Citizenship and duty, then and now

A very interesting thing happened while skimming through a speech pointed out by Instapundit: it appears that there has been a good definition of American and Hero made by a President! Yes, indeedy! Lets take a look at this lovely passage, and it is a stand-alone one, also, as most of these sound-bite driven speeches are these days:

The real American heroes today are the citizens who get up every morning and have the courage to work hard and play by the rules -- the mother who stays up the extra half hour after a long day's work to read her child a story; the rescue worker who digs with his hands in the rubble as the building crumbles about him; the neighbor who lives side-by-side with people different from himself; the government worker who quietly and efficiently labors to see to it that the programs we depend on are honestly and properly carried out; most of all, the parent who works long years for modest pay and sacrifices so that his or her children can have the education that you have had, and the chances you are going to have. (Applause.) I ask you never to forget that.

Ah, the real Americans are those that play by the rules, work hard and then go further to ensure the best for themselves, their children and their neighbors. Now what if you come here illegally to undercut the economy and work at jobs below the going rate and make things difficult for those who are citizens? Thank you to President William Jefferson Clinton for providing ALL AMERICANS with a handy-dandy definition of 'American Hero'! That was given as part of the , at the Michigan State University 1995 commencement address.

And do excuse me if I look a bit askance at such things as (NY Sun 09 MAR 2006):

In Mrs. Clinton's comments, and in a simultaneous four-page letter sent outlining her principals for comprehensive change to the immigration laws, she criticized the House bill, saying criminalizing illegal immigrants and those who help them, "would turn millions and millions of Americans into lawbreakers because they want to continue the tradition of outreach and assistance that has been the hallmark of our nation."

Perhaps, Mr. Clinton should sit down and have a nice little chat with his wife about who 'American Heros' are. Because those who break the rules to get here are definitely NOT Americans and those that help them by *also* breaking the rules are NOT heroic in any way, shape or form. That really does need to get through now, doesn't it? Helping runaway American slaves is one thing, and a different era, but if folks from other Nations need help, they can ask for it from their Nation of origin or apply for asylum. That is 'playing by the rules', which seems to matter so much to Bill Clinton... well, in 1995, just as he was getting ready to break quite some few of them in the Chinagate/Donorgate business.

These commencement addresses are so full of 'vision' and addressing 'reality' that I can't help but take out a bit just prior to the above:

Whenever in our history people have believed that violence is a legitimate extension of politics they have been wrong. In the 1960s, as your distinguished alumni said, many good things happened and there was much turmoil. But the Weathermen of the radical left who resorted to violence in the 1960s were wrong. Today, the gang members who use life on the mean streets of America, as terrible as it is, to justify taking the law into their own hands and taking innocent life are wrong. The people who came to the United States to bomb the World Trade Center were wrong.

Freedom of political speech will never justify violence -- never. Our founding fathers created a system of laws in which reason could prevail over fear. Without respect for this law there is no freedom. (Applause.)

So I say this to the militias and all others who believe that the greatest threat to freedom comes from the government instead of from those who would take away our freedom: If you say violence is an acceptable way to make change, you are wrong. If you say that government is in a conspiracy to take your freedom away, you are just plain wrong. (Applause.)

If you treat law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line for your safety every day like some kind of enemy army to be suspected, derided and, if they should enforce the law against you, to be shot, you are wrong. (Applause.) If you appropriate our sacred symbols for paranoid purposes and compare yourselves to colonial militias who fought for the democracy you now rail against, you are wrong. (Applause.)

How dare you suggest that we in the freest nation on Earth live in tyranny. How dare you call yourselves patriots and heroes.

I say to you, all of you, the members of the Class of 1995, there is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government. There is nothing heroic about turning your back on America, or ignoring your own responsibilities. If you want to preserve your own freedom, you must stand up for the freedom of others with whom you disagree. But you also must stand up for the rule of law. You cannot have one without the other.

'Freedom of political speech will never justify violence -- never.' Dear me! Where did all these lovely outlooks go? Yes, it wasn't too long ago that we heard the following from Hillary Clinton:

My view on this, though, is pretty simple. We had eight years of prosperity because we paid down our debt and we got rid of our deficit. We hit a rough spot, and it was turned into a terrible bump because of the attacks of September 11.

If we hadn't passed the big tax cut last spring, that I believe undermined our fiscal responsibility and our ability to deal with this new threat of terrorism, we wouldn't be in the fix we're in today. But the fact is, we are.

And now we've got to figure out what's the best way out of it. I certainly don't think more tax breaks that are not linked to investment and job growth or turning our back on the unemployment and health needs of hardworking Americans who have lost their jobs because of the attacks is a very sensible proposal.

I'm also concerned that we're back into deficits, which we know from prior experience are, you know, job killers because they dry up private investment capital.

So I would say that, on balance, the Democratic alternative is far preferable. And any one of us could have written it differently, but, you know, in Congress you make necessary tradeoffs and compromises. The kind of balance that the Finance Committee struck under Chairman Baucus is a heck of a lot better than the Republican alternative or the House-passed alternative.

That was put out on 10 NOV 2001 (via The Wayback Machine) as a transcript at CNN. The NEW threat of terrorism? Excuse me? To give the reader a reminder, here is a list of all the terrorist attacks on US government personnel, civilian and military, US embassies and US Ambassadors under the term of President Clinton:

Bomb explodes near US Ambassador's Residence in Columbia,
Carbomb explodes outside US Ambassador's Residence in Columbia,
Slayings of CIA personnel in Langely, VA,
Window smashing of US Cultural Center in Serbia,
Grenade attack on US Embassy in Serbia,
Guards at US Consulate attacked in Columbia,
ETA suspected of bombing near US Embassy in Spain,
Two US soldiers wounded by sniper fire in Somalia,
Kakurokyo attacks HQ of US forces in Japan,
Kakurokyo attacks US Camp Zuma in Japan,
Shining Path explodes carbomb outside US Embassy in Peru,
US diplomat killed in Tblisi, Georgia,
Forces of Gen. Aidid suspected in killing of four US soldiers in Somalia,
Red Brigades attack US-NATO airbase in Italy,
Three US soldiers killed when helicopter downed in Somalia,
US Embassy bombed in Estonia,
One US soldier killed in Somalia,
Shining Path attacks US-Peruvian Binational Cultural Center in Peru,
US diplomat kidnapped by Jahm tribesmen, headed by Mubarak Mashan, in Yemen,
US soldiers fired upon in Somalia,
Gunmen fire shots at US diplomat in Ethiopia,
'Southern California IRA' grenade attack on British property in US,
Lebanese man fires on van carrying rabbinical students in US,
Haitian exiles fired upon in US,
Shots fired at residence of US Ambassador in Uruguay,
Mozambique National Resistance Movement kidnaps US pilot working for UN in Mozambique,
Convoy carrying US Ambassador attacked in Somalia,
FARC kidnaps American in Columbia,
Shining Path bombs US Embassy in Peru,
Grenade attack as USAID offices in Ethiopia,
Two Americans working at US Consulate killed in Pakistan,
Oklahoma City Federal Office building bombing in US,
RPG attack on US Embassy in Russia,
US Army Captain fired at in Saudi Arabia,
GIA sets US Embassy warehouse on fire in Algeria,
Hezbollah and al Qaeda attack OPM/SANG complex in Saudi Arabia,
Chukakuha and Kakurokyoha bomb US base in Japan,
Attempted kidnapping of US human rights worker for UN in Guatemala,
Territorial Anti-Imperialist Nucleus firebombs US serviceman's car in Italy,
FARC kidnaps American Citizen in Columbia,
Guard at U.S. Government Binational Center disarmed and wounded in Columbia,
Revolutionary Struggle launches RPG attack at US Embassy in Greece,
Attack on US Consulate in China,
US Consulate attacked in Mexico,
Bombing of US Information Services compound in Pakistan,
Attempted firebombing of US Cultural Center in South Korea,
Firebombing of US military compound in South Korea,
Contras kidnap USAID election observer in Nicaragua,
Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah bombing kill six US servicemen in Saudi Arabia,
US Defense Intelligence Agency employee stabbed in Egypt,
USAID vehicle torched outside US Embassy in Russia,
Nicaraguan Sandinista Liberation Front HQ set on fire in US,
Attempted firebombing of US Consulate in Indonesia,
Jamaat-e-Islami attack US Consulate in Pakistan,
FARC captures and kills US Citizen in Columbia,
Letterbombings of Saudi Arabian newspaper offices in US,
Letterbombs arrives at Ft. Leavenworth in US,
Letterbombs arrive at Saudi Arabian newspaper offices in US,
Two guards at US Embassy murdered in Tajikistan,
Palestinian kills one tourist, wounds others at Empire State Building in US,
Armed attack on US Ambassador's residence in Albania,
American Citizen kidnapped with others by tribesmen in Yemen,
US Citizen and child kidnapped in Guatemala,
Helicopter carrying US State Dept. official fired upon in Columbia,
Grenades launched at US Embassy in Lebanon,
FARC stages takeover of US Embassy public area in Columbia,
al Qaeda bombs US Embassy in Kenya,
al Qaeda bombs US Embassy in Tanzania,
Firebomb attack at US Information Center in Kosovo,
Bombing of US Embassy in Ecuador,
Two Americans taken as part of tourist kidnap plot by tribesmen in Yemen,
Bombing near US and UK Consulates in Russia,
DHKP/C assault US Consulate in Turkey,
US worker with UN mission injured by gunfire in East Timor,
Arson attack on vehicle parked outside US Information Services in Pakistan,
Attempted bombing of US Embassy in Indonesia,
FARC attempts assassination bombing of President Clinton in Columbia,
al Qaeda bombs USS Cole in Yemen.

NEW threat of terrorism? Do you see all of those in red? Those are things that would normally get this Nation involved in a war if it was done by a Nation state. Like the FARC attempt to assassinate President Clinton. Blaming tax cuts for not leaving the Nation prepared to deal with terrorism is *not* the fault of the incoming Administration and is directly the fault of Bill Clinton. Ignoring the attacks on the US and the killings of Americans by these organizations and then turning around and blaming the next President for the inability of the Previous one to even *address the problem* is beyond asinine: it is deceitful. President Clinton had eight long years to establish a way to deal with terrorism and confront such organizations that had decided that it was not only easy to go after the US but that the US would do nothing in retaliation. By trying to place blame for 'the fix we're in today' on tax cuts that had not even gone into effect is ludicrous.

Then there is this concept of being a 'Citizen' that, as Bill Clinton put it above 'The real American heroes today are the citizens who get up every morning and have the courage to work hard and play by the rules...' That is your average man and woman in society, keeping up with life's needs to make a better life for themselves and their children. Hillary Clinton, in speaking at the Sorbonne on 17 JUN 1999 had some things to put forward on that, too:

The many democracies that came together to wage this battle against Milosevic may have spoken different languages and even held different political views. But they have sent a unified message at the end of this century that says we will not turn away when human beings are cruelly expelled, or when they are denied basic rights and dignities because of how they look or how they worship. When crimes against humanity rear their ugly heads, we have to send such a message as an international community.

But what about us as individuals? What about us as citizens? How do we live the values in peacetime that we have just fought for? How do each of us work to ensure that our children and our children’s children don’t repeat the 20th century’s worst excesses? We’re thinking about that because of the approach of the millennium. Like your Commission 2000, the President and I created the White House Millennium Council that we hoped would help people mark this time in history, not just by a great party on New Year’s Eve, but by taking this opportunity to think of who we are as a people—what aspects of our history, our culture, and our values we want to bring into the next century, and what we wish we can, by hard work and determination, leave behind.

We’ve chosen as our theme: “Honor the past, imagine the future.” By honoring the past, we have to take a hard look at where we have been; we have to acknowledge the progress we’ve made, but also the violence and the disappointment, in order to live honestly in the present and imagine and create a better future. Now at any time of great transition such as this, there are always pessimists among us. I went back and read about the first millennium’s end. There was the myth of panic and terror afoot in the land, where people gave away their possessions and hid in churches all over Europe waiting for the world’s end. There was even a rather controversial monk in the tenth century who consistently warned his neighbors of impending doom. He had quite a checkered past, having been expelled from a number of monasteries, but he always had an audience. There were always people who believed that the worst was yet to come.

Yes, high and lofty ideals to be sure! But still not coming to the point of saying what a citizen 'is'... the meaning of which should be self-evident in this context. We do, indeed, need to honor the past, but so far Hillary Clinton hasn't said much on that topic for citizenship. A bit further on we get:

We have the responsibility to create a society in which we expand the benefits of democracy and freedom to all of our fellow citizens; where we ensure that free markets benefit all people, not just a privileged few; where we create and nurture vibrant civil societies that foster active citizens. I often use a very simple metaphor to talk about society—that of a three-legged stool: one leg is the government, another is the economy, and the third is a civil society. I spoke about this at length at Davos a few years ago because, for that World Economic Forum, I wanted to remind the participants that we cannot sit on a stool if there are only one or two legs; we cannot sit on that stool if one leg is shorter or longer than the others. We need three legs that balance and reinforce one another, and that are strong enough to support us in the years to come.

We have lived with the benefits, for 50 years now, of the agreements that were made at the end of the Second World War, coming out of Bretonwoods to create new financial architectures that would enable us to tackle the problems that we knew would lie ahead. Today, we have outlived the usefulness of that particular set of arrangements. And we now have to face up to creating a new architecture that will help us tackle runaway global capitalism’s worst effects; ensure social safety nets for the most vulnerable; address the debt burden that is crushing many of our poorest nations. And I’m pleased, as I know many others are, that the G-8 will be addressing debt relief at the summit in Cologne.

So we do have to confront and be willing to use our political will to address the issues that are paramount today. That will take effectively functioning governments to do. There are those, particularly in my country, who insist on a salting government, who claim that if we would only abolish or severely weaken it that everyone’s freedom and prosperity would blossom. That is, I believe, a very mistaken notion, particularly as we end this century. We need strong and efficient governments—not oppressive or weak ones—that are able to empower citizens to help them take responsibility for their families and communities.

