As we approach the end of our semester, I find myself pondering the words that Thomas Jefferson penned in the Declaration of Independence. Borrowing his ideas from John Locke, Jefferson asserted that all people were born with three unalienable rights—“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. The establishment and protection of these three rights became the primary objective of both our political and economic systems. It was, in fact, no coincidence, that the same people who declared their independence from Britain and set up a democratic government also embraced the writings of Adam Smith—the father of capitalism—who had published in 1776 his book entitled The Wealth of Nations. Of those three rights, the most intriguing to me is Jefferson’s idea of the “pursuit of happiness”—not property, as John Locke had written in his Treatise on Government. As the American democratic political system and capitalist economic system evolved, many came to believe that Jefferson’s idea of pursuing happiness was nearly synonymous with Locke’s principle of property rights. After all, didn’t Adam Smith state that capitalism was a free market economic system rooted in private property and self-interest? In order for an economy to flourish, Smith advocated for a limited government—laissez-faire were his words—to insure government would keep its hands off our economic pursuits. If left alone, Smith argued that the “invisible hand” would self-regulate the economy and would enable citizens to pursue their happiness by acquiring wealth, profit, and property. This “profit motive” would be the engine that drove the capitalist economy. So it seemed logical that Jefferson’s “pursuit of happiness” was just another way of saying that citizens should be free to pursue that “American Dream” and acquire property and material possessions. Did Jefferson believe that that the pursuit of happiness was found in the acquisition of property? Did our founding fathers establish a Constitution to reinforce such a principle? I don’t think so.
I believe that Jefferson and our other founding fathers would have taken exception to some of Smith’s ideas of “limited government”. Smith felt that the only legitimate role of government was to provide for the national defense, establishment of a national currency, protection of patents and copyrights, and the construction of roads and bridges. In these roles, government would need few tax dollars and would mostly exist to protect our individual pursuit of happiness (property). If our founding fathers supported such ideals, why did they reject the Articles of Confederation and replace it with a Constitution that clearly strengthened the national government? The founding fathers witnessed the near collapse of our fledgling nation under the Articles of Confederation. That government had allowed so much liberty and pursuit of happiness, that chaos like Shays’s Rebellion had become all too commonplace. So a Constitution was written that gave the national government the power of the sword (military) and the purse (the ability to tax). On top of that, the writers of the Constitution included an “elastic clause” which gave the national government the authority to “stretch “its powers to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities. Some of those responsibilities are found in the Preamble. Our founding fathers stated that two of the purposes of our national Constitution were to “insure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare”. Applying the elastic clause to these principles, the implications of the government’s role in our pursuit of happiness is obvious. There seems no doubt that our Constitution rejects the idea of laissez-faire. Our founding fathers empowered the government to intercede on our behalf to protect our pursuit of happiness. How does the government play a role in our pursuits of happiness? The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution was added to insure that all citizens would be guaranteed “equal protection under the law”. The government cannot sit idly by while corporations mistreat workers, gouge consumers, wreck the environment, and produce faulty products. Government must insure that one person’s pursuit of happiness does not prevent another from attaining his/her own happiness. In the end government must serve as some sort of social conscience. It must discourage selfish, destructive pursuit of materialism which is eroding away our national spirit. Government must encourage social responsibility and promote the common good. If government can do these things Americans might be re-discover their own humanity and remember that true happiness is not rooted in property, it is found in community. That is what I believe Jefferson meant by the pursuit of happiness. That happiness cannot be just for some. It cannot be a selfish, personal pursuit. It must be a collective, national pursuit that will serve to strengthen our American identity.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
States' Rights?
An Oklahoma legislator has proposed the creation of a state militia to “counter the encroachments of the federal government”. A candidate for governor in Texas has suggested that his state “secede from the union”. Fifteen states have filed suit to nullify a new federal health care reform act. These ideas and propositions sound eerily similar to the rhetoric of 1860 America—a time when our nation was on the verge of Civil War. However these suggestions are coming from politicians in the year 2010. Since the election of Obama in 2008, we have witnessed a resurgence of anti-government factions like the “Tea Party Movement “and “Tenthers”. One theme is consistent with both groups—Obama is creating a socialist government intent on taking away the rights of individual and states that have been guaranteed by the Constitution. Are these movements right? Has the power of government shifted away from the people and states towards the federal government? Let’s look at the Constitution for the answer.
