Whose Independence Is Being Taken by Who?

In 1773 some residents of Boston dumped tea from a ship into the harbor.  In a sense they were objecting to the special treatment being given to a large corporation by the British government.  Among the many grievances that the residents of the Colonies had was they had no representation in setting this corporate give-away.

Not fully understanding the situation 3,000 miles away, Parliament kept making matters worse with more restrictive laws and sending more troops to defend British (East India Company) interests.  In 1775 the Colonists fought back, often against great odds.  In 1776, the Continental Congress, a collection of insurgents, wrote their Declaration of Independence.  We celebrate the anniversary of its signing this weekend.

In addition to not providing all the promised independence to residents of the former colonies, women and slaves, the new government kept taking away the independence of the people who had lived for centuries to the west.  Some called it Manifest Destiny, that is, a God-given right to do so.

One would think this government would be satisfied when its territory went from coast to coast. In 1887 whites in Hawaii forced a constitution upon King Kalakaua.  After his death his sister Lili’uokalani became queen.  In 1893 she was overthrown and replaced by the American Committee of Safety. On July 4, 1894, the Republic of Hawaii began with Sanford B. Dole as president.  Dole, isn’t that the name of a large corporation?  Didn’t the colonists of 1773 resist the influence of a large corporation?

This kind of dominance was not invented in the 18th century.  Groups all around the world have been using arms or other means to influence other groups or take away their independence.

Egypt and Babylon fought each other to control the land between them.  Alexander pushed all the way into Afghanistan and India.  The Romans conquered people from the Middle East to Britain.  The Turks pushed into Constantinople and farther west.  The Mongols pushed as far west as the gates of Moscow and Vienna.

The Celts moved out of central Europe in every direction starting with the Iron Age.  Did the people of Ireland that they pushed out become the fairies and leprechauns?  Then the Anglo-Saxons pushed the Celts out of Britain.  Then the Scandinavians invaded Britain and Ireland and became assimilated.  This also led to the Scandinavians who ruled in France (the Normans) claiming title to the kingship of England.

In the Western hemisphere the Incas, the Mayans, and the Aztecs ruled over large areas.  In “The Last of the Mohicans”, James Fenimore Cooper had one of the characters being proud that the Lenni-Lenape fought others eastward until they reached the Atlantic.  By the way, Lenni may mean “genuine, pure, real, or original”.  Hm!  That sounds like an early version of “Manifest Destiny”.

In Central America American fruit companies began exploiting the cheap labor in banana plantations.  The first load was bought in Jamaica and sold in Boston in 1870 at a 1,000 percent profit, eleven times what the shipper paid for them!  Even then, a dozen bananas sold for the price of two apples.  American companies manipulated land-use laws in Central America, bought large tracts of land, and exploited the dispossessed local farmers. The mercenary army of the Cuyamel Fruit Company overthrew the elected president of Honduras in 1911-1912.  The U.S. didn’t intercede because the elected president was too liberal and had too many debts to Great Britain.

How many politicians in the U.S. celebrated the Fourth of July and didn’t see the “beam in their own eye” of the American corporations taking away the independence of countries rich in various resources?

This still goes on.  Overthrow the elected government of Peru because it is “socialistic” and install a general.  Overthrow the elected government of Iran because of an oil price dispute and install an unelected Shah, and then get mad when the people declare their independence from the Shah.  Send thousands and thousands of troops to Viet Nam, Afghanistan, and Iraq to support corrupt governments.  Send military trainers to get government troops to fight insurgents.  But who is training the lightly-armed insurgents?  The insurgents are far more motivated to overthrow the government than the government troops are to support the government.  And nobody knows how many government troops are insurgents biding their time.

Until the British called in the Hessians, they did have the advantage of speaking the same language as the insurgents.  How many U.S. troops speak Arabic or the many languages of Afghanistan?

How did we get to this situation where we have lost our independence to large corporations funding elections as if they were persons?

We do need corporations for many of our goods and services.  What would we do if Ford Motors stopped producing cars when Henry Ford died?  Would we continue to have new Apple products when Steve Jobs died?  One purpose of a corporation is to have an organization outlast its founders.  A second is to have a large number of owners so that more capital can be raised.  A third is to protect these owners from liability so they do not lose more money than they invested.

