Category: Civics

You may have seen or heard the term Keynesianism in the last few months, as a description of the Obama administration’s policy. From the right, calling that policy Keynesian is a criticism, but the left seems to embrace it as the only right way.

Daniel Hannan links to this 7-minute video clip from the Cato Institute, which provides a nice, simple explanation of Keynesian theory and its faults. BTW, kudos to Daniel for being a public voice for millions of sensible people.

In other news… From my late reading of late, I’m beginning to perceive a basic worldview conflict that manifests in the areas of politics, education, economics, religion, and elsewhere. I’m going to give it some more thought, and then try to express it here.

There are questions answered by moral principles that do not change. Then there are questions with answers than vary from one situation to another. Both kinds can become politicized. The Church has something to say about moral questions, whether they have been politicized or not.

In every age, there are some who contradict and challenge unchanging moral principles. That’s dangerous, because morality is one of the few things that separates human beings from animals. Then again, some human beings seem to think they are no more than animals. Contradictors notwithstanding, morality exists, and humans are not animals.

Abortion is a focal point of controversy about the value of human life. Advocates consider the choice of the “mother” more important than the identity of the “fetus” as a human being. (Can you be a mother without a child?)

On the abortion side of this cultural divide are advocates for embryonic stem cell research. That’s research into stem cells taken from living human embryos, resulting in the death of those embryos. Advocates claim that embryonic stem cells are potentially more useful than kinds which are not harvested through the death of a human embryo. That claim is dubious. What’s more, there have been thousands of over 100 successful “miracle treatments” resulting from research into the other kinds of stem cells, while embryonic stem cell research has consumed millions of dollars without the same any happy endings. You may recall celebrities like Michael J. Fox and Christopher Reeve beating the drum and pulling heart strings for embryonic stem cell research. Ironically, there have now been successful, documented treatments for Parkinson’s, paralysis, heart damage, and other problems from adult stem cells, and nothing at all from embryonic stem cells. Yet even if embryonic stem cells were promising, that could never justify the genocide necessary to harvest them.

Now, the executive branch of the American “Federal” government will be adding my tax dollars to the millions of private dollars pouring into the bloody black hole of embryonic stem cell research. (Sorry if that sounds bitter. I’m just trying to state the facts. If the facts sound morally wrong, then perhaps they are.)

The nation’s halls of power may be given over to those who want to kill innocent human lives, but the truth is still out there. The Bill of Rights is still respected just enough that the truth can be expressed by citizens like me, and reported in places like The Washington Times. If world history is an accurate measure, then America’s slide into socialism — even under our friendly version of fascist principles — will finally suppress such free expressions. But for now, the truth is still out there.

The Bi-Colored Python Rock Snake highlights an article in the British press about our President’s low-key reception of the Prime Minister. The main point of the article didn’t interest me nearly as much as the handful of reasons speculated for the President’s departures from customary etiquette. He’s tired, not getting enough sleep. He’s overwhelemed with domestic economic conditions. He’s suffering from nicotine withdrawal. I have to sympathize with the poor man. Just think: General Motors may not survive the decade in its current form. What’s a President to do?

With all due respect, I suggest that Mr. Obama consider following the Constitution more closely, especially the part about limitations to the Federal government’s powers. It’s not only beneficial for the good of the people, but for the well-being of its leaders. Too many bucks have stopped at his office over the years, that should have stopped long before reaching it. Likewise, too many bucks have been stopped there that should have been passed on to the divine power above 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. That the President is not omnipotent should be accepted by all, but it seems some still want the pretense, if only to win elections.

Much better for us all to stay within our constitutional, civil vocations.

To some, the facts don’t really matter. The important thing is that a crisis, whether real or fabricated, should provide an opportunity for a certain socialist agenda or power play to be advanced. The crisis should be of sufficient magnitude to justify the loss of individual freedom (or national sovereignty) necessary for the agenda to succeed. So if the crisis is not big enough when seen objectively, then it must be artificially magnified, at least in public perception. Compliant news and entertainment media are essential for this to succeed.

Watch the news and listen to political leaders with that in mind.

I wonder about the wisdom of the 17th Amendment. The explanation given was corruption and confusion about the process originally intended to elect senators from each state. Yet changing the election of senators to a state-wide popular vote has the unintended consequence of further empowering the people to place their personal appetites above the good of the state. This tendency is the achilles heel of democracy.

Now I’m all for democracy, yet I believe in Original Sin first. That means the people doing the voting don’t always know or do what’s best for them. The House of Representatives was intended to provide representation for the people, and the Senate for the states. The people and the states are not identical, nor are their interests identical. I don’t mean that only in the sense that senators represent more people than representatives, but that senators were intended to represent the interests of the states themselves. Each senator ideally had one constituent: the state that sent him/her/it. (Dontcha just love inclusive language?)