We in Civics learned that our “founding fathers” established a federal system of government. The Constitution identified powers that belong to the federal government (enumerated powers, implied powers), powers set aside for the states (reserved powers), and powers that were shared (concurrent powers). During the ratification debate of the 1780’s Federalists and Anti-Federalists argued over the balance of that power. Federalists feared a weak central government—such as the one created by the Articles of Confederation. Therefore, to insure more order in our society, the Constitution provided for Article VI, which was called the “supremacy clause”. This clause provided that the Constitution was the “supreme law of the land” and “states were bound to federal laws made pursuant to the Constitution.” In other words a state law, in conflict with a valid federal statute, was null and void. Sounds pretty clear cut. In the minds of our “founding fathers” the federal government appeared to hold the “upper hand” in terms of the “balance of power”.
Anti-Federalists, fearing a tyrannical central government, wanted assurances that their rights and the rights of the individual states would not be abused. They pushed for and won a “Bill of Rights” that accomplished both objectives. The tenth amendment asserts that “the powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved for the states.” The “Tenther” movement, with followers like Tim Pawlenty, Republican governor of Minnesota and 2021 GOP Presidential hopeful, believes this amendment allows states to nullify federal laws—like the new Health Care Reform Act. It has been used by others to justify secession.
Which is it? Does our Constitution provide for a federal system of government whereby state and national government share power equally, or did the “founding fathers” create a federal system that placed the federal government supreme? I believe it is the latter. Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion, when farmers tried to avoid paying a federal excise tax—a tax they believed was unconstitutional. Lincoln did not allow the Confederacy to secede and fought a Civil War to prove once and for all that federal law was supreme—states cannot nullify federal statutes; nor can a state secede from the union. Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson used federal authority to force Southern states to accept federal civil rights laws. Few claimed these actions, taken by a variety of Presidents, were unconstitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that secession is illegal or equal protection of the law means that schools have to be integrated. However, by holding up the Preamble or using Article I, Section 8, Clause 18—the elastic clause—of the Constitution, the federal government can legally expand the “supremacy clause” to include enumerated AND implied powers; powers that can be used to justify most federal actions that are promoting the public good for all Americans. We are not fifty separate nations—we are one nation of fifty states all committed to “liberty and justice for all”. There can only be one “supreme” power. That power best resides in the hands of the federal government. It is, therefore, the federal government’s primary responsibility to preserve the fundamental principles of American democracy—liberty and justice. Our “founding fathers” understood that. Why don’t the Tea Party Express and the “Tenthers”?
We in Civics learned that our “founding fathers” established a federal system of government. The Constitution identified powers that belong to the federal government (enumerated powers, implied powers), powers set aside for the states (reserved powers), and powers that were shared (concurrent powers). During the ratification debate of the 1780’s Federalists and Anti-Federalists argued over the balance of that power. Federalists feared a weak central government—such as the one created by the Articles of Confederation. Therefore, to insure more order in our society, the Constitution provided for Article VI, which was called the “supremacy clause”. This clause provided that the Constitution was the “supreme law of the land” and “states were bound to federal laws made pursuant to the Constitution.” In other words a state law, in conflict with a valid federal statute, was null and void. Sounds pretty clear cut. In the minds of our “founding fathers” the federal government appeared to hold the “upper hand” in terms of the “balance of power”.
Anti-Federalists, fearing a tyrannical central government, wanted assurances that their rights and the rights of the individual states would not be abused. They pushed for and won a “Bill of Rights” that accomplished both objectives. The tenth amendment asserts that “the powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved for the states.” The “Tenther” movement, with followers like Tim Pawlenty, Republican governor of Minnesota and 2021 GOP Presidential hopeful, believes this amendment allows states to nullify federal laws—like the new Health Care Reform Act. It has been used by others to justify secession.
