We have a serious problem with integrity of American business and industry and it seems to be growing almost exponentially. This is a tough issue to discuss publicly, because any criticism is easily construed by those in the business world as using “too broad a brush” of criticism; and, in large measure they are probably right. I would like to think that most businesses and industries operating in this country are honest, honorable, and have the best interest of their customers at heart. But, there is a growing body of examples where this is not the case. And, some of these examples of failures like our financial industry (Wall Street), energy industry (including off shore drilling), military/industrial complex, auto manufacturers, food processors, etc., are huge and the lack of integrity has had serious negative ramifications on our country’s economy, ecology, reputation, and safety.
This is important because it strikes at the heart of our preferred economic system – the free-market/capitalistic system. Most people understand the underlying driving motive in this system – the need to make a profit. The system works best if it is unencumbered by government limitations and regulation. The ideal situation is where competition amongst those in a business serves as a self-regulating process resulting in good products, good service, growth for those doing it best, and good paying jobs for their workers. And yes, for those who are willing to work hard, have the courage to take the risk, have the ability to properly manage their business, have the intelligence and skills to innovate, the end result is accumulation of wealth. This is how it is supposed to work and we hear a constant litany from supporters of this system championing this theory.
The problem is that there is more and more evidence that the system too often works correctly only in these supporter’s imagination. It sounds so good; claims are made that it is what made this country great, and in their view any criticism of the system is un-American. Too often, any attempt to reign in the capitalistic system to make it safer, more honest, and just is branded as socialistic, communistic, fascist, or whatever terminology that has a strong negative connotation.
But, it seems we wake up everyday with another crisis resulting from abuse of the free-market/capitalistic system. And, when we delve into the reason for these crises, we find that they are the result of greed, illegal activities, unethical practices, shoddy management, abuse of financial and political clout, lack of competition, desire to maintain a small group’s status quo, etc.
We’ve faced very similar crises historically and we’ve worked our way through them. The early industrial revolution in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s was one period when abuses were legendary. Situations where “Robber Barons” controlled whole industries vertically – steel, railroads, and oil are examples. It was rife with abuses like child labor, unsafe working conditions, de-facto slavery of workers, vulgar accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few, control over the political processes (whole state legislatures and many U.S. Congressmen were “bought”), poor and unsafe products, and lack of competition. Two factors saved us. One was that the industrial revolution was in its infancy so that innovation overcame the status quo so quickly that we constantly stayed ahead of the game. The second factor was that the national government courageously stepped in and at least tempered the abuses.
We had a second period, the Great Depression of the 1930’s, where the capitalistic system failed us again. But once again, circumstances shined on us. We had government leaders with the courage to correct abuses, we had enough people with soundly based integrity and can do attitudes, innovation once again played a big role, and a tragic but justifiable war effort (WW II) gave us a unified sense of purpose to pull us together.
I don’t have the final answer of what it will take today to save some of the major tenets of a free-market/capitalistic system. One thing for certain is that it will require government involvement. This, regardless of what some claim to the contrary, is a must. The national government is the only one with the political and economic clout to take on the abuses that are inherit in the capitalistic system. In today’s society, government is not capitalism’s enemy, it is capitalism’s savior from itself. The government is after all our collective selves. The tricky thing is that it will be a narrow line to walk to use the government’s power to save the free-market/capitalistic system. Government can get too expensive and too powerful and stifle the free-market system – we need to guard against this. But, if government is too small, too weak, ineffective, or preempted by big business and industry, it can become a tool of the privileged promoting their interests at the expense of the people, resulting in a plutocracy – government by the wealthy.