Similarly, with the economy, there are those in Europe or the United States who overstate or understate the positive effects of the free market. There are many who are great advocates, who think that the market can do anything if left alone. There are others who are great opponents, who are very clearly undermining or misunderstanding the benefits that free enterprise brings. So again we have to create a balance. How do we enjoy the benefits without suffering from the excesses?

Lots of responsibilities for citizens and that is always good, but what is this deal with democratic governments being 'efficient'? Since when have they ever been *that*? If you want 'efficient democracy' you get 'state control' which is very, very 'efficient', usually at cleaning out those that decry its injustices. Somehow government that is able to 'empower citizens' means that government is, itself, the seat of power. Not the citizens. Government, as designed in the US, was to be limited, and a backstop to the abuses of government and to enable citizens to have redress and control over it. Not to make government 'empowering'.

And *still* nothing on what it is to be a citizen. Thus we come to this section:

Now the discussion about government and the economy could go on for days. And I hope it does here in this distinguished university and in other places here and in the United States, Asia, and throughout the world, because we have to come to terms with how government and the economy will function. But today I want to focus on the third leg of the stool, the one that is often overlooked—that of civil society, of citizenship. Because it is there in the space between government and the economy that we live our lives and pass down our values. It is where we find that wonderful phrase from the great French observer of American life, DeTocqueville—“the habits of the heart”—that determine how we are going to live together; the voluntary associations that we join; the arts and culture that define us, challenge us and make our spirits sore; the training ground in families and neighborhoods that turn our people into citizens.

Now the economy can create the jobs and enough wealth so that we can enjoy what is best about life. And it can of course, as we have seen, create consumers and the producers of goods. But the economy cannot create citizens. Government can protect our freedoms and defend our lives, but it can only respond to citizens, not create them. Only civil society can do that. And it is time for us, in our advanced economies and our long-standing democracies, to renew civil society within and expand it abroad.

Now isn't that a great way to look at things: that civil society exists BETWEEN government and economy? Sort of wedged in there as an after thought. While talking much on rights, that doesn't appear to be a direct link TO citizenship, thus moving the 'voluntary associations' forward AS citizenship. Thus being a citizen doesn't matter so much on who you are, but who you associate with. This ignores that the associations, themselves, are a reflection of the culture, not the defining points of it. Remember, in this view it is the civil associations, the voluntary civil associations that need to be expanded abroad.

This view moves forward a bit later in the speech:

If we want to ensure that the global economy does lift all of us, then we have to teach young people how to feel that sense of empowerment. And we have to demonstrate to them respect for one another, and to see their diversity as a sign of strength. In France, you could see that in the faces of the World Cup champions last year. You can see it in the young people in groups like S.O.S. Racism. You can see it in exhibits like “Silence the Violence.” All around France, all around my country, and increasingly around the world, we are seeing citizens, including children, understanding the role they have to play in civil society.

This may be the hardest task that we have. How do we bring people together to live civilly with one another? Whether it is in Northern Ireland, or in the Balkans, or in the Middle East—how do we create a civil society where there has been very little evidence of that? How do we say enough to the bloodshed, whether it happens in Littleton, Colorado, or whether it happens half a world away in Indonesia?

There is a new impetus for this action, but it will require leadership. It will require us not to leave it to our governments, but to inquire into our own lives and our own professions as to how we can kindle that commitment to civil society. I’m impressed by the work of the youth counsels here in France where students in one community planted flowers and trees and worked to help clean up the neighborhood, and then taught others to do the same. Where children in another community started examining the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—interviewing one another, organizing debates, and particularly focusing on children as victims of war—even becoming pen pals with children in Bosnia.

Again it is the voluntary associations spread globally that are to define citizenship, not where you happen to live or something as quaint as Nationality. Indeed, this is to be some sort of 'global citizen' of the elite and children seeing what role they have to play by being 'empowered' by government to have a civil society. Then Hillary Clinton goes on to confound civil society with 'civility': polite regard for others. To do that requires that 'civility' be removed and 'civilly', as in another individual in the same society, be made. The excuse for that is, of course, to end bloodshed. You see, if government just 'empowers' you to have a lovely global association environment and to be just one people, then you will have nothing to worry about! All flower planting and interviews and don't mind the killing by those wanting to grab power...

That is the problem with the benevolent Nannystate that 'allows' you as an individual to 'feel empowered': you don't have any power outside of government and the definition of who you are, on a global basis, are your voluntary associational groups, not your Nationality. I find it very strange that Hillary Clinton can walk into the Sorbonne to address citizenship and NOT refer to the speech given by a previous President at the Sorbonne on that topic! But to do so would require acknowledging that transnational global citizenship by association is deeply flawed. Here is a bit out of that other speech by a previous President:

Today I shall speak to you on the subject of individual citizenship, the one subject of vital importance to you, my hearers, and to me and my countrymen, because you and we a great citizens of great democratic republics. A democratic republic such as ours - an effort to realize its full sense government by, of, and for the people - represents the most gigantic of all possible social experiments, the one fraught with great responsibilities alike for good and evil. The success or republics like yours and like ours means the glory, and our failure of despair, of mankind; and for you and for us the question of the quality of the individual citizen is supreme. Under other forms of government, under the rule of one man or very few men, the quality of the leaders is all-important. If, under such governments, the quality of the rulers is high enough, then the nations for generations lead a brilliant career, and add substantially to the sum of world achievement, no matter how low the quality of average citizen; because the average citizen is an almost negligible quantity in working out the final results of that type of national greatness. But with you and us the case is different. With you here, and with us in my own home, in the long run, success or failure will be conditioned upon the way in which the average man, the average women, does his or her duty, first in the ordinary, every-day affairs of life, and next in those great occasional cries which call for heroic virtues. The average citizen must be a good citizen if our republics are to succeed. The stream will not permanently rise higher than the main source; and the main source of national power and national greatness is found in the average citizenship of the nation. Therefore it behooves us to do our best to see that the standard of the average citizen is kept high; and the average cannot be kept high unless the standard of the leaders is very much higher.

Here we see what the source of citizenship is not *just* responsibility but DUTY. Being a citizen is not just an accumulation of responsibilities with voluntary associations, but a duty carried through in every day life for the betterment of oneself and society. Obedience to the law is paramount as is duty to civil society which is the basis for democracy and that becomes the basis for government. Leaders in a democratic republic are to be kept higher than the standards of ordinary citizens so as to put valuation on leadership and accountability to be a good leader. This is a very, very stark contrast to Hillary Clinton's view of 'empowered individuals' who seek to form society between government and economy: just be nice with your 'empowered' ability and everything else will be taken care of by government.