Which is it? Does our Constitution provide for a federal system of government whereby state and national government share power equally, or did the “founding fathers” create a federal system that placed the federal government supreme? I believe it is the latter. Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion, when farmers tried to avoid paying a federal excise tax—a tax they believed was unconstitutional. Lincoln did not allow the Confederacy to secede and fought a Civil War to prove once and for all that federal law was supreme—states cannot nullify federal statutes; nor can a state secede from the union. Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson used federal authority to force Southern states to accept federal civil rights laws. Few claimed these actions, taken by a variety of Presidents, were unconstitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that secession is illegal or equal protection of the law means that schools have to be integrated. However, by holding up the Preamble or using Article I, Section 8, Clause 18—the elastic clause—of the Constitution, the federal government can legally expand the “supremacy clause” to include enumerated AND implied powers; powers that can be used to justify most federal actions that are promoting the public good for all Americans. We are not fifty separate nations—we are one nation of fifty states all committed to “liberty and justice for all”. There can only be one “supreme” power. That power best resides in the hands of the federal government. It is, therefore, the federal government’s primary responsibility to preserve the fundamental principles of American democracy—liberty and justice. Our “founding fathers” understood that. Why don’t the Tea Party Express and the “Tenthers”?
Monday, April 5, 2010
Political correctness--useful or destructive?
Disagreement and conflict are by-products of a democratic society. Therefore, if a democracy is to flourish, citizens have to learn how to resolve differences between competing interests. In Civics, we teach students about the necessity of consensus building, negotiation, and compromise in the public debates that shape our country. Inherent in this process is the public’s ability to listen to a variety of points’ of views and to speak civilly to those with whom we may disagree. Aristotle understood this ideal and it is reflected in one of his more famous sayings—“the mark of an educated mind is to entertain a thought without accepting it.” In the 21st century, we seem to have a shortage of such “minds”. In recent years our political discussions have degenerated into name-calling, insults, and personal attacks. Usually these behaviors are impulsive, unfiltered responses to issues that are dividing our nation. This political incivility, not exclusive to one party or group, jeopardizes the future of American democracy. How can we, as a nation, change the nature of our public debates?
Political correctness was idea promoted in the 1960’s to inject sensitivity and civility to our national discourse. Its initial purpose was to promote the “avoidance of expressions and actions that could be perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult people who were socially disadvantaged or discriminated against” (Princeton wordnet.com). By adhering to this principle, political correctness served as a filter for our words. It demanded that people think before speaking. Is that such a bad idea? Apparently so. In recent years political correctness has been demonized. Its mildest critics claim that political correctness is a form of censorship. Our 41st President, George Bush stated that “political correctness began as a crusade for civility, but has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship.” Other opponents of political correctness acknowledge its lofty objective, but feel that it only worsened the public debates. A Frenchmen, Jacque Barzun said that “political correctness didn’t legislate tolerance, but organized hate.” Are Bush and Barzun right? Has political correctness stymied an honest discussion of ideas? Has the promotion of acceptance and tolerance only help polarize hate? Consider some of the dialogue that has surfaced in our health care debate or our local school board meetings. Pictures of Obama as a witch doctor with the label “Obamacare” could be seen as one example of the absence of political correctness in our public debate. The cartoon—with its “witch doctor” is a not so veiled reference to Obama’s ethnicity and played on the racist attitudes of some Americans. Congressmen supporting the bill were personally attacked. Opponents to the health care bill called health-care supporter John Lewis (an African-American representative from Georgia) a “nigger” while Barney Franks , an admitted homosexual representative from Massachusetts, was called a “fag”. More troubling was the reaction of some politicians and news media outlets, who asserted these people have a “right” to express their opinions. Remember the First Amendment? Actually the First Amendment doesn’t protect people who use speech to defame people, incite violence, etc. I would prefer the “self-muzzling” of such words, but can we allow people to truly say what “they feel”? Consider our recent school board meeting when our School Board Chairman was heard saying—“they have let the animals out of the cages” referencing some public incivility towards a speaker who was supporting the Board’s policy of dismantling diversity. This comment was racially insensitive. Had Mr. Margiotta practiced political correctness, his comments would have been filtered, realizing his words were “racially-charged”. Reverend Barber, NAACP leader and opponent of the school board’s policy was equally uncivilized when he compared the school board to a “mafia” meeting—clearly insulting Mr. Margiotta’s ethnicity. Both men apologized—kind of—but the damage was done. Both sides became more polarized, lessening the likelihood of compromise by the two “competing interests”.