As for the corruption and confusion, it seems to me that there are other ways to minimize or avoid it. But consider why else a senator would have voted for the 17th Amendment. Instead of answering to each state’s legislative branch, he would answer to the mass of statewide voters, who are much less likely to hold him strictly accountable for his representation, due to the diversity of their interests, and their preoccupation with productive life. Similarly, a congressman would also vote in favor of that amendment, because the people he represents would anticipate — rightly or wrongly — that they would have greater influence over their senators than they had before. The same notion would carry the amendment through ratification by the state legislature, with the added impetus that the legislators would subsequently have less work to do.

All of these practical, though unvirtuous reasons for the 17th Amendment can easily be covered and obscured by the notion that the new system is “closer to genuine democracy,” and that the senators will work “more in line with the will of the people.” Thus have the victors written the history books. Yet who were the real victors here? The people may have thought they were, but though I am unsure of several things, I tend to doubt that more than anything else.

What if the 17th Amendment were repealed? We’d have to resolve the corruption and confusion that supposedly gave it birth. Another good thing I would anticipate is a shift in the balance of powers within the United States, such that the states would have more influence upon the governance of the nation, the particular interests of each state would be better served, and the senators would be held more strictly accountable for these things. I’d also expect the importance of the House of Representatives to increase, as it undertakes in full the representation of our nation’s people. The most promising effect, though, would be a reduction in the tendency of this democratic republic to self-destruct from voters’ desire to satisfy their own appetites without regard for wisdom, prudence and justice.

For what reason might someone become trained and licensed to carry a concealed handgun in public? Hmm. What are the choices here?

• for personal security

• Umm. Hmm. Well, there’s personal security.

I suppose another reason, according to James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, should be that Americans have this unique constitutional right (i.e. to “bear” arms) as an American defense measure against tyranny, both foreign and domestic. In other words, they’d say it’s just good citizenship.

Yet good citizenship notwithstanding, isn’t personal security pretty much the only reason someone would want to carry arms legally? In fact, even defense against tyrants amounts to personal security.

Now read this news from Oregon:

Newspapers across the state have been requesting that local sheriffs release information about the identity of individuals who have been issued Concealed Handgun Licenses within their respective counties. Earlier this year, after the Jackson County Sheriff refused a request for similar information from the Medford Mail Tribune, a circuit court in Jackson County ruled that individuals who apply for or have been issued CHLs must document that the license is for personal security reasons in order to be exempt from state public records disclosure laws. The Portland Oregonian reported last week that in response to this ruling and subsequent requests for information, the Washington County Sheriff’s Office has decided to mail letters to the tens of thousands of individuals who have been issued CHLs by the county, asking them if they obtained their license for personal security reasons and whether they want their information released as part of a public records request. CHLs in Washington County also have the option of answering these questions by visiting the sheriff’s office website at http://www.washtech.co.washington.or.us/handgunholder/. The Washington County Sheriff’s Office should be commended for recognizing the importance of keeping a personal security decision to obtain a CHL private — and for developing a mechanism that complies with the court’s ruling, but still gives CHLs a choice in the matter. We’ve also received information that the Coos County Sheriff has done the same for his CHL holders, so bravo to him as well. Members are urged to contact their county sheriff and ask him or her to devise a way to accommodate CHL holders and their privacy concerns as the Washington and Coos County Sheriffs’ Offices has done. You can find contact information for your county sheriff’s office by visiting http://www.oregonsheriffs.org/.

I hope a wise judge revisits this, and realizes that there’s really only one reason anyone would want to carry legally, and that reason is compromised if licensees are publicly identified.

Before the United States Constitution was ratified by the states, there was a discussion in print concerning its merits and possible effects. The State of New York was reluctant to ratify, at least partly because of concerns about the potential abuse of power by the national government. The response to this was printed as the Federalist Papers for consideration by the general populace.

The Federalist Papers were written by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison. It’s not too much to suppose that they represent an authentic and original understanding of the Constitution.

Hamilton wrote The Federalist, Number 29, “Concerning the Militia.” It addresses a general distrust in standing armies, and especially in national control of the same. A “militia” is a body of armed men who are not soldiers by profession, but have been called together for the common defense. Hamilton suggests that properly organized local militias, available for national needs, would make a standing army unnecessary.

As Hamilton points out, it would be thoroughly impractical to discipline all the militia (armed citizenry) of the United States. Therefore, it is not a suitable proposition for the general defense of the nation. However, the state ought to organize its own militia “of limited extent,” which ought to render a standing national army unnecessary. He writes:

This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.

Alexander Hamilton considered the local armed citizenry of each state to be security against the abuses of a national standing army. Isn’t that interesting? How far we’ve come from that time, yet reasoning like this led to the adoption of our nation’s Constitution — the same Constitution that our (national) soldiers still swear to defend thus:

I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.

James Madison, in The Federalist, Number 46, compares his vision of state government to federal government. It’s fascinating. There, he addresses the same question that Hamilton had addressed in number 29. I quote at length, as he mentions several points of interest.

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.