Tag Archives: democracy

Elections, Foreign Policy, Governance, Politics 2023, Politics 2024, Responsibility

AMERICA – Article II

Leave a comment

The second-most important “branch” of our Republic’s government is the Executive. To most people, this means the President, or “The White House.” It is much, much larger than that – grievously so. There is no accurate count of the number of Departments, Agencies, Offices and Titles that are funded, almost without question or oversight, in the sloppy budgeting process that Congress standardly fails to control. The total is well over a thousand; how close to two thousand, no one can tell. If Congress were forced to oversee every line-item in the budget, we’d probably see a quick reduction, consolidation or elimination of hundreds of these tax-consuming, practically parasitic entities. But Article II is about the powers of the Executive, how he (or she) is elected, and to what actions the President and his/her appointees are sworn.

Mostly, voters and other citizens (we hope, citizens) are concerned about and are told about how well the President is fulfilling his promises in office. The President is NOT the most powerful person in his “administration.” Who is, varies.

Among the “big” Departments – “Cabinet-level Departments” – are Defense, Treasury, Justice, Interior, Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Commerce, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Labor, State, Transportation and Veterans Affairs. Originally, there were just 4 men who comprised Washington’s “cabinet,” a relatively informal group of advisors: Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of War, Henry Knox and Attorney General, Edmund Randolph. Each was a “founder” of the new nation and involved in the creation of the Constitution. Each had his views of how the government should be administered and what the Federal Government’s interactions with “the people” and with the States, should be. We are still deciding.

Washington’s status was such that no one was prepared to attack him directly, but political parties soon developed as politically powerful leaders like Hamilton and Jefferson, Madison, Adams and Monroe, among others, and Jackson, later, sought followers to their views. These were the “factions” that were feared by Madison and others writing in the “Federalist Papers.” Washington sought statesmanship from his advisors… like his own. But it became rarer and rarer as party factionalism took hold. The framers of the Constitution expected loyalty to States to be the competing interests that would, in effect, strengthen the new Union of States. Party factionalism, as we can see today, has nearly obliterated those sovereign concerns, as Federal power has become the big prize… and source of wealth both licit and illicit.

The election of a President is done by the Electoral College, one of the earliest topics in Article II, to which 376 words are devoted. The framers, fairly fresh from the Revolutionary War, were very concerned about the creation of an executive officer, having lately fought against executive excess. They did not want the selection process to be “democracy” without severe restrictions that protected the rights of States. The model Republic they hoped to create would have “checks” and “balances” on executive power and even on legislative power. As much as was workable – if not practical – they wanted a chance for statesmanship and reflection to filter out “faction” and emotion in the selection of a President. Their wisdom resulted in the Electoral College. Today we can see the Constitutional mechanisms that are most worth defending by the nature of the heated emotions that wish to sidestep them, altogether. Every Presidential “election” is blanketed with statistics about the “popular vote,” especially when the Electoral winner received fewer votes in gross total than the person who did not win in the Electoral college. That he or she did or didn’t is immaterial; but the “popular vote” is announced by all media as if it mattered.

The Constitution does not provide for National elections; we have State elections, now 50 of them, by law on the same day. Every 4 years, citizens of the 50 states elect slates of Electors who will later vote in the “Electoral College” for the President / Vice-President “ticket” to which they are committed, having gained a majority or a plurality of the popular vote in their respective States. Every State’s election stands on its own, irrespective of the size of the majority or plurality of the popular vote in other states. We employ democratic process to elect people whose Constitutional function strengthens the REPUBLIC. The REPUBLIC is strengthened by the federation of its sovereign States; the rights and sovereignty of those States must be protected and defended by the powers ceded to the federal government. It was the citizens of States – States that pre-existed the federal government and the federation, itself – who ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights: the first ten amendments without which ratification would have been impossible.

The two keys to our Republic’s success and endurance include an EXECUTIVE who is checked by the power of the people – expressed in Congress – and, as John Adams incisively stated (one might say, predicted), “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” We have embarked on a course of denying government responsibility for promoting morality. Indeed, we are rushing to make legal immoral actions in order for governments at every level to share in their illicit proceeds. What a foul recalculation of the meaning of liberty.