One could say this situation began with a court reporter’s note on an a judgment against a railroad company about taxation.  The reporter added a note that corporations were persons and protected under the 14th amendment.  The reporter was a former railroad company president.  This didn’t make that judgment law, but it did set precedent.

Fortunately, courts like precedent because it gives them more to base their opinions on.  We would be unhappy if the interpretation of law changed with each new judge.  Bad precedent can eventually be overturned, but it would probably take a generation or two of judges.

How do we get our independence back from corporate rule?  We have to vote in each and every election.  Our votes only count if we cast them.

Also published in the Reader Weekly, 2015-07-02 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/07/01/5567_whose_independence_is_being_taken_by_who

Do we really have a five-party “system”?

Many commentators write about the “two-party system” as if it were enshrined in the Constitution.  Actually, the writers of the Constitution feared factionalism.  They thought their document would bring about a system of considered deliberation and reasoned arguments.

Unfortunately, factionalism reared its ugly head quite quickly.  John Adams, a signer of the Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson, a non-signer, soon fell into animosity about the direction of government.  They did reconcile their differences in their elder years, but their dispute lingered in the Whig and Democratic parties.

The Whig party went into decline when several Whigs formed the Republican Party, partly because of opposition to the extension of slavery and partly because of support of modernization.  Ironically, one of the Republican slogans was “Free Labor” as opposed to slave labor.

Over time, the parties’ basic tenets changed with changing times.  The Republicans essentially became the party of Big Business and the Democrats became the party of the People.  But these were not fixed ideologies.  The parties adjusted their ideas to the times.  Republicans put forth ideas that favored a “government for the people” and the Democrats put forward ideas that were corporate-friendly or status quo.  Many commentators referred to the two parties as “big tent” parties; that is, all were welcome if they held loosely to a few basic tenets.

Then somewhere in the eighties or maybe even earlier, the Republicans morphed into a hard-nosed, doctrinaire party.  The days of the RINO (Republican in Name Only) began.  Some very stellar Republican politicians who got things done for the greater good were no longer welcome.  The Republicans also drew in many evangelicals who knew exactly what God wanted; just the kind of religious influence that the signers of the Constitution worried about.  The signers were very aware of the differences among denominations and didn’t want to favor one over the other.

The result of all these changes have left many would-be voters, and even regular voters dismayed.  As the parties have hardened in their stances, many people see government as dysfunctional and more partisan than deliberative.  Remember that phrase describing the U.S. Senate as “the greatest deliberative body in the world”?  I’ll agree to the “deliberate” part, “deliberate” grandstanding for minor electoral advantage.

Back to the signers of the Constitution: I think they had in mind a constituency who knew the men they were electing, if not personally, at least by reputation.  Now we know our candidates by the slick literature they send out and the amount of TV exposure they get.  Unfortunately, third parties spend millions smearing the candidates based on private interest, not the public good that the candidates may promote.

My solution to all this mismatch of ideas and actions is either all candidates are independents selected on the merits they project or candidates are loosely organized into parties that reflect their own interest.

My choices for parties would be Libertarian, Business, Evangelical, Charity, and Common Good.

The Libertarian Party would be almost anti-government.  To them, the individual is primary, government just gets in the way of freedom.  Taxes are just stealing money.  Laws are for other people.

The Business Party would be all in support of large corporations with a bit of a sop to small businesses.  Taxes and regulations just get in the way of corporations “returning value” to their shareholders.

The Evangelical Party would be Bible-centric and would pass laws pushing for more religion in government and for how all should behave, both in public and private.

The Charity Party would take up the causes of those groups who they feel are disenfranchised by government or society.  This Party is difficult to criticize because there are many people with problems that they did not create.  On the other hand, many people in a given group have managed without the Charity Party’s help.

Finally, the Common Good Party is my party (if I were to cease being a Party of One).  This is the party that takes seriously “General Welfare” and “Common Defense” in the Constitution.  The Common Good Party is concerned with infrastructure, safety regulations, commercial laws, and many other laws and expenditures that help promote a prosperous society.

