Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the President is required to report to Congress on the "state of the union" from time to time. This has evolved into a tradition of a grand speech by the President at the beginning of the year, in which the chief executive lays out his legislative agenda and highlights the achievements of his administration and the challenges facing the country. It is usually aired live by all major networks and cable news stations, becoming a grand media event.
It hasn't always been this way. George Washington and John Adams gave speeches to Congress, but Thomas Jefferson refused to do so, sending only written messages instead. This may have simply been due to shyness and the fact that Jefferson was a very poor public speaker. But Jefferson also believed that the State of the Union address had the appearence of a monarchial ceremony, similar to the Speech from the Throne that the British sovereign gave at the opening of every Parliament.
The country would be well-advised to go back to Jefferson's style of having the President merely send a written message and not elevating the State of the Union address into a public spectacle. After all, one of the most disturbing trends in American history over the last several decades has been the emergence of executive supremacy, and the steady rising of the office of President of the United States into an institution increasingly appearing to be a monarch. An elected monarch, to be sure, but still a monarch.
In Jefferson's mind, the President of the United States was merely the chief officer of the executive branch of the federal government. Nothing more, nothing less. While more powerful and possessing greater responsibilities, the President is no more worthy of elaborate ceremonial trappings than any local mailman. If Jefferson could see the elevation of the State of the Union address in the public spectacle it has become, he would be a bit disappointed in us.
The gradual elevation of the President of the United States into a de facto monarch is one of the most distressing trends in American history. Believing that the people of the country are the sovereign power, the simple fact of the matter is that Congress, and not the President, is supposed to be the supreme organ of the federal government, as it has the closest contact with the people themselves. Every American knows the name of the President, but shockingly few know the name of any of their representatives in Congress.
In an ideal Jeffersonian republic, the President should send a written State of the Union message to Congress, which would be reprinted in the newspapers and read with interest by all citizens. But the public addresses the people would really pay attention to would be those of their own congressional representative at town hall meetings.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Saturday, January 23, 2010
President Obama's Response to Recent Supreme Court Decision
This blog has more than its fair share of problems with President Obama, not least of which is the massive deficit spending of his administration. But in his weekly radio address today, President Obama responded to Thursday's decision by the Supreme Court to overthrow all limits to corporate spending on political campaigns and he hit the nail right on the head.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Supreme Court Decision on Campaign Finance an Outrage
Yesterday, the Supreme Court overturned critical campaign finance laws regulating political campaign contributions from corporations. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, the brainchild of Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), had limited how much corporations could spend on political campaign advertising and imposed other restrictions specific to the final days of a campaign. Other campaign finance laws going back nearly a century had already limited the ability of corporations to directly fund election campaigns. Yesterday's decision, however, will allow massive amounts of corporate and labor union money to flood the electoral process all over the country, drowning out the voice of the people.
Somewhere, the ghost of Alexander Hamilton is laughing.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that placing restrictions on political campaign spending by corporations represents a violation on free speech. This is, of course, utter nonsense. Natural rights such as the right to free speech are possessed by human beings, not artificial entities like corporations. A corporation has no more an inherent right to donate to a political campaign than does a puddle of water.
The idea of corporate personhood is an insidious legal concept that should be rejected with maximum prejudice. After all, can the entity known as "Bank of America" or "Walmart" walk into a county courthouse and register to vote?
If the executives of a corporation want to donate their own money to a political campaign, they are as free to do so as any other citizen. But they have no moral right, and should have no legal right, to rob the company coffers of shareholder money and funnel it to political candidates their shareholders may or may not support. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous on the face of it. The same, by the way, is true of labor union bosses using the funds of the union members.
Beyond the abstract outrages inherent in this court decision, its practical impact is likely to be extremely damaging to American democracy. Without any restrictions, corporations will be able to use their gargantuan financial weight to flood the airwaves and mail boxes with virtually unlimited advertisements attacking or supporting political candidates. If the past is any guide, these ads will be mere twenty-second soundbites designed to create false caricatures, utterly devoid of any meaningful content. The grassroots efforts of ordinary citizens, the true currency of genuine democracy, simply won't be able to compete.
Genuine democracy can only function when all viewpoints have a roughly equal opportunity for expression, and that requires the playing field to be as level as possible. If the financial power of the corporations is allowed to sweep away the words of ordinary citizens, then our elections are no better than the sham elections held by tin-pot dictatorships all over the world, in which the ruling party's control of the media ensures that the people hear only good things about the incumbents and only bad things about the challengers.
