“Every member of Mr. Trump’s advisory councils should wrestle with his or her conscience,” Lawrence Summers, the former Treasury secretary and former president of Harvard, wrote on the Financial Times website on Tuesday, “and ponder Edmund Burke’s famous warning that ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’”
See “Why Are All These Business Leaders Still With Trump?”. Vikas Bajaj and Stuart A. Thompson, New York Times, 2017-08-16.
Showing posts with label civil war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil war. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 16, 2017
Monday, November 14, 2016
Why we have our electoral mess
"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy." Attributed to Abraham Lincoln, supposedly in 1858. See http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln2/1:547?rgn=div1;view=fulltext.
The electoral college was one of the Constitutional stratagems slave owners used to protect themselves from the North taking away their slaves. Another was counting slaves as three-fifths persons. This increased the number of representatives they got far beyond the number of actual voters. Also basing the Senate on states rather than population, these less-populated states further increased their furtive power grab.
By increasing their relative state power in presidential elections, they hoped they could keep the end of slavery at bay.
They unleashed a long bloody war to protect this despicable practice. Unfortunately, they forgot the Constitutional provision that Congress could call out the militia to suppress insurrections. (In our own time, Congress seemed to forget this provision in dealing with the Bundys.)
So, the Electoral College differs from democracy and the five victories because of the Electoral College in our country's history have differed from democracy. Poor Abe must be spinning in his grave, especially when the descendants of the slave owners have taken over his party. Poor Abe must be spinning in his grave, especially when the descendants of the slave owners have taken over his party.
See also "More on the Electoral College".
See also "More on the Electoral College".
Thursday, September 18, 2014
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?
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?
Sunday, May 19, 2013
There is more to the U. S. Constitution than the 2nd Amendment
The NRA and others cite the Second Amendment as giving individuals the right to bear arms. One justification they give is "the people" need arms to protect themselves against "the government". However, they neglect Article II, Sec 8, of the Constitution: Congress has the power "to call out the militia to suppress insurrection".
If you use your guns to "protect you" from the government, then you are involved in an insurrection. If you are in an insurrection, then the Constitution gives Congress the power to suppress your insurrection. Suppressing an insurrection includes taking the guns from those in the insurrection.
George Washington was involved in putting down the Whiskey Rebellion, a tax revolt from 1791-1794. See "Whiskey Rebellion", Wikipedia. The Whiskey Rebellion was quite a complicated affair, but popular support seemed to be in favor of the suppression of the rebellion. Another interesting point that some make: it was also a conflict between large distillers who paid less per gallon than small, individual distillers who paid more per gallon.
The last great Republican President put the down the biggest insurrection of all, the Civil War.
See also "Is the N.R.A. Un-American", Stanley Fish, New York Times, 2013-05-13.
If you use your guns to "protect you" from the government, then you are involved in an insurrection. If you are in an insurrection, then the Constitution gives Congress the power to suppress your insurrection. Suppressing an insurrection includes taking the guns from those in the insurrection.
George Washington was involved in putting down the Whiskey Rebellion, a tax revolt from 1791-1794. See "Whiskey Rebellion", Wikipedia. The Whiskey Rebellion was quite a complicated affair, but popular support seemed to be in favor of the suppression of the rebellion. Another interesting point that some make: it was also a conflict between large distillers who paid less per gallon than small, individual distillers who paid more per gallon.
The last great Republican President put the down the biggest insurrection of all, the Civil War.
See also "Is the N.R.A. Un-American", Stanley Fish, New York Times, 2013-05-13.
Monday, February 18, 2013
G.O.P. – The revenge of the Confederacy
Last week I mentioned to my wife that the Republican Party has been taken over by those still fighting the Civil War. Imagine my surprise and delight when I say Harry Welty's latest snow sculpture - an elephant holding a Confederate flag in its trunk. Harry also wrote a blog entry about the Southern takeover of the Republican Party.
Harry Welty is a local, maverick, wannabe politician. He was a Republican Party member for a long time, but his independent mindset couldn't take the dogmatism any longer. He now calls himself a Lincoln Democrat.
See also "Elephants sue GOP".
Harry Welty is a local, maverick, wannabe politician. He was a Republican Party member for a long time, but his independent mindset couldn't take the dogmatism any longer. He now calls himself a Lincoln Democrat.
See also "Elephants sue GOP".
Friday, November 30, 2012
Why state secession is a bad idea
Several petitions are under way for various states to secede from the Union.
Be careful what you ask for.
What the proponents of secession ignore is that the United States is and has always been a country with a mobile population. Not only was the United States started by people who moved from other countries or their descendants, but these people kept moving west, often overrunning people already there. In the Twentieth Century people moved in almost every direction. Small town people went to the big city. People moved from one city to another to seek different opportunities. Corporations moved people from state to state for many reasons. I myself have lived in three states and my wife in six.
