I know it’s a very perverse perspective, but my reaction to that news was that maybe there is an outside chance that our economy will actually undergo the correction that it obviously requires despite the best efforts of Bernanke and Geithner to prevent the necessary correction. If the economy continues to defy the stimulus efforts it may yet reach a solid foundation – but I won’t hold my breath on that.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new, North as well as South.

Lincoln explores the recent history the slavery debate in his speech and I was surprised to find some startling parallels to the gay marriage debate we are currently having in this country. (Some people may not believe me when I say that I started reading this speech with no thought of this issue.)

The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the states by state constitutions and from most of the national territory by congressional prohibition.

More than 30 states currently prohibit gay marriage by statute or amendment (compared to 6 that allow it) and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a congressional action meant to ensure that states cannot be forced to accept gay marriages from other states.

The Nebraska Bill stated:

It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into an territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people there-of perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.

It was passed without a proposed amendment that would have explicitly stated that the people in a given territory could outlaw slavery within their territorty. Today it is the gay marriage opponents who say “let the states decide” but if the gay marriage advocates get DOMA repealed (as they hope to do) they will be the ones making that argument.

Lincoln sums up the situation of the four years prior to his speech by saying:

. . . when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen — Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance — and when we see these timbers joined together and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortises exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, not omitting even scaffolding, or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in — in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck.

I believe that Lincoln was right that “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Today I believe that neither the Republican party nor this nation can endure permanently with part allowing gay marriage and part denying it. I do not know whether to expect the party to fall; but I do expect that if it does not fall it will be because it ceases to be divided. It must fall or become all one thing, or all the other. After the issue plays out in the party it will then have to be resolved in public policy although the chances of the nation splitting and falling over the isue are lower than the chance that the Republican party splits (as the Whigs did in Lincoln’s time) over this issue.

President Monroe claimed the United States of America, although only a fledgling nation at the time, would not interfere in European wars or internal dealings, and in turn, expected Europe to stay out of the affairs of the New World.

Considering that this nation was not yet 50 years old this would be seen as presumptuous, but the Wikipedia summary missed a key distinction that Monroe specified:

With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered, and shall not interfere.

While the idea that the United States at that time could interfere with internal European affairs was laughable this was still a world in which proximity was of paramount importance and this “fledgling nation” had already shown that it could – because of distances – become a serious thorn in the side of one of Europe’s most powerful nations. I’m sure that despite the audacity of the statement the powers of Europe were only too pleased to have the United States promise not to interfere with their existing colonies.

What I wish regarding the Monroe Doctrine is that we would remember two other forgotten parts of it:

In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. (emphasis added)

This should not be interpreted as being limited to European powers – it should also apply to out treatment of the rest of the world. Unfortunately throughout the last half century it not only comports with but in fact has been our de facto policy to interfere. In contrast we should be able to say today that:

Our policy, in regard to {other nations} . . .  is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations . . .

In case that is not perfectly clear to anyone I would say “hint, hint – think Honduras.” Instead of denouncing the removal of a dictatorial president we should treat the interim (read de facto) president as the legitimate leader of the country. Our relations with that nation should be no different today than they were last week (when their government was less secure than it is today).

Johnson reminds readers of the facts of the case:

For starters the ousted President, Zelaya, had become close buddies with Chavez of Venezuela and was pushing to over turn the Honduran Constitution that limited Presidents to one term. This was not your typical military coup. This had the backing of the legislature and the judiciary. But Zelaya is doing a good job of playing the victim.

My first reaction had been that the United States should not get involved but after reading Johnson’s recommendation that the U.S. needs to engage

I was impressed with how accurate Johnson’s assessment seemed to be (and it seemed very consistent with the perceptions of some other people I know who have firsthand experience of living in Honduras), but perhaps I should not be surprised considering that he has intelligence experience specifically in Honduras:

I was the Honduran analyst at the CIA from 1986 thru 1989. I also lived in Honduras running a community development in the campo back in 1978.

Think of the worst NCAA Division 1A (FBS) football team in the country. Now imagine that team playing the best team in the NFL. It should be a no-brainer to figure out which team will win the game (or every game if they were to play multiple times). Now imagine that we make one minor rule change – the NFL team can only play defense – the only way they can score is a safety or an interception returned for a touchdown. Anytime they get the ball and don’t score they would be required to let the NCAA team play offense and keep trying to score. In that scenario it would be very rare for the NFL team to win the game.

The point that this should illustrate is that with such a rule change the football games would never give any indication about which was the better team or even how good each team was. So long as those rules were applied between teams more fairly matched than a middle school team vs professional athletes the outcome would be almost completely determined by which team was allowed to play offense.

This sounds like a recipie for political decay.

First, some background. The race for chairman was between the incumbent, Wayne Holland, and Jeff Bell. Wayne’s website essentially advertised this message – “I’m the incumbent” – while Jeff’s advertised a message of “this is the direction the party needs to go and here is how I will make it happen.” The result:

the party delegates elected Holland with 87 percent of the vote.