So where does that leave us? If we need dialogue, compromise, and tolerance to make democracy work effectively, is political correctness a viable solution? Does political correctness promote acceptance or result in censorship? It’s at these times I remember one of my mother’s best pieces of advice she gave her children—“if you don’t have anything good to say, don’t say anything at all.” Maybe if we all practiced my mom's rule of civility, we wouldn’t need a policy such as political correctness. In the end we either have to monitor our own behavior or continue to subscribe to political correctness. If we do neither, public discourse will continue to deteriorate and democracy will be irrevocably damaged.
Political correctness was idea promoted in the 1960’s to inject sensitivity and civility to our national discourse. Its initial purpose was to promote the “avoidance of expressions and actions that could be perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult people who were socially disadvantaged or discriminated against” (Princeton wordnet.com). By adhering to this principle, political correctness served as a filter for our words. It demanded that people think before speaking. Is that such a bad idea? Apparently so. In recent years political correctness has been demonized. Its mildest critics claim that political correctness is a form of censorship. Our 41st President, George Bush stated that “political correctness began as a crusade for civility, but has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship.” Other opponents of political correctness acknowledge its lofty objective, but feel that it only worsened the public debates. A Frenchmen, Jacque Barzun said that “political correctness didn’t legislate tolerance, but organized hate.” Are Bush and Barzun right? Has political correctness stymied an honest discussion of ideas? Has the promotion of acceptance and tolerance only help polarize hate? Consider some of the dialogue that has surfaced in our health care debate or our local school board meetings. Pictures of Obama as a witch doctor with the label “Obamacare” could be seen as one example of the absence of political correctness in our public debate. The cartoon—with its “witch doctor” is a not so veiled reference to Obama’s ethnicity and played on the racist attitudes of some Americans. Congressmen supporting the bill were personally attacked. Opponents to the health care bill called health-care supporter John Lewis (an African-American representative from Georgia) a “nigger” while Barney Franks , an admitted homosexual representative from Massachusetts, was called a “fag”. More troubling was the reaction of some politicians and news media outlets, who asserted these people have a “right” to express their opinions. Remember the First Amendment? Actually the First Amendment doesn’t protect people who use speech to defame people, incite violence, etc. I would prefer the “self-muzzling” of such words, but can we allow people to truly say what “they feel”? Consider our recent school board meeting when our School Board Chairman was heard saying—“they have let the animals out of the cages” referencing some public incivility towards a speaker who was supporting the Board’s policy of dismantling diversity. This comment was racially insensitive. Had Mr. Margiotta practiced political correctness, his comments would have been filtered, realizing his words were “racially-charged”. Reverend Barber, NAACP leader and opponent of the school board’s policy was equally uncivilized when he compared the school board to a “mafia” meeting—clearly insulting Mr. Margiotta’s ethnicity. Both men apologized—kind of—but the damage was done. Both sides became more polarized, lessening the likelihood of compromise by the two “competing interests”.
So where does that leave us? If we need dialogue, compromise, and tolerance to make democracy work effectively, is political correctness a viable solution? Does political correctness promote acceptance or result in censorship? It’s at these times I remember one of my mother’s best pieces of advice she gave her children—“if you don’t have anything good to say, don’t say anything at all.” Maybe if we all practiced my mom's rule of civility, we wouldn’t need a policy such as political correctness. In the end we either have to monitor our own behavior or continue to subscribe to political correctness. If we do neither, public discourse will continue to deteriorate and democracy will be irrevocably damaged.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
majority rule?
