The Establishment Paradise (Part Two)

(This is the second segment in a three part series.  The first segment traced the evolution of elective office from a noble public service calling to more of an establishment paradise for the ruling class, with ease and plenty far removed from the day to day lives of ordinary citizens.  Boris Yeltsin spoke of the changes with the collapse of the former Soviet system.)

What tricks do Ambition (the Love of Power) and Avarice (the Love of Money) play on the life of one who aspires toward public service?  What type of men (and women) will these vices tend to attract?

Mr. Yeltsin understood what can happen when ordinary citizens lose faith in their government:

Without faith (in our leadership) even the best and most enlightened changes in our society will be impossible to accomplish.  And when people know about the blatant social inequality that persists, they see that their leader is doing nothing to correct the elite’s shameful appropriation of luxuries paid for from the public purse, then the last droplets of the faith will evaporate.

And when faith evaporates, change follows.  The only point of discussion is one of degree.

Let’s redirect our attention to early America, to the time during which the US Constitution was drafted in 1789.  From the earliest days of the republic, Ben Franklin had warned of the inherent danger of ambition and greed, when combined, having the human tendency to turn posts of honor into places of profit, or an establishment paradise.  Upon returning home after participation in the secret deliberations, Franklin was said to have had an inquisitive exchange with a Philadelphia woman:

“What have you made for us, Dr. Franklin?” the woman had wanted to know.

“A republic, madam, if you can keep it,” Franklin replied.

Franklin understood that democracy was not forever assured in the US, and that active, informed citizenship would be required not only to keep but also to help it evolve.

In a speech at the Constitutional Convention, Ben Franklin discussed the merits of limiting the perks of our elected lawmakers within the laws of human nature:

Sir, there are two Passions which have a powerful influence in the Affairs of Men.  These are Ambition and Avarice; the Love of Power and the Love of Money.  Separately, each of these has great Force in prompting Men to Action; but when united in View of the same Object, they have in many Minds the most violent Effects.  Place before the Eyes of such Men a Post of Honour, that shall at the same time be a Place of Profit, and they will move Heaven and Earth to obtain it.  The vast Number of such Places it is that renders the British Government so tempestuous.  The Struggles for them are the true Source of all those Factions which are perpetually dividing the Nation, distracting its Councils, hurrying it sometimes into fruitless and mischievous Wars, and often compelling a Submission to dishonourable Terms of Peace.

He turned to the type of men which such personal incentives would attract:

And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable Preeminence, thro’ all the Bustle of Cabal, the Heat of Contention, the infinite mutual Abuse of Parties, tearing to Pieces the best of Characters?  It will not be the wise and moderate, the Lovers of Peace and good Order, the men fittest for the Trust.  It will be the Bold and the Violent, the men of strong Passions and indefatigable Activity in their selfish Pursuits.  These will thrust themselves into your Government, and be your Rulers.  And these, too, will be mistaken in the expected Happiness of their Situation; for their vanquish’d competitors, of the same Spirit, and from the same Motives, will perpetually be endeavoring to distress their Administration, thwart their Measures, and render them odious to the People.

Those personal gains would be smeared into the fabric of our bedrock institutions, where they would leave an impressionable and lasting stain.  And before long, augmentations would be sought, leading to a tipping point pitting the governing against the governed:

Besides these Evils, Sir, tho’ we may set out in the Beginning with Moderate Salaries, we shall find, that such will not be of long Continuance.  Reasons will never be wanting for propos’d Augmentations; and there will always be a Party for giving more to the Rulers, that the Rulers may be able in Return to give more to them.  Hence, as all History informs us, there has been in every State and Kingdom a constant kind of Warfare between the Governing and the Governed; the one striving to obtain more for its Support, and the other to pay less.  And this has alone occasion’d great Convulsions, actual civil Wars, ending either in dethroning the Princes or enslaving the People.  Generally, indeed, the Ruling Power carries its Point, and we see the Revenues of Princes constantly increasing, and we see that they are never satisfied, but always in want of more.  The more the People are discontented with the Oppression of Taxes, the greater Need the Prince has of Money to distribute among his Partisans, and pay the Troops that are to suppress all Resistance, and enable him to plunder at Pleasure.  There is scarce a King in a hundred, who would not, if he could, follow the Example of Pharaoh, --- get first all the People’s Money, then all their Lands, and then make them and their Children Servants for ever.  ...  But this Catastrophe, I think, may be long delay’d, if in our propos’d System we do not sow the Seeds of Contention, Faction, and Tumult, by making our Posts of Honour Places of Profit. …

(The third and final segment in our three part series turns to a discussion of property rights, a man-made proposition, shifting to Andrew Jackson, the President of the Common Man, before concluding in the present.)

