One “Man,” One Vote

It's been a while since the presidential elections. There have been many news cycles and the issue is quiet now, so it's a good time to address it. Donald Trump was elected president. But Hillary Clinton got more votes than he did. Neither got a majority. Neither had the trust of the American people. Yet the election and its results were the source of more passion than we have experienced in recent years. There have been protests and riots by Clinton supporters who refuse to accept Trump as their president. Assorted “hate-crimes” have been attributed to those who voted for Trump, and they're viewed as racists.

The media have echoed many of these accusations, and press coverage has often paralleled that during the campaign, with those who oppose the new administration continuing to find fault with the new president and his transition team. Despite the fact that it is moving faster than some of the previous administrations, they have accused it of failure to act and of poor performance and disunity in general. They made no such accusations when those they supported had been elected, and they didn't use the post-election period then as a time to sow discord among the electorate. That's not really much of a surprise in view of the idea that the first thing that a party (and its partisans) must do following an election I to begin preparations for the next election.

There's an important additional issue that the election has raised. Though the situation is not unique, there is much angst about a minority president. On four previous occasions (and this makes five although the vote discrepancy is the greatest now) we have elected a minority president (in this instance a “minority president” is defined as a candidate who has fewer votes than another candidate – there have been others in which the winner had a minority of the votes but had a plurality – Abraham Lincoln, for example, received only 39 percent of the popular vote in 1860 but nearly 60% of the electoral votes), although this happens for no other office. It results from the existence of the Electoral College, which occupies a disproportional part of the Constitution, and which was altered by the Twelfth Amendment. And while it interposes “electors” between the voters and the candidates, within each state the slate of electors is chosen by majority vote. The electors are free to vote for candidates other than those they claimed to support, but that has not happened. The system certainly puts the voter closer to the choice for leader than what exists in many other democracies – a selection by members of the winning party.

It's important to remember how we arrived at this system, and the history of our country tells us. We have a federal government (courtesy of the Federalists naturally) that represented the union of several pre-existing states that feared the loss of their significance when the new country was formed. Their advocates wanted assurance that the states would remain the representatives of their people and their territory. They believed that many decisions were best made locally. They didn't agree that “one size fits all.” James Madison's Electoral College was one of the mechanisms by which they retained authority locally – perhaps for the better. Were we to declare now that popular vote should be the decisor of presidential elections, the strength of the states would be significantly weakened, and large parts of the country would have little chance to meet with the candidates (and, indeed, the candidates would have little interest in most of the country) since their primary involvement would be in the large cities. The majority would be of much greater concern then the minority.

And that raises another question: What is our responsibility to minorities? We certainly emphasize the view that the majority should not be able to impose its will on those minorities in which we find ourselves, or with which we identify. We're sensitive to cultural and economic differences – even if we deny any differences among our “majority” citizens. We've even ascribed “minority” status to women, who are in the majority. The term, and the concept of protection of minorities, have come to be more issues of politics than anything else. And in the process we have chosen to take our stand for majority “rights” on a political issue – a constitutional one – as we reject it otherwise. We favor minority rights as long as they are beneficial to us or to our philosophy.

As I noted, in all likelihood by the time this essay is published the Electoral College will not be among the most important matters we're considering. There won't be many Google^® searches for it. However if the concept is wrong, it is wrong even between election cycles, and it is worthy of debate before it becomes an point of contention once again. But if we decide to eliminate it, with the consequent strengthening of the federal system and the weakening or elimination of any significance of individual states, we should consider the results of such an act. A nation in which a dirt farmer and a banker, a Hollywood movie star and a Detroit mechanic, a retiree in Florida and an entrepreneur in Alaska, are all treated identically and with indistinguishable expectations and obligations, may not be the answer to our problems.

One man one vote is sacrosanct, but in many ways it's insufficient.




November 17, 2016

American Democracy

A few months ago I wrote an essay about the protests over the President's election. As the days passed some of those protests turned into riots. It's my hope that by today, Inauguration Day, they will have abated, and we can return to the important job of healing the rifts both within our democracy and with the other countries of the world. The time for questions has passed and we need to address the answers.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

America looks bad. The country that has promoted democracy as the ideal political system is beginning to look like a Third World republic. It is enduring protests at the results of a free election and the procedures of our Constitution. Our image in the world, which has been diminishing for the past few years, is being further tarnished. It is a self-inflicted wound.

There had been anxiety about riots by his supporters if Trump lost, but now that he has won there are riots in the streets by those who claim he is not their president. They once castigated him for not pledging to accept the election results but now won't do so themselves.

Is this the real America? Are we a country of whiners? I don't recall this happening in the past? Have we become a “democracy” in which the losers refuse to accept the results of an election? Should we anticipate the same reaction in state and local elections?

Admittedly the President-Elect didn't receive a majority of the votes, but neither did Secretary Clinton. She, Like Mr. Trump, would have wound up as a minority president. Had she declined to accept the results of the election like her supporters we would have faced a constitutional crisis, but she graciously conceded the election to Mr. Trump. Indeed, Barack Obama, the President and a large contributor to the Secretary's defeat, conceded the election and has begun transition procedures.