This decision is terrible news, and unfortunately not likely to be overturned anytime soon. It is yet more evidence of the critical need for fundamental reforms of the American electoral system on all levels. We need public financing of elections to ensure a more level playing field, we need redistricting reform to prevent partisan gerrymandering, and we need many other reforms.
We can only hope that there will be enough people of common sense and a commonwealth interest among our elected leaders to help bring this about.
Somewhere, the ghost of Alexander Hamilton is laughing.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that placing restrictions on political campaign spending by corporations represents a violation on free speech. This is, of course, utter nonsense. Natural rights such as the right to free speech are possessed by human beings, not artificial entities like corporations. A corporation has no more an inherent right to donate to a political campaign than does a puddle of water.
The idea of corporate personhood is an insidious legal concept that should be rejected with maximum prejudice. After all, can the entity known as "Bank of America" or "Walmart" walk into a county courthouse and register to vote?
If the executives of a corporation want to donate their own money to a political campaign, they are as free to do so as any other citizen. But they have no moral right, and should have no legal right, to rob the company coffers of shareholder money and funnel it to political candidates their shareholders may or may not support. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous on the face of it. The same, by the way, is true of labor union bosses using the funds of the union members.
Beyond the abstract outrages inherent in this court decision, its practical impact is likely to be extremely damaging to American democracy. Without any restrictions, corporations will be able to use their gargantuan financial weight to flood the airwaves and mail boxes with virtually unlimited advertisements attacking or supporting political candidates. If the past is any guide, these ads will be mere twenty-second soundbites designed to create false caricatures, utterly devoid of any meaningful content. The grassroots efforts of ordinary citizens, the true currency of genuine democracy, simply won't be able to compete.
Genuine democracy can only function when all viewpoints have a roughly equal opportunity for expression, and that requires the playing field to be as level as possible. If the financial power of the corporations is allowed to sweep away the words of ordinary citizens, then our elections are no better than the sham elections held by tin-pot dictatorships all over the world, in which the ruling party's control of the media ensures that the people hear only good things about the incumbents and only bad things about the challengers.
This decision is terrible news, and unfortunately not likely to be overturned anytime soon. It is yet more evidence of the critical need for fundamental reforms of the American electoral system on all levels. We need public financing of elections to ensure a more level playing field, we need redistricting reform to prevent partisan gerrymandering, and we need many other reforms.
We can only hope that there will be enough people of common sense and a commonwealth interest among our elected leaders to help bring this about.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Interesting Column by Charles Lane
Charles Lane of the Washington Post makes a very good point in this brief online column. He suggests that the reason comprehensive national healthcare reform is so difficult to enact is because of the basic structure of the Constitution itself. Because the Constitution was written by men who lived in a time when the power of the states was dominant and the power of any central government was to be feared, the system put in place by the Constitution made it extremely difficult for any significant national legislation to be passed (except during a time of war, when partisan rivalries might be put aside).
It makes for some very interesting reading. Perhaps those people who want significant healthcare reform would better use their time in their own state capitals rather than in Washington D.C.
It makes for some very interesting reading. Perhaps those people who want significant healthcare reform would better use their time in their own state capitals rather than in Washington D.C.
Republican Victory in Massachutsetts Gives Both Parties a Chance to Act Responsibly
The surprise victory of Republican Scott Brown in the Massachusetts special election to fill the Senate seat left vacant by the death of Senator Edward Kennedy has left the Democratic Party reeling in confusion. The unexpected result reduces the Democratic majority in the Senate from 60 to 59, meaning that the Democrats will no longer be able to block a Republican filibuster. Among other things, this development seems to have effectively derailed President Obama's much-touted healthcare bill.
The Republicans have proven adept at blocking the Obama agenda in the year since he took office. Their newly-acquired ability to sustain filibusters, assuming their caucus remains firmly united, substantially increases their political power. Republicans are hopeful that this special election result is a harbinger of more gains to come when the general mid-term election takes place in November.
Democrats, by contrast, seem in despair. A year ago, the party was celebrating the inauguration of President Obama and the elevation of the party to a more powerful position than it had enjoyed since the administration of Franklin Roosevelt. Now, faced with a resurgent opposition and having failed to enact much of their domestic agenda, the Democrats seem as confused and disjointed as a man picking himself up after being run over by a dump truck.
