We shoot ourselves by giving up on the study and discussion of History

 When was the last time that you felt that your government was being responsive to you, your values, your needs?  When was the last time that you felt that the government was there, in the words of the old half-joke, to help you?  When was the last time that you trusted the government to do the right thing?

If you are like most of the people I know, on all sides of the political spectrum, the answer is, "never!"

For a long time I have searched for a true answer for why this seems to be true.  Some have blamed ideology.  Others point to the need for term limits.  But these answers seem hollow and superficial.  Would changing those things change our attitude about today's United States of America Federal Government?  I suspect not.  So, my search has been ongoing, fitfully, for some time, since it seems that if one cannot define and truly identify the source of and reason for a problem, there is no hope at all for "fixing" it...assuming that it can be fixed.  And suddenly a whole new area of study and possible answer to my ongoing questions came to my attention.

In November of 2013, one Professor Donald Livingston, Professor Emeritus at Emory University, gave a speech at the University of Virginia on Republicanism (the government form, not the political ideology), David Hume, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln.  That speech was broadcast on C-SPAN.  Now, most of us have had ideas come to us suddenly and the proverbial light bulb goes off in your brain.  But...this speech had flashbulbs of incredible brilliance going off continually for an hour of rapt listening...and nodding ascent.  Never before had I even considered the effect of our form of government on the current status of the country.

I had been taught that our government was not a pure democracy but a Republic.  But the difference between a pure democracy and a republic was never, at least in my case, a matter of intense or critical study.  Nor was there ever a study of the advantages and limitations of a republican form of government.

What an error in our educational content.  But, perfectly understandable.  Why?  To answer that question completely requires the reading and study of commentaries on the subject by David Hume and Thomas Jefferson.  Or...for the equivalent of a Cliff Notes summary you might want to watch Prof. Livingston's speech on C-SPAN (  http://www.c-span.org/video/?316075-1/ThomasJeffers   ) which would reduce what otherwise would take months of study to about an hour of video.  But I will share the substance of what stuck with me from watching and listening to Professor Livingston...and I am confident that substance will get your attention and initiate thought and debate.

The general view of republican governance was one where size mattered, if you were going to have representative rule.  If you get too big, you lose representative responsiveness.  Jefferson's vision was one of additional republics being formed as both population and area grew, maintaining the people's control of government.  The republics would then band together in a Commonwealth for cooperative defense and trade.  Up until the Civil War, succession was often discussed and seen as a legitimate evolving action for growth.  It wasn't until Abraham Lincoln reflecting the governmental philosophy of Thomas Hobbs, determined, by force, that the southern states could not secede, and the "indivisible" term became the norm when speaking about the republic. Jefferson's view of the various republics being the political unit, to one where people became the political unit and control was to be centralized.  The French Revolution resulted in the formation of the French Republic, the first modern large modern state republic, looking to the individual as the political unit.

No one comments on the mutually exclusive concepts of republican government as laid out by Jefferson and then by Lincoln (following the Hobbs model), and yet the significance and effects of this clash on our lives is long standing and enormous. The two approaches are incompatible, as Livingstone states.

All of this is interesting on its own, but you might ask how this translates to the perception that we have lost control of our government...and it is a good question.

At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the House of Representatives elected one Representative for every 30,000 people.  But in 1911 the number of Representatives was capped at 435.  The result is that today there is one Representative for every 720,000 people.  If this ratio were applied to the original 13 states, the House would be composed of 5 members, and 8 states would have no representatives at all. On the other hand, to keep the same 30,000 to 1 ratio today, the House would have 10,500 members.  And the Supreme Court now is the decider of what the Constitution says.  This means that we have lost the republican view of governmental responsiveness as well as the rule of law.

Additionally, consider that the number of votes necessary to enact laws and authorize spending, all concentrated in Washington, D.C., is 268, and if you limit that to a quorum minimum, the number drops to 135.  This level of representation has resulted in a national debt of over 17 Trillion Dollars, and total unfunded liabilities variously estimated to be anywhere from $220 Trillion to $238 Trillion.  This is the burdon that our government has placed on our descendants.  To give you some prospective, in 2011 the Gross Domestic Product of all of the countries in the entire world amounted to $72 Trillion.

