Originally published in the Reader Weekly 2004-06-03.
I live in the best house in the world. What? You think your house is better? Your house has a warm basement; your house is bigger; your house is on a lake? Oh well, my house is my house, I like it, and I’ll probably stay in it for many more years.
I live in the best neighborhood in the world. What? You think your neighborhood is better? Your neighborhood has block parties every season; your neighborhood has no thoroughfares running through it; and your neighborhood has a convenience store two blocks from your house? Oh well, my neighborhood is my neighborhood, I like it, and I’ll probably stay in it for many more years.
I live in the best city in the world. What? You think your city is better? Your city has more frequent bus service; your city has fewer potholes; and your city has a warmer climate? John Lescroat, detective fiction writer, thinks that “San Francisco [is] the best city in the world” (The Mercy Rule). Oh well, Duluth is my city, I like it, and I’ll probably stay in it for many more years.
I live in the best state in the world. What? You think your state is better? Your state has mountains or is on the ocean; your state has a lower crime rate and a better education system; and your state has lower taxes? Oh well, Minnesota is my state, I like it, and I’ll probably stay in it for many more years.
I live in the best country in the world. What? You think your country is better? Your country has a better transportation system; your country has free health care for everyone; and your country has less pollution. The Swedish National Anthem exclaims “I will live and die in the North.” Sounds like many Swedes think Sweden is the best country. Or Bedrich Smetana wrote “Ma Vlast (My Country)” about Bohemia, now the core province of the Czech Republic. Oh well, the United States is my country, I like it, and I’ll probably stay in it for many more years.
Why is it that so many people have to have the “best” whether it is a car or a country? The Ford-Chevy divide is one of the most ridiculous of the “best” arguments. Why is it that some Ford owners have to put down Chevy owners or vice versa? Can’t they accept that people make choices for a wide variety of reasons, both logical and illogical? I have owned one Chevy (my first car) and five Fords. I can’t tell you why I never bought another Chevy or another GM car or never even considered them. I have rented GM cars many times and they have performed satisfactorily. But to purchase Ford has been my choice and I shouldn’t feel a need to put down Chevy’s or their owners.
Sports teams are another “best” that so many get caught up in. The emotional involvement that some people have can be destructive, both personally and socially. They feel like the world has come to an end if their team loses, and a few of these feel like they have to go on a rampage. I know, I got all excited when the Twins were in the Series in 1987. But I cheered some of the Cardinal players, and I felt sorry for them when they left the field as “losers”. But hey, they won the National League playoffs and for the most part played quite well. The 1987 World Series did not make Minnesota a better state than Missouri.
Countries are the “worst” of the “best” attachments. Not so much that it is wrong to take pride in one’s country, but that the idea that one’s country is “best” can lead to exclusion of other ideas, bad foreign policy, and even war.
One exclusion of other ideas that I’ve always marveled at was that the “best” medical system in the world did not have many computerized patient records until recently, except financial records. When I worked for Univac in Sweden in the early ‘70s, Univac had a special group that worked with hospitals; this group helped European and South African hospitals implement systems that kept track of patients’ medical records. My colleagues in that group joked that the only thing that American hospitals kept track of on computers was how much the patients owed them.
Many think that the U.S. is the bastion of freedom and therefore knows “best” how to export it to other countries. "We need to restrain what are growing U.S. messianic instincts -- a sort of global social engineering where the United States feels it is both entitled and obligated to promote democracy -- by force if necessary.... Liberty cannot be laid down like so much Astroturf." - Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kans., quoted by George Will, Duluth News Tribune, May 30, 2004.
Let us remember that Voltaire’s Dr. Pangloss was wrong, this is not the best of all possible worlds (or countries or cities or neighborhoods or houses). But let us make the best of what we have and work to make it better.
Showing posts with label liberty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberty. Show all posts
Monday, January 30, 2017
Thursday, March 05, 2015
George Washington: Ignored Father of his Country
The United States Senate reads “George Washington’s Farewell Address” every year, alternating between the two parties. It was read by John Hoeven, R-ND on February 23, 2015. The House of Representatives last read it publicly in 1984. You can find a copy at http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/WashFarewell.pdf.
Whether Congress listens to the reading or not, I think they often forget what George Washington wrote, maybe within hours of the reading.
Washington warned again and again about faction. One example is:
“[The obstructions of constituted authorities] serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests.” [page 14]
He went on about how unprincipled men could actually take over the government, subverting the will of the people.
In the same month that a Republican Senator read “Washington’s Farewell Address”, the Republicans went right back to factionalism, finding all kinds of fault with President Obama and pushing a corporate agenda.
