Constitutionality
From the Illinois State Constitution, as ratified by the voters of Illinois in 1970:
SECTION 5. PENSION AND RETIREMENT RIGHTS
Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or
any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which
shall not be diminished or impaired.
Illinois legislators: Was that so hard to understand? Did you have to swear an oath when you were sworn in to your current positions?
Oh, I forgot – They’ve just learned from the President and the US Congress…
The Illinois legislature, continued…
On my other blog I posted a piece about the further adventures of the “pension reform bill” in the Illinois legislature. I invited you to read it.
Keep up the skeer!
I guess the actual quote is “Get ‘em skeered and keep the skeer on ‘em.” as said by Lt. General Nathan Bedford Forrest of the Confederacy. He was the very definition of “larger than life” and had a variety of interesting quotes attributed to him. (In fact, his entire life was…colorful!) His most famous quote is usually truncated to “keep up the skeer” and has been useful by many writers in a variety of contexts.
In this case, I’m referring to the Democratic Party and the liberal left in general. Through no fault of my own I ended up on an email list for MoveOn.org. If you have read any of my previous material, here or elsewhere, you know I’m about as far from a leftist as you can get – but I find the emails very enlightening.
The most recent one is titled “We might have to pull the plug,” and nothing could make me happier. Apparently George Soros isn’t bankrolling them enough, and they are looking for donations. In fact, they are crying out for even $ 5 donations!
They cite registration of young voters, bringing Elizabeth Warren into the US Senate, and “fighting voter suppression” as primary goals. They’ve already given up on the recall effort in Wisconsin against Governor Walker. I particularly like what they say in the email about this voter suppression thing:
Republicans have passed a wave of laws aimed at making it harder to vote for African Americans, students, and poor people. If turnout goes down by even a couple percentage points among these key voting blocs, that could be disastrous.
Huh? The only efforts I know of to restrict voting have to do with eliminating voting by illegals. Generally, that’s taken the form of requiring some form of identification to vote – just like you need to have to get a driver’s license, rent a car, cash a check (If anyone still does that), or even get a library card!
The voter registration statement is particularly disingenuous since, at least in Illinois, it has been the Democratic Party that has historically promoted voter fraud. We joke around here about “vote early, vote often,” but like much of humor, it’s based on fact. The recent pressure from the left to not require identification for voting is clearly a way to permit illegals to vote – primarily immigrants from Mexico, whom the Democrats believe will vote for them over those eeeevil Republicans. It’s as blatant as can be, but I’m afraid some squishy folks will be sucked into it anyway and not realize it is merely another illegal grab for power.
One more bit from the email:
In 2006, before anyone else was even talking about it, we announced plans to take back Congress from the Republicans. We made over 7 million phone calls to occasional voters to help fuel the Democratic takeover of Congress.
And then, in 2010, a completely grass-roots effort took the House back. Heh.
So things are looking up, my friends. The folks who are determined to control you are finding their defenses crumbling all around them. If they are whining about getting just a $5 donation from each person, you know their donations have fallen far off. A recent Gallup poll shows the possibility of The Current Occupant of the While House losing the election – and in a landslide. It’s not time to sit back and coast, but the wind seems to be changing. Now is the time to “keep up the skeer”!
Life Imitates Art
Back in 1957 an immigrant from Russia, Ayn Rand, finished her fourth and final novel. It had taken her a decade to write, but nothing in it sounded dated – in fact, in many ways, it takes place “outside of time.” The novel is very long, actually three novels in one, and follows Dagny Taggart, female railroad executive, as America collapses around her and she tries to hold it together.
Ayn Rand, nee Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum, left Lenin’s workers’ paradise in 1926, just in time to live through the US Great Depression. She was an author and screenwriter, today best known for her novels Anthem and The Fountainhead, as well as her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged.
Rand never wrote another novel. She became somewhat of a celebrity as a popular philosopher, and in some circles her personal life began to overwhelm the messages of Atlas. Like many visionaries, she seemed to polarize those around her, creating extremely dedicated disciples of her Objectivist philosophy as well as vicious detractors.
Atlas Shrugged is a title that many people will recognize even if they have not read the book. It has never gone out of print, and continues to sell hundreds of thousands of copies per year. Since 2009 it has even enjoyed somewhat of a resurgence in popularity due to its frightening similarity with current political and economic events.