Presidents after Washington have pressed for greater freedom of action without the slow action of Congress, almost continuously. Abraham Lincoln was the first to suspend basic rights due to the emergencies of the Civil War. The relationship of the federal government to individual citizens changed dramatically in the years following, and even before the end of Civil War. The Emancipation Proclamation applied Executive power to the problems of black individuals in multiple states. Following the war a federal agency, the “Pension Office” under the authority of the “Commissioner of Pensions” organized to evaluate claims due to both physical and mental injuries incurred during the Civil War. Today there are, as noted above, well over 1,000 federal agencies and departments. Ostensibly, the President directs their work and function but, in fact, most of the Executive “branch” runs on its own, including lobbying Congress for never-ending funding and support.

The President is charged with being the “Commander in Chief” of the Army and Navy (and added military branches, now) AND OF THE “Militias” of the several states when called into service of the United States. Who those “Militias” are is not well-defined, although referenced in the Constitution and in the Second Amendment. Pre-existing the Army, the “National Guard” grew from colonial militias who defended against “Indian” attack, especially as the “frontier” encroached on Native lands, and later against the French and their native allies.

The “Army” was created from the Militias and State “Guards” during the Revolutionary War. Had it not been for General George Washington’s personal leadership, the Revolution would have failed as soldiers completed their periods of voluntary service, but who stayed to complete Washington’s mission of independence. It is difficult to grasp the privation and sacrifice required to pursue the war with Britain; few in today’s America are capable of what Revolutionary soldiers endured.

The Minutemen of Massachusetts grew, purposefully, out of the regiments of Militia. They were trained by veterans of the Indian and French-Indian wars and were the defenders against the British at Lexington and Concord, as the British sought to disarm the colonists. More regiments from Massachusetts served in the “Continental Army” than from any other colony/State, and formed the basis of the United States Army. The President is charged, ultimately, with command – and DEPLOYMENT – of all of the military forces, including calling up Reserve troops and the National Guard(s) of the several States, WITHOUT a declaration of a state of War, which only the Congress can effect. The “War Powers Act” in 1973, changed the basic relationship dictated by the Constitution.

In response to President Nixon’s secret bombing campaign in Cambodia during the Vietnam War, Congress attempted to reign in the creeping expansion of Presidential powers as Commander in Chief. Still, it recognized the perceived need for swift response to armed actions almost anywhere in the world where the PRESIDENT can articulate (within 48 hours of taking military action for up to 60 days without further Congressional approval) a “national interest” of the United States. This is a codification of the U. S.’s perceived role as “the world’s policeman,” and a dangerous relinquishing of Congressional, and, therefore, States’ authority over the commitment of their citizens to actions of deadly threat. All in all it is a stark example of how the Executive has become the super-representative of “the American people,” basically in opposition to Congress’ Constitutional power of representing the will of the citizens of the several States.

Since the end of World War II, and most particularly following the assassination of President Kennedy, the “federal” government has rushed to become a “National” government, directly undercutting the design of the Constitution for a Republic of united, somewhat sovereign States. Every heated declaration of “threat to our democracy” or “protecting our democracy” is premised on the desire for pure “majority rule” in the wielding of “national” power, no matter how temporarily a majority might be created for any cause or idea, rather than a republic-like careful deliberation and application of wisdom before action is taken or changes to governance made.

Constant reference to the Constitution and its amendments, is necessary to measure how far we have drifted from, and how much further some wish for us to drift from, the ideals and responsibilities of the American experiment and the “limited” Executive thereof.

Economics, Elections, Governance, Representation, Taxation

AMERICA – Article I

Leave a comment

Our Constitution has seven Articles, or “topic sections,” in a sense. The longest and most important, is the first. It describes the bi-cameral Congress. While both Senators and Representatives are members of Congress, we have customarily called Representatives, “Congressmen or Congresswomen;” Senators are Senators. However, members of both “Houses” are members of Congress. Congress OUGHT to be the most important of the three branches of government. It represents the people of the States (Representatives) and the States, themselves (Senators), at least that is the original design. That design has been weakened variously and repeatedly by those who don’t trust small-r “republicanism.” Those are they who proclaim that the United States is a “democracy,” which is intentionally NOT the basic covenant embodied in the Preamble or in the Constitution, itself.