One of the causes of the unhappiness is the fact that it wasn't expected. Mrs. Clinton was a “shoe-in”in the minds of many voters. The polls and the media assured us that the only questions revolved around the makeup of the new Congress. The various minority groups and their supporters had little doubt that they would soon have the executive office and an improved position in the legislature. And they were confident that the new Supreme Court justice would favor the programs that they favored. And the boosters of Senator Sanders were certain that their new leader, President Clinton, would promote their agenda. But they were wrong. The polls were wrong, the media were wrong, and the expectations of many of the voters were wrong.

I didn't support Mr. Trump (nor Secretary Clinton, for that matter), but he's my president. The test of a democracy is our support for its institutions even when we disagree with the policies of our leaders and our representatives. There won't be a “do-over.” If they're still going on, it's time to stop the tantrums and to move on.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

November 14, 2016

The Trouble With Israel

The trouble with Israel is that it's a democracy.

That's a little flat-footed and limiting. In fact there are a lot of troubles with Israel (though not as many as with its neighbors), rather than just one, but I'll emphasize democracy both because it's a problem itself, and because it causes other problems. (I'll add some other ideas in a few months.)

Israel has gotten a lot of admiration and support, especially in the United States, from the fact that it is an island of democracy in a sea of monarchies, tyrannies, and theocracies. At least until recently it has. Under the current administration – one that views dialogue with our enemies and distancing ourselves from our friends as the best foreign policy – some of our identification with it is gone, but that does not change Israel's political structure. Like the United States it is an imperfect democracy, but because of the path we have taken we now find it advantageous to emphasize Israel's faults, real and imagined, while ignoring our own, and to trumpet them to whoever will listen.

And Israel's enemies do likewise. Those in the United Nations have institutionalized the condemnation of Israel. The starting point among the nations are the surrounding countries, which call for an end of Israel's “oppressive” policies. Nations that kill their own citizens, promote terrorist organizations, and make war on their neighbors, call for the destruction of the democracy on which they blame their own problems, and whose elimination they claim would solve the region's difficulties. That is the only message they permit to emanate from their borders. Reporters who state otherwise are subject to penalties, and journalists from outside those countries are openly discouraged. Consequently the only negative stories that originate there are those that cannot be suppressed. And, lacking on-site coverage, little negative information is provided the rest of the world. So the world hears little about honor killings, female genital mutilation, internecine violence, and the oppression of women and members of the LGBT community, among other horrors.

But Israel is a democracy. Freedom of the press is one of its hallmarks. And life there is much more salutary than in the adjacent countries. So members of the press, including those barred from Islamic nations, congregate there, with more reporters than in most of the rest of the world. There is a competition for headlines, and what is negative sells best. Thus, from the comfort of their hotels, foreign correspondents compete to tell the world how bad things are in Israel. It's a story that the world – even the democracies – wants to hear. With little information from other Middle-Eastern nations it is easy to construct the evil straw man that the world seeks. If Israel weren't a democracy – if it didn't allow the transmission of negative information – there would be far less for the world to discuss, although they would probably denounce the country for some press limitations, even if they don't follow that policy for those countries that practice censorship now. (But Israel should act like its neighbors. It should be undemocratic. Tyranny. No LGBT tolerance. It should exclude or limit journalists. It should lower the world's expectations. Were Israel a closed society like its neighbors, with no press freedom, it would be of far less interest to some of those who now fault it.)

The press also ignore anything positive that happens in Israeli society – at least anything that reflects favorably on Jews. But they are quick to focus on the negative. There are no beheadings in Israel, so while playing down violence against Jews, reporters emphasize occasional acts against Muslims. They ignore, however, the condemnation of such acts by the government and people of Israel. Not only is that not done in the surrounding countries, but the killing of Israelis is cause for celebration, and the killers are praised as heroes for whom streets are to be named and rewards given. Were that to happen in Israel it would be justifiably condemned, yet it is considered understandable and praiseworthy among Muslims.

There is a double standard. Israel is held to a higher standard than any other nation. Even the United States seeks unilateral concessions from Israel, ones it would never accept for itself in similar circumstances. And countries that would never “turn the other cheek” if attacked demand that those who consider themselves the chosen people do so, even though that is not a Jewish teaching and it is certainly not their approach. If Israel were just another tyranny like its neighbors and forbade democratic institutions, less would be expected.

No. That is giving too much credit to haters of Western institutions. The claim that the cause of all the problems in the Middle East is Israel – that Zionism is racism – results from the long-standing hatred of Jews by others. And Zionism is a code word for Jews. In 1929 – long before there was an Israel – Arabs slaughtered large numbers of Jews in Palestine. Between sixty-five and seventy Jews were murdered in Hebron, most of them students and their teachers, with scores of others injured or maimed. The response of British authorities, who controlled the area at the time, was to remove the Jews, ostensibly for their own safety. Jewish victims were exiled from their homes. More recently the world has demanded that the Jews be removed from their homes – and this happened in Sinai and Gaza – for the benefit of the Arabs. There is always a reason to punish Jews.

Antisemitism. The world denies it and accuses the Jew of crying antisemitism whenever Israel or Jews are attacked or criticized. But seeing antisemitism in such criticisms is usually justified. It has flourished through the ages. In the past the accusations were of various types, including the spreading of disease, deicide, and the murder of Gentile children for their blood. In 2001, Daniel Bernard, as French Ambassador to the United Kingdom, was quoted as saying: "All the current troubles in the world are because of that shitty little country Israel." He added, "Why should the world be in danger of World War III because of those people?" The French Foreign Ministry defended Bernard and dismissed the charges of antisemitism.