After decades of attempts at making a film of the book (including an unfinished script by Rand herself), the first third of the book was filmed and released independently by investor/producer/screenwriter John Aglialoro on April 15, 2011. It was not financially very successful and it was strongly attacked by critics – which was expected by the producers to some extent, owing to the political orientation of most film critics and the subject matter of the film – and because it was not produced by and marketed by a “major studio.” Part II is to be released in October of 2012, just prior to the American Presidential election.
I was reminded of the book today while listening to yesterday’s radio show by conservative talk show host Mark Levin. Levin, unlike most talk show hosts, generally presents a highly logical argument based in a strict reading of the US Constitution and a coherent political philosophy. (This does not mean Mr. Levin does not become emotional on his show – quite the contrary! On first listening a new listener my be quick to label Levin as just another talk radio “hothead,” but after listening for a very short period of time, it will become apparent that this is a man who loves his country, and the US Constitution, without reservation.)
Rand attempted to cover a number of large themed in writing Atlas. The book requires patience and dedication to read and understand, but the time spent is well worth it. One of Rand’s major points is the importance of the individual and how the control of the individual by the state ultimately destroys the economy of the country and the ability of its citizens to have hope for their futures. The near-future (for 1957) America is controlled by misguided statists, crony capitalists, and purely power-hungry politicians.
Obviously Atlas is a cautionary tale at first, showing what could happen to America if current trends continue unchecked. It also shows a bold, if somewhat unbelievable, means of fighting back. The “men of the mind,” as Rand calls them, go on strike and withdraw from the world, closing their businesses and withholding their creativity, work, and capital. They are led by an unknown named John Galt, whom many believe is not even a real person until late in the book.
So why the title of this piece? After all, I’ve written about Atlas before. Well, listening to Levin this morning (the podcast of last night’s radio program), I was struck – and not for the first time – by how much less explanation Levin would need to do if everyone had read Atlas.
Unfortunately, like Obama’s political strategy for the current Presidential campaign, the ancillary themes of Atlas are often brought up as a way to invalidate the primary philosophies of the book. For example, since it was first published one of the many criticisms of the book is its atheistic tone. This is true – Rand was an atheist from the time of her youth in Russia. She does not attack any particular religion, but refers to ministers and priests as “mystics.” She also wrote about the sexual relationships of her characters as based much on respect for the values of a person, and her characters have sex outside of marriage, but she does not eliminate the concept of love.
For Rand, her religious beliefs, or lack of them, and her devotion to rational thought drove the rest of her philosophical development. The atheistic underpinnings of her philosophy have caused difficulty for conservatives for generations. Conservatives often are people of faith, especially those for whom a pro-life position is a cornerstone of their belief structure. It might be said that the American conservative movement would not have been nearly as effective as it has been since 1980 if not for the membership of pro-life Americans.
I don’t personally find Rand’s economic and political philosophies in the book to require atheism to ring true. Today, people who lack strong religious beliefs often align themselves with the Liberal agenda. I think the cautions Rand provides about the way government crushes individualism, creativity, and enterprise transcend the atheist beliefs Rand personally held.
Many people, myself included, have quoted Rand’s characters. Most of the time they quote the heroes of the book – Dagny Taggart, Hank Rearden, John Galt, and others. Less often have I seen pull quotes from the crony capitalists, union leaders, and politicians. Those are the people we need to read to see the parallels with what is going on in America today.
Wesley Mouch, lobbyist and later government Economic “czar” -
“We can’t theorize about the future,” cried Wesley Mouch, “when there’s an immediate national collapse to avoid! We’ve got to save the country’s economy! We’ve got to do something!” …
“You’ve been making temporary adjustments for years. Don’t you see that you’ve run out of time?” said Rearden…
“We can’t afford any theories!” cried Mouch. “We’ve got to act!”
“Well, then, I’ll offer you another solution. Why don’t you take over my mills and be done with it?” said Rearden. …
“Oh no!” gasped Mouch.
“We wouldn’t think of it!” cried Holloway.
“We stand for free enterprise!” cried Dr. Ferris.
“We don’t want to harm you!” cried Lawson. “We’re your friends, Mr. Rearden. Can’t we all work together? We’re you friends.” …
“We don’t want to seize your mills!” cried Mouch
“We don’t want to deprive you of your property!” cried Dr. Ferris. “You don’t understand us!”
“I’m beginning to,” said Rearden.
