Separation of Church and State

So this is becoming a big topic of discussion ever since Christine O'Donnell failed to realize that the Constitution addresses this issue in the First Amendment. [Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.]

Conservatives, of course, love to scream, that this text fails to use the exact expression "separation of church and state" and love to tell us that this precise expression comes only from a letter written later on by Thomas Jefferson. But the issue, of course, is what the "establishment clause" means in practical terms. And if that can be accurately characterized as the separation of church and state, shouldn't we be allowed to talk about it thus.

What the Constitution states, as fundamental law of the land, is that no citizen shall be prevented from the free exercise of his/her religious beliefs. That applies to any religious belief, including the refusal to have any religious belief. That includes Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, etc. as well as Christians. That's in our cherished melting-pot country! Where is that anti-Muslim sentiment now?

So Congress may not make a law establishing a national religion. That means that wherever Congress has authority no religion can be singularly preferred. Education is an interesting example. The concept of public schools and required elementary education originated in the Federal government. Today, the Federal government continues to provide a large portion of funding for public schools. This means that the Federal government has jurisdiction in public education. Hence, classes in Christian religion, support of Christian positions against instruction in biological evolution, and other situations in which Christian views are supported in opposition to others cannot be tolerated. To do so is to place the Federal government in the position of establishing Christianity as a state religion.

What Are We Doing?!!

The United States maintains military bases in MMM countries in the world outside of our homeland, including a total of XXX military personnel. [Don't have the exact figures at my finger tips.] Generally speaking this is rationalized as necessary for our homeland security, though we also explain it as part of a program of pacifying the world, an obligation that we seem to have assumed after the Second World War. In the 65 years after the War, this "program" has been primarily aimed at suppressing Communism around the world, even where Communism was obviously the local popular choice. One could say that the whole thing has been motivated by "making the world safe for Capitalism" but it has obviously been mostly aimed at supporting Capitalist Imperialism around the world, with American Capitalists fully involved. The story behind this has always been that Communism was expanding to threaten us. But, of course, the truth of the matter has always been that we ourselves were taking an increasingly aggressive anti-Communist position around the entire world. How have we gotten away with this behavior?

How many other governments in the world have military bases outside of their own countries? How many foreign governments have military bases inside of the United states? When the world looks at this picture and answers these questions, how can they avoid believing that the United States is an aggressive militarist nation with world domination at the heart of their foreign policy?

Not only is this policy inappropriate for the democracy that we are supposed to be, but it is also the major reason for our economic shutdown. Yet I have heard no one in this midterm election cycle actually bring up the fact that our economic woes at home are due to our extravagant missions abroad. It seems so much easier for us, as a nation, to kill and maim foreign citizens than to educate our own children or feed our own poor or offer better health care to Americans who couldn't afford it. Why is it that the American character has arrived at this strange state in its historical evolution?

The "Washington Rules"

I have just finished reading Andrew Bacevich's book "Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War," published this August. This is a book that every American should read, regardless of political party. The fact is that every political party has thoroughly subscribed to the militarist foreign policies that Bacevich carefully describes and documents, since the late 1940s. Even the Obama administration has carefully advanced this policy point of view in spite of Obama's claims of ending wars and being at peace with the world. The book is thoroughly researched and very well written.

Americans today, as we face up to the November mid-term elections, are fundamentally disturbed by economic issues at home. However, if Bacevich is correct, and I am sure he is, our economic woes are a direct result of Washington's disposition to believe and to act according to the principle that everyone in the world must conform to American values and that it is our obligation to police the world for offenders. If we were to back off of our militarist and aggressive policies abroad, we could easily deal with the many problems we have at home.

Fundamentally, the way to influence the world regarding the virtues of democracy is to exhibit the virtues of democracy at home rather than attempting to stuff it down everyone's throat abroad.

Democracy vs. Oligarchy

One of the standard mantras of the Tea Party is that they are Constitutionalists and believe in the Founding Fathers. The irony of that is that the Founding Fathers argued out the issues of Federalism and ultimately passed on the Federal Constitution; yet Federalism seems to be exactly what the Tea Party cannot stand. They are actually "anti-Federalist" and if they had their choice we would still be governed by the Articles of Confederation.

Perhaps some Tea Partyers do accept the Federal Constitution but they wish that it had never changed or that we were still interpreting it as we did when 90% or more Americans were farmers living on small rural farms and a largish number of Americans still owned slaves, who were not counted as whole people for population totals. Of course, only land-owning men could vote in those days. Gee, it's sure sad that had to change! As is so often the case with issues raised by the Tea Party, there are certainly some changes from the 1790s that they would admire; it's those other changes that get them riled up. But they don't seem to realize that, if that's the case, they owe us some explanation of why certain changes are evil and others are fine.