This other President, whom I am sure most have figured out by now, then went on to take a look at leadership:

It is well if a large proportion of the leaders in any republic, in any democracy, are, as a matter of course, drawn from the classes represented in this audience to-day; but only provided that those classes possess the gifts of sympathy with plain people and of devotion to great ideals. You and those like you have received special advantages; you have all of you had the opportunity for mental training; many of you have had leisure; most of you have had a chance for enjoyment of life far greater than comes to the majority of your fellows. To you and your kind much has been given, and from you much should be expected. Yet there are certain failings against which it is especially incumbent that both men of trained and cultivated intellect, and men of inherited wealth and position should especially guard themselves, because to these failings they are especially liable; and if yielded to, their- your- chances of useful service are at an end. Let the man of learning, the man of lettered leisure, beware of that queer and cheap temptation to pose to himself and to others as a cynic, as the man who has outgrown emotions and beliefs, the man to whom good and evil are as one. The poorest way to face life is to face it with a sneer. There are many men who feel a kind of twister pride in cynicism; there are many who confine themselves to criticism of the way others do what they themselves dare not even attempt. There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities - all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affection of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves in their own weakness. The rôle is easy; there is none easier, save only the rôle of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.

Leaders must not be out of touch with the citizenry and must hold the needs and ideals of that citizenry first as a prime duty as a leader. Thus leaders are to support society, not try to DEFINE IT. To those that take up more learning, then more is expected OF YOU for doing so. That is not a 'privilege' nor an 'empowerment' but a responsibility and a duty to your fellow man. When one becomes so loftily educated that good and evil have no distinction, then one has lost touch with the actual world and that of the citizens that create society.

This President, obviously, did not mince words behind the attendees at the Sorbonne and reminded them that for their gifts of education they dare not attempt to impose their lofty ideals of what society 'should be' and then disdain that society which cannot live up to such refined views. A President attempting to give a speech like that today, would be ridiculed by the same, lofty media we have today for not being 'realistic' enough to address the necessity of fine ideals over that of society's. Luckily the next, and most famous, passage deals with THEM:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. Shame on the man of cultivated taste who permits refinement to develop into fastidiousness that unfits him for doing the rough work of a workaday world. Among the free peoples who govern themselves there is but a small field of usefulness open for the men of cloistered life who shrink from contact with their fellows. Still less room is there for those who deride of slight what is done by those who actually bear the brunt of the day; nor yet for those others who always profess that they would like to take action, if only the conditions of life were not exactly what they actually are. The man who does nothing cuts the same sordid figure in the pages of history, whether he be a cynic, or fop, or voluptuary. There is little use for the being whose tepid soul knows nothing of great and generous emotion, of the high pride, the stern belief, the lofty enthusiasm, of the men who quell the storm and ride the thunder. Well for these men if they succeed; well also, though not so well, if they fail, given only that they have nobly ventured, and have put forth all their heart and strength. It is war-worn Hotspur, spent with hard fighting, he of the many errors and valiant end, over whose memory we love to linger, not over the memory of the young lord who "but for the vile guns would have been a valiant soldier."

The strength of the society is NOT in criticism or cynicism, but in CREATING it by getting dirty, muddy and doing actual *work* to create and sustain it. That is the duty of citizenship, creating the world and not looking for 'empowerment' to be given some little playthings to do by government. The speech was given by President Theodore Roosevelt, 23 APR 1910 at the Sorbonne (via the Theodore Roosevelt site).

It is that speech that puts forward that it is not the loftiness of your views nor education that give you right to criticize, but it is in the DOING that gives one the appreciation of the work so that it may be done better. Lofty cynicism that gives way to tepid views and telling others what THEY should do to uphold THEIR ideals, and doing NOTHING to demonstrate that one has any knowledge of what it is they are telling them to do. That is not Jefferson's view of criticism, which is to help create a better union by enabling us to identify flaws and find solutions to them. No the form of criticism we see today to actually denigrate and demean civil society and have its boundaries dictated by government that are the destructive ones.

Then, unlike Hillary Clinton 89 years later, President Theodore Roosevelt then took time to STATE what those things are that are necessary for being a citizen:

Such ordinary, every-day qualities include the will and the power to work, to fight at need, and to have plenty of healthy children. The need that the average man shall work is so obvious as hardly to warrant insistence. There are a few people in every country so born that they can lead lives of leisure. These fill a useful function if they make it evident that leisure does not mean idleness; for some of the most valuable work needed by civilization is essentially non-remunerative in its character, and of course the people who do this work should in large part be drawn from those to whom remuneration is an object of indifference. But the average man must earn his own livelihood. He should be trained to do so, and he should be trained to feel that he occupies a contemptible position if he does not do so; that he is not an object of envy if he is idle, at whichever end of the social scale he stands, but an object of contempt, an object of derision. In the next place, the good man should be both a strong and a brave man; that is, he should be able to fight, he should be able to serve his country as a soldier, if the need arises. There are well-meaning philosophers who declaim against the unrighteousness of war. They are right only if they lay all their emphasis upon the unrighteousness. War is a dreadful thing, and unjust war is a crime against humanity. But it is such a crime because it is unjust, not because it is a war. The choice must ever be in favor of righteousness, and this is whether the alternative be peace or whether the alternative be war. The question must not be merely, Is there to be peace or war? The question must be, Is it right to prevail? Are the great laws of righteousness once more to be fulfilled? And the answer from a strong and virile people must be "Yes," whatever the cost. Every honorable effort should always be made to avoid war, just as every honorable effort should always be made by the individual in private life to keep out of a brawl, to keep out of trouble; but no self-respecting individual, no self-respecting nation, can or ought to submit to wrong.

Finally, even more important than ability to work, even more important than ability to fight at need, is it to remember that chief of blessings for any nations is that it shall leave its seed to inherit the land. It was the crown of blessings in Biblical times and it is the crown of blessings now. The greatest of all curses in is the curse of sterility, and the severest of all condemnations should be that visited upon willful sterility. The first essential in any civilization is that the man and women shall be father and mother of healthy children, so that the race shall increase and not decrease. If that is not so, if through no fault of the society there is failure to increase, it is a great misfortune. If the failure is due to the deliberate and wilful fault, then it is not merely a misfortune, it is one of those crimes of ease and self-indulgence, of shrinking from pain and effort and risk, which in the long run Nature punishes more heavily than any other. If we of the great republics, if we, the free people who claim to have emancipated ourselves form the thraldom of wrong and error, bring down on our heads the curse that comes upon the willfully barren, then it will be an idle waste of breath to prattle of our achievements, to boast of all that we have done. No refinement of life, no delicacy of taste, no material progress, no sordid heaping up riches, no sensuous development of art and literature, can in any way compensate for the loss of the great fundamental virtues; and of these great fundamental virtues the greatest is the race's power to perpetuate the race. Character must show itself in the man's performance both of the duty he owes himself and of the duty he owes the state. The man's foremast duty is owed to himself and his family; and he can do this duty only by earning money, by providing what is essential to material well-being; it is only after this has been done that he can hope to build a higher superstructure on the solid material foundation; it is only after this has been done that he can help in his movements for the general well-being. He must pull his own weight first, and only after this can his surplus strength be of use to the general public. It is not good to excite that bitter laughter which expresses contempt; and contempt is what we feel for the being whose enthusiasm to benefit mankind is such that he is a burden to those nearest him; who wishes to do great things for humanity in the abstract, but who cannot keep his wife in comfort or educate his children.

