Bernie Sander's Radical Politics

| No TrackBacks
English: Photo of Thomas Hill Green.

English: Photo of Thomas Hill Green. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

    Otto von Bismarck, the first Chancellor of Germany, with the support of business, created the modern welfare state in response to the political threat  posed by the Social Democratic Party of Germany. Bismarck introduced old age pensions, accident insurance and medical care that formed the basis of the modern European welfare state.  In his own speech to the Reichstag during the1881 debates, Bismarck replied, "Call it socialism or whatever you like. It is the same to me."

    Similar political reforms were adopted in Sweden at the behest of the Social Democratic  Party and in the other Scandinavian countries by the early part of the Twentieth Century.

    During the second half of the nineteenth century, the British Liberal Party - inspired by Thomas Hill Green's critique of classical liberalism - gradually abandoned its commitment to laissez-faire government and became a staunch proponent of political reform. The party argued for toleration toward non-conformists, agitated for factory legislation to improve the working conditions of the British laborer, revised the poor-laws to eliminate their more onerous effects upon the down- and-out, improved education, and passed laws to include rural workers within the protective powers of government list.

     Upon becoming Prime Minister in 1908, Herbert Henry Asquith - who as a student had studied under Green at Oxford  - and his Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lloyd George, devised a program of social legislation that was sweeping in its scope. The program included provisions for public labor exchanges, minimum wages, housing, town-planning and a National Insurance Program to provide protection against sickness and unemployment. The bulk of the program - which far exceeded anything later proposed by Roosevelt's New Deal - was designed to improve the conditions of life for the average citizen in the United Kingdom and the program was financed through a sharply-increased progressive income tax, inheritance taxes, and levies upon incremental land.

    Here in the United States, Green's idea that government should  act "as a positive instrument for the public good" has been bitterly resisted by the 1% and their enablers for the past one hundred years. Through their calculated efforts, the words "liberal" and "socialist" have become pejoratives. Hence, the media, echoing the conventional wisdom , endlessly tells us that Bernie Sanders, as a self-declared social democrat, is too radical to be elected president.

    What would happen if every American voter were to ignore propaganda, the one-upmanship, and the inside-the-beltway punditry and actually paid attention to the issues as Senator Sanders has defined them on his website?

    *  "The issue of wealth and income inequality is the great moral issue of our time, it is the great economic issue of our time, and it is the great political issue of our time."

    *  "Today, we live in the richest country in the history of the world, but that reality means little because much of that wealth is controlled by a tiny handful of individuals."

    *  "Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to buy the United States government. Oil companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, Wall Street bankers and other powerful special interests have poured money into our political system for years. In 2010, a bad situation turned worse. In a 5-4 decision in the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court opened the floodgates for corporations and the wealthy to spend unlimited and undisclosed money to buy our elected officials. The Supreme Court essentially declared that corporations have the same rights as natural-born human beings."

    *  "The real unemployment rate is much higher than the 'official' figure typically reported in the newspapers. When you include workers who have given up looking for jobs, or those who are working part time when they want to work full time, the real number is much higher than official figures would suggest.

    "It's even worse for young people. A recent study found that over 50 percent of young African-Americans and more than one-third of white and Hispanic youth are looking for full-time work.

    "We are in the midst of an ongoing unemployment crisis, and we must take bold action to address it."

    *  "When my Republican colleagues mention 'family values,' they're usually talking about opposition to contraception, denying a woman's right to choose, or opposition to gay rights.

    "Real family values strengthen the bonds of family and improve the lives of our families. When it comes to these values, our country deserves better.

    "We are the only major nation in the world that doesn't guarantee paid time off for new parents. Of 182 nations that do provide paid leave for this purpose, more than half guarantee at least 14 weeks off.

    "We are the only one of 22 wealthy nations that does not guarantee some type of paid sick leave, and the only one that does not provide paid sick leave for a worker undergoing a 50-day cancer treatment.