When I saw the 87% figure I started to wonder – considering how much the state Republican party has been accused of being an insiders game – if the state Democratic party might be even more of an insiders game.

It’s something to ponder.

P.S. I’m going out of town for a week long road-trip of rest and relaxation, in case anyone would have wondered why I don’t post for the remainder of the week. I expect to be back to my regular schedule next week.

But we think the complexity can be simplified to two simple questions:

• • For whom does your doctor work?
  • Do you pay for your health insurance directly?

If your doctor tailors his or her care to the policies of your insurance company, or some government program, then you don’t really have a doctor who works for you, and health care hasn’t really been reformed.

You’ll know health care has really been reformed when the following things are true…

• • You and your doctor deal with your health insurance provider as rarely as you currently do with your car insurance company
  • Doctors post their prices, and compete with each other based on price and quality

It’s really that simple. As long as insurance policies and/or government programs fund most of your health care, doctors will work for them and not for you.

The same holds true for health insurance. As long as our health care coverage comes mostly from employer controlled insurance or the government, we won’t have a competitive health insurance market, and the cost of both insurance and health care will grow constantly.

When Americans care about the impact that their use of health care has on their insurance premiums in the same way that they care about the impact that speeding tickets and minor scrapes have on their car insurance, you’ll know that our health care system has really been reformed.

There – in two questions to ask, two systemic changes to watch for, and two paragraphs decribing what real reform would look like – is the entire health care issue.

Today the song is often sung as an artistic piece in ways that ignore any patriotic meaning associated with it. It makes me wonder how many people still recognize the feelings of love for his country that Key was capturing in his poem. As I was looking at this I realized that I had never noticed the third verse – I don’t think I’ve ever heard it sung.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wiped out their foul footstep’s pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

I suspect that Key had heard British sailors boasting that they would wipe America out of existence during that war before they began the attack. Considering the power of the British navy at that time he might well have expected them to succeed – no wonder then that he was so moved when he saw that the flag still flew over Fort McHenry after the bombardment. Personally I think that anyone who cannot recognize the power of that song and the love of country that it conveys should not bother to participate in the political process because without that love of country we are certain to make poor political decisions.

the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived

Perhaps if the nation had miraculously not developed a party system this amendment would not have been necessary:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;–The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;–The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. (strikout portion was altered in the 20th amendment)

No longer was the president chosen and then paired with his strogest rival. Based on this amendment the president and vice president were chosen separately and simultaneously. Our present system of parties creating presidential tickets to specify who they prefer for each position and of presidential candidates generally choosing their running mates with very little interference (although they undoubtedly get lots of advice in the process) is neither mandated nor forbidden by the Constitution.

By wallyg

I have always had great respect for George Washington, but in the cannon of political doctrine his Farewell Address should be considered equal to the doctrine of the book of Isaiah in the Old Testament and the prophecy in the book of Revelation in the New Testament. Washington himself boils down the topics of his address as follows:

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, . . .  I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; (emphasis added)

This was Washington’s final effort to publicly influence the future direction of his beloved country before he could finally retire as he had privately wanted to do for years. He starts by reminding the nation – then and now – of the nature of its birth:

I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it. (emphasis added)

Notice that he does not recommend or propose that we should establish similar constitutions for others, but that we should preserve our own constitution so that others would desire to adopt such a constitution for themselves.

it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

. . . You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

Washington’s first concern was the danger of internal parties:

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western;

Today we can add to that list non-geographical discriminations for parties – urban and rural, rich and poor, liberal and conservative, Caucasian and minority.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume. (emphasis added)

Of pretended patriotism, the desire to subvert or undermine the basic law of the land embodied in the Constitution, Washington declares:

This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government. (emphasis added)

This means that the idea of special privileges must be abandoned whether for politicians who fail to pay their taxes, or for citizens making a political statement. We should also recognize that any change made not by “an explicit and authentic act of the whole people” undermines the legitimacy of all our government actions – that’s why we are to use the legislature to make changes rather than the judiciary. The judicial branch is intended to enforce consistency, not to make exceptions and policy decisions.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. (emphasis added)

There is a counter-agent to this propensity for the consolidation of power:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them . . .

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Washington also takes the time to elaborate the most sound fiscal policy that we could have (something we have not seen in decades):

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate.

On the  issue of foreign intrigue Washington would certainly be berating both our political parties today:

nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated.

He notes that the nation which holds a habitual hatred for another nation is a slave to that hatred and the nation which holds a habitual favoritism for another nation becomes a servant to that favoritism. I note that the same caution applies to individuals – that their thinking and liberty can be compromised by holding inveterate antipathies toward one party or too passionate an attachment to another.

These then are the ideals we should be striving for – respect for other nations (most generally in the form of netrality and a minimum of entagling alliances), respect for our own government and laws by working within the framework of the Constitution when changes are necessary, and by building our society upon a foundation of morality (a morality which can be found in virtually all religious organizations).