Notice that none of these are 'empowered' by government? That is because in a democratic republic, it is the individual which is the source of strength for the Nation and which brings power TO the Nation as a whole as the largess of his works and deeds. There are, indeed, places for those to opine, think, and constructively criticize, but that is done for the benefit of the society as a whole and those doing so are to recognize that they are to make society BETTER for their works of thought. And the foundations of that society is the family that is supported and has earnings so as to be provided for by its parents. To do that does require work and profit by one's own work so the measure of self-worth can be demonstrated and that finding ways to adjust that work to the necessary means can be done. That is not a role for a government to do via 'support' or 'empowerment': that is the role of the individual to sustain family and society by such work.

There is, apparently, in America today, a view of citizenship that is so lofty, so removed from the common man as to see no value in Nation or in labor, itself, to sustain society. A strain of view so cynical that it can oppose war at every turn because it would prefer to live with wrongs than to ever set things *right*. Those views see civil society as the appendix to government and economies, not as the creator of them. It is very strange to see some of that appear in one couple on the National stage and then realize that they are, themselves, setting up a false dichotomy so that supporting *either* of them drifts farther and farther from the view of America and citizenship spoken about by Theodore Roosevelt.

Our choices in the near future for leadership is becoming stark, as both 'sides' of the political spectrum offer more and more for government to do so as to 'empower' individuals, either via lovely associations or through economics... and yet NEITHER speaks one bit of the fact that it is both government and economies that are the creation of citizens and the more control left in the hands of inidividuals to lead good lives, the better off everyone will be.

Sending letters to Congress, the fun never stops

The following is being sent to the Senators for my State and Representative for my District. And, yes, this gets actual physical, dead tree printing along with email. The body of the text is given as follows:


[Congressman/Senator]
[Address from the House or Senate ]


RE: Legislation concerning Blackwater

Dear [Congressman/Senator],

Due to events in Iraq the question of the use of Blackwater for private contracting of security in a war zone or other designated conflict area has come into light along with the activities of the US State Department in utilizing such 'security contractors' outside of US Embassy grounds in such areas. While the Executive Branch does have many powers, the designation of any private organization for such activities where conflict in a foreign nation is ongoing requires Congressional approval. The clearly stated power to do so for any private company of Americans to be given legitimacy and accountability is designated to Congress in the following part of the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8 (in part):

"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"


Clearly for Blackwater to operate under the auspices of the United States, outside the Extra-Territorial Enclave of the US Embassy require Congressional approval. The Executive may not authorize any other force, under any other oversight as the Department of State is doing by providing diplomatic coverage for Blackwater. That is the US Department of State creating its own, extra-legal military organization outside of the Congressional approval power.

For the United States Government to properly employ Blackwater in such circumstances and to extend any law to their activities, the US Code offers little opportunity in this realm, due to its restrictions to actual territory and such extensions as US maritime and airborne vessels.

May I also take a moment to point out that Congress has not done its duties under the Law of Nations to properly define the predatory warfare practiced by those using the tactic of terrorism? Congress in no way has extended the protection of the US Government properly to its Citizenry by putting forward that under the Law of Nations such warfare against any Nation is not only predatory but requires definition in the US Code beyond the High Seas version called 'piracy'. However, when captured during military operations that very same Law of Nations puts the defining power in the hands of the Commander in Chief as seen in INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD, Prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863.:

"Men, or squads of men, who commit hostilities, whether by fighting, or inroads for destruction or plunder, or by raids of any kind, without commission, without being part and portion of the organized hostile army, and without sharing continuously in the war, but who do so with intermitting returns to their homes and avocations, or with the occasional assumption of the semblance of peaceful pursuits, divesting themselves of the character or appearance of soldiers - such men, or squads of men, are not public enemies, and, therefore, if captured, are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war, but shall be treated summarily as highway robbers or pirates."

Unfortunately the Executive has been lax in properly putting such Head of State and Chief of the Armies and the Navies power under the Law of Nations to use so as to properly define the operational procedures to handle such cases as terrorists captured by the US Armed Forces. As this is a Law of Nations duty of the Head of State and Commander in Chief, Congress has little oversight on the military side, save to remind the Executive of his duties in that regard.

I hope you will give this matter some attention, as the US Congress does have some role to play in this, both on the legitimization of organizations such as Blackwater and in defining predatory warfare under the Law of Nations for the United States.

I thank you for your time in this matter.

Sincerely,







================


Why, yes, I *am* suggesting they do their jobs and properly grant Letters of Marque to Blackwater.


And , yes, I *am* suggesting that Congress has fallen down on its job, but offer the nice remedy of reminding that the President has fallen down on his job, so that some tweaking may occur.

Really, why are these two branches of Government so incapable of reading their job descriptions and realizing their duties? I feel sorry for the poor Supreme Court having to keep on nudging these two other Branches about what they need to do in such things.

Not Free Trade but Accountable Trade

Today (04 OCT 2007) The Wall Street Journal hosts an article by John Harwood: Republicans Grow Sckeptical On Free Trade. It isn't shocking that a business news outfit like WSJ would cover this, but it is of great note that the placement of it on their paper side is A-1. The front page. This is of high interest as the WSJ is unabashedly not to keen on any prospect of controlling illegal immigration supporting, instead, that businesses and foreign individuals have the 'right' to commit to labor contracts outside of Treaties and international law. That said this is also a division between the more Left leaning 'news' segment of WSJ and the more 'right' side on the editorial pages. That dichotomy is a fascinating one to see as time goes on, and having it put into stark contrast on the front page is quite profound: the attitude of Americans towards how business operates is slowly shifting.

On to the article itself, which examines polling data and some of the main things showing up not in those that consider themselves Republicans. First off in the article is taxation, a continual Republican applause maker in the cutting end of things. And without question that remains exactly where the Republican voter is today, by 60% favoring tax cuts. As is pointed out, however, a significant minority think it is time for disproportionate taxation shifting upwards in the earnings column, also known as 'tax the rich'. Something that could result in this on the Republican side, is the floating of tax 'cuts' that are 'graduated' to give larger percentage cuts at lower earnings brackets, so the overall trend, while that of tax cutting, is to cut more out at the bottom earnings segment of the population than at the top.

To date I am unaware of any Republican move to take advantage of this view amongst their voters, but do note that it would have some acceptance across-the-board as it would be seen as having the wealthiest Americans paying more in a terms of porportion of taxation. This first point is not a shocker, really, although the 'across-the-board' cuts folks and the 'trickle down' folks are slowly finding their views falling out of favor by that significant minority shift. While the majority can still put through such pro-business or 'fair' across-the-board cuts, the slow alienation of that minority should be a large worry to the Republican party.

That pro-business view of the Republican party takes a hard hit on the greatest marketing slogan put forward of: 'free trade freeing people'. To examine that I will now put a quote in from the article on this topic:

Six in 10 Republicans in the poll agreed with a statement that free trade has been bad for the U.S. and said they would agree with a Republican candidate who favored tougher regulations to limit foreign imports. That represents a challenge for Republican candidates who generally echo Mr. Bush's calls for continued trade expansion, and reflects a substantial shift in sentiment from eight years ago.

