Restoring Balance And Harmony (Part Five)

(Editor’s note:  Should a lawmaker be permitted the right to serve indefinitely, for unlimited term or duration, in many instances for life?  The final segment --- Part Five --- in this multi-part series on Restoring Balance And Harmony addresses the back end of the legislator’s term of service. 

The solution for reversing the greatest concentration of wealth disparity in American History is no simple task, targeting reform of the legislative branch at three critical junctures: first, before the legislator is elected; second, while the legislator is serving; and third, on the back end of the legislator’s term of service.

The solution’s first component calls for the abolition of gerrymandered districts, the second for an end to the filibuster custom.  This final segment brings us to the third and final component.

Third, on the back end of legislative service, George Washington’s precedent of executive term limit must be extended on a constitutional basis to the legislative branch.

If lawmakers are made to understand that they are out of office after a time certain --- returned to private life with strict, transparent limitations on future economic dealings at government expense --- they will possess little incentive but to act conscientiously in the affairs of the people.  Their perpetual concern about re-election as a distracting self-interest proposition and corruptive force will have been effectively removed.

In both the House of Representatives and the Senate, a limitation of twelve (12) years in elected office is suggested as a flexible starting point for discussion.  Those who come to view their place in the federal government as a hereditary or privileged entitlement will be removed by the regular operation of law, so that fresh, new, ordinary blood can renew the people’s fight.

Theodore Roosevelt did not believe

that any man should ever attempt to make politics his whole career.  It is a dreadful misfortune for a man to grow to feel that his whole livelihood and whole happiness depend upon his staying in office.  Such a feeling prevents him from being of real service to the people while in office, and always puts him under the heaviest strain of pressure to barter his convictions for the sake of holding office.  A man should have some other occupation … to which he can resort if at any time he is thrown out of office, or if at any time he finds it necessary to choose a course which will probably result in his being thrown out, unless he is willing to stay in at cost to his conscience.

Steering this proposal into law will serve to render a legislative seat more responsive to the will and strengthened vote of the ordinary citizen and not to concentrated economic power.  Consequently, lawmakers will regain their rightful place as the impartial umpire in the affairs of the people’s business set on a level playing field.

This proposal does, however, contain one catch.  And it is a major catch.  Unfortunately, lawmakers cannot reasonably be expected to legislate away in regular session privileges they have devised, perfected and come to expect and enjoy for themselves by tradition over the course of more than two centuries.  This is to be anticipated in the context of human nature’s important lesson --- that reasonable people will act reasonably in their own best interest.

To implement change for the greater good, we must provide favorable conditions without the constraints of today’s competing, partisan ideologies.  It is apparent that these reforms simply cannot be accomplished, therefore, absent a national constitutional convention called specifically for this purpose.  Delegates to the convention must be pledged solely to the great unfinished business of the nation, not to partisan, special or self-interest.

Herein lies the problem.  Does the ordinary citizen possess the courage to meet this challenge?

-Michael D’Angelo

Restoring Balance And Harmony (Part Four)

(Editor's note:  Our multi-part series on Restoring Balance And Harmony traces in part how we have arrived at the greatest concentration of wealth disparity in American History --- and constructs a practical solution.  The previous segment discusses the solution's first component. Part Four presented here highlights the solution's second component.)


As we have seen, the founding fathers entrust the legislative branch of government as umpire with the important if not unenviable task of steering the nation’s ship by making laws to promote the general welfare of its people as a whole.  Not surprisingly then, the solution for ameliorating the greatest concentration of wealth disparity in American History targets reform at the level of the legislative branch.

Specific reform addresses the legislative process at three critical junctures: first, before the legislator is elected; second, while the legislator is serving; and third, on the back end of the legislator’s term of service.

The first critical stress point --- prior to the legislator’s election --- is the subject of the solution’s first component.  Specifically, the elimination of gerrymandered legislative districts is discussed in the previous segment.

The second critical stress point concerns proceedings while the legislator is in office.  Consequently, the solution’s second component addresses the lawmaker’s seat, once serving.  That seat must be restored to a position of public trust from the anomaly of a fully evolved individual prize.  A place of profit must be restored to a post of honour --- meaning a post of service --- as originally designed.