    "We are the only advanced economy, and one of only 13 nations in the entire world, that doesn't guarantee workers a paid vacation.

    *  "Unless we take bold action to address climate change, our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren are going to look back on this period in history and ask a very simple question: Where were they? Why didn't the United States of America, the most powerful nation on earth, lead the international community in cutting greenhouse gas emissions and preventing the devastating damage that the scientific community told us would surely come?

    *  "Wall Street cannot continue to be an island unto itself, gambling trillions in risky financial instruments while expecting the public to bail it out.

    "It is time to break up the largest financial institutions in the country. The six largest financial institutions in this country today hold assets equal to about 60% of the nation's gross domestic product. These six banks issue more than two-thirds of all credit cards and over 35 percent of all mortgages. They control 95 percent of all derivatives and hold more than 40 percent of all bank deposits in the United States.

    "We must break up too-big-to-fail financial institutions. Those institutions received a $700 billion bailout from the US taxpayer, and more than $16 trillion in virtually zero interest loans from the Federal Reserve. Despite that, financial institutions made over $152 billion in profit in 2014 - the most profitable year on record, and three of the four largest financial institutions are 80 percent bigger today than they were before we bailed them out ?

    "Our banking system must be part of the productive, job-creating productive economy. The Federal Reserve, a government entity which serves as the engine of the banking industry, must eliminate its internal conflicts of interest, provide stricter oversight, and insist that the banks its supports serve the economy in a way that works for everyone, not just a few.

    "If a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. These institutions have acquired too much economic and political power, endangering our economy and our political process."

    Do those issues seem too radical to resonate with ordinary Americans?  If the answer still is yes, perhaps Erasmus's observation provides a clue: "In the land of the blind, the one eyed-man is king."

Hypocrisy and the Impasse over Immigration Reform

| No TrackBacks
      Donald Trump wants America to build a permanent wall at the U.S.-Mexican border. "We'll have a great wall. We'll call it the Great Wall of Trump," he told Fox Business recently. Chris Christie has stated that if he is elected president, he will track undocumented immigrants like FedEx packages - perhaps with electronic transponder implants? - although he has yet to explain why it would not be easier and less expensive for the federal government to find less  intrusive methods to exclude illegal immigrants than to "brand" them.     
    The Pew Research Center reports that as of 2014 there were 11.3 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. and that the number of undocumented has remained relatively stable for five years. Undocumented aliens now comprise about 3.5% of the nation's population. The number of unauthorized immigrants apparently peaked in 2007 at 12.2 million - or 4% of the U.S. population - before the financial meltdown that began in 2008.

    Currently, undocumented Mexicans make up approximately half of all unauthorized immigrants, but their numbers have declined in the last five years. In 2012, according to Pew Center reports,  there were 5.9 million Mexican unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in 2012, down from 6.4 million in 2009. During the same time period, the number of unauthorized immigrants from Asia, the Caribbean, Central America, the Middle East, Africa and some other areas increased slightly.

     Pro Publica reports that the U.S.spent nearly $18 billion dollars on immigration enforcement in Fiscal Year 2012, and that the Department of Homeland Security employed 21,790 officers to patrol U.S. Borders and enforce immigration laws, while the Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates that illegal immigrants receive $ 9.2 billion dollars annually in direct and indirect benefits paid for by U.S. taxpayers.  

       Irrespective of whose statistics one chooses to accept, there is little doubt that the presence of undocumented aliens and the inability of the Untied States to control its own borders pose serious problems. These problems are compounded by a strange alliance among competing political, economic and legal interests that together have stymied the adoption of two very simple mechanisms to ascertain citizenship status and to control immigration - a national identification card, which virtually all policy analysts concede would be effective  and the mandatory use of the U.S. Department Labor's existing E-Verify system for all employers.