-Michael D'Angelo

The Establishment Paradise (Part One)

(Note: This is the first segment in a three part series.)

Is elective office still the noble calling to public service it was once intended to be?  Or has it evolved to more of an establishment paradise for the ruling class, with ease and plenty far removed from the day to day lives of ordinary citizens?

As the summer of 2012 begins to wind down, the November US presidential election beckons on the near horizon.  It’s an excellent time to take the long view on the state of our American democracy.

At last look the latest public opinion polls indicate that members of US Congress experience an approval rating hovering at or near 9% among likely American voters.  The statistic is startling, the lowest rating in fact since statisticians began to record figures.  Long in the making, the phenomenon has been the subject of ominous warning bells ringing out for more than two centuries.

But let’s begin with the present.  What began as a call to selfless public duty for the good of the nation has evolved through the course of US history.  Today, unfortunately, public service is no longer seen as a selfless commitment to the welfare of others.  It is more like a self-centered establishment paradise.  The reasons are apparent.

Ordinary citizens may wonder what it’s like to live in an establishment paradise.  Candidates for public office in quest of so called public service make lofty promises to their courted constituents.  But are these promises real?  Or are they merely illusions, or expectations?   Or are they kept only “up there” in the establishment paradise?

During the 2008 presidential campaign, then-candidate Barack Obama lamented the high personal cost of aspiring toward a life of public service.  Red lights, traffic jams, slow, methodical passages through airport security, missed flights.  Worst of all, there would be little to no time for family.

Of course, after the election things would be much different.  Traveling in a limousine is really much more convenient.  Nobody steps on your toes, pushes you from behind, pokes you in the ribs.  Every light is green.  You travel fast without stopping.  Traffic police and security salute you.  And there is Air Force One.

For US Congressmen, the change is perhaps more subtle but equally sweeping.  Through the generosity of prior legislators, sort of as a present to themselves, upon election, members receive Cadillac-type health insurance coverage that is not the privilege of all citizens.  They also receive a federal pension which sets them up financially, for life.  Despite an obvious conflict of interest, nor are they prohibited from investing in industries and businesses they are called upon to govern.  They are wined and dined by paid lobbyists, special interests and political action committee interests whose funding sources need not be disclosed under the present law.

And they use the power of the incumbency to retain and cement their vaunted status in public service.  While the selfless George Washington created the precedent in the executive branch to limit the presidency to two successive terms totaling eight years, US Congressmen face no such limitation.  Many “run” for office seemingly forever, transforming public service into an exclusive property right with hereditary status.

In the third branch of US government, the federal judiciary, members at the highest levels are appointed for life.  And so it is not inconceivable that still-in-his-early-50s John Roberts, new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and author of the landmark 2012 decision upholding the 2010 Affordable Care Act, can retain his position on the high court for 40 years or longer.

Over time, this is how elected representatives in a nation of laws become alienated from the nation and themselves.  Laws are passed to serve the special interests, the ones pouring money into the personal comforts of public servants, at the expense of the general welfare and public interest.

They give well-worn speeches on the yet elusive progress toward paradise for all citizens.  But that paradise is but a fiction for the masses of ordinary citizens.  The establishment paradise has been constructed and evolved in such a fashion that it is to remain that way in the name of the established order, conservatism and preservation of the powerful status quo.  As a result, the ordinary citizen's faith in the democratic process is tested.

Boris Yeltsin may not be a familiar name to ordinary American citizens.  But his name is very familiar to ordinary Russians.  Mr. Yeltsin had a unique vantage point in Russian politics.  In 1981 he was “elected” to serve on the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which was the highest party authority between governing congresses.  Then, after the fall of the communist government in 1989, Mr. Yeltsin was elected by popular vote as the first president of the new Russian Federation, an experiment in democratic and market reform, in which position he served from 1991 to 1999.  He spoke of the changes he foresaw with the imminent collapse of the former Soviet system:

Of course, our establishment cannot run away and hide.  The moment will come when they will have to give up their private dachas (government owned vacation homes) and answer to the people for having hung on to their privileges tooth and nail.  Even now some of them are starting to pay the price for their former “establishment” status.  The massive defeat at the polls suffered by party and government officials who stood for elections is the first warning bell for them.  They are now being forced to take steps to satisfy the demands of the voters.  But they make concessions reluctantly and grudgingly; they are so wedded to their privileges that every possible contrivance, including bald lies and sheer deception, is employed by them.  They will, in fact, do anything to slow down the process of reform.

(The second segment in this three part series turns to a discussion of what can happen when ordinary citizens lose faith in their government...)

-Michael D'Angelo