How can this best be accomplished?  We can start by denying the lawmaker any privilege which is not the right of every citizen --- in a broad range of issues from working conditions to compensation to health care to retirement.  A lawmaker must be barred from voting on any proposed legislation which may affect his or her family members personally.  Special interest perks must be eliminated by use of a bright line.

This component will provide more than enough incentive, urgency and assurance that any disparity which needs fixing will be fixed.  The US Congress must no longer be maintained, nor should any legislative body, as an exclusive, closed door establishment paradise for its members.

Additionally, how can we best accomplish the goal of redirecting lawmakers to conduct the people’s business, instead of just stalling?  This great question requires an analysis of the function of the two branches in the legislative scheme.

On the one hand, the House of Representatives by its populist design stokes the passions of the masses.  It is the place where the great issues are designed to be bantered about openly.  On the other hand, the Senate is designed by use of calm deliberation to cool the passions of the House of Representatives, as by analogy boiling hot tea is cooled by transfer from teapot to cup and saucer. [i]

The Senate is not designed to be a wall.  But enacted since the time of the founding fathers, the filibuster has added an “unconstitutional dimension” to the legislative process.  Through the filibuster, a senator can talk indefinitely relative to a proposed measure to keep it from ever coming to a vote, thereby hijacking the very heart of the legislative process. 

The filibuster has been described as a peculiar institution responsible in large part for Congress’ failures, “purely and simply an undemocratic technique to permit rule by a minority.”  It has delayed --- for decades in certain instances --- passage of social legislation by the House and desired by a majority of Americans. [ii]

The technique serves to transform the Senate from a moderating force into an impregnable barrier, blocking the rising demand for social justice. [iii]  The result effectively transforms a designed cooling period into a protracted ice age.  This is not how the founding fathers have intended the Senate to function.  Consequently, its unrestricted use must be abolished.

(Editor’s note:  The fifth and final segment in this multi-part series on Restoring Balance And Harmony addresses the solution’s third component --- on the back end of the legislator’s term of service.  Should a lawmaker be permitted the right to serve indefinitely, for unlimited term or duration, in many instances for life?)

-Michael D’Angelo

---

[i]  Caro, Master of the Senate, supra, at p. 9.

[ii]  Id., at p. 385, 446.

The quote is attributed to the liberal US Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey, Jr., D-MN, upon his election to the Senate in 1948.  Humphrey would later serve as Vice President during Lyndon Johnson’s administration.

[iii]  Id., at p. 83, 92, 105.

Restoring Balance And Harmony (Part Three)

(Editor’s note: The second segment of this multi-part series traces in part how we arrived at the greatest concentration of wealth disparity in American History. In Part Three, we begin to construct a practical solution.)

How do we restore meaningful equality of opportunity --- identified by Theodore Roosevelt as the third great crisis in our nation’s history?  Consider that the power to do so derives in the place from which all legitimate power originates in a democracy --- from the ballot box.

The solution is at the ballot box.  It involves strengthening the ordinary citizen’s vote to elect lawmakers accountable to the public interest.  Strengthened and unshackled, the ordinary citizen’s vote is bound to improve equality of opportunity over time.

The solution accepts the plain reality that the omnipresent “influence” which Thomas Jefferson first  identified cannot and should not be eliminated.  It can, however --- and must be --- reasonably checked.

This can be accomplished by insulating lawmakers from the pressures and corruptive influences of special interests in today’s money-craving, material society.  If the incentive for self-interest is effectively contained, chances are much improved that lawmakers will serve the people’s business, for they will be left with little choice.  The very idea of service can be made to mean service --- and only service --- once again.

The good news is that implementing a sound, practical solution is not complicated.  It also appears to be readily available.  Consider the following proposal, which contains three components, the first of which is discussed in this segment.

The first component is tied to the front end of legislative service.  Our democratic system is designed for voters to choose their legislators at the ballot box.  But lawmakers have long chosen their voters in a self-serving custom by drawing arbitrary, movable lines around voting districts to make them “safe” from challenge by the other side.  It’s opposite the way it’s supposed to work in a representative democracy and therefore must be abolished. [i]

By way of example, in the 2012 midterm elections, Democrats receive over 1.4 million more votes for the US House of Representatives than Republicans.  Yet Republicans win control of the House by a margin of 234 to 201 [ii], using their distorted majority to frustrate the popular will on a range of important issues.  This is not democracy, certainly not the way the founding fathers have envisioned it.