Before we dig deeper into Article I, we must illuminate the problems inherent in “democracy.” Like many, you have probably been convinced to revere democracy when, in fact, it must be carefully constrained in order to serve the government proposed by the Constitution, a real vessel for reverence. Prudence would instruct that democracy is only a mechanism for selecting our representatives, the most crucial of the members of Congress.

Inevitably, the more power allowed to democracy, the more likely that the government will become authoritarian and no longer a partner with its citizens in their success. Democracy gains power from majority action, only. The majority rules in “a democracy.” There are no protections for minority interests. The intended partnership role of our government of the people, by the people and for the people, will quickly degrade to protection of the government and the governors, which we see now in 2023. What has this to do with democracy or the Senate?

The Senate was originally designed to represent the interests of the STATES, whose sovereignty in our FEDERATION, was paramount for many in the Convention and many in the country (and still should be). Every State had its interests and every Senator had reason to respect the will of his or her State’s legislature. In other words, Senators had to answer to a very small set of representatives of their State’s population. Those worthies ought to have had the needs of their States uppermost in their minds, and could not be ignored at the times of choosing their Senators. Senators were supposed to be responsible to their States’ interests.

The Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1913, a most dangerous period for our Republic and for republicanism. It changed the election of Senators to statewide popular voting – pure democracy with almost no accountability, in fact. Since then, the quality of Senators has declined significantly, on average. Democracy places more power in the hands of power and money “brokers,” as it were. Being accountable to everyone has meant being accountable to no one… no one, that is, except the leaders of the Senate and their control of their parties, and of sources of campaign funds.

Pure democracy also is subject to temporary, sometimes mob-like majority emotions. This was recognized in ancient Greece and is an even greater threat in the world of social media, 24–7 news media and widespread (planned) ignorance of reality and history. The mechanism of a Republic filters out those emotions. Citizens must choose the best among them to represent their interests TO the government; States would go through two stages of selection: first to their legislatures and Governors and then to their subsequent appointments of Senators. The Senate, with its longer terms, limited membership and fractional replacement, should be the more thoughtful and, dare we say, wise house of Congress. It’s design is intended to prevent emotional response and to be more accountable for its actions. Much of that “shock-absorber” function was thrown out with the switch to direct election in 1913. For shame.

Still, there are two houses of Congress and both must approve legislation, ostensibly a brake on foolish ideas. In the two-party fog of war, however, and the lack of limits on terms, it serves more effectively to stop good ideas. Abortion, for example can be hotly defended while balancing the budget is set aside. Worse, the Congress has, since the end of the Civil War, rushed to devolve its responsibilities and hand them to the (unelected and virtually un-fire-able) administrative state. About three-fourths of the federal “budget” is in the realm of entitlements or pensions, and “State-aid,” Federal dollars paid out to a thousand programs that States ostensibly control (or misapply). Those dollars twist the sovereignty of states and the thought processes of representatives and senators: No state should receive an unfair allotment of federal largesse. Federal dollars come as if by magic, with many of them being borrowed from the unbelievably distant future, sidestepping the responsibility of raising taxes to obtain them. Congress, both Houses, have “bought into” this sham. There is little statesmanship to point to among the whole number of them.

The most important power of the House of Representatives is to initiate any raising or, as virtually never happens, reducing of revenues. This includes raising taxes or changing tax rates. The Senate must concur, including amendments to bills, so they are nearly as involved in budgets as the House, including in terms of shucking responsibilities in favor of the administrative state.

Other powers of Congress include BORROWING against the full faith and credit of the United States; Coining money and regulating the value thereof; Set uniform rules of naturalization (for legal immigrants); to regulate commerce with other nations and among the several States; to promote the advancement of the sciences and protect invention and copyrights; to declare war including raising the Army and the Navy; to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the United States, and to suppress Insurrections and repel invasions. Among other things.

The Congress is also charged with making laws necessary to effect Execution of the laws passed for operation of the Government and any agency or Department thereof. This last has proven to be the greatest threat to the “Blessings of Liberty” ordained in the Preamble. Hence the administrative and nearly perpetual state, busy passing regulations that are enforced as if at the status of enacted Law. For shame.