    To date,  these two very simple, comprehensive and cost-effective proposals have been resisted because of concerns about alleged government intrusion and threats to privacy and individual liberty. Ironically, by contrast, the enormous and intrusive amount of personal financial information and data that Equifax, Transamerica and Espiron - three unelected, private, for-profit credit reporting agencies currently compile and maintain on almost every American citizen - barely elicits a critical comment.

    Undocumented immigrants have violated American immigration law, but their crimes are compounded by the thousands upon thousands of American employers who illegally employed and exploited them while feigning ignorance of their status as ineligible employees, despite the fact that current federal laws require that prospective employees present proof of citizenship or show that they are lawful alien residents. 

    Western European democracies - with the notable exception of the United Kingdom - have embraced the use of national ID cards with little difficulty or divisive political debate.  One explanation for the difference in addressing immigration issues may be found in the differing political traditions. European democracies, in contrast to the individualism of American liberal democracy, are communitarian cultures that have retained residual cultural values which emphasize the importance of community and support the notion that there exists something called the public interest, or, to use Rousseau's phrase, "the general will." 

    In the United States, however, the persistence of the traditional consensus - what Gunnar Myrdal defined as the American Creed - constrains the ability of citizens and policymakers alike to imagine, or to advocate, policies which promote a social or public good, as opposed to the policies that are calculated to benefit only individuals or special interests.

    Until the American electorate can see beyond those self-serving parties whose interests would be adversely affected by the adoption of a national ID system, hysteria, demagoguery and hypocrisy will continue to dominate the public debate over immigration reform.    

Which Is The Greater Threat to U.S. Security?

| No TrackBacks

        The contretemps over the Iranian Nuclear Pact that the U.S. government has negotiated along with the representatives of Russia, China, England, France and the European Union has grown ever more intemperate as bloviating demagogues such as Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump accuse President Obama of treason, and invoke the specters of Neville Chamberlain and Munich and the gas ovens of Auschwhitz. Meanwhile, a consortium of pro-Israeli and rightwing interests have blistered the airwaves with equally charged and preposterous claims, but all are too cowardly to admit that the only viable alternative to a nuclear pact with Iran is war.  Of course, the war that these defenders of the welfare-through-warfare state would support would never be one in which they, their children or grandchildren would be placed in harm's way. Any war would be someone else's job to fight - preferably those drawn from the ranks of the down-and-out and the hard-scrabble who would be led into combat by this country's professional warrior class. 



            Since the events of September 11, 2001, the United States has been continuously involved in two major misbegotten foreign adventures and a series of other counter-productive and disastrous incursions in the Middle East in which we are viewed as the invaders and in which we have had little prospect of  achieving "favorable outcomes." In addition to the more than 7200 military lives lost, thousands more have been physically injured or traumatized, and hundreds of thousands of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan have been killed and maimed.


            When all of the accounts have been tallied and reconciled, the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will cost taxpayers $4 trillion to $6 trillion, including medical care for wounded veterans and expensive repairs to a military depleted by more than a decade of fighting, according to a study by a Harvard University professor Linda J. Bilmes, in a report that was released in March of 2013.


            According to a another recent report prepared by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, the United States today spends more on defense than the next 8 countries combined. "Defense spending accounts for about 20 percent of all federal spending - nearly as much as Social Security, or the combined spending for Medicare and Medicaid. The sheer size of the defense budget suggests that it should be part of any serious effort to address America's long-term fiscal challenges." The report quotes Admiral Mike Mullen, the past Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "The single greatest threat to our national security is our debt."


            As of August 2013, despite the putative end of U.S. involvement in Iraq and the winding down of the of U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, there were approximately 1.43 million active-duty military personnel on duty in the armed forces of the U.S. States and more than 850,000 in the active duty reserves of all branches. In addition, the United States has active duty personnel stationed in more than 150 countries. While many of these deployments involve assignments to American embassies and special training projects overseas, the presence of U.S. active duty military personnel throughout Europe, and in Japan and Korea remains significant, sixty-nine years after the end of World War II in Europe and sixty-one years after an armistice was declared in Korea.