And in 2015, a few days after others attacked the French newspaper Charlie Hebdo, a Muslim terrorist fired on and killed shoppers in a kosher delicatessen. President Obama attacked the [Muslim, though he didn't say so] assassins at the newspaper and the one in the delicatessen as “vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.” The killing of Jews by a Muslim was a random act. They shouldn't have patronized a kosher delicatessen. Jews are belittled, and Islamophobia is to be condemned.

The trouble with Israel is that it is a Jewish state. And the world does not like Jews.

Next episode: “Insanity” – Maybe not.

An Offer You Can't Refuse

“Sorry about your folks. That was a nasty little accident they were in. It's a shame they couldn't avoid it.”

“Yeah. Right. But somehow I don't think you're really sorry.”

“You got it. I don't really give a damn. Just trying to be polite. It won't happen again. By the way. This means a big inheritance for you. The business and their entire estate. A nice piece of change. Of course you'll want to give a quarter of it to us.”

“No I won't! Why should I?”

“Because I said so.ⁱ Call it a 'death tax.' And we want twenty-five percent of the business's gross receipts after that. We have ongoing expenses and it's in your best interests to help us pay our bills.”

“No it's not. This is extortion.”

“You really should watch what you say. People who shoot off their mouths sometimes regret it afterward. We got expenses and they don't come cheap. Don't think of it as your money – think of it as your life. After all, we provide you with protection and security, and a lot of other services.”

“Well I don't want all of them. I can take care of myself. And I don't want a silent partner.”

“Look, buddy. This ain't no democracy. Agree with our top man or you're out – and you know what that means. We make the rules. And if you want to take care of yourself, we'll take care of you. Understand?”

----------------------------------------------

Mafia shakedown?

No. An IRS assessment. Your government in action. There's no such thing as a free lunch; someone has to pay. And you're someone.

When the Constitution was written,ⁱⁱ both the power of taxation and the kinds of programs for which the government had to pay were quite limited. Congress was permitted only certain delimited activities, in line with the thinking of the majority of delegates to the constitutional convention. There was no income tax and the primary specified responsibility of the Federal government was the provision of defense. There was also provision for the “general welfare,” but the meaning of the term was not spelled out and both times it was usedⁱⁱⁱ it was associated with the national defense, suggesting that the “welfare” that was intended was the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property).

Times, however, have changed. I don't know the numbers and the percentages – I made them up – but the principle holds. The government can decide to fund whatever it wants and you, the taxpayer, will pick up the tab. You can complain all you want,^iv and protest the use being made of taxpayer money, but it won't do you any good. Talk is cheap, but programs are expensive.^v

Indeed. Times have changed. And perhaps we've changed with them. All three branches of government are more “liberal” than they were when America was founded. In that respect they reflect American society. We feel responsible for each other, and approve of governmental efforts to help everyone who asks. We have the luxury of speaking out and promoting virtue without it costing us anything. We're the good guys. Whether it's medical care for the uninsured, conventions and travel for our representatives and for the bureaucrats, food stamps for the poor, funding for (what the government considers) the arts, old-age pensions, transportation subsidies, provision of jobs for the unemployed, or whatever, we're all for it. That's why we have government. It will fund it.

The government is a lot like the Mafia, though. Whatever they do, it's with your money. The government isn't funding all these programs. You are. You're not getting a free ride. And they're doing it without your knowledge and consent. Sure you have representatives, but they're very much like the mob's soldiers – lots of bluster but little influence or independent authority. All you do is give them your tax money^vi and their bosses do whatever will get them votes and whatever they^vii see fit. Not that you have any choice.

After all, this ain't no democracy.

Next episode: “L'chaim” – To life.

I       Not a very good answer, but when some people say it you have to take it seriously.

ii       1789.

iii      Preamble and Article I, section 8.

iv      It's a free country, isn't it?

v       If Congress and the President approve of the program, you pay. Even if your representative voted against it, you pay. But if you voted against the representative, you pay. And if you boycotted the election and didn't vote at all, you pay. Are you beginning to see a pattern?

vi       Although you may find ways to minimize the bite – legally and otherwise. That's what accountants are for.

vii      And the lobbyists who court and support them.

The Trouble With Democracy

                                                                                                                               

We live in an age of smart phones. That's new. But we also live in an age of dumb people. That's not so new. In fact, it's always been that way.ⁱ

People speak on their phones while driving. It's illegal in many jurisdictions, but people do it anyway. Worse than that, however, there are some who text or read texts. Not only do they turn their attention away from the road like those on the telephone, but they turn their vision away as well. And even worse, now that the smart phones are capable of going on line, the drivers do the same. Until they go off road, or get into some other kind of accident.

These are the people who choose our government. So it isn't illogical to question their judgment.

Our fellow citizens, however, have other endearing traits, many of which also worry me but I'll focus on one of them as an example of a different problem. No sooner did the Affordable Care Act become law than it became apparent that scams were being developed – systems that were claimed to be designed to help people navigate through the system and benefit from it, but were in fact aimed at helping the scam artists to enrich themselves at the expense of a gullible public. And there are numerous other frauds, commonly available to those who answer the telephone at home, answer the doorbell, or use the internet. The new reality is that you can fall victim to a scam while you're driving. People are larcenous. Almost all of them to one degree or another.

