The American Constitution

One of the most remarkable political documents ever formulated was the American Constitution. Because it was written in a new country – one that had just broken with its past – there were few constraints on the methods it chose to deal with the problems it faced and the ones it foresaw. And it has remained in place to this day, though not without many changes – both those which came about by the means it prescribed, and those which had their origins otherwise.

Our nation was founded as a result of perceived tyranny; at least that was the sense of many of the white men who lived in the colonies. There was no interest in the perceptions of women and even less in the views of non-Caucasians. The governing document was formulated in secret by a small number of representatives of the individual colonies who, after a good deal of argument, agreed on a compromise document that was acceptable to a majority, even if it wasn't viewed as ideal by any of them. It was then presented to the voters of the colonies – a minority of their residents – on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. The decision was to take it, although the Constitution's promoters were forced to agree to the formulation of a Bill of Rights that would be added as the first order of business of the new government.

Even if the new system was less than many wanted, however, it was greatly superior to anything that had existed before. Its writers scorned the idea of monarchy and rejected in general the concept of classes or of any hereditary status.ⁱ There were provisions that would minimize the authority of religion in public life, while simultaneously preventing the government from involving itself in the religions of our country's citizens. Much was made of the responsibility of the new country to protect those citizens. In short, the new document was, from a political standpoint, far to the left of what it replaced.ⁱⁱ The origination of a modern liberal democracyⁱⁱⁱ as an antidote to tyranny required a new “rulebook” to provide its structure.

Much has happened since the late eighteenth century – in philosophy, economics, politics, history, and sociology, among other fields – and America has remained at the forefront of republics based on representative democracy. Our Constitution has endured as the solid backbone of our political body. But that body and its backbone have aged and have changed with the passing years.

The changes have come about primarily by two mechanisms. There has been amendment, as was authorized in Article V – a method which has given us, among other things, the Bill of Rights, popular election of senators, and guidelines for equality of the races and the sexes. But more recently there has also been extensive alteration in the Constitution based on a changed understanding by the Courts of the document's meaning. Often their interpretations reflected social changes corresponding to our citizens' wishes – but not always. Still the Courts see hints in the Constitution of rights not specifically listed or, in the view of many of our citizens, even suggested. And it has found prohibitions not apparent to many.

But the world has changed, and a document aimed at needs and beliefs which held sway nearly two and a half centuries ago has required updating. What was unique then can no longer make such a claim. What was a “left-leaning” charter then is now the centerpiece and jewel of the debate for those on the “right.” Whether that is a good or a bad thing it has come about in a haphazard manner often without the agreement of the people ruled by it. As such, it often establishes law without the consent of the governed. And we sought and obtained our independence because we viewed that as intolerable.

There are strong feelings about the solution to the problem – indeed, about the very nature of the problem. For many of our citizens the proper response to the current situation is to keep the Constitution we have, although they believe it should be enforced according to the original intent of the Founding Fathers.^iv The amendments, which have become inherent elements, were incorporated according to the rules provided to do so, and, therefore, are valid and obligatory for us. But perhaps positions taken based on the interpretations^v of Supreme Court Justices and others, and never ratified by “We the People of the United States,” lack the authority to bind us.

Others consider the acceptance of the interpretations and the views of legal scholars to be a proper way to adapt the document to a changing world and a changing culture. And they consider the present system of the balance of powers to be outdated. For them a stronger executive^vi is needed in order to run the country efficiently in the current difficult and threatening times, and to provide leadership and change when Congress does not act in a manner he^vii deems rapid enough, or in the national interest. Many would also make explicit^viii many of the rights which have been assumed and implemented over the centuries – often without obvious basis in the Constitution.

Still others regard the entire document to be flawed and in need of replacement. They might strengthen the states or weaken them. They might eliminate the right to bear arms or they might outlaw it entirely. Perhaps they would actively define “personhood” or “marriage” or even “rights.” For many of them, any action short of starting from scratch would be inadequate. It cannot be ignored that the founders provided for change because they knew that the document as written would require modification from time to time. Some believed that the explicit consent of the governed would be necessary, and that our fathers' laws were not binding on us.^ix

There is fear that any attempt to change the Constitution would get out of hand. It is a valid and a very ominous concern. But similar fears existed when it was first written and we are the better because our predecessors took the risk. Change is never easy for a single individual, and it will be an extraordinary achievement if our close to 320 million population can reach some kind of agreement. But perhaps now is the time to discuss the advisability of such an action and, if that is the path we choose to take, the way we do so.

Next episode: “For The Sake Of Our Children” – Live now so they can thrive later.