"It's a lot harder to sell the free-trade message to Republicans," said Republican pollster Neil Newhouse, who conducts the Journal/NBC poll with Democratic counterpart Peter Hart. The poll comes ahead of the Oct. 9 Republican presidential debate in Michigan sponsored by the Journal and the CNBC and MSNBC television networks.

That same 60% that is for lower taxes shows up *again* on the 'free trade' issue. This single issue pushed at least since the Reagan Administration and pushed hard by academics, pundits, and various business media outlets, including the WSJ, have not 'made the sale' on free trade. Quite contrarily, after seeing it NOT work for decades in China and having Mexico abuse NAFTA and export its unemployed northwards to the US and Canada, the Republican base is no longer supporting the concept of 'free trade'. The stated view is that this is bad for US local production, but some part of it is also attached to the illegal immigration issue caused by the relaxed views of NAFTA and the slow dissolving of US National Sovereignty because of free trade. Ross Perot, in 1992, indicated that NAFTA would create a major downward trend in US production of goods, but it has, instead, seen US firms penalized on various environmental issues that are NOT as strict in Mexico and has so attacked the US on its ability to regulate immigration and product standards that the Republican base is sending a clear message: enough is enough.

This is one of the few areas that some of the Democratic presidential candidates are actually *ahead* of their Republican counterparts: free trade. After initial sign-on to it, by President Clinton, the Clinton camp and a few other Democrats are feeling the free trade winds slowing. All the verbiage put forth by various academics, economics pundits and political supporters are not dealing with the paucity of freedom in China, or in other parts of the world where the view of trade being the balm of all things has not yielded significant results. The shift of Nations to democratic outlook is spearheaded by the vast Nation of India, and that, alone, would skew global demographics. Even worse, is the failing of democracy to address social ills across Africa, South America, and SE Asia, along with the newly formed Central Asian States. Democracy, even when present, has not dealt with organized crime, the narcotics trade, terrorism or money laundering due to political graft and corruption present even in democratic nations.

Increasing trade has, indeed, brought more *goods* to more people in India and China, but only where liberty and freedom have backing by the people and their governments can such goods be secured against government. That is the case in India, but not the case in China where increasing goods are an attempt by the regime to bribe its own population so as to keep its economic bubble inflated. The goods put out from China and parts of SE Asia that undercut the US domestic market via cheap labor and sub-standard goods is now seen as a detriment to the economy of the US.

This has been a shift over the last eight years as WSJ points out:

In a December 1999 Wall Street Journal-NBC poll, 37% of Republicans said trade deals had helped the U.S. and 31% said they had hurt, while 26% said they made no difference.

While this year's choices are somewhat different (59% con/ 32% pro/ 9% UNK) against the 1999 figures (37% con/ 31% pro/ 26% no change/ 5%UNK) the strong shift when the 'no change' is removed to the con side of the equation gaining all but 1% of the shifting 'no change' and unknown groups is startling. Out of the 31% on that latter in 1991 9% go in the UNK territory (+4%) and the rest move almost without exception to the con side on free trade. After long decades of pushing by the business portions of the Republican party, to see that equation of overseas production leading to greater prosperity is not resonating in their party. The shift of America to a majority 'services' based economy, now beating out industrial production, is a primary concern here. The can-do, pro-workforce of Americans making things is not having a high match-up with the services based economy.

This push-back is examined by the WSJ and using anectdotal evidence, examines those that have joined the Republican party:

Post-9/11 security concerns have also displaced some of the traditional economic concerns of the Republican Party that Ronald Reagan reshaped a generation ago. Asked which issues will be most important in determining their vote, a 32% plurality cited national defense, while 25% cited domestic issues such as education and health care, and 23% cited moral issues. Ranking last, identified by just 17%, were economic issues such as taxes and trade.

John Pirtle, a 40-year-old Defense Department employee in Grand Rapids, Mich., said he drifted toward the Republican Party in large part because of his opposition to abortion, but doesn't agree with the free-trade views of leading candidates.

"We're seeing a lot of jobs farmed out," said Mr. Pirtle, whose father works for General Motors Corp. Rankled by reports of safety problems with Chinese imports, he added, "The stuff we are getting, looking at all the recalls, to be quite honest, it's junk."

The conservative, working family that likes the Republican party for its support of traditional values (the religious conservatives and family values conservatives) do not like the movement on industrial outlook and values. In my own family this has been seen as the case with a family member working for a small aerospace firm farming out work to the Philippines: the work coming in needs large amounts of QA, re-work, acceptance and some being sent back as rejected. This is not only time consuming and adds into overhead, but it removes the feeling that 'Made in America' has any meaning at all: the workers who used to do the work farmed out know they can get it done on-schedule, to high quality standards and minimal time for re-work.

Unfortunately the Republican party does not understand the message being sent to it:

Economic advisers to Republican presidential hopefuls acknowledge the safety scandals have made defending free trade more difficult. "Americans are right to be angered at companies that take shortcuts" in importing goods, said Larry Lindsey, once the top economic aide in the Bush White House and now an adviser to Mr. Thompson's presidential bid. "The next president has to promote free trade by playing hardball, and to be seen doing so."

In the Republican campaign so far, elevating populist trade concerns has been left to the long shots. "The most important thing a president needs to do is to make it clear that we're not going to continue to see jobs shipped overseas....and then watch as a CEO takes a $100 million bonus," Mr. Huckabee said at a debate earlier this year. "If Republicans don't stop it, we don't deserve to win in 2008."

This is not a question of 'playing hardball' but of removing the workforce of America from industrial work and letting low-cost, low-quality competitors remove jobs overseas. By utilizing low cost foreign labor and placement, American quality work and ability to create efficient means of production are de-legitimized. Further, beyond the safety issues from China and other parts of SE Asia, both in products delivered and working conditions abroad, the idea that free trade is a sacrosanct part of how the capitalist system works is false. Americans deeply understand that trade is accountable to the needs of society, and that often does not mean just the lowest price on goods. For commodities price is a factor, but for such things as individual self-worth and having finished products made by Americans for Americans, this is a major support of the social structure of the Nation.

America has, at its basis, a deep understanding of this topic from the very start of the Nation and the main cause of the Revolutionary War starting with trade policy in the colonies. A rallying cry of 'No Taxation Without Representation'. America well understands that trade can be taxed, as it was, by the King, but the proportion of taxes to pay off debt being decided by the King was reason to raise up in arms against him. The rights of subjects to have a say in such things had already passed to parliament, and by not giving subjects that right, a basic and foundational part of how society was to operate was broken. The question was not 'free trade', as a concept, but social control over trade and the burden of society to be supported by trade.

As a concept this has been restated a number of times in America, mostly by its Presidents, as is seen in the following:

It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society the farmers, mechanics, and laborers who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles.

Nor is our Government to be maintained or our Union preserved by invasions of the rights and powers of the several States. In thus attempting to make our General Government strong we make it weak. Its true strength consists in leaving individuals and States as much as possible to themselves in making itself felt, not in its power, but in its beneficence; not in its control, but in its protection; not in binding the States more closely to the center, but leaving each to move unobstructed in its proper orbit.