Now you start to see the source for the assertion that we no longer control our government.

David Hume wrote on how to solve the problem of size and save the responsiveness of government in a large republic.  Both he and Jefferson realized the greatest danger to the existence of a republic was corruption; the danger of a group of representatives to make decisions for their own purposes and aims. The answer was to divide America into 100 republics, not states, and move the House of Representatives out of Washington to each republic capitol, with each republic having 100 Representatives ( getting us back close to one representative for every 30,000 citizens).  The Senate would pass a bill, and then it would send that bill to each Republic for ratification.

This greatly reduces the likelihood of corruption, as the cost and logistics of lobbying 10,000 Representatives in 100 different locations would be at best, problematic and at worst, impossible.  There would also be the benefit of Representatives living and being constantly available to their constituents countering with "their" wishes at home, rather than reaching out electronically to "representatives" enjoying their comforting isolation and support from the "deep state" in our nation's Capitol.

With such a process, the Senate would be less inclined to introduce bills with "earmarks" and "pork" projects that were clearly not beneficial to all, as there would be greatly reduced chance of passage by the House of Representatives.  And those bills which have merit, but not on the gigantic scale of the Commonwealth, could and would be adopted by those republics individually as they saw the smaller scale need.

Of course, the best operation of the republican form of governance is still the small republic.  The analogy presented by Professor Livingston seemed most apt, even if not absolutely correct from a medical viewpoint: when a cell grows beyond a certain size, it divides...when it does not it is a cancer.

This is why our government no longer serves us; why it may still be "of the people", and "for the people", but is no longer "by the people."  Now I can begin to study and ponder on what the solution may be, including those as presented by the application of David Hume's "Large republic" concept.  But is seems clear that the status quo has nothing to offer.

Multi-National Companies are never "Patriotic"

Haven't posted in a long time; the world and the Nation seem so tumultuous as to defy any reasonable discussion...on any level or any subject.  But...I finally have come to believe that to do nothing is to approve of what is...even to encourage it.  The other side of the coin is that if you do not have a better idea, then perhaps you should hold your criticism(s) until you do have something better to offer.  Be that as it may, we all might want to at least be aware of and deal with the matter in my heading.

Each of us view the definition and needs of personal security differently, but the one universal seems to be that we value our personal freedoms and do not wish others to impede or subtract from the baseline that we currently possess. Consistency demands that we honor the converse: that we should not expect to invade others' space or interfere with their freedoms.

At some level each of us also value and have an expectation of truthfulness toward and from others, including our institutions (government, schools, Courts, business enterprises.

At the beginning of the last century, our business enterprises operated within national borders;  their identified with the nation in which they operated and supported the general national interests, aligning with the national sense of patriotism.  In the last 70 years that has changed.  And the change poses dangers to the concepts of national identity and national patriotism.

The largest and most powerful business enterprises on the planet operate across national borders, most (if not all) making profits from both sales and manufacturing in disparate countries throughout the planet.  They have no allegiance to any particular country.  Oh, they claim to care; their public statements of their Owners, Officers and in their Press Releases claim allegiance...but to each nation in which the statement is issued.  Clearly this is a propaganda issue, not a truth issue.  Each company is concerned ONLY with profits.  Anything that interferes with profits is their enemy.  That means that ALL ELSE holds no consistent place of value.  Clearly allegiance is toward whatever will positively impact profits...and is fleeting at best.  Once the profit element has been secured, there will be neither allegiance nor memory of any such thing.

Under this set of unassailable facts, shouldn't EVERY nation-state consider that every business enterprise be viewed, regardless of national origin, as a non-citizen?  Shouldn't each enterprise be required to meet criteria and standards in a proven way and not given the presumptive standing of "citizen?"