As General of the Continental Army, Washington provided lessons that we have not learned about wars but “insurgents” in many countries know only to well.
Washington and the Continental Army knew the country; the British did not. Boxed in several times, Washington managed to escape with his army. For example, he was in Manhattan and Brooklyn when the British invaded Long Island. He commandeered every boat he could and took all his men, cannon, horses, and more to Manhattan on a foggy night and then on to White Plains..
"I am well convinced myself, that the enemy long ere this, are perfectly satisfied that the possession of our towns while we have an army in the field will avail them little.” Think Baghdad, Kabul.
He predated by almost two centuries Mao Zedong: “enemy advances, we retreat; enemy retreats, we pursue.”
George Washington also stuck to the task from 1775 until the British surrender at Yorktown in 1781. What is the average tour of duty of a general in Iraq or Afghanistan? And of course, every general has a different idea of what to do. Oh, yes! Washington would let himself be outvoted by his officers.
As President, George Washington was for efficient government, not necessarily for limited government: “for the efficient management of your common interests in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable… It is indeed little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.” [pages 15-16]
“[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.” [pages 17-18] Does this apply to the Congressional invitation for the prime minister of Israel to speak before it?
“And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” [page 20] Note that he doesn’t specify what religion, one of the numerous Christian sects or one of the many non-Christian sects.
Washington wrote a section on the need for public credit and to use it sparingly by “cultivating peace”. If war is necessary, the burden should not be put on future generations. “[Y]ou should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes…” He followed this with a discourse about the problem of selecting what to tax. I wonder what he would think of all the highways that we demand, the degree of safety oversight we want, and the research we want.
He wrote a couple pages about the necessity of treating all nations the same. “The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, in is some degree a slave.” What would Washington say about our relations with Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Israel, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt? All of them manipulate us more than we manipulate them. George Washington considered those who resist these entanglements as the “real patriots”.
He also extended this view to commerce: “our commercial policy should hold an equal hand: neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences…” [page 28]
As much as we have put Washington on a pedestal, he is more modest: “I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors.”
He looked forward to enjoying “the benign influence of good laws under a free government…”
Sorry, Mr. President, but fools have rushed in where heroes fear to tread. We have many bad laws under a bought government.
Mel votes in almost every election, mostly in the hope of avoiding really bad laws.
Also published in the Reader Weekly, 2015-03-05 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/03/04/4899_george_washington_ignored_father_of_his_country
Whether Congress listens to the reading or not, I think they often forget what George Washington wrote, maybe within hours of the reading.
Washington warned again and again about faction. One example is:
“[The obstructions of constituted authorities] serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests.” [page 14]
He went on about how unprincipled men could actually take over the government, subverting the will of the people.
In the same month that a Republican Senator read “Washington’s Farewell Address”, the Republicans went right back to factionalism, finding all kinds of fault with President Obama and pushing a corporate agenda.
As General of the Continental Army, Washington provided lessons that we have not learned about wars but “insurgents” in many countries know only to well.
Washington and the Continental Army knew the country; the British did not. Boxed in several times, Washington managed to escape with his army. For example, he was in Manhattan and Brooklyn when the British invaded Long Island. He commandeered every boat he could and took all his men, cannon, horses, and more to Manhattan on a foggy night and then on to White Plains..
"I am well convinced myself, that the enemy long ere this, are perfectly satisfied that the possession of our towns while we have an army in the field will avail them little.” Think Baghdad, Kabul.
He predated by almost two centuries Mao Zedong: “enemy advances, we retreat; enemy retreats, we pursue.”
George Washington also stuck to the task from 1775 until the British surrender at Yorktown in 1781. What is the average tour of duty of a general in Iraq or Afghanistan? And of course, every general has a different idea of what to do. Oh, yes! Washington would let himself be outvoted by his officers.
As President, George Washington was for efficient government, not necessarily for limited government: “for the efficient management of your common interests in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable… It is indeed little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.” [pages 15-16]
“[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.” [pages 17-18] Does this apply to the Congressional invitation for the prime minister of Israel to speak before it?
“And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” [page 20] Note that he doesn’t specify what religion, one of the numerous Christian sects or one of the many non-Christian sects.
Washington wrote a section on the need for public credit and to use it sparingly by “cultivating peace”. If war is necessary, the burden should not be put on future generations. “[Y]ou should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes…” He followed this with a discourse about the problem of selecting what to tax. I wonder what he would think of all the highways that we demand, the degree of safety oversight we want, and the research we want.
He wrote a couple pages about the necessity of treating all nations the same. “The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, in is some degree a slave.” What would Washington say about our relations with Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Israel, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt? All of them manipulate us more than we manipulate them. George Washington considered those who resist these entanglements as the “real patriots”.