The discussion of Article I has, unfortunately, been mostly a rendition of what is failing in Congress and in the operations of Congress, and how far afield from the intentions of republican governance Congress has strayed. It is intensely advised, and Prudent, that Americans study Article I and reflect on history and the events of the past 30 years or so. Congress needs reconstruction as much as the South did in 1866, for it has engaged in insurrection against the Constitution, attempting to overthrow it by divesting Congress, itself, from its responsibilities. The United States is nearly $34 Trillion in debt.

[ See: https://www.prudenceleadbetter.com/2020/09/27/knife-edge-election/ ]

Crime, Culture, Economics, Education, Elections, Governance, Politics 2022, Religion, Representation

Constitutionally Speaking

Leave a comment
…A Republic if you can keep it.

Wise humans generally have tried to select their leaders from among those who think logically relative to the traditions and cultural mores of the society.  Those who would be leaders, but who tend to propose completely opposite ideas and beliefs at proximate times, are generally rejected for positions of leadership, and denied power over the “people” who have sought leaders who will protect their families and partner in achieving greater safety, comfort and wealth.  Along the way, their leaders are expected to protect and strengthen the children so that society will grow, be strong and continue.

In earlier times, especially when education was not widespread – mainly reserved to self-selected religious leaders and somewhat self-selected royal families – populations accepted their statuses as serfs and peasants for whom reverence of their “leaders” was how safety for themselves and their families was increased, including food security.  Things changed as education became “public.”  Wisdom and philosophies from the “ancient” past spread among millions of thoughtful humans, some of whom refined and expanded on the “pure” ideas of the Greeks, Hebrews, Romans, Persians and many others, interpreting human interactions amidst the “new” realities of economics, civic participation and independence.

Great minds eventually proscribed the foundational ideas of the United States, and they are quite simple!

Underlying the simplicity of the Constitution are principles of preventing or avoiding the proven tendencies of the worst of human nature to gain power and wealth at the expense of others: tyranny of one form or another.  Let’s consider the simple ideas and the assumptions on which they are dependent.  Our founders designed “self-government” against the backdrop of tyrannies they had seen and fought, both religious and monarchical, as well as militaristic.  They could not include tools designed to thwart the new tyrannies defined and refined by Marxism in the middle of the 19th century. That is our job, today.

The first simple idea, upon which our survival depended then and does, now: religious freedom.  Education in the late 18th century was based largely upon religious philosophies and structures of good and evil as spread by and through churches and prelates of all kinds, mostly Christian, and by locally hired teachers.  The vast majority of Americans shared basic beliefs in right and wrong as they ratified the Constitution; they never imagined that within a few generations the vast majority of Americans – AND THEIR CHURCHES – would no longer agree upon the principles of right and wrong and self-discipline.  The functioning of Constitutional republicanism depends upon “the people” being a moral, self-disciplined body politic.  To participate in and manage a republic, requires that its members – citizens – be educated in its principles and practices.  Sadly, this is no longer the case.

The second simple idea is representation.  A people who have learned to choose their representatives such that those so chosen will guard the people from the worst excesses of executive rulers, will, if properly educated, keep a civic eye on those representatives, in our case, on members of the House of Representatives.  Our Founders believed, based on a social compact within which nearly everyone shared common rights and wrongs, that representing people in the many states, would remain a mission of honor and fealty to their constituents.  They never imagined that election to Congress would become such a lucrative opportunity for personal gain, that re-election, and the many corruptions that facilitate re-election, would replace the proper role of service and honor.  “The People’s House” is no longer a place of honor but for a few.  Americans must educate themselves about the original purpose and model for representation, and MAKE THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES required to restore representation to the primary purpose – and effect – of election to “The House.”

The third simple idea is states’ rights.  That is, that the Federal government is limited to those functions that states cannot do for themselves, and that the powers not granted to the Federal Government, or prohibited to it, are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people.  Senators are supposed to represent the interests of the States; they are not supposed to be longer-serving, at-large representatives of the people.  They are supposed to be selected by the state legislatures to represent the STATES, guarding their rights and powers in a federal, not NATIONAL system of governance.  Because of the failures of some state legislatures during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, leaving Senate seats unfilled, Congress proposed the 17th Amendment and it was ratified with little delay.  Since then, 6-year-term Senators have been elected similarly to 2-year-term Representatives.  Thus were the constituencies of Senators changed from their state governments to the general populations of states, which changed the responsibilities of Senators.  Being elected “at large” means that Senate candidates have, ever since, been able to lie at varying levels of effectiveness, twisting truth and news, particularly for incumbents, to gain popular vote victories. 