Enterprises such as Google, Micro-soft, Amazon and Nike (and many more) currently show more concern about the welfare of China than of the United States.  But, you say, those are American companies (with the emphasis on "American").  Not anymore.  Follow the money.  Follow the power.  And any payoffs are a threat regardless of size or scope; there is no such thing as being a "little bit" pregnant.  Does anyone think that the proximity of Google, Amazon and Nike offices with multitudes of employees in the Northwest has nothing to do with main cities in that area harboring felons and illegals contrary to United States law?  Those companies and their employees see themselves as superior to and having no allegiance to the United States of America.  And other countries are having the same experiences.

As of now, each multi-national plays nation-states against each other to obtain financial and regulatory advantages.  That is to be expected.  But none of these countries are consistent in recognizing (and trying to control the effects of) the threat to their borders, to their government, to their citizens' freedom.  Why?

It would be easy...and nice...to state that our governments just aren't as aware of this, or are preoccupied with more important things.  Hogwash!  Does anyone not question how one can run for public office with relatively low personal wealth, hold elected office for decades at a relatively low salary lever, yet retire with millions in assets?  This state of affairs has existed for more than a century, yet the media doesn't care and clearly the governments' Inspector Generals don't care either, even in the face of public inquiries.  Why?

One opinion would be that despite the wording of Oaths of Office, laws, and conscience, the awarding of money and/or power constitute bribes more powerful than the concepts of truth, honor, promises, and/or conscience.

So...the ultimate question is how strongly do citizens feel about allowing their freedoms and security to be eroded, dissipated and perhaps even at some point eliminated.

Logic would suggest that the American citizen (and citizens of all the countries of the world) demand of their governments changes that would first arrest and second deminish the power that multi-national companies now enjoy;  that such business enterprises not be allowed to fly under the radar of public accountability and not the private accountability of being able to "pay off" those who stand in their way.

Government exists because WE delegate to it power and authority.  Perhaps we should consider voiding that delegation and start over?

Why do we Disrespect Congress?

I will admit to disrespecting Congress...a lot.  If I want to be totally truthful, it usually rises to the level of hatred.  But lately, I am stung by the question, "why?"  Oh, I can complain about their actions (or perhaps I should say inaction).  I can marvel at their ability to squander money that we as taxpayers had to work hard to earn, only to watch our politicians treat it like so much dirty water...to be splashed about and not even clean anything up.

It occurred to me earlier this week that I was blaming the forest, instead of the individual trees...and by doing so, was insuring that nothing would ever change.  And it can be argued that most of us in America do the same thing.  Of course there are reasons for this:  we are busy earning a living; we believed and expected our Congressman (or woman) and Senator to do what they promised; others know more about the governmental challenges than do we.  These are all legitimate points and facts.

But...it is our government. At least on paper.  We are the ones doing the voting.

Perhaps we have our priorities wrong.  Maybe checking on whether or not our Congressman and/or Senator is doing his job is a bit more important that watching that third football game of the day.  Maybe writing or calling our Representative and asking why he voted for or against a particular bill...and asking directly (Yes,...or No) if he actually read it before voting is a mite more important than that tv movie.

Maybe our anger should not be at Congress, but at our own (the guy or gal that is supposed to be serving us, protecting us, listening to us, fulfilling their promises to us) particular member of the House of Representatives and/or our United States Senator.  Perhaps it is time to tell them that their allegiance should be to us, not their party and certainly not the leaders of their party.  We didn't elect a party...we elected a person.  That person made promises and took an oath.  We should be checking to see if they are keeping their promises, if they are fulfilling their duties to which they took that oath...instead of feathering their own or others' nests or making self-serving deals and not respecting our wishes and our needs.

Oh, they will scream bloody murder...much as our children do when we check on them and insure that they are doing their homework and keeping the right kind of company.  But if we are going to serve ourselves and meet our own obligations to both us and our country, we need to treat our elected officials just as we do our children: trust...but verify.  There are some that are doing their job for us.  There are others that will only do it if we monitor them and hold their feet to the fire...or whatever other euphemism you want to use.

We should get on with it.