The Libertarian Party ignores how much it depends on government.  What if a libertarian had been defrauded.  Would that person depend on a tax-supported court to seek reparation?  Or would the Libertarian have it out with six-guns on the streets of Laredo?

The Business Party is similar to the Libertarian Party with the emphasis on large organizations rather than individuals.  But would a modern corporation survive without public schools to train a large number of people in increasingly complicated skills, without roads to move its goods around, without police and courts to seek redress for those who would harm the corporation?

The Evangelical Party seems to pick and choose what Bible verses to use.  Two that it seems to me that they ignore most are “Be not like the hypocrites who pray in public to be seen by men…” and “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”  One could also say the writers of the Constitution were all to familiar with the picking and choosing done by various sects; that’s why they wanted “no religious test”.

The Charity Party’s hearts are in the right place, but the number of problems is so large that many people can’t put their hearts and souls into all those the Charity Party thinks are important.  Government does need a few members of this party just to keep some of issues on the table.

We probably will never have a single Common Good Party because people never agree on the priorities.  This gets back to the Constitution which didn’t really define “General Welfare”.  We do need to have more people who run for office speak out for the common good rather than promote a private interest.

Mel keeps wishing for a majority government, but he keeps seeing a minority voting.

Foreign policy foreign to Founders

What would George Washington think of the foreign relations of our Presidents for the last 100 years?  Or even two hundred years?

Consider what George Washington wrote in his “Farewell Address”:

“Hence likewise they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”

Poor George probably spun in his grave when Madeleine Albright said, “What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?”

“…the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party … opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”

How often does the influence of Israel hamper U.S. policy in the Middle East?  Sometimes the Democrats and Republicans both work overtime to show how great their support of Israel is.

“Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.”

Japan and Vietnam have forgiven the U.S. for the damage done to them.  I wonder when the U.S. will get around to forgiving Cuba and Iran for the minor damage done to it.

“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.”

I wonder if George Washington would appreciate being called “the leader of the free world”?

“Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?”

George Washington really would really disapprove of the hundreds of U.S. bases around the world.

“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world—so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements (I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy)—I repeat it therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectably defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.”

Would George Washington approve of the U.S. staying in NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union?

“But if I may even flatter myself that [these counsels] may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good, that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism—this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated.”

Unfortunately, faction arose strongly shortly after Washington left office – Jefferson and Adams became strong political opponents.  Fortunately, they did become friends later in life.

Both Jefferson and Madison waged war on the Barbary Pirates who demanded tribute to not attack U.S. ships in the Mediterranean and ransom for captured sailors.  These were wars with limited objectives that ended with treaties favorable to the United States.

On the other hand Madison’s war with Great Britain was called just that by those opposed to it – “Mr. Madison’s War”.  The opposition was particularly strong in New England where many merchants continued to trade with Britain.

One of the first major expansions of U.S. influence was the Monroe Doctrine to curb any influence by European powers over the newly independent countries of Latin America.

“The occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.”

How often did the U.S. interfere with “the free and independent condition” of these countries?  George Washington’s “foreign intrigue” certainly was practiced in Latin America by many of his successors.

The very faction that Washington warned against, one section of the country against another, led to the Civil War.

And on and on it went, war after war.  Some required U.S. involvement; many didn’t.  Some of the latter were called “wars of choice” by critics.

Those who signed the Constitution and promoted it knew that circumstances and the Constitution would change, but would they approve of all the changes?

Back to the original Constitution? Be careful what you ask for!

In April, I submitted a letter to the Duluth News Tribune in response to a letter suggesting we should return to the original Constitution.  I think the complaint was all the various Supreme Court decisions.

My letter hadn’t been published and I assumed it was not going to be.  But then the Chuck Frederick, the opinion page editor, found some space, cleaned his desk, and published more than the usual number of letters on May 13.

Mine was:

A letter writer recently stated, “Maybe we should go back to the original Constitution and what it stood for.”  Be careful what you ask for.  There is plenty that was added that many would not like to see removed: Bill of Rights, abolition of slavery, and the vote for women.

