Greetings from
The Publisher . . .
July 4 & Finding What Unites us/US
Here it is July 4 th again and we're getting closer to choosing a new President—this is assuming that King George will be leaving. As all the information comes out about how much public opinion, the facts and news have been manipulated by this Administration—and all the power still at this unchallenged President's disposal—I'm not taking anything for granted. Will they really walk away from so much power without creating some crisis that would “require” them to stay on a bit? I have this uneasy feeling that they might do something like making Cheney permanent V-P.
They've certainly taught us not to trust. And that's good. Our system requires it and this Administration has made that obvious to us. Our country was created with that in mind and we were given that job description.
July 4 th is a time for me to revisit the Constitution and think about the traditions and dreams of our country. For the world, the idea that a country could trust common people to choose their own representatives to manage their systems of governing was suspect and revolutionary.
I've always thought of the Constitutional Convention and our Founding Fathers as extraordinary, and while it was not religious, it did seem Divinely inspired with ideals of personal freedom and self-empowerment. Spending most of my elementary school years in Arlington Virginia was an experience that saturated me in our finest unifying principles, hopes and dreams.
There have always been debates about what form things should take—the details—of course. This is where—“politics as usual” and special interests show up—the part that turns too many of us off to the whole process.
We've heard that the Founding Fathers had sharp disagreements too, but it was really very different. What we don't hear is how much more they had in common than our representatives do today—but there really isn't a good reason for it to be that way.
We've heard the arguments—what is the appropriate role of government?—since the beginning. Are they doing too little? Too much?
When I say in the beginning, it was in the beginning. When cavemen decided they would ward off the bullies and marauders by banding together, they were forming the first local governments. They banded together to protect themselves.
We may not have lived through that time, but you may have lived through Kevin's Costner's version of it in his movie The Postman. Remember the villages/forts that formed in response to the marauders who wanted to forcefully take what belonged to the villagers?
It was the same idea, although his fictional movie was about the future.
It was interesting to me that who won in the movie was not determined by superior force. It was the dream of peace and a re-United States. Eventually the opposition joined in that dream and that won the day.
Could that be happening again? There was a common goal and dream that united our first assemblies and that same dream should be unifying us today. Maybe it is.
We will probably hear this July 4th about how our FF gathered to create the perfect system and how those commentators know exactly what the FF meant. They may even trace it back and identify the origins of their current liberal, conservative, democratic and/or republican philosophies, which then magically become validated and true.
What's true is that while the FF argued about the form of the government they were creating, they were always clear about the underlying reasons for it. It wasn't about their philosophy.
We usually say that they wanted to create a government that came from the people and could be controlled by the people—a system—“of the people, by the people and for the people,” as Abraham Lincoln described it. They created a government designed to manage systems—not control people.
To say the amazing and unprecedented form they came up with was derived from political philosophies ignores their underlying purpose and common bond.
We don't talk about it as much, but what really united them was their desire to create a government that could not be corrupted—one that had systems built into it that would be self-correcting because of a division and a balance of power. They wanted an incorruptible system. They studied what had gone wrong with past governments. What could it go wrong? What form would prevent that? They were reacting to another King George and his abuse of power.
They counted on a free press. They counted on a system of checks and balances within the government. They counted on people participating. They called it an experiment, wondering if it would catch on—would we pick it up and run with it.
Last month there was a National Day of Action against insurance companies. In support of a bill by MI Rep. John Conyers, rallies were held in 19 U.S. cities where large insurance companies are located. Over 1000 people rallied in San Francisco. Other rallies were held in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Louisville, New York, Jacksonville, and other cities as well.
Did you hear about it? There was some coverage in the cities the rallies were held and even less in other cities.
While we do have ornery and questioning spin masters that question opposing viewpoints, it's not the same as questioning the moves of the government or ignoring events such as this National Day of Action.
A lot of people are interested in a single payer healthcare system. How might that work? How can it be supported? The media is simply not holding up their end of the Constitutional system of checks and balances.
Go to mediachannel.org to find out what is being talked about. Campaign news made up 24% of the news during the week of June 16-22. The hot topic that week was Sen. Obama's decision to forego public financing of his campaign. So campaign fundraising accounted to 11.6% of the 24% campaign news. Don't forget that overall that means 2-3% of the news.
Close to the 11.6% was energy as an issue (10.8), Al Gore endorsing Obama (10.1), and Michelle Obama's role (9.2).
Most of the Michelle Obama coverage was in the vein of “Is the U.S. ready for Michelle Obama?” Note the difference between Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama. Opponents claimed Clinton's presence in the White House was meaningless when it came to influence, or giving her any practical experience that might help her as President.
Now many of the same people are implying that Michelle Obama's influence will cause all hell to break loose.
After watching the PBS special on Eleanor Roosevelt in June, you have to think some people are just bothered by women. Roosevelt was an amazing and effective politician, and highly criticized.
The good news is that both the left and right are beginning to share some concerns.
Former Republican Congressman Mickey Edwards, author of Reclaiming Conservatism (Oxford University Press, 2008), stated it clearly when looking at the President's use of signing orders, which Bush has used more than all former presidents combined.
“Simply put, the president is claiming that a president and the entire executive branch of government had the right, if a president so decided, to disobey the law—an assertion that, if left unchallenged, would establish a dangerous precedent...”
The GAO has studied some laws and found cases of government agencies ignoring the law.
Edwards said that when the FF wrote the Constitution they took some powers traditionally used and abused by the king, such as the power to tax and the power to wage war, and gave them to Congress.
In his book, he wrote that what has replaced the duty to uphold the Constitution is the call for party loyalty and unity.
We have three branches on government—separate and equal—and all have sworn to keep it that way. So in essence, our Constitutional congress had the same underlying purpose as Congress is supposed to have today—focusing on the Constitution.
The good news is this common purpose does exist today and people in both political parties—conservatives, such as Edwards, and liberals—are noticing.
Remembering our origins and original concerns—the underlying purpose of our government—and noticing that the solution to the abuses of power that currently surround us can be found in our Constitution, should be a place to unify us.
Maybe President Bush really is the great unifier after all. Just not the way he thought.
So we've looked at the press and the government. Now I wonder if people will participate. Will the experiment catch on? Will us become US or will it remain us and them? If that is to be, focusing on our roots is a good starting point.
Have a great month,
Steve
HOME - FEATURES - NEWS - FROM THE PUBLISHER
LETTERS - COLUMNS - MUSIC REVIEWS - BOOK REVIEWS
PLANETARY CYCLES - CALENDAR - ABOUT TLC - CONTACT US
CLASSIFIEDS - RESOURCE DIRECTORY
ARCHIVES - SUBSCRIBE - ADVERTISE - SEARCH