Balph Eubank, a “novelist” who has never had one of his novels sell three thousand copies -
“Our culture has sunk into bog of materialism. Men have lost all spiritual values in their pursuit of material production and technological trickery. They’re too comfortable. They will return to a nobler life if we teach them to bear privations. S we ought to place a limit upon their material greed.”
Fred Kinnan, union activist and one of the few “honest looters” in the book -
“I’m a racketeer – but I know it and my boys know it, and they know that I’ll pay off. Not out of the kindness of my heart, either, and not a cent more than I can get away with…. Sure it makes me sick sometimes, it makes me sick right now, but it’s not me who’s built this kind of world – you did – so I’m playing the game as you’ve set it up and I’m going to play it for as long as it lasts – which isn’t going to be long for any of us.”
By the way, you can find many quotes and character analyses at http://www.shmoop.com/atlas-shrugged/.
I could go on and on, but you really need to read the book and get them in context. Some parts of it read like what must go on in discussions behind closed doors between Obama and Axelrod. Others sound chillingly like what we hear from the Administration, the lame stream media, and academics.
All I can do is tell yo this: If you have not yet read Atlas Shrugged, you need to do so NOW. Even busy or slower readers should be able finish it before the November elections. Actually, you should read three books before the elections: Atlas, and two books by Mark Levin: Ameritopia and Liberty and Tyranny. These will change your life and your outlook on your country. I guarantee it!
Irony and success
I received an email today from MoveOn.org. Somehow after signing an online petition to help keep our state legislature from destroying our public teachers’ pension system (paid for by contributions from the teachers) I got put on the MoveOn.org mailing list. A little ironic…I wonder how many people who are on their list also bought an autographed copy of Mark Levin’s “Ameritopia“?
The “success” part of this post is from the subject of the email: they are soliciting support for the recall effort against Governor Walker of Wisconsin. Apparently the Democratic National Committee dropped support of their cause. They must have looked at the polls!
I love this line: “But if Walker survives the recall, we’ll have wasted a year of effort.”
Better y’all are wasting your time that doing anything else to advocate restrictions on our freedom. Besides, the tone of the email sounds really dejected.
We’re wearing them down, friends. Be of good cheer, and, as Hannity says, “Let not your heart be troubled.” (That’s a quote from John 14:1, by the way.)
Ok, don’t laugh or look down on me – I was supporting Newt in the primaries. Newt has Big Ideas, and I think our country needs reminding from time to time just how great we can be. God knows the Current Occupant of the White House doesn’t remind us of that. He just tells us how the deck is stacked against the little guy. He’s right about that, if he means the deck that is the Government.
I had no real belief that Michelle Bachmann would ultimately be the nominee. I thought she was a strong conservative, though, and the candidates (especially Mitt Romney) had to defend their philosophies in light of conservatism. I also thought Rick Santorum helped even more to keep conservative values in the discussion.
Mitt Romney is not a strong conservative, but he can hum the tune. He’s sounding more like one now than he did at the start of the primary campaign. I think he had to think about some things more deeply and in different ways than before. It’s a different game than it was in 2008. Running against McCain in a post-Bush world required different strategies than running against Obama in Obama’s America.
Because, frankly, that’s what this election is going to be about: do we want to continue down the unsuccessful path we are on, or do we reverse course and come back to what many people in our country know, deep down, is right. Romney’s task is actually relatively simple. He just needs to stick to basic conservative principles: a strong defense, low taxes, the least possible government interference. In that way he can pretty much run using the basic Reagan plan. While we maybe don’t have the “Russian bear” staring at us from across the pole, we have a lot of folks who don’t like us. Romney doesn’t really have to get into Middle East policy, or North Korea, or China. He will have to address taxes, the deficit, government regulation, immigration,Obamacare (if SCOTUS doesn’t come through and rule against it) and – unfortunately – a host of inconsequential bits that the Obama Administration will try to throw in his way. This happened in the primaries all the time. Do we really have to have a national debate about contraception in graduate schools? Or the Trevon Martin shooting, which was an unfortunate situation but has been blown up to national proportions for no good reason except to deflect us from the serious issues facing us.
Romney doesn’t need a hundred pages of policy for each little roadblock Axelrod will throw. That’s what probably would have happened to Gingrich, unfortunately. Newt would probably take the bait and would generate a hundred pages of policy. Of course, those don’t work well for 30-second sound bites. Romney can stay simple, stressing American values, conservative principles, and his vision of America as a place of opportunity for all.