It's a common pastime to “cut corners” when doing your taxes, or to lie when you're conversing. White lies – excusable ones – of course. Legality and accuracy are often considered hindrances to our daily activities and to our best interests.ⁱⁱⁱ We can't be bound by what our representatives make into laws – laws from which they are exempt, or, if that's not the case, which they, themselves, will break. We, the voters, take it for granted that all politicians are crooks. We, the voters, forget, however, that we are the ones who have elected these untrustworthy representatives. And their intelligence and morality reflect our own.

There are a lot of “bad guys” around. When we lived in the wild, under the “law of the jungle,” there was always fear of those who would steal from us or kill us, so we established societies, and gave them the authority to defend us from those within, and those outside of our country – those who might be a threat to us. At the same time we established a variety of political systems with different forms of leadership and different rules under which they operated. And these systems could often function along with each other. There were monarchy and religion, benevolent despotism and tyranny, communism and capitalism, socialism and democracy.

In our country, since we declared our independence, we have, for the most part, followed the paths of capitalism and democracy. But for democracy to work, we rely on an intelligent choice of honest leaders by those interested in making the system fair, reliable, and wise. Our electorate should be educated, and it should be eager to participate in the choice of the members of our government. Unfortunately, as Winston Churchill said, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”^iv The only part of that evaluation that is surprising to me is that it takes five minutes. The real trouble with democracy is demos, the people.^v Democracy, by definition, is the “rule of the people.” And people are no damn good.^vi All right. Perhaps I'm being too judgmental. We have to consider the other issues at play.

Indeed. Whatever happens, there really are no meaningful democracies that exist anywhere. Some governments employ democratic principles as part of their makeup, but, for the most part, we do not employ true democracy. The ideal of all of the people voting on all issues isn't even followed in Switzerland, which is famed as a “direct democracy.''^vii Although there may be a greater opportunity there than elsewhere for the public to express opinion, Switzerland is largely a representative democracy as is true of “democracies” elsewhere – a republic^viii like ours.

The most generous appraisal of the reality of the situation is that most of the citizens of these republics – indeed, most people in or out of these republics – have little knowledge of the mechanics of government. They often accept as fact anything they're told by politicians with a vested interest in being elected. People tend to attribute to elected officials both knowledge and wisdom they may not have. Consequently they are confused by the interpretations of many different “experts” who have different ideologies and give conflicting “information” and advice to the voters. Sadly, the electorate is not well informed. Churchill's average voter has a wide variety of problems working against good judgment.

But, of course, other systems are based on the participation of the same people, and the flaws of all of those systems will be just as impervious to cure as the ones that plague democracy – as long as people run them. Which means always. So however bad democracy is, and, among other things, it breeds the tyranny of the majority, the tyranny of the minority, bureaucracy, programs that mean a huge debt for our descendants, corrupt politicians, unqualified leaders, bickering, and the burdens engendered by all the human failings that we, and our representatives have, all the other systems have the same problems as well, along with their own inherent defects.

And among those “inherent defects” is the fact that the philosophy and leadership tend to be fixed or possibly inherited. So if, for example, you disagree with the philosophy and decisions of a dictator, you lose. There's no peaceful way to change things. If you live in a socialist system and have the ambition to improve your situation, you probably won't be able to move higher than someone who lacks the same drive. And if there is a state religion different from yours, you may be treated as a second class citizen if you don't convert.^ix

Churchill also declared, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."^x At least the citizens of a democracy have the right to change governments when they disagree with what is being done. They might be foolish to do so but it is their right – as long as their government remains a democracy. We can always choose the lesser of evils.

All we really need to get rid of the problem entirely, though, is to practice democracy where there are no people.

Next episode: “Amazing Greece” – How contentious it is.

i       And it's been the rule in all places as well, I'll be discussing our country primarily, but the same phenomena exist around the world. People have the same quirks, frailties, and limitations everywhere.

ii      Everybody does it.

iii     One of our prime goals is to benefit ourselves with as little effort is possible. So we're easy prey to those who want our money, just as others are seen by us as the prey who will help make us wealthy. We buy lottery tickets, go to some casino or other, take chances on accidents in order to save a few seconds, mislead those with whom we negotiate, use “sick” time when we want to get a day off and be paid for it, and other similar acts when we think we can get away with them. After all, everybody does it.

iv      In addition to being an outstanding British Prime Minister, Churchill was a well-respected warrior, painter, rhetorician, and writer. The quotation cited is one of many aphorisms that accurately described the situation in the world around him and us. Unfortunately I have not been able to locate its source.

v       A typical definition (in this case from Wikipedia) of the term is “The ordinary citizens of an ancient Greek city-state, considered as a political entity; population; the common people.” In this essay I refer to the people. It's the same root as is used in “demography.”

vi      The inspired sentiment of William Steig in The Lonely Ones, 1942.

vii     “Direct Democracy can be defined as a form or system of democracy giving citizens an extraordinary amount of participation in the legislation process and granting them a maximum of political self-determination.” So says the web site “Direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch. That definition doesn't include what many others do – a popular vote on all issues.

viii    A republic is generally considered to be a representative democracy but the term may be applied to any nation that is not a monarchy.

ix      And in some instances, even if you do.

x       From a speech in the House of Commons, November 11, 1947.