He also extended this view to commerce: “our commercial policy should hold an equal hand: neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences…” [page 28]
As much as we have put Washington on a pedestal, he is more modest: “I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors.”
He looked forward to enjoying “the benign influence of good laws under a free government…”
Sorry, Mr. President, but fools have rushed in where heroes fear to tread. We have many bad laws under a bought government.
Mel votes in almost every election, mostly in the hope of avoiding really bad laws.
Also published in the Reader Weekly, 2015-03-05 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/03/04/4899_george_washington_ignored_father_of_his_country
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Financing the post office, where are the strict constructionists?
Once again, with the changing means of communicating, the U. S. Postal Service is in financial trouble. Many think it shouldn't be subsidized but privatized. This can lead to some Constitutional fun.
The U. S. Constitution merely says that "The Congress shall have the power … to establish Post Offices and post Roads;…"
Does "establish" mean "set up" or "operate"? How is it financed? Should it be self-funded or are Post Offices" part of the "General Welfare"?
All we know is at the time of the writing of the Constitution, the only means of communicating were either face-to-face or putting words on paper and sending them to other people. One of the means of putting words on paper was called "newspapers", and the Founders considered newspapers so important to having an informed citizenry that they subsidized the postal delivery of newspapers (Post Office Act of 1792). So, from the beginning, the Post Office was not self-supporting and was not intended to be.
The writers of the Constitution did not foresee the telegraph, the telephone, the Teletype, radio, television, and the Internet; all means of expanding the distribution of information (or misinformation). Maybe the Internet should be subsidized to have an informed citizenry. Of course, it is subsidized in a way. Government organizations from local to international provide websites for public access to information. But these sites are maintained by government employees.
We do have a slightly subsidized Internet - it's called public libraries, many which have free, albeit limited, access to the Internet. Of course, free libraries and free Internet require taxes, which we can have none of.
What a long way we've come from
BTW, we have the wish to limit information all over the political map. The Obama administration want to get authority to eavesdrop on the Internet. See "U.S. Tries to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet", Charlie Savage, New York Times, 2010-09-27.
Again, where are the strict constructionists?
The U. S. Constitution merely says that "The Congress shall have the power … to establish Post Offices and post Roads;…"
Does "establish" mean "set up" or "operate"? How is it financed? Should it be self-funded or are Post Offices" part of the "General Welfare"?
All we know is at the time of the writing of the Constitution, the only means of communicating were either face-to-face or putting words on paper and sending them to other people. One of the means of putting words on paper was called "newspapers", and the Founders considered newspapers so important to having an informed citizenry that they subsidized the postal delivery of newspapers (Post Office Act of 1792). So, from the beginning, the Post Office was not self-supporting and was not intended to be.
The writers of the Constitution did not foresee the telegraph, the telephone, the Teletype, radio, television, and the Internet; all means of expanding the distribution of information (or misinformation). Maybe the Internet should be subsidized to have an informed citizenry. Of course, it is subsidized in a way. Government organizations from local to international provide websites for public access to information. But these sites are maintained by government employees.
We do have a slightly subsidized Internet - it's called public libraries, many which have free, albeit limited, access to the Internet. Of course, free libraries and free Internet require taxes, which we can have none of.
What a long way we've come from
“However firmly liberty may be established in any country, it cannot long subsist if the channels of information be stopped,” Massachusetts Senator Elbridge Gerry stated in his fierce defense of providing federal subsidies to newspaper postal distribution in 1792.– "The History of Transparency – Part 1: Opening the Channels of Information to the People in the 18th Century"
BTW, we have the wish to limit information all over the political map. The Obama administration want to get authority to eavesdrop on the Internet. See "U.S. Tries to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet", Charlie Savage, New York Times, 2010-09-27.
Again, where are the strict constructionists?
Monday, September 17, 2007
Constitution Day
Did you know today is Constitution Day? I didn't and from what I gather most people don't either. Supposedly this situation will change because federal law now requires schools to provide educational programming on the history of the Constitution on the school day closest to September 17.
I think it's a pity that we don't elevate the honoring of the Constitution to the level of many of the other holidays that venerate "patriotism". The Constitution is more important to our freedom than any war or the flag. It gives the legal underpinning for our government and our rights. Time and time again, the greatest threats to these have been apathy, mob rule, and our own government.
I think it's a pity that we don't elevate the honoring of the Constitution to the level of many of the other holidays that venerate "patriotism". The Constitution is more important to our freedom than any war or the flag. It gives the legal underpinning for our government and our rights. Time and time again, the greatest threats to these have been apathy, mob rule, and our own government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)