Thomas Jefferson's Personal "Pursuit of Happiness" (Part Two)

(Note: This is the second segment in a two part series.

The first segment set forth Jefferson's desire to create the fertile conditions necessary to attain full, unencumbered intellectual and religious freedom of the mind, unconstrained by previous efforts to set authoritative delineation.  Absent these external influences and thus empowered, the mind would exist in a completely and intellectually free state: to master its environment and attain its natural potentialities.  Central was the belief in the improvability of the human mind and the limitless progress of human knowledge...)

What was the primary road block in Jefferson's view to attain full, unencumbered intellectual and religious freedom of the mind?  Did he attack religion, as many have concluded?  Or were his objections confined to religion's propensity to interpose limitations or assume a political character?  Once rid of these issues, could moral sanction be found elsewhere?  Was expert guidance needed?  Did one timeless example stand out?  And what was its foundation?

It can be fairy assumed that the first major obstacle to the freedom of the mind which he perceived was primarily in the sphere of religion and morality and, specifically, the doctrine of supernatural revelation.  Consequently, events which could not be scientifically proven were to be rejected, Jefferson believing that “No hypothesis ought to be maintained if a single phenomenon stands in direct opposition to it.”  Jefferson learned to apply to the Bible and theology the same tests as to secular history and scientific hypotheses, reasoning as follows:

When I was young I was fond of the speculations which seemed to promise some insight into that hidden country, but observing at length that they left me in the same ignorance in which they had found me, I have for very many years ceased to read or think concerning them, and have reposed my head on that pillow of ignorance which a benevolent Creator has made so soft for us, knowing how much we should be forced to use it.

Thus, Jefferson’s only attack on religion was if it assumed a political character, or because it limited the freedom of the mind, upon which the progress of the human species toward happiness depended.  This helped to explain his well known authorship of the Virginia statute for religious freedom.  This statute served as the basis of the right to free religious expression and the separation of religion (church) from government (state) as embodied subsequently by the 1st amendment to the federal US constitution.

Jefferson even went so far as to complete a favorite pet project, highly controversial today as it was then.  He cut out from the Holy Bible’s New Testament all references to miracles, revelation and the slanted opinions of men, which were written later, and in some case much later.  Left were only the words and teachings of Jesus Christ, Jefferson finding them to be “the purest system of morals ever before preached to man.”  He was fully convinced that the “priests” (Protestant as well as Catholic) had “adulterated and sophisticated” the teachings of Jesus for their own selfish purposes.

After he was able to rid himself of these confounding issues, the next main problem was finding adequate moral sanction elsewhere, subjecting his pursuit of happiness only to two significant exceptions.  First, he found “moral sanction in the monitor within every human breast,” and second, he found them “in the laws of nature.”

He looked first to the writings of classic antiquity, mainly the Greek classics, for a body of ethics.  But, he settled on the basic idea that a special moral sense was to be found within an individual’s own breast in the conscience, as truly a part of man’s nature as his sense of sight or hearing, his arm or his leg.  Jefferson thus concluded that “The great principles of right and wrong are legible to every reader; to pursue them requires not the aid of many counselors.”

But “for ideals of human relationships and universal benevolence, Jefferson looked higher than” both the Greek and Roman classicists.  He perceived in the ethics of Jesus Christ fullness and sublimity on a plane never attained by a classic moralist.  In sum, to one of the most notable champions of freedom and enlightenment in recorded history, happiness was the aim of life, and virtue was its foundation.

-Michael D’Angelo

Thomas Jefferson's Personal "Pursuit of Happiness" (Part One)

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

Previous articles have discussed “the pursuit of happiness” from the perspective of the Declaration of Independence, from whence the phrase originated.  Alexander Hamilton, the Founding Father of US capitalism, applied it to an economic plan that would bring physical greatness of dimensions previously unknown.  The thoughts of Thomas Jefferson, the author, were only touched upon briefly.  ...)

How did the author of the Declaration of Independence view his timeless phrase, “the pursuit of happiness” in the context of his own personal life?  Was it merely about a measure of an individual’s money or material wealth or a society’s physical greatness?  Or was it less scientific, guided more by a spiritual component derived from within and the laws of nature?

For the individual, according to Jefferson, the essence removed all arbitrary, artificial or hereditary distinctions, influences or preconceived notions.  The desire was to attain full, unencumbered intellectual and religious freedom of the mind, unconstrained by previous efforts to set authoritative delineation using lenses and filters.  Absent these external influences and thus empowered, the mind would exist in a completely and intellectually free state: to master its environment and attain its natural potentialities.  Central was the belief in the improvability of the human mind and the limitless progress of human knowledge.

On the collective level, Jefferson felt that the happiest society was one where inequalities of condition were not great.  Then-President Jefferson asked what else was needed for the happiness and prosperity of its people:

a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.  This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.

Jefferson believed that the status of aristocracy, based as it was not on merit but inherited privilege, made it doubtful that this class would exercise its public obligation for human progress on its existing foundation.  Consequently, Jefferson’s ideas tried to restore what he called “the natural order of freedom to give talent and virtue, which were scattered through all ranks of society, a chance to rise.”  He described his purposes in terms of “natural philosophy.”  Throughout his life, Jefferson never ceased to believe that men (white men, that is) by right were free in their minds and persons and that human society should guide its steps by the light of reason.