            More than 100,000 active-duty American military are presently assigned to these three regions, the cost of which is still largely borne by U.S. taxpayers. Because of the U.S. military shield, the European countries, especially Germany, and Japan and South Korea have been able to invest in the modernization of their manufacturing sectors and to increase the number of their exports to the United States at a time when American manufacturing has been increasingly out-sourced to third world countries. Japan and Korea, in particular, have adopted onerous, restrictive trade policies that make it almost impossible for American automobile companies and heavy equipment manufacturers to compete successfully in those countries.


             Further, a recent "Base Structure Report" of the Department of Defense stated that "the Department's physical assets consist of As one of the Federal government's larger holders of real estate, the DOD manages a global real property portfolio hat consists of more than 557,000facilities (buildings, structures, and linear structures), located on over 5,000 sites worldwide and covering over 27.7 million acres." Most of these locations listed are within the continental United States, but 96 of them are located in U.S. territories around the globe, and 702  are situated in foreign countries.


            For the fiscal year 2015, the U.S. Department of Defense and military-related budget is $756.4 billion. That sum includes $495.6 billion for the base budget of the Department of Defense; $85.4 billion for Overseas Contingency Funds for the wind-down of the War in Afghanistan;  $175.4 billion for defense-related agencies and functions; $65.3 for the Veterans Administration ; $42.6 billion for the State Department; 38.2 billion for  Homeland Security; $17.6 billion for FBI and Cybersecurity in the Department of Justice; and $11.7 billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration in the Department of Energy.  Because of the newly announced initiative to confront ISIL, that estimate is likely to be far too conservative.   


            Based upon the size and budget of the U.S. defense budget, and the pre-occupation of the popular media, the chattering class media and the political establishment, many Americans may understandably assume that the Ted Cruz, and Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump are right in their contention that Iran, followed perhaps by ISIS, Russia, China, Cuba or any combination of the theocratic Islamic lunatics and the four countries pose the greatest threat to the safety and security of the United States. But the facts show otherwise.


            Within the past month, this country has continued to witness horrific acts of gun violence including in Charleston, South Carolina and Louisiana. According to the Gun Violence Archive, as of July 31, 2015, 28,954 men, women and children have been killed or injured by guns since January 1, 2015.  The Violence Policy Center reports that, since 1960, more than 1.3 million Americans have died in firearm suicides, homicides, and unintentional injuries.  By contrast, since the founding of this Republic, the same number of military have perished in all of the wars, here and abroad, in which this country has been involved.


            Something is terribly wrong with a political system that continues to spend trillions of dollars to protect against imaginary threats abroad, yet remains oblivious to the fact that its citizens are more likely to be killed by gun-toting neighbors, deranged psychopaths, criminals, hate groups and rightwing militia members who prowl the highways, malls and public spaces of this country armed with their murderous firepower. The first and most fundamental duty of any government, Justice Scalia and District of Columbia v. Heller notwithstanding, is to  protect and defend the lives of its citizens. On that basis the political system of the United States - and its elected and appointed officials - have failed miserably.


An Increasingly Imperfect Union

| No TrackBacks

             This Fourth of July, as in so many years past, politicians, public figures, and the citizens at large will celebrate the independence of the United States from Great Britain, invoke the inspirational words of the Declaration of Independence, and laud the American experiment as the noblest yet conceived of by man. Yet underneath the platitudes, there is a growing sense of unease. Shrill partisanship and institutional gridlock, as well as intractable economic and social problems, suggest that the 18th century governmental machinery that has guided this country since the ratification of the constitution in 1787 is becoming increasingly sclerotic and unresponsive.


           The Founders of the American Republic, who were inspired by the politics of John Locke, shared his fear of concentrated power. Hence, they devised a constitutional system for the United States in which political power was distributed between the federal government and the individual states. The object, as James Madison commented, was to disperse political power: "The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures."