To be fair, Democrats have reaped the benefit of this unfair and imbalanced system for decades prior.  The reality is that both parties are culpable.  Both share blame equally.  The system has evolved such that in the 2014 Congressional midterm elections, relatively few incumbents actually face realistic challenges.

The drawing of legislative districts so tightly in their favor to suit the pleasure of each party’s ideological base serves two efficient but self-serving, undemocratic ends.  First, the possibility of ouster is seen as being remote.  Second, the incentive for compromise in crafting national legislation is greatly reduced.

Put another way, primary candidates must pander to their party’s extremist elements.  To the frustration of the ordinary citizen, and the mainstream at the center line, the concept of partisan gridlock results.  And so it goes.

Moreover, Republicans in this instance now seek to extend and advance this system of cherry picking constituents to the presidential electoral college.  The scheme, initiated so that the loser of the popular vote could more easily win key states and the presidency, is an undesirable threat to representative democracy and must be strongly resisted.

(Editor’s note:  The fourth segment in this continuing multi-part series highlights the solution’s  second component.)

-Michael D’Angelo

---

[i]  On the federal level, the practice is popularly known as “gerrymandering,” or setting electoral districts that attempt to establish a party’s political advantage by manipulating geographic boundaries to create partisan advantaged districts.  The practice dates back to the early 1800s and was named for Elbridge Gerry, the Massachusetts governor who resorted to the practice by signing a bill that redistricted the state to aid his party.

[ii]  Wang, Sam, “The Great Gerrymander of 2012,” The New York Times, February 2, 2013.  ...  For an analysis of how voting districts are being made more “safe, lily-white” as the nation is becoming more racially diverse, see Friedman, Thomas L., “Our Democracy Is At Stake,” The New York Times, October 1, 2013.

Restoring Balance And Harmony (Part Two)

(Editor’s note: The first segment of this multi-part series discusses in part how we arrived at the greatest concentration of wealth disparity in American History. In Part Two, that discussion continues.)

Popular government devolves to the national level as the arbiter of important questions due to no particular virtue of the federal system.  However, a unique benefit of local government is that mistakes typically do not imperil national security.  This enables local governments to act as crucibles of experimental democracy.  With local grassroots support, the most successful of these experiments can serve as a model for federal reform.

But national lawmakers, in particular, seem to be crying out for help with the difficult task of legislating transparently in the public interest.  The finger may rightfully be pointed at the corruptive forces of money, used to prostrate honorable public servants from acting in the public interest.  Special interests for private gain have effectively accomplished this through the transformation of legislative office from a position of public trust to an individual prize.  It is said that the main role of a legislator these days is solely to insulate corporations from complying with the laws.  Society’s unrest naturally follows.

Meanwhile, a coefficient of legislative inertia and weakness is to some extent the expansion of executive and judicial power, which is compelled to fill the void.  Left to their own devices, these complimentary branches in a system of checks and balances sometimes overreach into the legislative sphere, throwing the separation of powers into harmful imbalance.  Allegations of imperial presidency as to one branch and judicial activism as to the other foster mutual mistrust, distracting from the primary mission.

It has taken a significant amount of time --- and stealth --- to amass a record level of wealth concentration.  Corruption of the legislative “umpire” has carved out a chasm which appears to be morally indefensible.  This confounds the quest to complete our great unfinished business, which calls upon our economic system to provide a fair shot for the many.

As applied to its lawmaking body, America simply has been unable to come to grips with the self-interest component of concentrated economic power on the human condition.  Put another way, what has Congress, the legislative branch, done to ameliorate wealth disparity and insure a level playing field?  If the answer is “nothing,” then it becomes compelling that something has to change.  Consider it a moral issue which can no longer be secondary.

But no matter how diligently we strive to create a more perfect union, collecting things and changing money remain the great motivation which obscures life’s true purpose. Sideshows in the political process have a tendency to swallow substance, reducing important questions to a partisan, smallness debate on the proper size of government --- not on whether government actually works.

At the same time, entrenched status quo interests spread dollars around systematically, muddying the water so that change becomes all but impossible. To check this, we must move beyond a traditional analysis affixed to economic cycles of boom and bust, war and peace. To progress meaningfully from one stage to the next in an upward course, we must aim higher.