If the Senator in question had to answer to members of his or her state’s legislature, men and women who, to some greater degree, know what is going on and what they instructed their Senator to do, then the re-election/appointment landscape would be far, far different than the amorphous, dishonest campaigning that works with popular-vote elections.  Prior to the 17th Amendment, states’ senators had to answer for what they did in Washington.  It would be very good to repeal the 17th and make Senators responsible to SOMEBODY.  The chance of senators being re-elected for 24, 30 or 36 years, would be much reduced: a good thing.

The fourth simple idea is equal application of the laws.  The fundament of individual sovereignty and freedom is equal STATUS under the laws.  Our Bill of Rights, without which the Constitution would have never been ratified, or even considered for ratification by some states, codifies the assumptions that underlay the debates that developed the Constitution.  Madison and others believed that having won independence from a powerful monarchy, under which laws and persecutions were applied differently to citizens deemed by the monarch to be favored or unfavored, had cemented the concepts of equal application of law into the American people.  In fact, the ability of governments of any type: elected or hereditary, to become tyrannical, was bound to color the debates.  The likelihood that executive authority will garner power not specifically granted to it, is historically likely.  Government can NEVER be trusted to control itself on behalf of even the highest principles.  The rules limiting the power of government and protecting the unalienable rights of every person, had to be part of the proposed Constitution.  Ratification was effected by legislative agreement of three-fourths of the states; the formation of a FEDERAL government was a function of the STATES and not even of popular vote.

Let’s repeat that concept: the Federal Government is a creation of the states.  The power and rights of, now, 50 STATES, are SUPERIOR to the powers of the Federal Government.  How foreign this truth sounds.  It means that criminal laws as well as civil laws, are primarily the business of states, and that federal laws should be few in number and limited in scope to matters of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and other amendments, and matters of military justice and treason.  It also means that federal police powers and the so-called “F.B.I.” should be severely limited in terms of interactions with individual citizens.  Things have changed, to say the least.

The fifth simple idea is the ELECTORAL COLLEGE, which provides a mechanism of election of the Chief Executive Officer / Commander-in-Chief, free of undue influence from Congress or from direct democracy.  Our Founders understood the inherent dangers of pure democracy and that democracy, alone, would quickly yield tyranny of shifting majorities.  This is why so many mechanisms dividing power between states and the federal system, between states and pure democracy, and between citizens and their representatives, are built into the Constitution.  Lately, many on the Left have complained about the Electoral College, always touting the “popular vote” as having favored a losing Presidential ticket.  Needless to say, the popular vote is meaningless in presidential politics.  The Electoral college makes sure that presidents are elected by the States, not by popular vote.  The U. S. holds 50 state elections for 50 slates of electors who are committed to a presidential ticket.  While electors are related to representative numbers: 2 senators per state plus the number of representatives per state, presidential tickets must win the majority of presidential electors, state by state.  Both large and small states are important to the final total.  Presidents are elected by the states, not through direct democracy.

Those who want to get rid of the Electoral College are those who want government to be empowered through pure democracy, and they are not to be trusted with real power.

Another simple idea, relative to the Executive authority, is that Congress must declare war, not the President.  Under monarchies, the monarch can dictate foreign policy and declare war when he or she doesn’t get what he or she desires.  Again, to limit the concentration of power in the executive branch, our founders anticipated that Congress’ interests would be closer to the people and rarely in complete agreement with the Chief Executive.  What was never anticipated was that both the House and Senate would be so willing to avoid responsibility for much of anything, and so willing to relinquish powers to the executive bureaucracies of unelected rule-makers, as is attractive to communists.  Like all contracts and covenants, they are only as good as the quality and integrity of the parties to them.

