in office over the course of many terms), ensuring they and their interests are treated favorably in legislation that is passed. Backs are scratched. Pockets are lined. And both parties are guilty.

As have many – perhaps you, as well – I have struggled to think of a remedy to eliminate, or at least mitigate, corruption in our political system.

I believe a potentially efficacious remedy is term limits. If politicians were limited to no more than two terms (or two consecutive terms with a three-term gap between those terms and their next term, in order to avoid a perpetual flip-flop of politicians, like Putin and Medvedev in Russia), the incentive for lobbyists and those they represent to fund candidates would drastically diminish, as their money would no longer be a long-term investment. It stands to reason, I believe, that political power would shift to the citizenry, and politicians would have to rely genuinely on their record and the favorable results they would produce through legislation for the people.

Term limits, though, threaten the very power that half of Congress has attained and, for all we know, the other half aspires to attain. It would be a fool’s errand to advance legislation in Congress to impose term limits.

In my opinion, the only way to implement term limits is by way of an Article V Convention (aka Convention of States). Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides a process by which the Constitution may be amended if two-thirds of the state legislatures call for a convention, enabling the proposal, debate and potential ratification of amendments, such as an amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress. At present, all but 11 states have some effort underway to call for an Article V Convention, with 15 states having passed a resolution calling for such a convention.

I must admit that I used to be opposed to term limits, believing that if a person wanted to run and if citizens wanted to elect that person, no one should be prohibited from doing so. It seems, however, that the power and its attendant corruption have become so great, with the grotesque growth of government, that the days of citizen statesmen and stateswomen are lost to us today. It seems that no other options present themselves.

If you are convinced, visit www.conventionofstates.com to see where your state stands on this process, and if you are so inclined, support the effort with your John Hancock.