           At the federal level, as a consequence, the government has been divided into three very unwieldy branches. Although each branch has been declared by the text of the constitution to be co-equal, the three branches have very different mandates and in actual practice - as evidenced by number of employees, the resources allocated, and the points of access - they are quite unequal. For those reasons, the exercise of political power, because it is so diffused, is often also unaccountable. In addition, because the process of amending the constitution was intentionally made so cumbersome by the founders, meaningful structural change at the federal level is virtually impossible to effect. 


           To cite only one extreme example that  helps to explain the reasons for the kind of institutional gridlock that now exists in the Congress, each of the fifty states is entitled to two United States senators, irrespective of population. The result of this constitutional arrangement means that today voters in rural America and in less urbanized areas of the country exercise disproportionate political influence over this country's policies and priorities. Hence, for example, the rural and monochromatically white state of Wyoming, with some 582,913 citizens, has the same number of United Senators as the ethnically and economically diverse state of California, which as of 2014 had a population of about 38,000,000 citizens. 


           The growing influence of lobbyists provides additional evidence that the diffusion of power at the federal level, instead of protecting or promoting the interests of ordinary American citizens, has often had the opposite effect from that which Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton imagined: it has permitted the ascendancy of an influence-peddling elite who enjoy virtually unimpeded access to the legislative as well as the executive branches of the government. As of 2013, $3.24 billion dollars was spent by some 12,000 registered lobbyists at the federal level, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, to shape policies and legislation favorable to the interests of their individual clients.


           In 2014 alone, the finance, insurance and real estate interests are reported to have spent $494.34 million in lobbying, the health insurance industry spent $485.35 million, the communication and electronics industries $382.53 million, and the energy and natural gas industry, $345.671. By contrast, organized labor was only able to pony up $ 44.97 million to lobby on behalf of American workers.


           The second branch of the government - the Executive - is equally hobbled by the constraints imposed upon it. Other than the powers expressly granted to the President under Article 2, § 2, as commander-in-chief, and, under § 3 of that same article, to appoint ambassadors and to implicitly conduct foreign policy "with the advice and consent of the Senate," the President's powers over domestic issues are exceedingly limited. Beyond the enumerated powers, and those which some presidents may have arrogated to themselves because of the acquiescence of a timid and craven Congress, "Presidential power is the power to persuade," as presidential scholar Richard Neustadt argued.


           The primary domestic duty of the executive is to enforce the laws of the United States. However, this mandate has often proven to be meaningless in those cases where individuals who were chosen to serve as the executive have been opposed to the enforcement of laws that were enacted to promote civil rights or public health, or have been too politically timid  to reign in the worst excesses of business through administrative regulations.


            Recently, Mark Bittman wrote a column in the New York Times ( "Trust Me. Butter Is Better," June 24, 2015) in which he asked "Why would you buy a processed food that tastes worse than what it was designed to replace, doesn't exist in nature, and helps kill you?" Bittman informed readers that the Food and Drug Administration, an agency of the executive branch of the government, had finally decided to ban food containing trans fats, but only years after overwhelming evidence and litigation made the dangers of those substances clear beyond peradventure. He further noted that "partially hydrogenated oils have benefited no one except their manufacturers and the producers of the junk that includes them" but he lamented that "the three-year phase out means more deaths from people consuming a substance that should have been taken off the market at least a decade ago."


            "Why wait three years?" Bittman asked," Why not get these heart-stopping products off the shelves now, as we do when food is contaminated with E. coli? If the evidence is that trans fats are more harmful than other fats, and other fats exist, why delay? Protecting Big Food's profits is the only possible answer."


            A few years earlier, New York Times correspondent Eric Lipton  ("Safety Agency Faces Scrutiny Amid Charges," September 2, 2007) reported another appalling example that involved a decision by the Consumer Product and Safety Commission in which the agency chose to protect corporate interests to the detriment of consumer safety and the public interest.