Our founders, likewise, never anticipated that Congress would devise a means of creating perpetually growing public debt (in the form of the extra-constitutional “Federal Reserve” Check out: http://www.prudenceleadbetter.com/2020/09/27/knife-edge-election/).  In 1789 people – and governments – had to pay their debts before more loans would be offered; today we raise the “debt ceiling” so that we might borrow enough to pay only the interest on previous debts, let alone pay down the principals.  This results in our “representatives” failing utterly to represent the interests of the people each is paid handsomely to represent… adding annually to the peoples’ debt burden and being re-elected despite having done so.

The SUPREME COURT is a simple idea, although modern beliefs complicate it beyond reason.  The Constitution provides federal judges, including Supreme Court Justices, with lifetime appointments.  The purpose is to insulate justices from political whims and winds of change, and, presumably, allow them to hold firmly to the meaning of the Constitution’s words as ever newer, unanticipated legal problems emerge.  Politics has caused never anticipated complications to the balancing work of the Supreme Court.  Elected men and women have added to the responsibilities of the Federal government beyond anything the Founders could have imagined.  The lines between Constitutional powers and protections of individual rights, have become broader and diffuse as politicians have found political power in the invention of new “rights,” many based on falsehoods.  The Left’s penchant for changing the definitions of words has made “equal protection under the law” nearly impossible; foolish politicians have passed laws to accommodate false definitions and whimsical “realities.”  The supreme court is tested to find narrow truths amidst broadened political fantasies.

Yet, the concept of a final arbiter of our Constitutional protections is both wise and essential.  That the U. S. was founded in the presence of printing and publications, forms of mail service and book-binding, kept our founders mindful of the spread of new ideas and opinions.  Launching the new nation on a “ship” of ideals required that some mechanism of preserving and reinforcing those ideas and ideals was essential.  The Supreme Court, almost inadvertently, became that mechanism, thanks to the innovative application of its limited powers by Chief Justice John Marshall.

Finally, the NINTH and TENTH amendments are a combined, simple idea.  Hardly any of our student youth are taught about the Constitution, and few of them, or even of their parents, have knowledge or opinions about the last two amendments of the Bill of Rights.

Amendment 9 admonishes the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that the rights named and listed in the Constitution – rights of individuals – cannot be construed to “deny or disparage” others (rights) retained by the people.  This is worth contemplating every day and upon every election:  The rights that are inherent in every citizen (unalienable rights), ARE NOT LIMITED to only those “enumerated” in the text of the Constitution, NOR can the constitution be employed to limit any of them!  These few words are quite possibly the most important and far-reaching in our Constitutional system.  EVERY piece of legislation and every surreptitious new regulation that spews forth from the tens of thousands of unelected bureaucrats, should be evaluated BY OUR (ostensible) REPRESENTATIVES as to its neutrality toward or protection of our inherent rights as individual citizens.  What a different “official” status we are each entitled to, than what we are now saddled with.

The 10th Amendment, in effect, reserves to the STATES, much as the 9th reserves to the people, all powers not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.  It then goes beyond the power of states and reserves the rest to the people, again.  This remarkable Constitution is unique in world history, and exceptional.  The rights secured to the citizens of the United States are exceptional among all the nations.  How is it that we have elected so many to Congress and even to the White House, who do not agree with what the Constitution says and promises to us as citizens?

Dear readers and fellow citizens, the simplest, most Prudent idea of all is to learn, teach, discuss, and study the Constitution and the thinking that supported its ultimate design.  Our students are deprived of the ONLY knowledge that will keep us and them, free.  If you have the ability to communicate to whomever is educating your children, insist that they, and all other teachers, produce high-school graduates who understand our rights and powers as U. S. citizens.

Culture, Economics, Education, Politics 2021, Responsibility

PROXY SOCIALISM

Leave a comment
Free thinkers….

Whether it’s baloney or just heat, much of it is spewed about the preference for “socialism” over “capitalism” among a large fraction of young Americans.  Few are responding with the right counter-arguments.  The debate has typically conflated socialism, which is fundamentally a GOVERNING/control system, using economic control to control groups of people, with capitalism, which is 1) human nature; and 2) a means of wealth creation AND RETENTION that is individual.  The real enemy of socialism is CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLICANISM, not capitalism, per se… socialism simply destroys capitalism.  In the United States we utilize democratic selection to choose our representatives and executives, BUT WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY!  Those who insist on referring to the United States as “our democracy” and similar phrases, are those who wish it were.

