Violence In America

The more I read – especially American history and the news about modern America – the less I understand. We are a society built on violence, from our Revolution and our use of weapons to ensure our “manifest destiny,” to the present situation. Add to that some wars and the use of firearms to oppress those of our people who were weaker than we. More recently there have been mass killings of American citizens using such weapons, and yet we are surprised.

Our founders were also concerned about firearms, but their fear was that the government might dominate us and take away our weapons. To prevent that from happening they passed the Bill of Rights – specifically the Second Amendment – that guaranteed that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Supreme Court, discounting the language that “A well regulated Militia (emphasis added), being necessary to the security of a free State …,” which was the justification for the guarantee, ruled that we all had the right to guns. I don't agree with that decision but it is the law of the land and I must respect it. It is my view that, while, perhaps, gun ownership cannot be denied, it should be far better regulated than it is at present. But that should be accomplished by legal means.

The latest massacres, most recently in Orlando, make it clear that we have failed to take the proper steps to limit the availability of firearms – actions I believe we must take. Those actions, however, should honor our heritage and our laws, and we cannot use extralegal means to assuage our hysteria.

According to today's Wall Street Journal, two bills to achieve some gun control, which had the support of a majority of Senators, failed to receive “the 60 votes needed to clear procedural hurdles.” I'm unclear what “procedural hurdles” prevent the forwarding of a bill to the President for signature or veto, but the majority no longer seems to rule. And many of the opponents of the bills, demanding the limitation of Constitutional rights without any judicial review, a limitation based on FBI “suspicion” of terrorism, were among those arguing against the review of e-mail on on the basis of “suspicion” of terrorism, often also opposing, simply on the basis of police “suspicion,” the use of “stop and frisk” laws which likewise had the potential to yield weapons and prevent violence.

The two problems I see are the inconsistent regard for judicial review on the basis of suspicion, and the idea that a majority vote isn't adequate. It appears there are many who are troubled by the existence of Constitutional requirements for a separation of powers and checks and balances when the guarantees in our founding documents don't favor their own political perspectives.

In the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution, John Adams declared that we had a “government of laws, not of men,” but the concept that our officials are responsible for following the law is not currently in vogue. We have reached a point where “interpretation” of the laws is more important than the observance of what legislators have written, and when a strong executive has unilaterally arrogated the power of decision-making – limiting the choices of the legislative branch and of the people whom they represent. Perhaps the President's instincts are correct (I personally don't think so) but voters don't get the chance to make that decision. The best they can hope for is the opportunity to include his executive decisions along with the many other factors they consider in the next Presidential election, and by that time they are already faits accompli.

But it's too late then. If we need to change the Constitution, let's do it. If we need to pass legislation that will better regulate our practices, we deserve the right to encourage our legislators to do so. In the meantime, however, we should follow the laws and practices that we now have on the books. We need government of laws. And we need our elected legislators to take whatever steps are necessary to protect their prerogatives and our freedom.

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.”