Romney has no baggage from the primaries except Romneycare, which people will tire of by September. If Obamacare is declared unconstitutional it will strengthen his argument that this kind of legislation should stay at the state level. If not, it looks as if it will be at least reduced in some way, and that works to his advantage. He also has to answer for the extremely negative ads his people threw against the other Republican candidates, but since Axelrod will be willing to do the same it will be hard to take the high road. We can hope.
Otherwise, he’s still kind of a blank slate. Personally, I think he could just run on the slogan, “I’m not Obama,” but some people demand more of a candidate. I can’t think of an area in which just going the opposite of Obama wouldn’t work to his advantage. This time, we have a real difference in the direction the country should take that will be shown very clearly by the statements of the candidates. Even if Romney plays to the center, Obama is so far left the center will look pretty far right to a lot of folks. That’s good enough. If he can just stick to the basics he’ll be fine.
But would he be a good President? First, he could hardly be a worse one than what we have now. That helped Reagan – Carter had made such a mess of things than the “Reagan Democrats” were more than willing to cross over. But remember, in 1980 the Democratic party wasn’t nearly as far left as it is today. A lot of Democrats, especially southern Democrats, could have easily looked like Republicans today. (In fact, many of them are.)
He’s not a weak man. That’s been demonstrated through his public and private lives. I think he can handle the job of President. Most Presidents don’t have foreign policy experience when they take office, especially those who were governors prior to taking office. Romney handled a Summer Olympics, which, while it’s not like diplomacy with Iran, it’s an international balancing act. He probably knows more about the people of more different countries than most Presidents.
He’s traveled in the right circles enough to put together a good set of advisors. That’s one of the most important things a President can do. Bush #43 had the benefit and hindrance of Bush #41 advisors. Some of them were of the anti-Reagan Republican contingent, who had been waiting to get into power for eight years. 43 was smart enough to choose Dick Cheney as VP. Cheney was a good guide through the maze of Washington politics for a President who really just wanted to do the job and go back to West Texas.
Jimmy Carter had hired a lot of people from Georgia who were clearly in over their heads. Obama was beholden to the Chicago politicians and brought them with him, for good or ill. They fell into Washington politics like ducks in water.
Romney will remind voters of his private sector experience. No matter how much Obama wants to vilify Wall Street (while happily taking their campaign donations), people know their pension plans are tied up in stocks and bonds. As goes Wall Street, so goes America, and folks know that. They know that successes there don’t necessarily translate to success for everyone, but they know that it doesn’t automatically mean the fat cats get fatter and no one else shares in their success, either. That’s projection – it’s a lot more true of Washington than of Wall Street.
Romney really does have something most other Presidents haven’t had. Successful private sector and public sector experience together is a great help in running the country. I think a lot of people will understand that. They will be right, too. He will take the things he has learned from his primary battles, especially how conservative values resonated with the people, and he will be able to mold himself into a successful candidate – and a successful President.
I recall Alan Alda’s character in “The West Wing.” When he announced his candidacy for President, he was asked, “Are you conservative enough?” He replied, “I’m Republican enough.” True, those are not necessarily the same, but if Governor Romney can take the things he learned from battling Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich, and Michelle Bachmann, and even Herman Cain, and blend them into his own philosophy, we may just be all right. Mary Matalin says Romney by five to seven points. I hope she’s right.
Why we are not, technically, a democracy
People of all political stripes are fond of saying that we live in a democracy. This is, of course, not strictly true, and that was a conscious decision of the Framers of the US Constitution.
The spirited debates surrounding the ratification of the Constitution demonstrate a struggle within the peoples of the US to decide just how much power should be given over to a central government. As I’ve noted before, reading the Anti-Federalist Papers today is just as enlightening as it is to read the Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers were posted in newspapers of the day as a way to argue in favor of a stronger Federal government and for ratification of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalist papers cautioned us about the dangers of concentrating power in the hands of a few.
Today we tend to dismiss the arguments against the Constitution, and I think even among liberals it’s not politically correct to outwardly dismiss the Constitution, no matter how much they try to talk about it as a “living document.” However, the Anti-Federalists were arguing against ratification for completely the opposite reason as liberals today…they felt the Constitution gave the Federal government too much power and did too little to protect individual rights. In fact, it was the arguments of the Anti-Federalists, in part, that forced the Framers to add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.