Experience should teach us wisdom. Most of the difficulties our Government now encounters and most of the dangers which impend over our Union have sprung from an abandonment of the legitimate objects of Government by our national legislation, and the adoption of such principles as are embodied in this act. Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress. By attempting to gratify their desires we have in the results of our legislation arrayed section against section, interest against interest, and man against man, in a fearful commotion which threatens to shake the foundations of our Union. It is time to pause in our career to review our principles, and if possible revive that devoted patriotism and spirit of compromise which distinguished the sages of the Revolution and the fathers of our Union. If we can not at once, in justice to interests vested under improvident legislation, make our Government what it ought to be, we can at least take a stand against all new grants of monopolies and exclusive privileges, against any prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many, and in favor of compromise and gradual reform in our code of laws and system of political economy....

That is an American President, talking not only of the value of work and self-worth,but the control exercised by the Nation on trade. Indeed, when rich industrialists and vested interests push 'free trade' as good for their own interests and the interests of the Nation are skewed to them and against the working man, the Nation becomes unbalanced to the profit of the few over the many. Government has no place in 'leveling the economic playing field', as the skills and abilities of each individual differ. Government has no place in over-rewarding the rich and successful, either, so as to create a priveleged class with their own separate laws.

The author of those words was President Andrew Jackson on 10 JUL 1832 on the Bank Veto, which he enacted so as to remove money interests in the National Bank concept out of the hands of foreigners. The more general point of the message, however, has resonated throughout America since then, and would come to be known under the concept of social and industrial justice. This viewpoint would continue on in America and be restated by a Republican:

A democracy can be such in fact only if there is some rough approximation in similarity in stature among the men composing it. One of us can deal in our private lives with the grocer or the butcher or the carpenter or the chicken raiser, or if we are the grocer or carpenter or butcher or farmer, we can deal with our customers, because we are all of about the same size. Therefore a simple and poor society can exist as a democracy on a basis of sheer individualism. But a rich and complex industrial society cannot so exist; for some individuals, and especially those artificial individuals called corporations, become so very big that the ordinary individual is utterly dwarfed beside them, and cannot deal with them on terms of equality. It therefore becomes necessary for these ordinary individuals to combine in their turn, first in order to act in their collective capacity through that biggest of all combinations called the Government, and second, to act, also in their own self-defense, through private combinations, such as farmers' associations and trade unions.

[..]

Of course, in labor controversies it was not always possible to champion the cause of the workers, because in many cases strikes were called which were utterly unwarranted and were fought by methods which cannot be too harshly condemned. No straightforward man can believe, and no fearless man will assert, that a trade union is always right. That man is an unworthy public servant who by speech or silence, by direct statement or cowardly evasion, invariably throws the weight of his influence on the side of the trade union, whether it is right or wrong. It has occasionally been my duty to give utterance to the feelings of all right thinking men by expressing the most emphatic disapproval of unwise or even immoral notions by representatives of labor. The man is no true democrat, and if an American, is unworthy of the traditions of his country who, in problems calling for the exercise of a moral judgment, fails to take his stand on conduct and not on class. There are good and bad wage-workers just as there are good and bad employers, and good and bad men of small means and of large means alike.

But a willingness to do equal and exact justice to all citizens, irrespective of race, creed, section or economic interest and position, does not imply a failure to recognize the enormous economic, political and moral possibilities of the trade union. Just as democratic government cannot be condemned because of errors and even crimes committed by men democratically elected, so trade-unionism must not be condemned because of errors or crimes of occasional trade-union leaders. The problem lies deeper. While we must repress all illegalities and discourage all immoralities, whether of labor organizations or of corporations, we must recognize the fact that to-day the organization of labor into trade unions and federations is necessary, is beneficent, and is one of the greatest possible agencies in the attainment of a true industrial, as well as a true political, democracy in the United States.

This is a fact which many well-intentioned people even to-day do not understand. They do not understand that the labor problem is a human and a moral as well as an economic problem; that a fall in wages, an increase in hours, a deterioration of labor conditions mean wholesale moral as well as economic degeneration, and the needless sacrifice of human lives and human happiness, while a rise of wages, a lessening of hours, a bettering of conditions, mean an intellectual, moral and social uplift of millions of American men and women. There are employers to-day who, like the great coal operators, speak as though they were lords of these countless armies of Americans, who toil in factory, in shop, in mill and in the dark places under the earth. They fail to see that all these men have the right and the duty to combine to protect themselves and their families from want and degradation. They fail to see that the Nation and the Government, within the range of fair play and a just administration of the law, must inevitably sympathize with the men who have nothing but their wages, with the men who are struggling for a decent life, as opposed to men, however honorable, who are merely fighting for larger profits and an autocratic control of big business. Each man should have all he earns, whether by brain or body; and the director, the great industrial leader, is one of the greatest of earners, and should have a proportional reward; but no man should live on the earnings of another, and there should not be too gross inequality between service and reward.

That author is from Theodore Roosevelt's autobiography, taken from CHAPTER XIII SOCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL JUSTICE. Here and again, the concept of individuals keeping as much as they earn and yet not bowing unjustly to larger organizations (which in our latter day would now include Big Labor as fitting into that category) to the detriment of the society and the social structure. There is a deep moral sense of America on this, and social and industrial justice in these terms is far from the Leftist terms of Marx, Lenin, Mao and others of that stripe. More properly this is societal justice to keep industry and large organizations fettered to the needs of the entire Nation so that all may be treated equally before the law.

It is in this realm that the Republican party and its presidential candidates are drifting from their 'base' that were invited in by the 'Big Tent' philosophy. Those American workers who see no accord with socialist doctrine or basis for legislation. This is the base that started to withhold contributions to the Republican party over the illegal immigration bills, and continues to rally to that cause to thwart those in the monied interests on Left and Right who wish to undermine the society of the Nation via that. The 'free trade' bloc aligns with the view of illegal immigration being just fine with them, so as to undermine the labor force of America via illegal labor.

This is social and industrial justice slowly coalescing not only in the Republican party, but in those parts of the Democratic party that remain pro-defense, but also pro-social justice on the terms of Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt. These individuals have not been convinced of the value of unfettered trade and, indeed, see that 'hardball' is necessary: not against illegal activities, although that is a part of it, but against the anti-working class conservative outlook that it fosters in America. That is industrial and manufacturing work, not 'services'.

So many have been turned off by this dichotomy of the Left and Right on this, both seeking to put a National imprint via the Federal Government to demean the industrial working class of America, that the working class no longer look to the two parties as capable of representing them. The Left stepped far away from those people starting with Franklin Roosevelt in the post-New Deal era, and the centralization of things to government that had never, ever been the purview of government before. Prior to that, however, the moralistic views of a religious segment of the population started to criminalize procedures that had been left up to doctors and patients previously, and to generalized trade agreements thereafter. Those first intrusions as part of the coalition of socialists and religious moralists, shifted the basis of government upwards to the benefit of the Federal Government and out of the hands of States and local organizations.