Even those who were in politics at the time of the writing of the Constitution could not agree on its meaning.  Thomas Jefferson (in France during the Convention) and John Adams had a long falling out over its meaning.  Adams wanted a strong central government; Jefferson feared a strong central government.

I had thought of submitting a short additional paragraph, but never found a round tuit.  That paragraph is:

Could these views on the central government be influenced by the facts that Adam abhorred slavery and Jefferson was a slave “owner”?

Do these attitudes still persist?  In the South there is still lingering resentment against desegregation.  In  West there is resentment against restrictions on using public resources.

Jefferson, Smith, and Large Corporations

Although Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence was written as a complaint against the King of England it really was a complaint about royal and parliamentary support of abusive crown-chartered private corporations.

Similarly, in the same year Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations warned of the corporate control of government and corporate abusiveness towards the British public.

Now we have Paul Krugman warning of the control of government by Delaware-chartered corporations and their abusiveness towards the American public.

And many of these corporations wrap themselves in the flag and Adam Smith!!!

To paraphrase "Where have all the flowers gone?" when will we ever learn?

Legislators must prove they have read the books

I have had on my to-do list for awhile to write a blog entry about a standardized test for legislators.  After all, if a standardized test is good enough to judge school children's abilities, a standardized test should be good enough to judge legislators' abilities.

I was prodded to act on this to-do item on seeing "Teachers must prove they can do the math", Rachel E. Stassen-Berger and Kim McGuire, Star Tribune, 2012-02-23.  Gov. Mark Dayton signed a law that "requires would-be teachers to pass a college-level basic skills test before they can lead a classroom."

So, again sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  Shouldn't we have a requirement that legislators pass a political history test before they can serve in a legislature?

Here are a few questions:

What did Adam Smith state was the basis of a nation's economy?

Was Adam Smith concerned with special interests?

Was Adam Smith more sympathetic to workers or to employers?

Did Adam Smith think that banks should be regulated?

Were the writers of the Constitution concerned with the common good and virtue?  Please define these terms and give examples of their use in the Federalist Papers.

To what degree did the writers of the Constitution think that commerce should be regulated?

What was the intent of the writers of the Constitution when they used the words "people", "person", and "citizen".  Please define each term.

Did Thomas Jefferson think that "limited government" applied to financial institutions and other corporate interests?

Please feel free to send these questions to your legislatures at the state and federal level.

If you want to lead you need to read

"I'm a leader, not a reader.' - Herman Cain, Nashua NH, 2011-11-17, quoted in Union Leader. This is probably a swipe at Barack Obama who reads a lot. Cain went on to say that he would surround himself with "good people" who we can rely on for good advice. Excuse me, Mr. Cain, but how are you going to know they are giving good advice if you are not somewhat conversant with the subject matter?

Some of our best leaders have been voracious readers. Teddy Roosevelt, the second good Republican president, sometimes read several books a day. Thomas Jefferson had a very large library. Even leaders that are disparaged by some as anti-intellectual read lots of books - Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush. Richard Nixon said, "I am not educated, but I do read books." See "For Obama and past presidents, the book they read shape policies and perceptions", Tevi Troy, Washington Post, 2010-04-18.

Legislative tyranny after the American Revolution

When the various American states became independent, the legislatures were freed of the tyranny of the Crown appointed governors.  Despite the high-sounding "civic virtue" that Thomas Jefferson and many of his colleagues thought would come about, special interests often dominated state legislatures, often unicameral legislatures.  If those interests were represented by the majority, those interests would take precedence over the rights of others.  Jefferson wrote, "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for."

Source: "The American Revolution", Gordon S. Woods

"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."
- Edmund Burke

If we change Lake Calhoun's name, then…

we have to change the names of thousands of other places.

Once again someone is calling for changing the name of Lake Calhoun in Minneapolis because John C. Calhoun, for whom it was named, was proslavery.

If we do this then we must change the names of everything named for George Washington and Thomas Jefferson; after all, they both owned hundreds of slaves.

Even the Great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln, waffled on the issue.  He said slavery should be abolished in the District of Columbia, but only if the people wanted it.  He would say in an election speech in northern Illinois that "all men are created equal" and say later in southern Illinois that "… I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of of bringing about the social and political equality of the white and black races".  See "A People's History of the United States", Howard Zinn, page 188.  Honest Abe?