We just finished our unit on the Articles of Confederation and the writing of the Constitution. As we read the publications of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists on the merits and dangers of the new Constitution, it gave me a clearer understanding as to why American democracy seems to be ineffective in the 21st century. I believe both parties—Democrat and Republican have strayed from the fundamental ideas James Madison and the founding fathers put forth as they crafted the Constitution. It seems that we believe that in a democracy that can be characterized by the phrase “the majority rules”. By that standard, the winning party feels it has “mandate” to implement its platform, because it is what the “majority has willed”. However, that was never what our founding fathers meant to happen. James Madison once said that “majoritarian tyranny was the worst form of tyranny”. He feared that the will of the majority—if unchecked, would trample on the liberty of the minority. For that reason he claimed that our democracy should be centered around “majority rules, but with minority rights”. What does that mean? I believe that Madison felt that the majority should rule, but that power required the majority to consider the views of the minority. That ideal made American democracy unique. American democracy demands that we compromise and try to build consensus in order to insure all people are heard. Is that form of democracy being reflected in our local, state, and national governments? I think not. Consider the Wake County school board. Five newly elected members now hold a slim majority. They feel it is their right to do what their constituents want—dismantle diversity policies, reduce busing, and commit our county to neighborhood schools that will surely result in resegregation. This may be “the will of the majority”, but it clearly doesn’t take the views of the minority into consideration. On the national level, many Republicans feel that Obama is trying to “ram the ideas of the liberal Democrats down the throats of the nation”. They claim they are being left out of the discussion on major legislation. This, too, might be seen as “majoritarian tyranny". In Federalist #51, James Madison stated that “if men were angels” we would not need any government. But it is precisely the fact that democracy is made up of men—men who by nature are flawed—that we need to practice compromise. Compromise requires all people to value and respect each other. Compromise insures that government will reflect the will of all people. Compromise and consensus will result in a government that will pursue the “common good” rather than the promoting the selfish interests of the individual. That is the type of democracy that our founding fathers wanted for America. John Kennedy summarized that ideal with his modern-day request, “ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what can you do for your country.” If American democracy is going to get back on track, we must put aside petty jealousies and personal pursuits and join together to make us a “great society”, a nation that will stand for justice, equality, freedom, and opportunity for all; not just the “majority”—whatever that might mean.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
The Filibuster--is it the problem?
Is the filibuster a safeguard of democracy? Does this Senate policy of unlimited debate help as the New York Times said, “fend off actions of a bare majority of the Senate, but deeply offensive to the minority.”? Or has the filibuster become a political tool used by the minority party to prevent the majority party from effectively governing the country? Since the election of 2008, the Republican Party, with only 41 members, has used this tactic more than 130 times, forcing 112 cloture votes; doubling the Democratic Party’s record during its times when it was the minority party. The use of the filibuster can bring legislative business to a standstill. Since we are in such dire economic times, some feel the need for the government to act quickly and decisively. This group sees the filibuster as an impediment to effective government. As a result, reporter Karen Tumulty argues it may time to finish the job that Henry Clay proposed back in 1812—abolish the filibuster rule in the US Senate. Is that a prudent step for American democracy? Is the filibuster the problem with our legislative gridlock? I am not sure.
I, too, am frustrated with the lack of action taken by Congress over the last year. But I also understand the principle of checks and balances so dear to our “founding fathers”. The intention of the filibuster was to “slow down” the law-making process to insure the rights of the minority were not trampled by the majority. Certainly James Madison would have concurred. It was he, who believed in “majority rule, but with minority rights”. The tyranny of majority rule can be as oppressive as any form of government. When used sparingly and for the proper reasons, the filibuster can be a reasonable tool—a tool of reason. Historically, the filibuster has been used sparingly—an average of once a year in the 1950’s. But since the 2000 election, politics have been increasingly more partisan. During the Bush era, Democrats, the minority party, used or threatened to use the filibuster to block conservative federal court appointments. Republicans floated an idea called the “nuclear option” to eliminate the need of a super majority (60 votes) on federal court nominees. To protect the Senate tradition of the filibuster, a bipartisan group of seven Democrats and seven Republicans called the “Gang of 14”, pledged this group would not filibuster except in “extraordinary circumstances”, if the Republicans would oppose the “nuclear option”. Gridlock ended. The filibuster was not abused. The tradition was preserved. Why can we not reach some similar agreement today? Instead we see politicians using the filibuster or threat of a filibuster as a way to score points with constituents or interest groups. Really, can the Republican Party claim that there have 130 “extraordinary circumstances” since 2008 that have justified their use of a filibuster? Certainly the motives of the Republican Party have to be questioned. It would appear that they are trying to prevent the majority party from “governing successfully”. However do we want to throw away the filibuster—an age-old tradition that has most instances served its purpose to check power and protect minority rights? Instead why can’t politicians pledge to use the tool in the manner it was intended? The problem isn’t the filibuster. The problem is the human trait of greed, power, and selfishness. If the filibuster would be used as our early leaders hoped it would, it can continue to be an effective protector of liberty. If Senators don’t want to be statesmen, but rather self-serving politicians, then it may be time to end the tradition.