Then how best to do this? One might say, “If the lawmakers don’t perform, throw them out and replace them at the next election with those who will perform.” If only apportioning equality of opportunity more equitably under the law were to be so easy. Those monopolizing opportunity would never agree to change the myriad of laws necessary to do so. And the monopolizers have sufficient power to ensure that these laws would never be changed. Therefore, it is folly to attempt changing these laws through present means.

Rather, the way to end the indignities is to unleash the ordinary citizen’s power to put them to an end.  That power comes from the ballot box.  Consequently, if the ordinary citizen’s vote to elect lawmakers accountable to the public interest is strengthened, the ordinary citizen will then be liberated to do the rest himself.  Do this and equality of opportunity is bound to improve over time.

How then can the ordinary citizen’s vote be strengthened to reasonably check the self-interest component of the federal lawmaker?  How can the ordinary citizen participate more effectively in the management of his and her government?  Put another way, since concentrated economic power rules, how can we limit big money in politics?  How can we re-direct emphasis away from the traditional measure of American success on a strictly material basis, moving the ancient principle of service back to the political center?

(Editor’s note:  Do not despair!  The third segment in this continuing multi-part series considers some practical solutions.  Yes, we can do this!)

-Michael D'Angelo

Restoring Balance And Harmony (Part One)

(Editor’s note:  This is the first segment in a new multi-part series which begins here today. …)

The Founding Fathers’ plan for the new central government is nearly flawless.  The power of the government derives from the people and is distributed to three equal but independent authorities.  The legislative branch is to make the nation’s laws.  The executive enforces them.  And the judiciary interprets their legality.  By a system of checks and balances, each authority a check on one or both of the others, a separation  of powers virtually ensures that no one individual citizen or branch can amass inordinate status.

Many thorny political issues which simply cannot be foreseen will arise in the future.  But the US Constitution is a remarkably flexible undertaking.  It is said to be a living, breathing, organic document that is built to stand the tests of time that have befallen the noblest efforts of bygone eras.  And despite the predictions of European cynics who consistently predict its demise, the great American experiment in democracy now well into its third century remains a remarkable success by any reasonable measure.

But with praise aside, 21^st century America society is not akin to utopia on earth.  Ordinary citizens complain through hardened experience that what was once a land of opportunity is now hardly recognizable as such.  While excuses abound, explanations are not simple.  At present, wealth concentration in the hands of the privileged few is at a higher point than at any time in our nation’s history.  Wealth concentration and monopolistic tendencies do foreclose opportunity.

The numbers tell a chilling story.  The 400 richest Americans today possess more wealth than the bottom half of the US population (150+ million) combined.  This primary economic factor is morally indefensible.  It is apparent that our economic system is failing to provide a fair shot for the many, confounding us from completing our great unfinished business.  As a result, American society is plagued with unrest, imbalance and disharmony.

How did we arrive here is a key question.  And can it be fixed?  In order to answer these questions fully, we must trace the root cause of society’s unrest to the beginning. 

In the Founding Fathers’ vision, the three branches of government are created equal.  But in reality each branch is hardly considered to be on an equal footing.

The Founding Fathers’ familiarity with the British parliamentary system places the legislative branch at the helm of the ship, setting the national course.  Indeed, the Founding Fathers design a sophisticated steering mechanism, meant to be operated by the legislative authority, or Congress.  Execution of the plan depends upon Congress to steer the ship by the making of laws for the public good in its sole and ultimate discretion.

By contrast, the executive branch is viewed as little more than a puppet of Congress, although George Washington places a distinctive stamp on the office.  In reality, the power of the so called President is virtually non-existent. The executive acts merely as a rubber stamp of the proposed legislation passed on to it by Congress.  The executive “veto” power provided for in the Constitution dare not be exercised.

And as for the poor judiciary branch, nobody really seems to know, or care, what the proper function of that branch is actually supposed to be.  Considered the weakest of the three branches, the authority of the judiciary to interpret the Constitution is not yet clear.  Exactly zero cases are decided by the US Supreme Court in its first 18 months of its existence.  So lightly is the Court regarded and slight its prestige that when the government moves from Philadelphia to its new home in Washington, DC in 1800, no provision is made for it to be housed.  Neither is money provided nor plans drawn up.

Andrew Jackson later changes the conception of the executive branch in a high profile manner, putting the executive on an equal footing with Congress.  Similarly, John Marshall defines the judicial branch, establishing itself as the arbiter of constitutional authority and affirming the Constitution as an instrument of the people.  Under Marshall’s leadership, the Court is molded into a major force. 