Full Of Sound And Fury

                                                                                                                                                                         

Democracy is fine. It's a noble idea. But it has limits. It confuses politicians.

The can be only one captain on a ship and one surgeon in charge of a procedure. Increase the number and disaster is certain.

The surgeon illustrates another important rule: “Right or wrong, but never in doubt.” It's said as an insult of the breed, but it carries an important truth: “He who hesitates is lost.” (Sometimes clichés hold important truths.) There are times when action, even if not perfect, is better than inaction. It also happens in war. "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed at some indefinite time in the future." That's the way General George Patton put it. But, unfortunately, the opposite is the thinking of the present.

In the past year or so, several heads of state have warned Syria about its actions. There is a civil war going on now and the use of chemical agents – which is contrary to international law, most recently the Geneva Protocol – has been proscribed by most observers. It is viewed as a particularly heinous crime when the agents are used against civilians, because it is a weapon of mass destruction (WMD). President Obama has specifically warned of action if this “red line” is crossed. Similarly, there were stern warnings from David Cameron, England's Prime Minister and from others.

The use of chemical warfare is not new. During the “First Sacred War,” between the Amphictyonic League of Delphi and Kirrha, the League poisoned Kirrha's water, using massive amounts of the crushed leaves of hellebore, a poisonous plant. It took place about 590 BCE and, not surprisingly, the league was victorious. The details of the war are not important, but the use of chemical warfare is. In fact, it is the first reported such incident. The Delphic Oracle had called for total war, and this was the result. There were no prohibitions against the use of such a weapon then and no warnings not to do so.

But now both treaties and warnings are in place, and there has been no dearth of strong censures regarding the attack last week. The Bible cautions us against “standing idly by” the blood of our brothers, but there are many who have concluded that their own ox wasn't gored so it's not our problem. It began with the British Parliament, which decided that Great Britain should stay out of it. Having joined in the effort against Iraq, which they attribute to bad US intelligence, they refuse to participate in any other action in the Middle East. It doesn't matter that their own government attests to the crime. Consequently, the Prime Minister, humiliated, and at risk of losing his job, has announced acceptance of the will of the legislators. So it's all talk and no action; long on rhetoric but short on resolution. Not the image of someone in the place that Winston Churchill once occupied. Not true grit but, sadly, true Brit.

The stain of isolationism, however, has spread across the Atlantic. President Obama, apparently fearing similar loss of popularity, has opted to let Congress take the heat for any decision against involvement. That will probably be next week. In the meanwhile we'll sit and wait. The delay, however, is not important. The President's credibility has already been badly damaged. With no immediate response to the use of chemical weapons and the killing of his own citizens, Assad has learned that a threat from the US is more bark than bite. And the rest of the world has learned the same thing. Other countries now know that they cannot rely on guarantees from us. Whatever we say, our words speak louder than our actions. Our talk is cheap. We speak loudly but carry a small stick. A word from the strong should be sufficient, but it's not if we fear to use our strength.

Most parents utilize an implied threat. “One, two, three.” If the child takes no action by then, punishment will result. Not might, but will. It only takes a demonstration once or twice for the implicit message to be understood. And parents also learn. The most important lesson is that it is counterproductive to say what you don't mean; to make a threat that you don't intend to carry out. So when a threat emerges, a prompt and credible response is warranted – not a resort to discussion and majority vote.

But that's the risk of democracy. Our leaders follow. They're not prepared to take the chance that they, or their party, will suffer from a decision they make. “Plausible deniability” and finger-pointing are the tenets of government. Those who can respond immediately are afraid to do so. In this instance our President calls on Congress to weigh in, so he can blame it for any negative results, while taking credit if the policy works. And Congress, not wanting to take any responsibility itself, will follow the polls. But when it comes to protection of minority rights, we've accepted the principle that the majority cannot always have its way. And this is one of those instances that the will of the majority is not the prime consideration.

“One, two, three” may be effective against four-year-olds, but it is not likely to be taken seriously by a tyrant. He can accomplish too much evil while we're thinking about a measured response; if we don't immediately stand by our words. After all, “sticks and stones will break my bones, but (words) will never hurt me.” There are times when the acceptance of responsibility by those in charge is superior to democracy.

Vote Early

                                                                                   

We've reviewed a few of the services that might be provided by a nationwide internet system, but there are many more – and most of them would provide additional revenues for us, although that should not be a sine qua non to justify them.

For example, the hallmark of a democracy is participation of the governed. In a “true democracy,” every citizen would have the opportunity to vote on every issue. While that may have been possible in small communities like the ancient Greek city-states, it is not practical in our modern republic, and representative democracy forms a part of a larger and more complicated system. The issues and the problems we face are far more complex and numerous than they were then,ⁱ making the casting of informed ballots on all the issues impossible. Learning all we would need to know to do so would be more than a full-time job. When citizenship was limited to the propertied with ample leisure time, and voting was considered a privilege and expectedⁱⁱ of every good citizen, and there were fewer and more clearly stated questions, that ideal was far easier to achieve.