The new political situation now gives both parties a chance to act like responsible public servants. Over the last year, the Republicans have not acted like a responsible opposition party, but merely as the "Party of No" determined to block any and all initiatives by the Obama administration for purely political motivations. They certainly have not had the public interest in mind. For their part, the Democrats have attempted to ram through enormous and expensive bills as though the Republican Party didn't exist.
Now that the Republicans have solidified their ability to block Democratic bills, one of two things will happen. It may be that the two parties will simply continue to snip away at each other and refuse to work together, ignoring the people's business and allowing the critical problems facing our country to go unsolved. Or they can do what the people have been asking them to do for decades: sit down together and work out compromise solutions that will tackle the important issues.
There are a few good signs in the days since the election. Immediately after the results were announced, there was talk of simply rushing the healthcare bill through the final stages of the Senate legislative procedure and sending it to the President's desk before Senator-election Brown took his seat. However, President Obama himself has firmly rejected this course of action, saying that it would be improper in light of the new political situation. The next few days will be very interesting to watch.
Because we live in a representative republic, the government should act only in keeping with the wishes of the great majority of the people, as nearly as these can be determined. Unfortunately, when one party is firmly in control, it acts as if the American people who support the other party no longer exist. The Republican Party did this between 2000 and 2006, when it controlled both Congress and the White House, and the Democratic Party has done the same over the last year.
Perhaps the two parties will recognize the futility of continuing this way of doing business and sit together together in the spirit of compromise and cooperation. But don't hold your breath.
The Republicans have proven adept at blocking the Obama agenda in the year since he took office. Their newly-acquired ability to sustain filibusters, assuming their caucus remains firmly united, substantially increases their political power. Republicans are hopeful that this special election result is a harbinger of more gains to come when the general mid-term election takes place in November.
Democrats, by contrast, seem in despair. A year ago, the party was celebrating the inauguration of President Obama and the elevation of the party to a more powerful position than it had enjoyed since the administration of Franklin Roosevelt. Now, faced with a resurgent opposition and having failed to enact much of their domestic agenda, the Democrats seem as confused and disjointed as a man picking himself up after being run over by a dump truck.
The new political situation now gives both parties a chance to act like responsible public servants. Over the last year, the Republicans have not acted like a responsible opposition party, but merely as the "Party of No" determined to block any and all initiatives by the Obama administration for purely political motivations. They certainly have not had the public interest in mind. For their part, the Democrats have attempted to ram through enormous and expensive bills as though the Republican Party didn't exist.
Now that the Republicans have solidified their ability to block Democratic bills, one of two things will happen. It may be that the two parties will simply continue to snip away at each other and refuse to work together, ignoring the people's business and allowing the critical problems facing our country to go unsolved. Or they can do what the people have been asking them to do for decades: sit down together and work out compromise solutions that will tackle the important issues.
There are a few good signs in the days since the election. Immediately after the results were announced, there was talk of simply rushing the healthcare bill through the final stages of the Senate legislative procedure and sending it to the President's desk before Senator-election Brown took his seat. However, President Obama himself has firmly rejected this course of action, saying that it would be improper in light of the new political situation. The next few days will be very interesting to watch.
Because we live in a representative republic, the government should act only in keeping with the wishes of the great majority of the people, as nearly as these can be determined. Unfortunately, when one party is firmly in control, it acts as if the American people who support the other party no longer exist. The Republican Party did this between 2000 and 2006, when it controlled both Congress and the White House, and the Democratic Party has done the same over the last year.
Perhaps the two parties will recognize the futility of continuing this way of doing business and sit together together in the spirit of compromise and cooperation. But don't hold your breath.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Remembering Martin Luther King
It is strangely ironic to reflect that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Jeffersonian.
The dark side of Jefferson, of course, is that he was a slaveholder. Even though he personally supported the abolition of slavery, his own lifestyle was made possible only by the labor of the human beings he owned. Like most white Americans during his time and for a century afterwards, Jefferson was a blatant racist by any modern standard. For many, these facts alone is sufficient to cast Jefferson and his ideals into the dustbin of history.
It's often difficult to look past the failings of Jefferson the man in order to embrace the ideals of Jefferson the visionary. But Martin Luther King was able to do so. He respected Jefferson very highly and it's no surprise that he quoted the Declaration of Independence in his famous "I Have a Dream" speech. At a very fundamental level, the vision of Jefferson and the dream of King fuse together, each embracing and absorbing the other.