I, too, am frustrated with the lack of action taken by Congress over the last year. But I also understand the principle of checks and balances so dear to our “founding fathers”. The intention of the filibuster was to “slow down” the law-making process to insure the rights of the minority were not trampled by the majority. Certainly James Madison would have concurred. It was he, who believed in “majority rule, but with minority rights”. The tyranny of majority rule can be as oppressive as any form of government. When used sparingly and for the proper reasons, the filibuster can be a reasonable tool—a tool of reason. Historically, the filibuster has been used sparingly—an average of once a year in the 1950’s. But since the 2000 election, politics have been increasingly more partisan. During the Bush era, Democrats, the minority party, used or threatened to use the filibuster to block conservative federal court appointments. Republicans floated an idea called the “nuclear option” to eliminate the need of a super majority (60 votes) on federal court nominees. To protect the Senate tradition of the filibuster, a bipartisan group of seven Democrats and seven Republicans called the “Gang of 14”, pledged this group would not filibuster except in “extraordinary circumstances”, if the Republicans would oppose the “nuclear option”. Gridlock ended. The filibuster was not abused. The tradition was preserved. Why can we not reach some similar agreement today? Instead we see politicians using the filibuster or threat of a filibuster as a way to score points with constituents or interest groups. Really, can the Republican Party claim that there have 130 “extraordinary circumstances” since 2008 that have justified their use of a filibuster? Certainly the motives of the Republican Party have to be questioned. It would appear that they are trying to prevent the majority party from “governing successfully”. However do we want to throw away the filibuster—an age-old tradition that has most instances served its purpose to check power and protect minority rights? Instead why can’t politicians pledge to use the tool in the manner it was intended? The problem isn’t the filibuster. The problem is the human trait of greed, power, and selfishness. If the filibuster would be used as our early leaders hoped it would, it can continue to be an effective protector of liberty. If Senators don’t want to be statesmen, but rather self-serving politicians, then it may be time to end the tradition.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Liberty
Liberty
Americans love liberty. Political, economic, or religious liberty motivated most settlers to come to America in the 17th and 18th centuries. Even today, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the cornerstones of our “American Dream”. So Americans love liberty. Or do we? According to William Hazlitt in his Political Essays, “the love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of ourselves”. As I observe the actions of our government on the local, state, and national levels, I have to ask myself—Do their actions demonstrate a love of liberty or a love of power?