            The Consumer Product and Safety Commission was established by the United States Congress in the 1970s in response to complaints concerning consumer safety first revealed by Ralph Nader. In March of 2005, the Commission called together the nation's top safety experts to confront the data which showed that 44,000 children who drove all terrain vehicles were injured the previous year, including 150 fatalities. Based upon her analysis, the agency's hazard statistician, Robin L. Ingle, recommended that sales of these vehicles be banned to children under 16 years of age. However, her recommendation was overridden by the agency's director of compliance, a former lawyer for the ATV industry, John Gibson Mullen, who had been a member of the law firm of the Whitewater and Clinton Special Prosecutor, Kenneth Star. Mr. Mullen was quoted as having said, "My own view is the situation is not necessarily deteriorating. We would need to be very careful about making any changes."


           The federal judiciary, as the third, unelected branch of the federal government in which judges enjoy "life tenure for good behavior," is also a significant part of the problem. In contrast to the the Marshall and the Warren Courts, since the onset of the  Nixon administration, the federal courts have done little except to mirror and to ratify the increasing distance between ordinary citizens and their government. Since the 1970s, led by an increasingly reactionary Supreme Court, the federal judiciary has expressed pronounced hostility toward increased government regulation, enforcement of civil rights laws, and legislation in the public interest. The net effect of this jurisprudence has been to empower corporations and to increase the influence of the 1%.


            The doctrine of "original intent," as conceived by Scalia among other jurists, is especially destructive since that it has been invented solely to thwart the continued evolution of American politics and jurisprudence - by imposing a requirement that all laws must be analyzed within the framework of an eighteenth century worldview. In the guise of a purported respect for the understanding and interpretation of the U.S. Constitution which the Founding Fathers evinced, this doctrine is, in actuality, a most radical form of judicial activism. It ignores the explicit language of  the "necessary and proper clause " of  Article 1,§ 9, c.18 of the U.S. Constitution and it imposes the dead hand of the past, in the form of a fossilized litmus test, upon an instrument which, since the time of John Marshall, had been viewed as a living, evolving document.


            The recent case of  Horne v. Department of Agriculture illustrates the destructive effect of that kind of literalism as the Supreme Court overturned settled regulatory law that during the New Deal was enacted to protect farmers from the volatility of unregulated agricultural markets. Yesterday also, in the case of Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, a 5-4 majority of the justices, based upon a cost-benefit analysis, chose to protect the interests of the coal and electric power industries and their right to pollute with  toxic, mercury-laden emissions rather than protect the public health. Once again, the ever petulant and sanctimonious Antonin Scalia opined that, "It is not rational, never mind 'appropriate,' to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits."


             Previously, in 2008 in District of Columbia, et al v. Heller, another scant 5-4 majority of the court divined to discover a previously unknown constitutional right under the Second Amendment that empowers individuals to possess guns and that, once again, curtails the ability of government to protect the safety of ordinary citizens through regulation in the public interest. Historically, the Second Amendment had universally been construed by the federal courts to grant to the people- collectively and not to individuals - the right to keep and bear arms as members of a well-regulated militia (today's National Guard). However, in the name of an abstract right of the individual right to own a gun, Scalia, joined by his four other ideological fellow travelers, denied the right of concrete human beings - who have died and will continue to die because of handgun violence - to be safe from harm: "We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country," Scalia piously intoned, "but the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table."


          Decades earlier, in the U.S. Supreme Court's 1976 decision in the matter of Buckley v. Valeo, as one of its effects, severely undermined public confidence in the political system. In that decision, the court upheld some modest limits imposed by the U.S. Congress upon individual campaign contributions. More importantly, however, the court held that the campaign contributions by corporations and other large entities were protected by the U.S. Constitution. Congressional attempts to impose restrictions on the financial contributions by corporations and other organizations, because they conflicted with First Amendment guarantees of free speech, would, henceforth, invite strict scrutiny by the court and would require that a compelling state interest had to be shown to pass judicial muster.