Ratification was close. Americans were aware that the Articles of Confederation were not working well, but they sent their representatives to Philadelphia to refine the Articles, not to completely throw them out in favor of a new document. Many were shocked when the details of the Constitution were announced. James Madison, John Jay and especially Alexander Hamilton argued strongly for the Constitutional form of government in 85 articles that were published separately in newspapers and also later in a single document.
Reading both sets of papers should be required of all Americans. First, it would demonstrate that Americans of the eighteenth century were expected to follow fairly complex logical arguments if they were to participate in the running of their national affairs, and it also demonstrated that in those days Americans were not spoken down to by their leaders.
But back to the title of this piece. By definition, a democracy is simply government by majority rule. Practically anyone who has been on the losing side of a vote for any issue has had the same concern – what happens to me now? By strict use of democratic principles, there is no redress for damage to individuals based on the rule of the majority.
A particularly appropriate example is that of slavery – and not just of one particular ethnic group. Throughout history, slavery has been the norm, not the exception. It has been called many different things, but it is still slavery. For all the references made today to the glory days of Ancient Greece or Rome, both practiced slavery. Rights were not universal. (Don’t even get me started on the rights of women in particular!)
There have been many attacks in recent years on the Framers of the Constitution arguing why they did not prohibit slavery in the Constitution. Some have even argued that because the Framers avoided this question, the validity of the entire document should be suspect. That’s absurd, but it doesn’t stop people from trying to create doubts in the minds of those who do not know the history.
Should slavery have been abolished in the Constitution, we would have no Constitution and we would still have slavery; ratification was close to begin with and the slave states would not have supported ratification if their entire economy was destroyed in the process. While it took a long time, and required a Civil War, slavery was ultimately abolished. Without the Constitution and its amendments we would not be able to prohibit slavery today. In fact, without it, in a pure democracy, the majority could enslave anyone they wished with no recourse for the enslaved.
A significant capital-L Libertarian argument is whether we should have fought the Civil War or not – should the Federal government have the physical power to force states to remain in the Union who chose to no longer do so? Let’s say the core issue was something other than slavery. (In fact, it had more to do with agricultural economy vs. industrial, but that’s another essay.) Under what conditions should a state be allowed to secede from the Union?
Back to democracy. “But that’s crazy; no one would agree to that kind of overwhelming power.” In fact, in many cases, that is still what people do argue today – that the rule of the majority should be paramount. This was the root of the Populist movement, and it is one of the main issues today because fewer and fewer people are paying taxes, and a majority of non-tax-paying citizens could vote themselves “bread and circuses” until the money ran out. It is at the root of the current President’s war on the “one per cent.” “There are more of us than there are of you; we will take what we want from you because you cannot stop us.” (And see “Atlas Shrugged.” Say what you will about Objectivism; Rand knew that government by a majority could ultimately destroy a minority – even a minority that were the movers and shakers that drove the county’s economic engine – simply by bleeding it dry.)
A Republic is a form of government that practices representative democracy, but protects individuals and minorities with law, especially with a Constitution. This is the form of government we have, at least theoretically. It has been eroded over time, especially by decisions of the US Supreme Court. Still, the Bill of Rights are, in many ways, the most important parts of the Constitution. This is where the concept of “the Rule of Law” comes in. We cannot have pure democracy or the majority can do anything it wishes with the minority. Our Constitution ensures that no one person or one body has ultimate power over others – despite what we see the current President attempting to do at present.
I find it ironic when folks say that the names of the current large political parties are meaningless – some go as far as to say there is no real difference between them. Actually, they describe the philosophies of the parties pretty well right now: the Democrats are less interested in personal rights, unless they are “rights” not enumerated in the Constitution, and more in the influence of government in everyday life; the Republicans seem (most of the time) to have more respect for the Rule of Law and the rights of the individual. The current President seems little interested in the Rule of Law, or he would not attempt to bypass the Constitution, the Congress, and even the Supreme Court at every opportunity.
I am willing to bet that most American high schools and colleges do not require a course in American Government; they often do not even require a course in American History. At a time when the history of our country’s creation is increasingly important, many of us are, sadly, functionally ignorant of how and why it came about.
For more information:
democracy and republic
The Federalist Papers
The Anti-Federalist Papers