As the power and stature of the executive and judiciary authorities increase over time, the legislative branch, in turn, begins a slow yet precipitous decline.  Ominous warnings sounded by such distinguished citizens as Benjamin Franklin go unheeded.  And so the wounds to the legislative authority are largely self-inflicted, in a decline that can be foreseen.  As a result, the ship’s steering mechanism is damaged and fractured, with no accountable authority setting navigational direction.  Disharmony becomes the rule.

In the second segment we identify and begin to analyze the specific causes of legislative decline which lie at the heart of early 21^st century unrest.

-Michael D’Angelo

A Blueprint for America's Future (Part Four)

(Editor's note:  This is the final segment in our four part series under title of A Blueprint for America's Future.  The prior segment (part three) highlights the psychic interlude which interrupts the weeks leading up to the 1912 general election. ...)

T.R. delivers a final speech in New York City in the days before the general election. 

Occasionally he attempts to raise his right arm, then winces and drops it.  The pain is intense from the wound as a result of the recent assassination attempt. Nevertheless, T.R. rises to a memorable occasion:

Friends, perhaps once in a generation, perhaps not so often, there comes a chance for a people of a country to play their part wisely and fearlessly in some great battle of the age-long warfare for human rights.  The doctrines we preach reach back to the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount.  They reached back to the commandments delivered at Sinai.  All that we are doing is to apply those doctrines in the shape necessary to make them available for meeting the living issue of our own day.

The end result might have been a nation of individuals, cooperating intelligently instead of competing recklessly, with the requisite character to understand duty --- a democratic society that could reach new heights in both moral and material progress.  But it is not meant to be.

In the ensuing national general election, T.R., now the political third party outsider on the Republican left, actually outpolls the incumbent president (Mr. Taft) on the Republican right.  But it is to be little consolation.  The Republican Party vote is thereby split.  The election is thrown to the candidate who commands the center, former president of Princeton University and Gov. of New Jersey, Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat. [i]  Progressivism is to take on the newly developing image of the Democratic Party.

Twenty years, one World War and a Great Depression later --- the roots of the New Deal experiment may be traced here --- to T.R. in 1912.  Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal agenda of 1932 adopts much of the 1912 Progressive Party platform in what will be the lynchpin of his four term presidency.   The New Deal conceives the social safety net, a constitutional delegation of power to the general welfare.  Hereafter, people come to expect the help of their government, especially in time of need.  Passage of its landmark twin pillars, the Social Security Act and National Labor Relations Act, furnishes the pathway for entry into middle class life for millions of American citizens, mainly immigrants.

In 1960, President John F. Kennedy’s New Frontier follows. The torch is passed to a new generation of Americans.  Mr. Kennedy’s vision drives the important legislation of the day, including the historic Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act of 1964, the Immigration Act of 1965, Medicare/Medicaid and the onset of the Great Society steered by Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty. With the passage of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, National Public Radio (NPR) is born, millions of listeners having come to rely upon NPR over the past 50 years.

President Reagan, an ardent New Deal proponent in his younger days, moves with good intentions to scale back the size and scope of the federal government. Once again, individual initiative has its day, unbridled by the constraints of government. But history teaches that individual initiative works best only within the framework of a collective social responsibility. One for all, and all for one, as the saying goes.

Presidents Clinton and Obama are direct lineal descendants of these historical figures in American History.  The enactment of President Obama’s signature 2010 Affordable Care Act, together with meaningful progress in the environmental battle to arrest the ill effects of global warming, stand as landmark achievements.

In closing, the accomplishments of the past 100 years have been many and must not be discounted.  But some insist we've yet to match the substance and passion of T.R.'s 1912 legacy.  With 2017 now upon us, that's worth remembering.

-Michael D'Angelo

---

[i]  The national vote tally in the presidential election of 1912:

Candidate:               Party:        Popular Vote:       Electoral Vote:     Voter Participation:

Woodrow Wilson      Democratic     6,293,454 (41.9%)       435                58.8%

Theodore Roosevelt  Progressive     4,119,538 (27.4%)         88

William H. Taft         Republican     3,484,980 (23.2%)           8

 Eugene V. Debs        Socialist            900,672 (6%)                -