Not so in a twenty-first century America. It's too much work to keep abreast of the issues. There are far too many of them and they're more complexⁱⁱⁱ than we can handle. So we hire full-time “representatives” – our Executive and Legislative branches – to do the learning and thinking^iv for us. That way we can ignore whatever we choose, with the knowledge that we can vote out of office anyone is “wrong” on issues important to us. That is, if we vote at all. And, unfortunately, after demanding paid time off from work in order to exercise our right to vote, too many of our citizens, whose ability to do so is not limited by the strictures of the ancients, are not motivated to cast ballots.^v Only about sixty percent of eligible voters do so in a presidential election^vi for a variety of reasons – long lines, poorly functioning voting machines,^vii a belief that one's vote doesn't really count,^viii and ignorance about the candidates and issues are among them.^ix And, of course, there are those who are lazy or simply don't care.^x

Most of th0se problems could be addressed by internet availability of whatever information is needed^xi to make an informed choice, and the ability to vote more easily and within seconds of^xii the decision to do so.^xiii A constitutional amendment eliminating the Electoral College might also give voters a greater feeling that their vote counts. And using computers issued by the government to specific individuals, there is less chance of voter fraud.^xiv The importance of the franchise, a privilege that is not universal, might be emphasized by a nominal charge (perhaps a dime, perhaps some other arbitrary amount, or even a sliding scheduled linked to your income)^xv to vote. But because voting is ordained by the Constitution, those who cannot afford the cost or are opposed to a charge on principle should be able to opt out and still vote.

A final module in the voting program should lock the machine on election day to any capability other than voting after a certain time – if that has not already been done – and only unlock it thereafter. While the votes of those who don't care or would prefer not to vote, shouldn't be forced, they should be asked to declare that in some polite way. For many who intended to vote but have forgotten, this will be a good reminder. The use of the machine should again be possible after the polls have closed so after that even those who don't vote, and don't want to say so, will be back on line.

There are numerous other potential functions that could be satisfied by a governmental internet service and I can't mention them all, and certainly not dilate on their full extent, but I must mention a few. The first is the census. At present we only conduct it every ten years but this might give us more opportunities to count thus providing us with a more up-to-date data base. Even if we keep the spacing as it is, however, it would take a lot less time and cost much less to do so. That's sure to make the Secretary of the Treasury happy. And we can also use the system to apply for passports and for other government documents. Whether they're gun permits or driver's licenses, whether Federal or State, making it possible to do some or all of the work from home will make it easier for the applicant and cheaper for the government. Win-win.

Additionally, the internet can be used for draft registration and application Social Security coverage.  And a daily National Lottery, playable at home, could be instituted.  With participation by all states and territories, the payouts would be huge.  A cut for the Federal government would make an important contribution to the Treasury.  Ideally the prizes will be smaller and much more numerous to promote spending – and that will help the economy in general.

You probably noticed that I haven't said much about everyone's favorite government agency: the IRS. I'll do that tomorrow in the penultimate installment of this series.^xvi

Until then, be a good citizen. No matter how much it hurts.

Next episode: “Taxation Without Representation” – You get what you pay for. So if we pay the IRS less … If only.

i       In large part by design.

ii      Or required.

iii    So that voters won't recognize that their tax money is being stolen and squandered, or that the authors of the various bills are as confused as they are.

iv     Imagine. We pay people to think for us. That, in itself, is worth thinking about. Let's hire a consultant.

v      The United States ranks 120th of the 169 countries for which data exists on voter turnout, falling between the Dominican Republic and Benin, according to a January 2012 study from the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.

vi   According to Michael McDonald, a political scientist at George Mason University. Citation by LiveScience.

vii   All kinds of regulations and specifications have been imposed recently to ensure greater efficiency in the voting process. Maybe it's just me, but they seem to be slower and more dinosaur-like than ever before, and they seem to require more (paid) staff than in the past. Perhaps that was the intent.

viii   The Electoral College is among the reasons for that. Because the President is not elected by popular vote, and the candidates and their fiscal supporters focus primarily on “swing” states, there are many votes that really don't count. That's one reason, but not the only one. In some states the “result” is announced by the media in advance of the election. Of course it's only an educated (or wishful) guess, but it's enough to convince many people not to “waste” their time.

ix    There are some who don't believe there's much of a difference between the parties and they don't wish to vote for the lesser of evils.

x     One individual commented on the internet that he didn't vote so the government wouldn't get his name for the jury list. He didn't want to participate in the judging of others in as evil a judicial system as there is in this country. He then spent several paragraphs expounding on all of America's faults. It was sad that he was forced to stay here when he could be an illegal immigrant in some more honorable country.

xi      Including political statements and other propaganda.

xii     At home.

xiii  Since the computers will be portable, absentee ballots won't be needed. You can vote wherever you are. And if you won't be carrying your machine, you can program it, before you leave home, to cast your ballot on Election Day. Even the military can set up computer voting stations so a delayed count will not be required and the results can be tabulated as soon as voting hours are over.

xiv   The program should include the opportunity for other family members to register and vote, and there must be a voting program that assures that there will be anonymity. Who can vote will be limited, but the choices will never be connected with the individuals.

xv    That's not likely to bring in very much to the government, but a penny here and a penny there … Senator Everett Dirkson is reputed to have said: “A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money.” That kind of thinking by our representatives is how we got into this mess.

xvi   The last – which will discuss some of the profits to be made by ridding ourselves of a few of our functions – will appear on March 17, 2013. Stay tuned.