If a state were to secede, what would they do about "immigration"? Would business people from other states need a passport to do business in the independent state? Would tourists need a passport? If no passport were required, what would the independent state do about "illegal immigration".
What about people in the seceded state? Would they need passports to work or vacation in other states?
What about all the wars that the United States has been involved in? Would seceded states continue these wars? Often the states with secessionist movements have a significant portion of their populations who are bellicose. If the seceded states were involved in their own foreign wars, would they drag the United States into their wars?
Speaking of war, wasn't it a Republican who led a war against states seceding from the union? Isn't it ironic that some of the major proponents of secession call themselves Republicans? Did Lincoln "die in vain"?
Be careful what you ask for.
What the proponents of secession ignore is that the United States is and has always been a country with a mobile population. Not only was the United States started by people who moved from other countries or their descendants, but these people kept moving west, often overrunning people already there. In the Twentieth Century people moved in almost every direction. Small town people went to the big city. People moved from one city to another to seek different opportunities. Corporations moved people from state to state for many reasons. I myself have lived in three states and my wife in six.
If a state were to secede, what would they do about "immigration"? Would business people from other states need a passport to do business in the independent state? Would tourists need a passport? If no passport were required, what would the independent state do about "illegal immigration".
What about people in the seceded state? Would they need passports to work or vacation in other states?
What about all the wars that the United States has been involved in? Would seceded states continue these wars? Often the states with secessionist movements have a significant portion of their populations who are bellicose. If the seceded states were involved in their own foreign wars, would they drag the United States into their wars?
Speaking of war, wasn't it a Republican who led a war against states seceding from the union? Isn't it ironic that some of the major proponents of secession call themselves Republicans? Did Lincoln "die in vain"?
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
Would today's Republicans support Abraham Lincoln?
When I read Wired's "Republican Congressman Crowdsource Attack on Science", I thought of all the projects they oppose without even weighing costs and benefits. The crowdsourcing is an attempt to get the general public to expose "waste" in federal spending, starting with the National Science Foundation. They essentially take an apparently frivolous aspect of a project without looking any deeper into what benefits might be gained. They have started YouCut Citizen Review. Maybe the first cut in the federal budget should be to disband YouCut?
Would today's Republicans support Abraham Lincoln's push for a transcontinental railroad? Especially with the huge outlay of bonds to fund it? That would not lead to a balanced budget.
Would today's Republicans support Abraham Lincoln's handling of the Civil War? Although today's Republicans are big on spending on the military (without any meaningful analysis of the benefits), they are also big on states' rights, the major argument leading to the Civil War.
Would today's Republicans support Abraham Lincoln's push for a transcontinental railroad? Especially with the huge outlay of bonds to fund it? That would not lead to a balanced budget.
Would today's Republicans support Abraham Lincoln's handling of the Civil War? Although today's Republicans are big on spending on the military (without any meaningful analysis of the benefits), they are also big on states' rights, the major argument leading to the Civil War.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Why should foreign soldiers be needed against native insurgents?
I've long wondered why the U.S. or any other country needs to send its armed forces to another country to fight home-grown rebels. If the rebels can fight effectively, why can't the local government soldiers fight back effectively?
First, how strongly do the fighters on either side believe in their cause? Too often, the rebels are "true believers" who think their cause will bring about a "better" world, and the government soldiers are reluctant supporters of a weak or corrupt government. The latter may be in the military because it is one of the few jobs available, and even some erratic pay is better than no pay at all.
Second, a weak or corrupt government cannot organize itself to effectively solve any problem. It either spends too much time trying to get people involved co-operatively or spends too much time lining pockets.
A foreign army can't do much about either situation unless it completely takes over the country and rules with an iron fist. Armies from democratic countries find this very unpalatable.
For the most part, foreign armies are just that, foreigners. They don't speak the language and don't understand either the customs or the politics. This was especially true in Iraq, where the foreign army created more enemies than it eradicated.
The situation may be changing in Afghanistan. According to David Brooks, "The Winnable War", New York Times, 2009-03-27, "every Western agency is finally focused on" creating a civil society. We shall see.
First, how strongly do the fighters on either side believe in their cause? Too often, the rebels are "true believers" who think their cause will bring about a "better" world, and the government soldiers are reluctant supporters of a weak or corrupt government. The latter may be in the military because it is one of the few jobs available, and even some erratic pay is better than no pay at all.
Second, a weak or corrupt government cannot organize itself to effectively solve any problem. It either spends too much time trying to get people involved co-operatively or spends too much time lining pockets.
A foreign army can't do much about either situation unless it completely takes over the country and rules with an iron fist. Armies from democratic countries find this very unpalatable.
For the most part, foreign armies are just that, foreigners. They don't speak the language and don't understand either the customs or the politics. This was especially true in Iraq, where the foreign army created more enemies than it eradicated.
The situation may be changing in Afghanistan. According to David Brooks, "The Winnable War", New York Times, 2009-03-27, "every Western agency is finally focused on" creating a civil society. We shall see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)