On a historic scale, starting in the mid-1960's, the trend has been clear and ominous of Americans slowly becoming unaffiliated with the two party system and seeing none of the 'alternative' or 'third party' organizations as supporting them. Those third parties have tended to be so ideologically pure that they cannot represent the diversity of America. This is troubling for a democracy when it has no alternative party organization that can represent even a minor plurality of opinions. When a two party system *itself* heads towards ideological purity on the part of both parties, the result is lowering of individuals voting as they no longer have connection to the limited views represented by the two parties.

At this point in time it would not be surprising to see a cross-coalition of social and industrial justice outlooks along with strong National Security interests start to form up over the next decade, and settle outside of the two party system. These are individuals feeling disenfranchised and put upon by the two party system, who are no longer willing to support the New Deal social compact and are unwilling to see invasion of the individual's private life by the Federal Government on much of anything. These individuals see that fairness in tax doctrine also has a progressive element to it, and also see that taxations should be limited, restrained and paid by individuals and corporations up front. Taxes on purchases are not a cause of rejoicing, but a cause for long term fears of encroaching Federal power. Better to have the States do that as they can be held accountable far more easily than the Federal Government can.

On a values basis this group is more pro-family and pro-work, with religious affiliation backed but not to extremist views. The moralistic wisdom of invading people's decisions on narcotics has, as a direct fall out, the attempts to place further strictures on individuals via the Federal Government in other areas, like abortion and the high cost of legal medications. By centering decisions on families and individuals, the view that government can 'insure' them on anything from retirement to health care is also diminished as it is now seen as a money 'sink' from which no one rightly expects a return equal to what can be gained by individuals investing and purchasing such things on their own.

Trade, the sore point in this, is not seen as a beneficence to all peoples, and 'free trade' and 'dumping' of cheap products an actual harm to the US worker. Tariffs are not only not 'out of the question' they are definitely 'in the realm of respect' for holding foreign Nations accountable to the activities of their companies. Illegal alien workers are also seen as a drag and detriment to this class of people, and they see no reason to have free trade with a Nation that abuses such and breaks its treaty agreements with the US.

That does not describe either the Democratic or Republican party of today, does it?

And yet it is exactly where those that felt left out from the Democratic party went to with the Republican party and now are disillusioned with it, along with many of their friends who have just stopped voting for either of these parties. Add in the 40% or so of Americans that don't vote (and still leaving plenty of space for the 5% perennially disaffected), put in 60% of the Republican party and perhaps as much as a 10% residual left in the Democratic party and you have a 'New Majority' in America.

It would not be without reason to see the Red/Blue divide in America gain the third color of the flag: White. Neutral white that wants to keep both the progressives and industrialists and monied interests on a short leash.

Small government, low but graduated taxation, pro-defense, pro-family, pro-individual and movement of any societal need of government down to the local venue.

None dare say its name

My thanks to Mr. Z on his post on Cycle, which stirred my thoughts and thus the following in the fully linked and annotated version, which I saved the poor readers at Mr. Z's place the headache and eyestrain of a linkfest:

"Our present condition, is, Legislation without law;
wisdom without a plan;
a constitution without a name;
and, what is strangely astonishing,
perfect Independance contending for dependance.

The instance is without a precedent;
the case never existed before;
and who can tell what may be the event?

The property of no man is secure in the present unbraced system of things.

The mind of the multitude is left at random, and seeing no fixed object before them, they pursue such as fancy or opinion starts.

Nothing is criminal;
there is no such thing as treason;
wherefore, every one thinks himself at liberty to act as he pleases."
- Thomas Paine, Common Sense


We are exactly where we were, it appears, before that time when things needed to be declared... blood spilled against tyranny, yet many wanting to appease it even so... how bad things must get before we see that lack of being fixed towards liberty is tyranny in and of itself?

Indeed our Constitution is nameless... see at the top a lack of name?

We name the punishment for treason found, and well it is said two must say that this is so... yet now we cannot even say what treason *is*, and unnamed many practice it to our mutual bane.

Again and again we are told to look up to government for answers and yet, it supplies few, hidebound, static, uncaring save for those that govern. Never are we told to look to ourselves and to say, 'this is ours to have, ours to lose' for in that doing we realize we have been undone and betrayed by those we entrusted with our welfare.

We say there are those that represent us, and yet most have never voted for them. Wherefore do they come, these ones that stay in office as Nobles and Royalty?

Indeed legislation there is to great marks and depths, rules made and yet never enforced until only the rules are law in abundance and never kept, thus meaningless to all.

Once independent we now depend upon the largesse graced to us by those that rule, forgetting that such largesse is ours to start with, given freely by consent.

We have those calling for 'fair taxation' and yet we are unrepresented as most have not given the grace of ballot to consent to these rulers to tax us. Make taxation easy and forget the cost of it to you and me by paying, and in that forgetting the Tree of Liberty withers, its branches grow barren, the Republic parched beneath dead, rustling leaves.

Winds blow now anew, predators skulk in that shadow land around us and no longer do we look to the stars above to give guidance, only to those that make plans and legislations and yet they have no law to give and such wisdom is without aim.

The Great Tree dies, even as patriots die in far off land to help others learn about this Tree.

We see them learn and branches near them slowly bud with promise of new found liberty to make freedom whole. Yet by us events grow weary, slow and leaves fall around us as the heat of tyranny is felt in the land once more.

Predators come to us again, yet we dare not call them that for it would have meaning and direction to that, so in our wisdom we call them 'human' yet they are beasts red of tooth and claw.

We rejoice in one gravely wounded beast afar, and yet ignore that it regrows even as we watch and other creatures worse still grow stronger without name to them.

Others have heard that clarion call, see that guiding star and beacon, and desperately seek to find way to give the Tree nourishment, yet their fetters remain and heads bowed as beasts keep them under foot.

Now those who spoke such things are dead and their nourishment unrenewed to the Tree. Liberty dies here, even as we teach it elsewhere, and we forget the meaning of liberty as it was spoken out so long ago.

Yet the wellspring of Liberty can refresh if man and man and man come together and make it theirs to keep. Too few keep to Liberty as the means of tending called democracy has too few to govern, yet too many to rule.

We become more numerous yet those in governing fewer and fewer to us, until we know them not. Democracy is those we KNOW sent forth, not those we THINK we know. Without the cacophany of voices, the whispering of conspiracy is heard in the lack of multitude.

The only conspiracy is ours, as we think democracy can be easy to do, yet it is not easy and is the harshest, hardest, system to keep running as many another land has shown us when they took the pathway of ease and comfort. That House we built is too small, and has too few in it, yet to speak the say that too few is not democracy is to be demonized by those that wish ease and efficiency.

Tyranny is easy.
Despotism is efficient.
Totalitarianism is simplicity itself.

Democracy?

America wanted it easy.
America wanted it efficient.
America wanted it simple.

Liberty is hard.
Slavery is simple.

Best we remember that lest the beasts fit the fetters to us in their depravity which many will call saviour. And others will see as dictator.

Wherefore art thou, the Sons and Daughters of Liberty? Acting as you please in perfect dependence so that things can be simple for you?

Treason.