           Thirty-four years after the Buckley decision, an even more reactionary court declared any restrictions upon campaign financing by corporations violate the free speech provision of the First Amendment. In the matter of Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority in 5-4 decision, reversed two previous precedents which had upheld modest campaign finance regulations. Justice Kennedy opined that the Court had previously recognized that First Amendment protection extended to corporations and that "Under the rationale of these precedents cited, political speech does not lose First Amendment protection 'simply because its source is a corporation;" further "corporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the 'discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas' that the First Amendment seeks to foster."


           By its decisions in Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. FEC, a bare 5-4 majority of the justices of the Supreme Court reaffirmed their theological commitment to Locke's belief that the primary purpose of government is to protect property and its owners above all other rights. Henceforth, corporations and other immortal, non-natural entities, because of their ability to influence political decisions through their wealth and property, have been accorded a constitutional protection to influence the course of government greater than that of mortal, ordinary citizens. As a result of these two decisions, the voices of ordinary citizens and their ability to be heard have been reduced to an almost inaudible whisper in the "marketplace of ideas."


           Finally, at the state and local level, political power in the United States is exercised through fifty state legislatures and executives, and thousands of administrative agencies, commissions and departments. In 2002, there were reported to be 87,525 units of local government. The existence of so many competing and overlapping spheres of political power creates a kind of modern-day feudalism which ensures that the  influence of a few, powerful and connected interests, usually moneyed, will be carefully considered and acknowledged while the ability of ordinary citizens to influence these political entities is negligible. 


            Divided government, with its diffusion of power vertically and horizontally, has contributed to an appalling lack of accountability that enables the office-holders in each of the fifty states and in the three branches of the federal government to point accusing fingers at one another while refusing to accept responsibility for their own decision-making.


             Not surprisingly, the diffusion and distribution of political power within the political system of the United States has today resulted in something profoundly different than what the founders could ever have imagined or anticipated: The liberal consensus that gave birth to the American republic, emerged historically in England as a democratic force to challenge to feudal privilege and the tyranny of kings. But in the United States, where all who have been born are held to be equal before the law and where the Constitution expressly prohibits the granting of any titles of nobility, John Locke's politics has created its own antithesis: rule by oligarchs and corporate plutocrats, in which the rights of the wealthy individuals and their corporations are accorded a greater protection than the rights of ordinary Americans and are protected by a constitutional system that is virtually impossible to change, no mater how desperate the need.


            In contemporary American society, the anti-social individualism that is the essence and legacy of Locke's political philosophy has been given free reign, unencumbered by the restraints, modifications and caveats to which it was subjected in England and in other European political systems. There the ties of the traditional society and medieval ideas which place an emphasis upon cooperation and extol communitarianism have not unraveled and continue to inform and bind the political discourse. As a consequence, in Europe, Locke's individualism was given nuance and context; whereas in America, in the context of the political tabula rasa of the New World, the self has become the avatar.


            The metamorphosis of Locke's politics into the American political psyche and its constitutional system has contributed to the existence of significant institutional and structural problems at the federal, state, and local level. Because Locke's political philosophy has been constructed upon a foundation that recognizes and envisions only solitary selves, a concept of the whole- the public interest, what we owe to one another as citizens - is largely missing from American public discourse. Whether the issue is universal medical coverage, poverty, antiquated labor laws that harm workers and benefit employers, access to education, the need to rebuild our economy and to address decaying infrastructure, the impediments - which are the legacy of Locke's politics -remain: parochialism, special interests, and, all too often, an inability to see beyond the refrain of "What's in it for me?"


             Other vibrant democracies in the Western World have revisited and updated their constitutional schemes of government when the evidence showed that the governmental machinery no longer served the public interest. Why should we be any different?  

Private Affluence and Public Squalor Revisited

| No TrackBacks

        By almost every objective measure, the United States is a country in decline, as elected officials at the federal, state and local level continue to reduce investments in the public sector that are essential for economic growth and productivity.