I        At least officially.

ii       Admittedly the concept of “left” “right” political division originated during the French Revolution, after the United States had separated from England, but the terms describe the political shift that occurred when the American Revolution came about.

iii      More accurately, a republic.

iv       Whether we actually know their intent is debatable, but there are many who are convinced that the views they hold are the ones to which the founders subscribed.

v        And biases.

vi       A king, perhaps.

vii      Or she.

viii     Some would prefer to reject or limit.

ix       Of Thomas Jefferson, Cass R. Sunstein wrote in BloombergView,

“In a 1789 letter to Madison, he argued that 'no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation.' Every constitution, he held, 'naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.'

“In 1816, specifically rejecting Madison’s hope for veneration, Jefferson lamented, 'Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched.' He feared a situation in which people would 'ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment.'

“Trying to humanize the founding generation, he said, 'It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present.' When “new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.'

“'The dead,' he contended, 'have no rights.'”


NB:  My contrary opinion will appear on August 26th.  I can't make up my mind.

There She Is, Myth America

American history is draped in mythology. The drapings are, of course, a mixture of red, white and blue, but the mythology, itself, is pure white.ⁱ Whether Parson Weems or a modern text, the history is intermixed with unprovable – often invented – stories that add to the image of a great nation – a nation with a glorious mission – one with a Manifest Destiny. And, daily, the myths increase.

That shouldn't come as a great surprise. All societies remember their pasts with a luster that often exceeds reality, but one that answers the great inevitable questions in a way that both engages and honors us and our forebears.

Few history books will mention, for example, that George Washington was a poor generalⁱⁱ or that Alexander Hamilton was probably a British agent.ⁱⁱⁱ Most will gloss over the fact that although Thomas Jefferson was a strong advocate against slavery, he was, himself, a slave owner. My intent is to deal with what actually happened – at least to the extent that we can so long after the events – not to belittle our Founding Fathers. Their greatness is undeniable. The documents upon which they founded this nation,^iv and the nation which has developed following the outline they put in place, are of unmistakable brilliance. Both are masterful products of their time, and those who fashioned them must not be judged by us. They acted, too, in accordance with the principles of their times, and they not only did the best they could, but they did a superb job.

But that's the point. They, and the founding documents, were products of their time. And we live in different times. Sooner or later those documents will have to be reviewed and revised to reflect the times in which we live.

“Jefferson also believed – uniquely – that this world belongs, solely, to the present generation. Hence, every twenty years or so, new laws should be promulgated at a constitutional convention. A grown man he noted in his best biblical parable style, should not be forced to wear a boy's jacket.”^v

Jefferson's view was acknowledged in what eventually was termed Federalist Paper number 49, although James Madison, who wrote that “letter,”^vi opposed constitutional conventions. And Jefferson was not alone in believing that the Constitution – the script for the great American drama – which we have come to revere, would have to be brought up to date periodically. There were many who recognized that a perfect document was not achievable at that, or any time, and that amendments would be required periodically.

The United States is one of the greatest countries on earth.^vii It is strong, rich, and the kind of place to which people from around the globe want to go. Some risk their lives to do so. And it exists because those who founded it endowed it with a governing document that was unique – one that has served as a model for other nations since then. But the mythology surrounding the founding itself and the documents employed to do so, as well as the virtue and wisdom of the founders, clouds the fact that however great they may have been, however far they may have been ahead of their time, they were fallible human beings of the eighteenth century. They were products of that age, but their time was not the twenty-first century in which we live.^viii Jefferson was right. “A grown man … should not be forced to wear a boy's jacket.”

The two major political parties have created their own “realities,” or, more accurately, their own mythologies. They have expressed exaggerated views of their own virtues and, very much in evidence at election times, frightening characterizations of the evils of their opponents. And the parties tend to become even more confrontational following election. The three branches of government, like the political parties, compete rather than cooperate. Each works hard to increase its own influence, leaving the mythical “We the People” out of the loop. Although our Constitution provides for a form of democracy, the reality is that the “representative” democracy our founders gave us is not representative of anyone but the politicians themselves. Having promised us solutions to all the problems we face, our representatives, once in office, focus on the next election rather than on our needs. The Executive branch of our government claims to lead, but its members are more likely to say what poll-takers tell them will sell, and after election they go on to assert their power and act as they see fit. And those of our Judiciary, who may never face an election, are free to follow their own views, irrespective of the wishes of the people they are supposed to serve.

The ability to review the mythology, however, and, if necessary, to change it, is built into our system.

Article IV

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.

The Constitution, which we sometimes view as sacred, provides for measured changes. No more should be necessary since its authors saw it as the answer to our country's problems and a solid basis for an infinite future of liberty.