Tea Party critique published

I submitted a "Local View" on the Tea Party to the Duluth News Tribune.  It was published today with the title "Tea Party positions misses today's complexities".  You can find it for a week or so at http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/tag/group/Opinion/tag/Local%20view/

The opinion page editor, Chuck Frederick, changed almost every line, as his wont.  Fortunately, his sends his revisions of my Local Views to me before publication.  It was a good thing because he added a word that changed the meaning of one point.  I pointed it out and he printed it with my correction.

Thanks to the four people who said they liked it.

Essentially I wrote that the Tea Party Patriots' fiscal responsibility can be irresponsible, their limited constitutional government cannot be determined by the "intent" of the writers, and their free markets haven't existed since the railroads began.

One question readers may have in reading "the last great Republican President, Abraham Lincoln" is who do I consider the last great Democratic President.  I thought about it for five minutes and came up with Thomas Jefferson, who was then called a Democratic-Republican.

"Thomas Jefferson's" advice to young people (and probably everybody else)

Clay Jenkinson used Skype and iChat to visit as Thomas Jefferson with a grade school class in Naperville IL. This is episode 757 found on iTunes or www.jeffersonhour.org. At about 31:12 into the episode, he leaves them with three pieces of advice:

1) Read all the books you can. He said when he was their age he spent 10 hours a day reading.

2) Learn at least one foreign language, better two or more. He said he spoke seven languages, three dead and four current. From Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia these were Latin, Greek, Anglo-Saxon, French, Spanish, Italian, and English. He also dabbled in others.

3) Take up a music instrument. He played violin, pianoforte, and harpsichord. "You are creating harmony in your life."

Pres. Thomas Jefferson on the Inauguration of Pres. Barack Obama

Today on the way to and from our cabin I listened to two episodes of the "Thomas Jefferson Hour", both were on the inaugural address of President Barack Obama.

In the first, Clay Jenkinson, acting as President Thomas Jefferson, gave his take on Obama's address. In the second, Jenkinson gave his own view of the address. As Thomas Jefferson he gave a pretty good review of the address. As Jenkinson he gave the address a B-minus. Jenkinson did not consider it one of the great inaugural addresses. He credited Abraham Lincoln with giving the best address at his second inaugural. He also ranked George Washington's first address and John Kennedy's address among the top.

The reason that he ranked Obama's address so low was that it lacked "poetry" and was too obviously the work of a committee.

However, Jenkinson rated the inauguration, which he attended, very highly. It was the coming together of people that impressed him.

The Jefferson Hour can be wordy, but Jenkinson and his interviewer often have some interesting insights.

These two episodes are "Jeffersons Review" (755) and "A Day in Washington" (756). You can get them from iTunes or listen to them at

http://www.jeffersonhour.org

Click on "Download the Show" or "Listen to the Show" on the left side bar.

I bought an obsolete product!

Last week I bought a low-power FM transmitter and auto charger for my iPod. I really wanted to have it before our ski trip for when we couldn't get a good public radio signal. Just having a passenger click on a selection is easier than recognizing that a CD is starting back at the beginning. Besides, I think I have more CDs and podcasts on my iPod than we could put into the console between the seats.

After I bought it I was musing about replacing our pickup truck with a van. I'm getting a bit too stiff to climb into a pickup truck. As I read through specs, I found out that some new vehicles have USB ports. One can just plug an iPod or other MP3 player into the dashboard and have the sound come out the car speakers! What will they think of next?

Hm! I don't think $85 dollars for the transmitter and a thousand or so dollars a year in repairs really compares to twenty to thirty thousand for a new vehicle.

But, if I had had the transmitter when we left on our ski vacation, I would have never heard Clay Jenkinson doing his impersonation of how Thomas Jefferson would react to today's events. If I remember correctly, old Tom didn't care for the stimulus packages. See "The Thomas Jefferson Hour".

I have already downloaded four episodes of the Jefferson Hour. But first, I have catch up on "To the Best of Our Knowledge" and "PRI's The World: Technology Podcast".