Consider the recent US Supreme Court ruling Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In this historical 5-4 decision, the high court overturned precedent to grant corporations the same power as individuals to influence elections. The case originated during the 2008 Presidential campaign when Citizens United, a conservative group funded by corporations, attempted to show a film in theaters and on-demand cable channels critical of Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The group wanted to use corporate funds to broadcast and promote the film. The FEC ruled that only disclosed contributions, which are limited by campaign law, could be used in the promotion of the film. This ruling significantly limited the influence of corporate America from using its enormous financial resources to influence voters and the political process. A lower federal court upheld that ruling. The US Supreme Court this week overturned the lower court ruling. Why? If you listen to Justice Anthony Kennedy, the author of the court’s majority opinion, the decision is rooted in liberty. He states, “No governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of non-profit or for profit corporations.” In other words, to the conservative majority of the court, this case is about liberty—precisely the First Amendment. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky), Senate minority leader concurs by adding, “For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process. With today’s ruling, the Supreme Court took an important step in restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups by ruling that the Constitution protects their right to express themselves about political candidates and issues until Election Day.” This ruling doesn’t restore the Constitutional rights to groups to express themselves. Rather it further increases the power of corporate America over the ordinary American citizens. Corporations do not necessarily have the interests of America at the heart of their decisions. In fact many corporations are multinational. The corporation is most concerned about profit. They pursue an agenda that best promotes their “bottom line”. Giving that group additional influence over the electorate process seriously jeopardizes American democracy. Corporations are made up by private citizens. Their voices should be heard only when they are speaking as citizens, loyal to American democracy. I am not concerned about limiting corporate America rights—because I am not sure the First Amendment applies to such bodies. Treating corporations as individuals, who have Constitutional rights like freedom of speech, will result in a loss of influence and power of the people. That loss of liberty does concern me. Conservatives and liberals should all agree on that. In fact John McCain stated that he was, “disappointed by the decision”. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) called it a “terrible mistake”.
Those who support this ruling “love power”. This decision will allow corporations to use the power of its money to influence public opinion and public policy. Corporations are motivated by profit—self-interest or William Hazlitt said, the “love of self”. If Americans truly cherish liberty we will show our “love for others” by demanding Congress limit the encroaching power of corporate America. Any politician ,who supports this recent Supreme Court ruling, cannot love LIBERTY.
Americans love liberty. Political, economic, or religious liberty motivated most settlers to come to America in the 17th and 18th centuries. Even today, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the cornerstones of our “American Dream”. So Americans love liberty. Or do we? According to William Hazlitt in his Political Essays, “the love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of ourselves”. As I observe the actions of our government on the local, state, and national levels, I have to ask myself—Do their actions demonstrate a love of liberty or a love of power?
Consider the recent US Supreme Court ruling Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In this historical 5-4 decision, the high court overturned precedent to grant corporations the same power as individuals to influence elections. The case originated during the 2008 Presidential campaign when Citizens United, a conservative group funded by corporations, attempted to show a film in theaters and on-demand cable channels critical of Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The group wanted to use corporate funds to broadcast and promote the film. The FEC ruled that only disclosed contributions, which are limited by campaign law, could be used in the promotion of the film. This ruling significantly limited the influence of corporate America from using its enormous financial resources to influence voters and the political process. A lower federal court upheld that ruling. The US Supreme Court this week overturned the lower court ruling. Why? If you listen to Justice Anthony Kennedy, the author of the court’s majority opinion, the decision is rooted in liberty. He states, “No governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of non-profit or for profit corporations.” In other words, to the conservative majority of the court, this case is about liberty—precisely the First Amendment. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky), Senate minority leader concurs by adding, “For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process. With today’s ruling, the Supreme Court took an important step in restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups by ruling that the Constitution protects their right to express themselves about political candidates and issues until Election Day.” This ruling doesn’t restore the Constitutional rights to groups to express themselves. Rather it further increases the power of corporate America over the ordinary American citizens. Corporations do not necessarily have the interests of America at the heart of their decisions. In fact many corporations are multinational. The corporation is most concerned about profit. They pursue an agenda that best promotes their “bottom line”. Giving that group additional influence over the electorate process seriously jeopardizes American democracy. Corporations are made up by private citizens. Their voices should be heard only when they are speaking as citizens, loyal to American democracy. I am not concerned about limiting corporate America rights—because I am not sure the First Amendment applies to such bodies. Treating corporations as individuals, who have Constitutional rights like freedom of speech, will result in a loss of influence and power of the people. That loss of liberty does concern me. Conservatives and liberals should all agree on that. In fact John McCain stated that he was, “disappointed by the decision”. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) called it a “terrible mistake”.
Those who support this ruling “love power”. This decision will allow corporations to use the power of its money to influence public opinion and public policy. Corporations are motivated by profit—self-interest or William Hazlitt said, the “love of self”. If Americans truly cherish liberty we will show our “love for others” by demanding Congress limit the encroaching power of corporate America. Any politician ,who supports this recent Supreme Court ruling, cannot love LIBERTY.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)