One Liners

(Second in an ongoing – though irregular – series on proposed Constitutional changes.

This particular proposal will be continued next week.)

Have you watched television recently (where “recently” means “in the last few decades”)? Or gone to a “comedy club?” Humor has been reduced to a succession of one line zingers rather than any coherent attempt to tell a story or build to an amusing conclusion.ⁱ If the joke isn't delivered in a few words and in a very short time, the audience may fall asleep or change the channel.

And the politicians have learned from them.ⁱⁱ The message is condensed and usually designed to (mis)characterize the opponent rather than to outline any positive approach to a problem. So we receive multiple glossy mailings which argue against electing someone, rather than clear statements of a candidate's proposals. And many of the negative mailings are unsigned, so they can be easily disowned by those who are actually promoting the attack.

The pattern is also apparent in the public statements of candidates who are trying to gain points at the expense of their opponents. And they, too, tend to fall into the zinger mold. It's almost childish.

“A Conservative is a Liberal who's been mugged.”

“A Liberal is a Conservative who's been indicted.”

“My father can lick your father.”

All we can seem to do is to find different ways to insult each other. That is certainly the pattern in political rhetoric. Rather than engage in courteous discourse and discussion, we simply “diss.” There used to be an expression, “Politics stops at the water's edge.” It was first enunciated in 1947 by Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg during President Truman's first term, and indicated that while we may not share the same values, all Americans should be united when it came to dealing with the world.

The obvious implication – and nothing could be closer to the truth – is that we were not united at home. For that is what politics is all about. Nonetheless, despite disagreements about policies, the parties found a way to work together in the long run.

Sadly, at least publicly, we no longer have any kind of political cooperation – either for domestic or foreign policy. The predictable pattern is that the party out of power will do its best to paralyze the government until it can take over. Then, of course, it will be paralyzed by the party it replaced. The old saw, “Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country,” no longer has currency. Our “leaders” place their own positions above that of their country.

Voters are acutely aware of the problem. They decry the failure of politicians to cooperate. But while they are angry over the inaction and obstruction of the parties, they usuallyⁱⁱⁱ reelect their own representatives. Having the choice of representatives, therefore, is a prescription for Congressional failure. Our system doesn't seem to be doing the job.^iv

There are alternatives, however. They're not all logistically viable though. Direct democracy, in which all voters consider and vote on all issues is somewhat more plausible than it used to be, since computers are so widespread. It would make life more difficult for lobbyists, but it's likely they would find a way to advertise their message on the same computers, and to influence voters that way.^v The large number of issues to be decided, however, and the need for discussion of them all, even if there were time to do so, and even if the voters had adequate background to understand the problems, would make such procedures impossible. It would also be impossible to maintain the necessary secrecy to run a government properly, and the required expertise to make the rapid decisions often needed.

Another possibility would be to strengthen the Executive branch of the government; to give the President and his Cabinet the authority to make more of the decisions necessary to run the country. Decisions could be reached quickly and without partisan debate and stalling. That would mean weakening Congress, but Congress is unpopular anyway, and its judgment is not trusted. Of course, the President's popularity is also quite variable. But his power would increase considerably with such a system. And, as we all know, power corrupts. Indeed, the American Revolution came about because of the great power of George III and his Parliament. We abhorred monarchy and we established a representative democracy to replace it.

Perhaps we'd be better off if we pared down the charge of Congress. As Thoreau put it, “That government is best which governs least.”^vi And Emerson wrote “The less government we have, the better.” Some of the programs we now have are dysfunctional, so this approach might deal with that reality. But another reality is that in the over two centuries since the Constitutional Convention forwarded a much less ponderous proposal to the states than the government and the laws which control our daily lives, we have developed an unwieldy complex of laws, regulations, bureaus, and commissions. Fortunately none of these commissions has full control of our lives.^vii The wisdom of the Founding Fathers' decision to balance three branches of government is evident, even if the execution of their plan has been defective. And because of all the laws now in place, it is clear that, at least at this point, minarchy^viii is equally undesirable. We can't all go it alone. The government owns too much of us.

Some countries have a different approach to democracy, however, and it is one we should consider. Those countries elect parties and party lists, with the distribution of legislative seats based on the percentage of the vote the party gets. Since the lists are national, this doesn't really qualify as representative democracy, although the people do elect “representatives” to the legislature. However the people chosen are less likely to be linked to local parties and causes, and they have less reason to support any local group. Ideally, their concern is national. Perhaps we should consider such a system.

So anyway, this married politician walked into a bar with his mistress. Wait. That's not funny. I'll expand on the last idea above – the one about national lists – next week. I don't view that idea as comical, but the married politician might. Or he may see it as frightening.