History has proven that a democratic/republican system of government and a long term healthy economy can only survive if there is a strong middle class economically. Statistics clearly indicate that we are sliding away from this and part of the reason for this is that an inadequately controlled free-market/capitalistic system combined with a weak or special interest controlled national government are not serving our interests very well. They have the resources to sell their story and the American people had best be prepared to protect their own interests by insisting on a just and balanced system. And, who we vote into office will in large measure determine the result.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
The Issue of Constitutionality
An issue that has recently been rolling off people’s tongues in connection with a whole host of government initiatives is the question of constitutionality. Some actions are clearly unconstitutional and are enacted because of ignorance or “in your face” attitudes. Other actions are too close to call and will eventually be decided by our court system. Whereas, others are clearly constitutional; but, in order to gain partisan talking points and/or to fan the flames of criticism, constitutionality is questioned. In my opinion, these claims often stem from lack of understanding of the U.S. Constitution.
There are two distinct time periods leading to the creation of the U.S. Constitution. The first is the revolutionary period beginning in the middle of the 1770’s with the “real tea partiers”, complaints of “taxation without representation”, slogans like “don’t tread on me”, and the insistence on powers being given to the states - this led to the Revolutionary War and Declaration of Independence. With the successful establishment of our own nation, our Founding Fathers moved into the second period where they created their own governments. This group of men had extensive experience in writing documents creating governments. Some had been involved in writing colonial governments. After the Revolutionary War, they wrote new state constitutions (in some cases more than one); plus, our first national government – The Articles of Confederation. It failed because it was too weak and gave too much power to the States.
Finally, in 1787, the Constitutional Convention was held where our forefathers designed maybe the best system that could be achieved at that moment in time – the U.S. Constitution. They had matured over the proceeding 10 + years and this time crafted a document that created a strong national government which many of the revolutionaries of their day opposed. In these Founding Father’s discussions and correspondence, they made it clear that this document was intended for their time and place in history. They undoubtedly would be surprised and maybe aghast that we still have the same constitution in place 223 years later. Most would not be comfortable with a common claim today that it was divinely inspired – it wasn’t.
In fact, we sometimes lose sight that this highly regarded document was a long way from perfect:
It didn’t include a Bill of Rights – this was added as the first 10 amendments soon after
ratification. They had to rewrite the way the President and VP were elected in 1804. Slavery was allowed until 1865. It wasn’t until 1868 that states were denied the power to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” People were denied the right to vote because of race, color, and previous condition of servitude until 1870. Income taxes were not allowed until 1913. The people couldn’t vote directly for U.S. Senators until 1913. Then, we had the liquor debacle that was on in 1919 and off in 1933. Women were finally allowed to vote in 1920. People living in Washington DC weren’t allowed to vote for President and VP until 1961. The poll tax was used to restrict voting for President, VP, and Congressmen until 1964. We finally clarified the sticky issue of Presidential succession in event of disability, death, and/or resignation in 1967. Citizens 18 years of age were finally allowed to vote in 1971. And, in 1992,
increased compensation for services of Senators and Representatives could not take affect until after an election.
The above represent amendments added to correct problems with the U.S. Constitution. This is a very difficult process. If we were limited to this for every change in our government, the U.S. Constitution would be unwieldy. Therefore, right from the beginning with our first Congress, first President, and first Supreme Court, changes were accomplished through legislation, executive action, and court decisions. Quite frankly, this is what our Founding Fathers intended and why the Constitution is so short and concise. They expected the government to be modified to meet the special needs of changing times. The U.S. Constitution is a living, evolving, changing document and has always been that way.
Whenever I hear someone suggesting that this or that can’t be done because the U.S. Constitution doesn’t speak to that issue, it immediately raises a “red flag.” Within reason, our government is what we want it to be. That is what a democratic/republican system is all about. Basic principles like civil rights and check and balance system are important and must be maintained. But, we must remember that the U.S. Constitution on purpose does not promote any religious theology; does not promote any economic ideology; does not even mention political parties; and by design, national law preempts state and local law. It is purposely vague on the details on how our government runs its day-to-day operations. It is up to us and our elected officials to fill in all the details.
When constitutionality is questioned, I would suggest that we listen critically. There is an unhealthy tendency for some in our society to “brew” up a mix that includes opposition to taxation of any kind, endorsement of the unrestricted free-market/capitalistic system, the need for us to “reestablish our roots” in the Christian religion, a demand for smaller and weaker national government, and an insistence on the view that state and local government should take a leading role in governing our great nation. When it is suggested that the U.S. Constitution supports this conservative “brew”, it is simply inaccurate spin that was not the intention of our Founding Fathers nor should it be used this way today.