But it was written illegally. The convention from which it emerged had been asked to amend the inadequate Articles of Confederation – not to write a new document. And we are as free as they to rewrite the Constitution rather than amend it if there are enough changes that need to be made, and if individual amendments will either not accomplish our wishes or will, because of their large numbers, either take too long or prove too burdensome to accomplish. It may take historical revisionists to correct our mythology, but a united citizenry – one fed up with current bickering and manipulation of the system to suit the needs of those who are supposed to work for us – has the ability, at least in theory, to invent our own future and the mythology that surrounds it. Whether we have the will to do so, though, is a different question. Probably not, because it's easier to live by the rules of an imagined past.

Next episode: “Gossip” – Some words to the wise guys.

i     The word refers to the purity of the story only, not to the harsh realities of our history. No defense of “racial purity” is intended. Indeed, it shouldn't be overlooked that racial politics spawned a separate mythology designed to justify the indefensible practice of slavery.

ii    Fortunately he was a patriot. He was honest and politically savvy even if he was a poor soldier.

iii    Recognizing the greatness of the work he did in establishing this country, we can only assume that he believed a close association with Great Britain would be beneficial to our survival. Whatever other motives he may have had, and notwithstanding disagreements we have had – and even a war – we have found our alliance with England to be mutually beneficial. In Hamilton's time, moreover, the (American) colonies had many supporters in the British government. England, to a degree, was just as happy to be rid of the colonies which had become a major financial burden, detracting from her hostilities with France.

iv    Primarily the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The efforts of James Madison in writing the latter document are also noteworthy.

v     From Inventing a Nation by Gore Vidal, 2003, Yale University Press, New Haven & London. Page 14.

vi    The Federalist Papers originally appeared as newspaper letters signed by “Publius,” but written by Madison, Hamilton, and John Jay.

vii    Some will take issue with this assessment, and that is understandable. They cannot, however, argue with the specific qualifications I mention in the next few sentences.

viii   In this electronic age – one never foreseen by eighteenth century politicians – both the tools and the rules have changed. See Constitution 3.0, by Rosen and Wittes (eds), Brookings Institution Press, 2011.

One Liners – Part Two

Last week I raised the issue of elections, and the difficulties in our current system – considered to be one of representative democracy. As I noted then, several countries choose parties and their slates, rather than specific representatives for particular districts. It's a system very different from ours – but it might be a way to deal with some of the problems we now endure. The core idea is that currently we tolerate an arrangement that allows the two major parties to fight with each other – to prevent needed legislation as they jockey for position in the next election – and suffer no consequences for it. Since we elect local representatives – individuals who are rarely held responsible for Congressional failures – the swings back and forth don't always reflect the true degree of dissatisfaction with the political parties and their actions,ⁱ as a national vote for parties would do.

It is with this in mind that I offer a proposal to deal with a system based on a Constitution written in the eighteenth century. The proposal would obviously require changes in that document, but that would be a healthy development from time to time anyway. Other changes are included in the proposal in keeping with our present situation and with twenty-first century technology, but it is important to recognize that it only deals with the election of Congress – not with any changes in the Executive or Judiciary branches of our government.ⁱⁱ The goal is to make the political parties more responsive to the wishes of the electorate, while not compromising the rights of the minority. The proposal is meant as a starting point for discussion; I know that many points will be viewed as unacceptable or impractical.

The first area to be considered relates to parties themselves. There is no mention of parties in the Constitution. Representation in the bicameral legislature was to be based on local as well as national needs. Senators were to be chosen by state legislatures to ensure the protection of state needs and congressmen by individual voters. With representation set at one for no fewer than 30,000 voters, it was hoped that these representatives would somehow reflect the populations from which they came, even though a representative could not be expected to know all 30,000 people.

But neither arrangement has really worked out. A constitutional amendment followed,ⁱⁱⁱ allowing the popular election of senators, and representation at present is, on average, about one per 718,500.^iv And that means, of course, that for many districts even larger populations are “served” by a single Congressman. There is no way that such a person reflects the population in his district. In fact, both Senators and Representatives are more likely to respond to party leaders than to their constituents. And the parties are more interested in scoring points than in legislating – unless they fear political repercussions from their tactics. Hence the lack of cooperation between them.

So the reality is that the idea of local representation is illusory, even though members of Congress may attempt to get benefits for local constituents and pressure groups. What is transpiring is a battle of party political philosophies. And the soldiers are representatives of the parties, not the people. It seems logical to acknowledge that reality and use it for our own purposes. If, in a shortened campaign season, the parties presented the voters with statements of their philosophies^v – statements that could be reviewed at the time of the next election – the election could be for the parties directly, and based on vision rather than vituperation, and the parties,^vi knowing that they, rather than local representatives, would be judged, might be persuaded to cooperate with each other and actually accomplish something rather than simply posture.