I have been an idealist about American government as long as I can remember, and I have rather blindly believed that the Founding Fathers really did mean to create a government that was not only "of" the people but was also to be a government "by" the people and "for" the people (meaning in the interest of the people as a whole). However, as I have aged, I have begun to distrust the sincerity of some of our "fathers" and, in particular, I have grown to suspect that "for" really meant "in the interest of wealth and power." Certainly, when we examine the actual history of America, we have to admit that government has very often worked in favor of the rich and powerful against the interests of the lower and middle classes. In its most uncomfortable extremes this has been when we found it in "our interest" to go to war and young people were slaughtered on the battlefields in the name of something that looks an awful lot like the protection of big business interests.

Of course, we are great at maintaining that we are still a government "by" the people, meaning that we vote for those who represent us. America remains a democracy. But I find that unconvincing as well. Many of our Founding Fathers articulated the grounds on which democracy could truly work and very little of their vision remains today. Voting means making a choice of who will represent me. But "choice" means that I am informed about national issues and about the ideas that a person will represent. Today, the media seem to think they are for anything but real information, and candidates shower us with falsehoods about their opponents rather than telling us what they really think. Worse yet, there are candidate-choices that we will never see because they have neither the wealth nor the power to make it into competition. There is no real democracy in America today when voting fails to involve real informed choices.

Just a brief study of American politics in the last three decades makes it clear that what we are really engaged in is a war to the death of democracy and the Republican winner is going to be oligarchy, plane and simple --- the rule of wealth. Every time Republicans make a pledge to Americans this is what they are talking about. What I fail to understand is why so many Americans go along with this when it is absolutely contrary to their own self-interest and when they are the ones who will pay even their lives to the will of wealth.

What Is Government For?

Americans typically have four levels of government --- Federal, state, county/township, and local/city. I believe that the foundation of government in a democratic society is that government is the way in which the people "meet" in order to discuss and act upon issues of mutual concern and interest. Hence, local government is where people of the locality meet in order to discuss and act upon issues of concern in their locality. For example, when people in my city wanted to locate a sports complex for youth activities somewhere in city limits, we met through our local city council and other local government planning commissions to discuss options and hear arguments.

Since most of our communities are way too large to have purely democratic meetings of the whole, we "meet" through our various elected representatives. These representatives are elected periodically so that they must stand before us on their records of responsible action. If they do not act intelligently and responsibly on our community interests, we can and should remove them from their offices. While this mode of "meeting" is not always adequate and, in particular, may not represent my own point of view, it is the only practical way of proceeding. Since there are issues that require discussion and action, meeting is essential to our well being.

Now, government requires money in at least two ways. The operation of government requires money for facilities, salaries, etc. Secondly, government spends money on projects for the well being of the people --- sewage and trash removal, development and maintenance of infrastructure, enforcement of laws, fire protection, public education, community centers, etc. While fees may be charged for some things, most revenues come through taxation. Here lies the great irony of our age. People hate to be taxed yet they want trash taken away, want to drive on nice roads, and don't want home invasions. If you want the benefits of government --- which is to say the benefits of activities that we need and sanction --- you have to pay for it.

So now-a-days anyone will be welcomed onto a platform by screaming for lower taxes and less government. However, none of these people --- at least none that I have heard --- are willing to take the time to spell out what "less government" means to them or just how much taxation they are willing to bear in order to allow government to act.

Since most of this screaming is aimed at the Federal government, and since reducing Federal government means meeting and acting less on Federal issues, and since radically reducing Federal taxes means tying the hands of Federal government to act or even consider issues, the single question at stake today is whether or not there really is a need for people to "meet" on national issues or to act on national issues. That is the question: Are there national issues that require collective (Federal) attention? Another side of this question is whether or not there is, or should be, a national character.

In the present round of ultra-conservative and Tea Party activism, the implicit answer seems to be that there is no national character and there are very few legitimate national, or Federal, concerns. The practical result of this movement would be to hold up in our individual states and do pretty much whatever our fellow state-citizens want. Even if the Federal government has legitimate jurisdiction over a number of inter-state activities, its hands would be tied up completely by lack of funding. Perhaps the Southern states could even return to a culture of slavery.

Personally, none of this sounds very good to me. I believe in a national character and, hence, I believe there are quite legitimate national issues for which there are appropriate Federal activities. I do not want to see my Federal government crippled for lack of funds.

The Tea Party --- a chance to summarize

We often listen to the Diane Rehm show on Reno NPR while driving from Mammoth to Bishop and back. Yesterday, she interviewed three different people about the Tea Party "movement." [I put this in quotes because everyone denied that it is a movement but no one was quite sure what to call it.] Anyway, the interviews were quite good and made me realize that I should give some thought to organizing the scattered arguments that I've placed on my blog during the last few months. So here is an attempt at summary.