Government by “democracy” is a ticket to ride into the tunnel of tyranny – tyranny by the majority.  In the new era of instant communication and widespread ignorance of history, civics and economics, tyranny sometimes takes only a few tens of minutes to destroy peoples’ lives, livelihoods and reputations.  Imagine if every public policy were promulgated the same way.  Temporary “majorities” could strip hated groups of rights and empower preferred majorities with privilege and wealth.  Imagine what it could do to tax policies and welfare.  Democracy is a scorpion in the digital bottle, requiring sophisticated and unbreakable controls in order for it to serve a free people.  An educated person can appreciate the sublime protections against unbridled democracy that are built into the Constitution; he or she will also recognize the changes that must be amended to that sacred document to stop the unbridled theft of representation under which we suffer, now.

The real contenders for the future of mankind are socialism morphing into communism, and Americanism, including all that set of concepts means.

Right now we are not enjoying the miraculous advantages of individual capitalism, responsibility and morality.  We are being crushed, inch by inch, by OLIGARCHY, which is a horrible, though impressive, perversion of capitalism: a concentration of financial power in the hands of a tiny, tiny number of people, to whom flow political and even intellectual power.  That is, obscenely wealthy people have come to believe they are not only smart in business and finance, but, since all their minions and obsequious politicians repeatedly tell them so, that they are also WISE – a grievously dangerous belief.  One need only investigate the actions and beliefs of the odd Bill Gates to see the dangers possible.

These oligarchs are not patriots – not a single one of them.  Oligarchs are insatiable: there are never sufficient “markets” in which to sell, there is never enough revenue, never enough power in their hands.  Their abiding fears all are based on the loss – even slightly – of any portion of any of those aspects of their existence.  This forces them to purchase, as it were, unlimited political influence so as to protect their levels of accomplishment in markets, revenue, and power.  Political philosophy is none of their concern.  They are just as happy to deal with communist and other dictators, probably more so, than with elected, representative governments, the latter being hard to control and, occasionally, “suffering” changes of leadership.

The U. S. has acted as the “world’s policeman” since World War II.  Despite forming the “United” Nations, most of the “policing” fell to the U. S. – most of the waste of treasure and sacrifice of young men and women has also been borne by us.  All the while, the global leftist pressure has infected the American body politic and the institutions designed by our founders and those added by both good- and bad-intentioned politicians.  Those who think we are not socialist already, are blind.  Socialism is not about to sweep in and improve our system… our system is already fouled up by socialism.  The likelihood is that we will become MORE of what the ‘woke’ generation rails against.

Conservatives – traditionalists – have no love for the corrupt, partially socialist mess we survive in.  Our problems stem not from a lack of socialism but from a lack of Americanism.  We have literally voted-in our own destruction.  There is a narrow window of freedom left, but the Biden administration has chosen to accelerate the damage instead of beginning to repair freedom and individual responsibility.

If nothing else, every American patriot should stop listening to or sympathizing with the gross, broad-brush claims made by Communists in our midst (like “BLM”) or by committed “socialists.”  By those irrational statements those anti-American fellow-travelers are advertising their ignorance – largely willful ignorance – of history and of the basis for the creation of our founding documents and principles.  They don’t deserve our attempts to understand nor will they debate or analyze the views of any other “side.”  America used to work quite well for the maximum number of people, here and across the world.  However, since the “Great Society” and the Viet-Nam loss, our system has become corrupted by socialists and, with the closing of the “gold window,” by the insatiable creation of debt to buy ever more and more votes.

Monopoly Capitalism is not the model for freedom, it is the antithesis.  Wise people, educated and informed, should, through their representatives in Congress, refine our institutions to break up monopolies and to prevent new ones.  Unfortunately our ruling elites have shifted closer and closer to Fascism, where huge, monopolistic and global companies, no longer American companies, are “bribed” in effect, BY THE GOVERNMENT, to carry out control policies the government lacks the legal ability to effect: socialism by corporate proxy. 

America, awake!