Since the “representatives” are unlikely to know many of the voters, the continuation of the pretense makes no sense.^vii Parties^viii should present lists of their candidates for the (unicameral^ix) legislature along with biographical information and their proposals, and voters should prioritize the candidate lists in primaries. The answers of all candidates to a set of questions formulated by an independent nonpartisan group would also help in such prioritization. And with no particular constituency, there would be no reason for separate direct appeals to the voters.^x But, based on the information provided in the media, voters should be able to prioritize all candidate lists, irrespective of the voter's party enrollment – a practice that is likely to move the best, most flexible, and least ideological candidates, to the top of the lists of all parties. If a particular candidate is seeking reelection, previous promises, and previous questions and answers should be presented to the voters so that prioritization and voting can be more educated.^xi The voting, then, should be for a party, and the number of seats assigned in the legislature should be proportional to the total party votes.

It would make sense if all prioritization and voting were done by computer.^xii Social Security numbers and passwords could be used for voter identification, and voting could be done at home, or in a public setting established for those who cannot do it elsewhere. Election “Day” should take place over a few days, on a twenty-four hour basis. The need for an Election Day holiday would be obviated – a benefit to our economy.^xiii The election season – the time between the choice of candidates and the final election – should be shortened. Since those who would be candidates will be on a party list, they need not make appeals to voters nor have tiresome debates. And with computer voting the results would be almost instantaneous.

Efforts should be made to increase voting, but it should not be made mandatory. Perhaps a tax discount could be given voters – a discount which increased (to a point) with regular voting. It might mean that some other tax adjustments would be necessary to keep it revenue neutral, but it would encourage participation in suffrage and in the education of citizens both to the issues and to the process of democracy. A method might also be formulated to relate the tax benefit to the reading of biographies and platforms, a linkage that might result in better educated voters.

Another educational tool that might be of value would require the establishment of a non-partisan citizens' commission which could review all proposed legislation and publicize any special benefits received by an individual or group or by a particular geographical entity. No judgment need be made, but voters should know how, and for whom, their money is being spent.^xiv This would be a counterforce to lobbying, and might influence both the party associated with the specific benefit, and the politicians involved – politicians who might be dropped by the party in future elections, or whose priority might be changed by the voters in the next primary.^xv In addition, both the recipients and the supporters of such benefits should be given the opportunity (or perhaps required) at the time to justify the special benefit.

In the end, citizens would be better informed and the voting process would be easier. They would ultimately cast a single vote for a party, and, with a limitation of those parties, if candidates were listed on the final ballot at all they would appear in only one place. They would be one-liners.

Next episode: “Baby Face” – Do they all look like Winston Churchill?

i      See footnote iii in last week's essay.

ii     And it only deals with national government, not state or local administrations. I deal with the Executive, the Judiciary, and other matters, in previous and future messages.

iii    The seventeenth.

  

iv    According to the US Census Bureau, the population at present is about 312,700,000. With 435 Representatives, we average about 718,500 individuals for each one, and 6,254,000 for each state's Senators.

v     Perhaps in addition each party should be able to submit a few questions to the other parties, to be answered in a limited space and published by the media.

vi    It would not be unreasonable for the parties to place advertisements describing their positions, however individual candidates' names should not appear. For the education of the voters, the cost of each advertisement should be included in it.

vii    Local issues can be addressed at the state level. No change is proposed for local and statewide elections. The states should manage their own affairs and systems as long as the Constitution's Bill of Rights is respected. On the subject of the states, consideration should be given to block grants to the states (based on population, unemployment rate, average income, etc.) for local needs to be decided on locally rather than as “pork-barrel” projects slipped into national bills. That may decrease the amount of lobbying and the involvement of national government in local problems.

viii   The number of parties on the final election ballot should be limited, perhaps to three. Voters should have the opportunity in the primary to prioritize the parties with only the top ones listed on the ballot. Party write-ins would be permitted, but individual candidate names would not be listed. A party receiving over a specified percentage of the vote would be on the ballot for the next election, even if that meant more than the usual number.

ix     It does not seem necessary to have separate Senators and Representatives when neither has any particular association with a specific constituency. Two houses could be elected, however, if people were more comfortable with that arrangement.

x      A welcome side effect – however unlikely it may be – would be the decrease in the number of political mailings.

xi    Positions, promises, and performance are likely to be affected by public opinion so it is important that minority rights be protected since there will be the temptation to pander to the majority. The Bill of Rights should be strengthened, rather than threatened.

xii     With safeguards to ensure the secrecy of the ballot.

xiii    Some unions may see matters otherwise, but since only a minority of citizens vote – and that includes union members – a holiday, with all its service disruptions and economic consequences, makes no sense.

xiv    In a previous essay, “The Council Of Wise Folks,” I suggested a slightly different mechanism to achieve this aim. I think both are worth considering. Whatever method is chosen, candidates should be invited to comment on the projects cited, especially if they were involved in bring them about.

xv     In the unlikely event that the act may be approved by voters, those involved would benefit.

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.”