There are two distinct time periods leading to the creation of the U.S. Constitution. The first is the revolutionary period beginning in the middle of the 1770’s with the “real tea partiers”, complaints of “taxation without representation”, slogans like “don’t tread on me”, and the insistence on powers being given to the states - this led to the Revolutionary War and Declaration of Independence. With the successful establishment of our own nation, our Founding Fathers moved into the second period where they created their own governments. This group of men had extensive experience in writing documents creating governments. Some had been involved in writing colonial governments. After the Revolutionary War, they wrote new state constitutions (in some cases more than one); plus, our first national government – The Articles of Confederation. It failed because it was too weak and gave too much power to the States.
Finally, in 1787, the Constitutional Convention was held where our forefathers designed maybe the best system that could be achieved at that moment in time – the U.S. Constitution. They had matured over the proceeding 10 + years and this time crafted a document that created a strong national government which many of the revolutionaries of their day opposed. In these Founding Father’s discussions and correspondence, they made it clear that this document was intended for their time and place in history. They undoubtedly would be surprised and maybe aghast that we still have the same constitution in place 223 years later. Most would not be comfortable with a common claim today that it was divinely inspired – it wasn’t.
In fact, we sometimes lose sight that this highly regarded document was a long way from perfect:
It didn’t include a Bill of Rights – this was added as the first 10 amendments soon after
ratification. They had to rewrite the way the President and VP were elected in 1804. Slavery was allowed until 1865. It wasn’t until 1868 that states were denied the power to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” People were denied the right to vote because of race, color, and previous condition of servitude until 1870. Income taxes were not allowed until 1913. The people couldn’t vote directly for U.S. Senators until 1913. Then, we had the liquor debacle that was on in 1919 and off in 1933. Women were finally allowed to vote in 1920. People living in Washington DC weren’t allowed to vote for President and VP until 1961. The poll tax was used to restrict voting for President, VP, and Congressmen until 1964. We finally clarified the sticky issue of Presidential succession in event of disability, death, and/or resignation in 1967. Citizens 18 years of age were finally allowed to vote in 1971. And, in 1992,
increased compensation for services of Senators and Representatives could not take affect until after an election.
The above represent amendments added to correct problems with the U.S. Constitution. This is a very difficult process. If we were limited to this for every change in our government, the U.S. Constitution would be unwieldy. Therefore, right from the beginning with our first Congress, first President, and first Supreme Court, changes were accomplished through legislation, executive action, and court decisions. Quite frankly, this is what our Founding Fathers intended and why the Constitution is so short and concise. They expected the government to be modified to meet the special needs of changing times. The U.S. Constitution is a living, evolving, changing document and has always been that way.
Whenever I hear someone suggesting that this or that can’t be done because the U.S. Constitution doesn’t speak to that issue, it immediately raises a “red flag.” Within reason, our government is what we want it to be. That is what a democratic/republican system is all about. Basic principles like civil rights and check and balance system are important and must be maintained. But, we must remember that the U.S. Constitution on purpose does not promote any religious theology; does not promote any economic ideology; does not even mention political parties; and by design, national law preempts state and local law. It is purposely vague on the details on how our government runs its day-to-day operations. It is up to us and our elected officials to fill in all the details.
When constitutionality is questioned, I would suggest that we listen critically. There is an unhealthy tendency for some in our society to “brew” up a mix that includes opposition to taxation of any kind, endorsement of the unrestricted free-market/capitalistic system, the need for us to “reestablish our roots” in the Christian religion, a demand for smaller and weaker national government, and an insistence on the view that state and local government should take a leading role in governing our great nation. When it is suggested that the U.S. Constitution supports this conservative “brew”, it is simply inaccurate spin that was not the intention of our Founding Fathers nor should it be used this way today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