According to those interviewed, the Tea Party people are "fiscal and Constitutional conservatives" That is, they care most about having a small government that operates with a balanced budget [just like mom and pop] and they see this connected to a return to the "original Constitution." Supposedly they are not interested in social issues such as abortion, Gay rights, etc, but it seems clear that their position speaks to many social issues implicitly. They fly the flag of liberty and cry for reduction in taxes and restoration of personal choice. If there must be government, it should be at the state and local level where they feel that they have more say in matters. By all odds, the Federal government is seen as the big evil.

It is ironic that most of the Tea Partyers are probably the same 30% of the population who still approved of George Bush when he left office even though Bush was the one who busted the US budget, expanded Federal government, and appropriated tremendous presidential powers out of the hands of Congress and, yes, the democratic voice. Somehow, when Republicans do these things, it's OK. It was also Bush himself who was forced into bailing out the banks and the auto industry, yet another thing the Tea Partyers are angry about.

The tragedy in today's politics is that we have incredibly superficial dialogues. [Actually, I'm being overly generous to suggest that we have any dialogue at all. What we have is slogans shouted back and forth.] Politicians become favorites of the Tea Partyers by spitting their slogans back to them. So it's easy to write speeches. Just listen to the few words in the Tea Party vocabulary and throw them back at them. Watch Sarah Palin to see how this works. [Palin's single talent is knowing what the people like to hear and, I must say, she spits it back to them extremely well.]

What politics requires is a consideration of facts and a serious discussion of what we do about the facts. For instance, one of the undeniable facts of the present is the oil spill in the Gulf. It's amazing how many people want big, powerful Federal government when it comes to the oil spill. But when serious discussion indicates that this type of speculative and untested drilling should be postponed until we can get a better picture of what went wrong, the government is condemned for limiting the activities of corporations and threatening jobs. Is rational political discourse even possible in this country?

I want to summarize my political position in the following way. First, I am happy enough to return to our Constitution. It is a marvelous document and a sound foundation for our Federal government. One marvelous aspect of this document, evidently not subscribed to by the Tea Partyers, is its flexibility --- its ability to change with the times in a peaceful way without the need of revolutions in the streets. Contrary to the Constitution, the Tea Partyers are the ones in the streets.

One of the great expressions in the Constitution is its desire to promote the general welfare of the people. This is a wonderfully vague idea which can only be interpreted as time and conditions change. The strength of our Constitution lies in its ability to cope with new interpretations and, through its Supreme Court, to correct itself when things go wrong.

I believe, consistent with the philosophical basis of our founding political thinkers, that government is formed by the people. Indeed, government is the way in which the people gather to discuss and to solve their problems. In an ideal small democracy this would be literally the way things happen. We, on the other hand, are a very large nation of people and so we have to "gather" through an intricately constructed representative government. One of the huge fallacies in Tea Party thinking is that government is some dominating entity other than themselves. On the contrary, if we don't like government --- namely us --- we need to reform ourselves, which means doing a far better job of informing ourselves and then electing representatives who truly speak for us on the issues that are important. Only a well informed and educated public can make a democracy work. Our current problem is a general lack of truthful and clear information; instead, we have ridiculously simplistic propaganda and generally irrelevant "news". Meanwhile, education is eroded at every opportunity, fiscal, political, and spiritual.

It seems to me that the issue of distributing power between local, state, and Federal government is most reasonably decided by the scale of an issue before us. We should ask whether an issue is something that other people will care about and, hence, whether they will have reasonable opinions about it. If the issue is cross walks in town, it is unlikely that people outside the locality will care or have legitimate opinions. On the other hand, I do care and think that I have legitimate opinions about the treatment of African American people in this country no matter where they may live. That makes Civil Rights a Federal issue. Frankly, the more "global" we become, the more issues there are that we share on a national level and which therefore require us to meet through our Federal government.

The continual cry for small Federal government and reduction of taxes is completely vacuous unless the Tea Partyers are willing to take the whole thing apart issue by issue and demonstrate better ways of handling things. Let's take inspection and control of processed foods for example. Most processed foods are produced in specific regions of the country and then marketed all over. Can the Tea Partyers show that it would really be more cost effective and efficient to have these food products tested locally? I can't imagine the arguments. And I doubt very much that my local government would be at all interested in taking on this task. But if Federal government just gives up regulation of food production and distribution, how long will it take before we are eating rats in our sausage again?

This is just one issue. There are hundreds more. I'd be more impressed by the Tea Partyers if they would start addressing these and showing us how smaller government would really work. Unfortunately, in my opinion, they really just want their taxes lowered and they don't bother to think about the consequences, except when oil starts rolling onto their beaches and their shrimp smell like gasoline.

19th Century Political Economy

The History Channel was showing a documentary on American presidents the other day and I got to watch from about 1880 to 1910. I wonder how many people realize what life was like back in those days when the big industrialists owned the government, the police, and just about everything else. Yes, it was a wonderful world of "small government" and scarcely no regulations. Children were still working in factories; manufacturers supplied anything they could get away with; and only the rich few could attend a university and potentially become someone important.

If you haven't noticed, this is the world that we are returning to very fast.