It's worth remembering that this blog is about 21st Century Jeffersonianism, not 18th Century Jeffersonianism. We are not simply picking up Jefferson's ideas and trying to transplant them to our own time; we are also adapting and modifying them in the context of all that has happened since Jefferson's death in 1826. Had Jefferson been able to see the unfolding of American history, being the rational man of the Enlightenment that he was, he would certainly have changed his views on the subject of race. In our mind's eye, we can see Jefferson marching with King on the Mall in Washington on that day in 1963.
The dark side of Jefferson, of course, is that he was a slaveholder. Even though he personally supported the abolition of slavery, his own lifestyle was made possible only by the labor of the human beings he owned. Like most white Americans during his time and for a century afterwards, Jefferson was a blatant racist by any modern standard. For many, these facts alone is sufficient to cast Jefferson and his ideals into the dustbin of history.
It's often difficult to look past the failings of Jefferson the man in order to embrace the ideals of Jefferson the visionary. But Martin Luther King was able to do so. He respected Jefferson very highly and it's no surprise that he quoted the Declaration of Independence in his famous "I Have a Dream" speech. At a very fundamental level, the vision of Jefferson and the dream of King fuse together, each embracing and absorbing the other.
It's worth remembering that this blog is about 21st Century Jeffersonianism, not 18th Century Jeffersonianism. We are not simply picking up Jefferson's ideas and trying to transplant them to our own time; we are also adapting and modifying them in the context of all that has happened since Jefferson's death in 1826. Had Jefferson been able to see the unfolding of American history, being the rational man of the Enlightenment that he was, he would certainly have changed his views on the subject of race. In our mind's eye, we can see Jefferson marching with King on the Mall in Washington on that day in 1963.
Thoughts on the Departure of Senators Chris Dodd and Byron Dorgan
Earlier this month, two prominent Democratic senators, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, announced that they will not be seeking reelection this year. From the standpoint of 21st Century Jeffersonianism, the departure of Senator Dodd is most welcome, but the departure of Senator Dorgan is to be much lamented.
Senator Dodd has represented Connecticut in the Senate since 1981, and while he has supported some sound environmental policies and opposed the Iraq War, he is also corrupt to the core and completely in the pocket of the nation's crooked financial industry. While serving as the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, he received a sweetheart mortgage deal (not to mention massive campaign contributions) from Countrywide Financial, even while he was pushing a bill through the Senate that bailed out the mortgage industry from its self-imposed financial crisis. As if that were not bad enough, Senator Dodd also inserted a loop hole into a bank bailout bill allowing AIG and other institutions to use taxpayer dollars in order to pay obscenely massive bonuses to their executives, the very people whose greed brought the country to the brink of economic ruin. Not surprisingly, Senator Dodd has received more campaign donations from AIG than any other senator.
The sleaze stories don't end there. Senator Dodd owns a vacation home in Ireland, which somehow tripled in value when the rest of Irish real estate was plunging in value. Clearly, the property was purchased at a price far below its actual market value. The man who helped Dodd buy this home, Edward Downe, had been convicted of insider trading and wire fraud back in the 1990s. Senator Dodd was instrumental in getting Downe a presidential pardon.
Senator Dodd is a man after Alexander Hamilton's heart: an officeholder who would rather use his influence to serve the rich and powerful rather than the ordinary citizens who elected him. Luckily, the wheels of democracy have not entirely halted, for the voters in Connecticut have made it rather clear that, in the wake of these revelations, Dodd had little or no chance of being reelected. Hence, his announcement that he is leaving the Senate is as welcome as it is unsurprising. Dodd will have to look at himself in the mirror for the rest of his life and know that he failed in his sacred trust as a United States Senator.
But if Senator Dodd's departure from Washington will bring smiles to the faces of 21st Century Jeffersonians, the departure of Senator Dorgan will leave crestfallen expressions of sadness.
Senator Dorgan is one of a dying breed- one of the last genuine Jeffersonians in a position of major political power in the United States. Embodying the virtues of small town North Dakota, he has always displayed an ability to cut through the complicated morass of policy-making to get at the real issues at stake. He has been a constant opponent of incompetent (corrupt?) military contractors in Iraq and American companies who harm our own economy by shipping our jobs overseas (especially Wal-Mart, a mortal enemy of 21st Century Jeffersonianism). And he has cracked down when he saw wasteful use of taxpayer dollars, no matter how small, as when he squelched a foolish proposal by the Treasury Department to hire a humor consultant. And while he initially supported the Iraq War, he publicly disavowed the war when it became clear that rationale the Bush administration laid out for the war was completely false, and that the administration had either been deliberately deceptive or criminally incompetent.