Next episode: “One Liners – Part Two” – The case for national elections of representatives.

i     The difference between a humorist and a comic is that the “humorist” (who is now out of style) is more likely to be subtle, droll, and inventive. His goal is to amuse you – to make you smile. The “comic” is more “in your face” – eager to have you rolling on the floor, even if you can't remember why a moment later.

ii     Rather than having learned from them, some may view politicians as comics (or jokes themselves), but I won't pursue that evaluation.

iii    Usually, not always. Nonetheless, a majority of senators and representatives are reelected even though the approval rate for Congress is low. At last count it was nine percent. The same poll that generated that statistic noted that eleven percent of Americans favored Communism. Communism was more popular than Congress.

iv    Even though we view our system as the best in the world, it doesn't work. Only a minority of citizens vote. Our parties resist compromise, being more focused on crafting a platform for the next election than in governing. And our “representatives” seem to be more interested in themselves and in the next election as well – voting on the basis of what can they use to convince voters to support them. Or on the basis of what will raise their pensions or bring them bribes. But maybe the operative word is “seem,” and we've misjudged them.

v     And they'd still court whoever got elected.

vi    A similar sentiment had been made a few years earlier by John Louis O'Sullivan, who wrote, in an editorial in The United States Magazine and Democratic Review, “The best government is that which governs least.” Both versions are quoted frequently.

vii    At least not yet.

viii   Libertarianism is the closest thing we have to what used to be known as “classical liberalism.”

The New Egypt

 

There's a new wind blowing through the Middle East. It is the wind of change, and it's called the Arab Spring. There are uprisings in several countries, and old leaders are being overthrown. The changes result from the frustration of the populations – populations long dominated by dictators whose main interest was in maintaining their own power. And the populations suffered under such rule, with poverty and repression, conditions which finally resulted in rebellion.

What the people in the affected countries proclaimed was a wish for democracy. It was a form of government what the United States had long wished to spread. We proselytized the rule of the people, but, simultaneously, we often supported the dictatorships. In a world where conflicts between nations can affect political power, it's best to have as many allies as possible. And quantity is more important than quality. Numbers count. A dictatorship that favors you is better than a democracy that opposes you.

And the American model of democracy is one that many find confusing – especially in places that have never had a tradition of democracy. The idea that a minority may have rights seemingly contradicts the whole idea of elective government. What's the point of popular rule if there are those who don't have to follow the popular rules. In addition, while we may proscribe the involvement of religious doctrine in our government and laws, for many it is second nature to accept theological teachings as the basis for all aspects of life. They will favor the imposition of those teachings on others as part of the basic law. And they will do so democratically, even if their understanding of those doctrines, and their votes, simply mimic the ideas of the local cleric. Whether they mimic what is a proper understanding of their religious law or a biased impression is unimportant. They want what they are told to want, and they expect everyone else to want the same thing. Or at least to follow the laws as they are imposed.

Egypt is a good example of this kind of democracy. Christians may represent 10 to 20% of the Egyptian population,ⁱ but they must follow the same rules. And they will never win an election. So they will have to tolerate the edicts of Islam and Muslim clerics – if they want to live in peace. Even so, they will still suffer discrimination. The Egyptian “democracy” will be no more than a theocracy. And the killing of Christians will be tolerated.

One evidence of this is the threat – one which is likely to turn into a reality – is that oil from Sinai will be more difficult and expensive for Israel to obtain. When Israel, after it was attacked by the Egyptians in 1973, and as part of a peace treaty, returnedⁱⁱ the largest piece of captured Arab territoryⁱⁱⁱ, it included the Alma oil field which Israel had discovered and developed, and by doing so in the name of peace, gave up an asset that would have allowed itself to be self sufficient in terms of energy by 1990.^iv According to the New York Times,^v “An arrangement was also made to insure Israel a right to buy oil from the fields without interruption” but, of course, that insurance, and the return to Egypt of land, and of an oil field which had never existed, guaranteed nothing. According to Reuters, “Egypt's Prime Minister Essam Sharaf said a peace deal with Israel was not 'sacred' and could be changed for the benefit of peace or the region.” Egypt's definition of “the region,” presumably means a region without Israel.

There's a new wind blowing, but there's a lot that's old as well. The antagonism of the Egyptians toward the Jews hearkens back to biblical times – long before there was a State of Israel – so it is reasonable to be suspicious of claims from Egypt that the establishment of Israel is the source of current problems and that it can abrogate a previous agreement for the benefit of the region.

And lest anyone believe that Egypt's argument is with Israel and not the Jews, the actions Egypt is taking to block the export of lulavim^vi will clearly affect Jews around the world. It has nothing to do with Israel. Even if they relent,^vii the point has been made. The Jews are the target. The wind may be new, but the bias is old. Antisemitism has existed for millennia, and the politics of the Middle East includes it. A “democratic” decision among believing Muslims would include this doctrine. From childhood, believing Muslims have been so indoctrinated. The region, with the exception of Israel, understands “democracy” differently from the way we do. But despite this we shall woo her, and all of the other governments that are blown in on the new wind as well.

However the new Egypt is really the old one; the wind, an ill one. Danny Kaye said of the oboe, that it was an ill wind that no one blew good. An ill wind blows in Egypt. It is called democracy. But the bluster of antisemitism, however popular, will be played well^viii by those who are coming into power. The Arab Spring cleaning is simply a substitution of leaders, not of prejudices.

i     Estimates vary. Hard numbers are difficult to obtain in a tyranny or a country in the midst of a revolution.

ii    In 1979.

iii    91% of the territory captured in the Six Day War.

iv   Jewish Virtual Library: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/peace_with_Egypt.html

v     March 27, 1979.

vi    Palm branches used as part of the ritual for the Jewish holiday of Sukkot.

vii   They cost themselves money by refusing to sell the palm branches.

viii   But not for good.