Calls for Revolution Will Lead to Undesirable Results

Revolutions are part of the natural cycles of governance and are often required to bring forth change. Change is the one result of revolution that is guaranteed. Desirable change is not guaranteed and is the least likely of all the possible results from a revolution. The one consequence of revolution is unpredictability and such uncertainty is a wicked mistress. The closest analogy of revolution in nature is fire. The great plains and forests of the world left to nature will suffer cleansing fires as that is nature’s way of effecting change. The renewals resultant from these flames is necessary in the cycles of renewal by Mother Nature. The other similarity between nature’s renewal by fire and political renewal by revolution is that each is an extremely dangerous process to all living things within the effects of the sweeping flames of change. The forests and plains then reset to an original starting point from which nature rebuilds eventually reaching the point where the conditions will eventually again reach the point where the conditions are ripe for the next renewal by fire. Governance of man is similar in that the governance that results from any revolution is not guaranteed and, more often than not, the forces in control at the end of the revolution are rarely the same forces that began the revolution. The recent revolutions in the Middle East are perfect examples of this consequence.

 

The originators of the Egyptian uprising, for example, were students and young adults who using the new high tech media began a revolution that presented the opportunity for the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists to step in and reap the rewards from the wind swept flames of change. Similar results followed from what began actually in 2009 Iran where the students and many from the society protested the stealing of the election by Ahmadinejad and were violently oppressed. Their attempt at change failed largely due to the timidity by the rest of the world to support their calls for relief from despotic rule. The next country was Tunisia where a vegetable street vendor reached beyond his limits and revolted by self-immolation. This was the spark that lighted the flames of revolution in Tunisia which then ignited across Northern Africa and beyond. The original protests were demands for freedom, democratic representation, liberty, and an end to economic repressions. The results have thus far been the replacement of nationalistic dictators with the election of Islamic religious leaderships which may result in the imposition of a new dictatorial type of theocratic tyrannies. The freedom expressing youth who wished for modernized democratic governance began these revolutions and the theocratic fundamentalists had the organizational presence to take advantage of an unstable leadership vacuum which they used all their influence and power to fill while displacing the idealistic youth. The history of revolutions will verify the posit that those who initiate revolution are more often than not cast aside by other forces who have the necessary organization in the ready seemingly waiting for just such an opportunity to divert the situation for their own gain.

 

There are those who believe that a revolution may be required in order to reinstitute the original Constitutional limits and reinstate idealistic governance that they believe existed at the birth of the United States and honestly believe that they would be able to control the transformation once the existing governance had been toppled making room for their visions to be realized. Other than the disillusioned truth that even at the time that George Washington was taking the oath of office the constitution was on the verge of being compromised as soon as Congress was seated. The Constitutional standard set forth in the actual document was an idealistic governance for which we were to strive and described a perfection which was to be minded in order to limit the evils to which men fall victim simply due to the fact that all are imperfect and corruptible when compared to a perfection of the vision such as presented in the Constitution. The ideal is near impossible yet is what must be the used definition of governance if society is to have any possibility of resisting the temptations that lead to corrupt ruling leadership that result from partaking of a taste of power. The problem with any revolution, even one with the stated goal of reinstating the original Constitution in its entirety, the temptations of power will work their tantalizations on those who find themselves as leaders. Since revolutions will tend to appoint or have some assume power, they leave the aims of the revolution to become victim of the desires of those trusted with leadership. History has proven that those trusted with leadership often break every vow and trust that was instituted when they first assumed leadership and power. As the old phrase states, “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

 

When looking at the current state of political power in the United States and comparing it to the allocations of power according to the Constitution, one finds the structure which was meant to protect the individual States from an overreaching central government have been completely turned on their head. This is very much a stipulation for change that is made by those who believe the time has come to take whatever steps may be required to reset the governance of the United States back to the originating Constitutional arrangements. The problem is there is far too much risk in attempting to force such a change as those in power will not likely surrender that which they now hold. Forcing the issue would necessitate revolution and the flames of change are usually not kind. The only guaranteed manner of reasserting the limits and doctrines of the Constitution is to go through a period of disciplined change in order to undo over two hundred years of compromise. Such an endeavor would take near inhuman dedication over generations all the while resisting the exact same temptations which caused this problem in the first place. The problem is that each compromise committed to the purity of the Constitution was seen and accepted as an improvement or necessity and was generally approved by the majority at their inception. The perfect example would be the Seventeenth Amendment which called for a change in the manner for the selection of United States Senators. In accordance with the humanistic philosophies of the period where it was theorized that the people as a whole entity were of superior intelligence and pure nature than were the State Governments which were seen as even more corrupt than the Federal Government. This caused the belief that the citizenry would be preferred to be given the power to elect their Senators instead of allowing the State Legislators or Governor to appoint them. This was seen as advantageous and the Constitutional Amendment was presumably ratified as such. The theory that the Senate was to be the house that represented the individual States was set aside and transformed to mean the Senators were to represent the will of the peoples of each State. This was definitely to the advantage of the powers in Washington as it completely removed any vestige of power over the Federal Government actions and laws from the State legislators or other governmental power. This one Amendment may have had the most far reaching affect in subsuming power from the States into the centralized Federal Government. To undo the evisceration of the United States Constitution by two centuries of compromises and cheating performed by the representatives of the people, often despite vocal protests from a minority of strict constitutionalists, the people must be convinced it is in their vital interest to partake of an effort to reassert the original limitations, definitions, identifications, and structures of the Constitution of the Federal Government and all other forms of governance throughout the United States. Even if this should become evident, it would then take transmitting this eminent desire to the ensuing generations very likely for far longer than it took allowing for the constitution to be abridged. That will be one difficult and possibly climbable mountain to conquer, but likely a worthy goal. It is that very difficulty that makes the idea of revolution and quick restoration so tempting, but that allure would likely not produce the desired end. The fires of change tend to burn out of the control of those who lighted the initial flames.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Attacking the Rich-Poor Divide is American