Perhaps most notably, Dorgan was one of only eight senators who, in 1999, voted against the so-called Financial Services Modernization Act, which broke down the regulatory barriers between banks and investment firms and thus paved the way for the current financial crisis. Dorgan saw the disaster coming and tried to stop it. How much better off would we be had we listened to him?
America needs a Congress that has fewer Chris Dodds and more Byron Dorgans. The best thing 21st Century Jeffersonians can do, aside from making themselves as self-sufficient and free as possible in their own lives, is to help elect people to Congress and the state legislatures who possess common sense, who resist the seductions offered by special interests, and who have a commonwealth interest at heart. The more we do that, the closer we are to the dream of living in a truly Jeffersonian republic.
Senator Dodd has represented Connecticut in the Senate since 1981, and while he has supported some sound environmental policies and opposed the Iraq War, he is also corrupt to the core and completely in the pocket of the nation's crooked financial industry. While serving as the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, he received a sweetheart mortgage deal (not to mention massive campaign contributions) from Countrywide Financial, even while he was pushing a bill through the Senate that bailed out the mortgage industry from its self-imposed financial crisis. As if that were not bad enough, Senator Dodd also inserted a loop hole into a bank bailout bill allowing AIG and other institutions to use taxpayer dollars in order to pay obscenely massive bonuses to their executives, the very people whose greed brought the country to the brink of economic ruin. Not surprisingly, Senator Dodd has received more campaign donations from AIG than any other senator.
The sleaze stories don't end there. Senator Dodd owns a vacation home in Ireland, which somehow tripled in value when the rest of Irish real estate was plunging in value. Clearly, the property was purchased at a price far below its actual market value. The man who helped Dodd buy this home, Edward Downe, had been convicted of insider trading and wire fraud back in the 1990s. Senator Dodd was instrumental in getting Downe a presidential pardon.
Senator Dodd is a man after Alexander Hamilton's heart: an officeholder who would rather use his influence to serve the rich and powerful rather than the ordinary citizens who elected him. Luckily, the wheels of democracy have not entirely halted, for the voters in Connecticut have made it rather clear that, in the wake of these revelations, Dodd had little or no chance of being reelected. Hence, his announcement that he is leaving the Senate is as welcome as it is unsurprising. Dodd will have to look at himself in the mirror for the rest of his life and know that he failed in his sacred trust as a United States Senator.
But if Senator Dodd's departure from Washington will bring smiles to the faces of 21st Century Jeffersonians, the departure of Senator Dorgan will leave crestfallen expressions of sadness.
Senator Dorgan is one of a dying breed- one of the last genuine Jeffersonians in a position of major political power in the United States. Embodying the virtues of small town North Dakota, he has always displayed an ability to cut through the complicated morass of policy-making to get at the real issues at stake. He has been a constant opponent of incompetent (corrupt?) military contractors in Iraq and American companies who harm our own economy by shipping our jobs overseas (especially Wal-Mart, a mortal enemy of 21st Century Jeffersonianism). And he has cracked down when he saw wasteful use of taxpayer dollars, no matter how small, as when he squelched a foolish proposal by the Treasury Department to hire a humor consultant. And while he initially supported the Iraq War, he publicly disavowed the war when it became clear that rationale the Bush administration laid out for the war was completely false, and that the administration had either been deliberately deceptive or criminally incompetent.
Perhaps most notably, Dorgan was one of only eight senators who, in 1999, voted against the so-called Financial Services Modernization Act, which broke down the regulatory barriers between banks and investment firms and thus paved the way for the current financial crisis. Dorgan saw the disaster coming and tried to stop it. How much better off would we be had we listened to him?
America needs a Congress that has fewer Chris Dodds and more Byron Dorgans. The best thing 21st Century Jeffersonians can do, aside from making themselves as self-sufficient and free as possible in their own lives, is to help elect people to Congress and the state legislatures who possess common sense, who resist the seductions offered by special interests, and who have a commonwealth interest at heart. The more we do that, the closer we are to the dream of living in a truly Jeffersonian republic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