We are hearing a large amount of political noise claiming that the rich are not paying their fair share when the reality is that the poor are paying absolutely no share and a fair number of them receive a tax refund when the reality is they paid no taxes in order to receive that refund. This scapegoating of the rich is both very American and at the same time very un-American. Baiting the poor by blaming the rich is a tempting morsel as it is the low hanging fruit on the political tree, the easy picking and thus often used by politicians to garner some easy votes. Those who choose this route are not taking the hard road or going into deep waters; they are taking the low road and coasting instead of offering the poor an honest American alternative. The American offer is rarely spoken about as a viable option by politicians as such an option does not require any politicians or even government participation. It actually works best when the government is so far from the action so as to not interfere or make the dream more difficult or impossible to reach. America has made more wealthy individuals rising from the ranks of the poor than any other country in recorded history. This has been the result of two major factors, the lack of an established class structure and a small government which has historically remained nonintrusive. The sixty-four thousand dollar question is whether this route is as readily available as it has been throughout American history.

All too often we are taught that the wealthy in history climbed to the top on the corpses of the poor employees who were under paid and worked under ruthless management and harsh conditions. When we hear about the sweatshops and the extremely low pay in college and high school history or economics courses we often take a biased view we are sold as factual. When we are told that workers who made the Ford Model T cars were paid under $75.00 per week and that the factory floor temperatures would reach into the 80 degree and higher in the summer and below freezing in the winter we recoil in horror, at least mentally. What we are not told is that they were well paid and factories did not have airconditioning and often the heat was inadequate in the winter not only in the factories, but in all the buildings of the era. Usually the heating was far more reliable than the nonexistent airconditioning. We also are not given any context for a reason. If we were given a scale representation where we were also informed that a modern worker paid the same level as those Ford workers would be in the most advanced factory of the age with the most modern methods and machinery and would be being paid almost double the going pay scale for factory workers on average. But, these horror stories we were told were occasionally very true. The coal mining stories about company stores and dangerous working conditions and violent union strikes put down by government troops actually are the truth, sadly. But, as a rule, many of the most famous entrepreneurs who made it to the very top did so by paying their workers well; treating them with the dignity they deserved, and changed the relationship between workers and management for the better and often the changes they introduced became permanent.

The sad reality of modern day America is that we are rapidly regulating ourselves into oblivion and stealing from the less fortunate the upward mobility which had been the norm for the first two centuries plus in the United States. Some politicians will blame the political culture in a vague reference and place the blame on too many regulations. They promise that if elected they will not pass any new regulations, and they really, really mean that. The truth be told, our Senators and Representatives do not discuss or pass any regulations and the President has never signed a regulation into existence. They write, debate, pass and sign legislation which establishes laws. These laws are often not well defined and have vague references to a desired goal and then state that some department or agency is assigned to flush out this legislation and invent the regulations which will be utilized to reach, enforce, and fully define the legislation making it actionable. This is the root of many of our societal problems as the exponential growth of the regulation universe has reached a point where it is inflating in size and numbers close to the speed of the initial moments of the formation of the universe. We have reached the point where we have entangled everybody with regulations beyond the ability of any normal person to even remember all of them and beyond the ability of enforcement to enforce the entirety of regulatory legalisms. President Obama has taken the regulatory strangulation to a new level and has actually appointed a Regulatory Czar whose singular function is to peruse old legislation and invent new regulations wherever and whenever he finds any new application which can be inferred. This person’s name is Cass Robert Sunstein, and he may be the most dangerous person in the entire government, let alone President Obama’s administration.

So, how do we go about releasing what was the magic formula which made America the greatest accomplishment for human dignity, opportunity, and freedom in the history of humankind. Unfortunately, it may be impossible to undo the damage we have perpetrated against our own society through over-regulation. The solution would appear to be simple, get rid of as many regulations as we can through a simple review method where we revoke any regulations which we find to be outdated, frivolous, or in some way lacking, deficient or unnecessary. But this is where we run into the real problem which perpetuates the volume of regulations. For every regulation there are departments and people, who either enforce, inspect, handle the paper generated, make the reports fulfilling a demand, or otherwise owe their employment to each and every regulation. To these people their regulation is the most vital and important piece of the government to the wellbeing of society which would crumble should that regulation be repealed, or they would lose their cushy job at the very least. We are in an age where the regulations have built a government that has gotten completely out of control and the out of control government will never allow us to reduce the number of regulations and pare down their numbers. That, my friends is the challenge going forward. Now, who wants to be the first to go forth and draw the ire and direct attacks of the regulators? We will need one who is without sin of the violation of any regulation at any point in their lives and have filled out every single required form and application in every step of their lives so they are unassailable to the enforcers. Does such a person exist, and if they do, would they be willing to brave the inspections of the regulators and their faceless hordes? All I can say is, “Not me!”

Beyond the Cusp