It can be fairy assumed that the first major obstacle to the freedom of the mind which he perceived was primarily in the sphere of religion and morality and, specifically, the doctrine of supernatural revelation.  Consequently, events which could not be scientifically proven were to be rejected, Jefferson believing that  “No hypothesis ought to be maintained if a single phenomenon stands in direct opposition to it."

(Next week's second segment in this two part series analyzes Thomas Jefferson's personal views on religion and morality, where happiness was the aim of life, and virtue was its foundation.)

-Michael D'Angelo

President Washington's Dilemma, or The Birth of US Capitalism

Capitalism is born and the stage becomes set for an insidious contest among ordinary citizens to accumulate the trappings of material wealth, as a symbol of success and status for other ordinary citizens.  Does this system facilitate the pursuit of happiness?  Or, was it implemented simply to fulfill a numbers game?  You decide.

President George Washington was faced with quite a dilemma.  The new constitution of 1789 was not intended to embody a particular economic theory.  The difficulty was in weighing the advice of his cabinet members, which was at odds.  On the one side was the financial plan of his Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, and on the other the opposition of his Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson.

Discussed previously and summarized briefly here, Hamilton’s financial plan set forth a banking system structured on the successful British model of capitalism. It specified, among other things, the creation of a central banking system under one supreme National Bank.  This bank was to be in corporation form, chartered under the authority of the new federal government of the US (today seen in the form of the Federal Reserve, headed by Benjamin Bernanke).

Hamilton’s plan conceived a new class of speculative wealth and money-making, endorsed by the full faith and credit of the US government.  Members of Congress, as well as the bankers and speculators, all more or less positioned on the inside, were the earliest plan subscribers and beneficiaries.  By and through its undertaking the new federal government created a system of preference for the so called moneyed class over the remaining classes of society that were not moneyed.

In contrast, Jefferson represented a class of citizens whose prosperity was derived from a farming economy.  As such, he objected strenuously to Hamilton’s plan, since it created an artificial class of wealth with certain inherent privileges to certain of its benefactors, which were not the privileges of all citizens.  As such, it clashed with and violated Jefferson’s ideals, which were in direct conflict.  Specifically, in Jefferson’s opinion, Hamilton’s

system flowed from principles adverse to liberty, and was calculated to undermine and demolish the republic, by creating an influence of his department (i.e.: Treasury, within the executive branch) over members of the legislature (i.e.: Congress).

As Hamilton well knew, the “influence” to which Jefferson was referring, and which Hamilton’s banking system created, was inherently susceptible to corruption, according to the laws of human nature.  In permitting some to hold for life, some hereditary, an influence by patronage or corruption over the popular legislative branch, the free election of the people would be reduced to a minimum.  The government would consequently be narrowed into fewer hands and approximated to a hereditary form.

Economically, according to Jefferson, Hamilton’s plan meant the need for a paradigm shift to restore simple republican principles.  In this context, a traditional, “real” economy had to be restored, where a bushel of wheat was worth whatever a bushel of wheat was worth at the particular time it was brought to market.  This was opposed to a contrived, artificial, futures trading economy of corrupt Wall Street money speculators that Hamilton’s plan created, attracted and nurtured.  Once unleashed, the ominous, dark side of human nature was unfortunately showcased in full display.

And so here was President Washington’s dilemma in full view.  In the end, the president endorsed Hamilton’s plan, based on a balancing of interests.  On the one hand, the idea was that the plan would do the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people (on the “happiness” scale!).  On the other hand, the plan would invariably cause collateral damage to the system, however small it would likely be portrayed.  Yes, in the end it was simply a numbers game.

As early as July 4, 1792, in the time period immediately preceding Washington’s re-election to a second Presidential term, a proponent of Thomas Jefferson published a provocative article.  A set of rules were set forth “‘for changing a limited republican government into an unlimited hereditary one’, the most important of these being to increase the national debt and establish a bank.”  However, by the time he had his turn as chief executive, and with the popular support to do as he wished, Thomas Jefferson performed an interesting about face.  Although he viewed the national bank as both an unnecessary and corruptive influence, he chose to extend its charter, on the evolving theory, simply, that “the ends be legitimate.”

The stage had thus been set, and would be intensified later by the material progress of the Industrial Revolution, for the US to become the greatest and most wealthy goods producing machine in the world.  Well, one where wars would no longer be fought, at least internally, over God, thanks to the 1^st Amendment’s expression of freedom of religion.  This was the positive aspect.  We know the negative ramifications. And, consider this inevitable clash: When capitalism is intermingled with the principles of Jefferson’s separation of church and state, the new standard of worship for American society is no longer God, but money.

It certainly turned out to be a wise decision --- for empire.  But reducing the Almighty to secondary status would not be without continuing moral consequences.  For a nation which prided its foundation on Christian principles, was it the right decision?  If as it is argued by many that America has lost its way, is the self-interest component which has become so pronounced the primary culprit?  Is the ordinary citizen “happy” that noble virtues like compassion and mercy yield to organized corruption which expresses the moral sickness of a greedy society?

-Michael D’Angelo

Unintended Consequences (Part Two)

(Note: This is the second segment in a two part series. The first segment noted how sometimes our best intentions merely produce unintended consequences. A national law in the 1850s regarding slavery and another in the 1960s concerning immigration did not play out as their proponents had wished. Do current events contain the seeds of future unintended consequences?...)

While ending the immigration-limiting European (i.e. - white) quota system, the Immigration Act of 1965, in reality, had the opposite, unintended effect, opening the floodgates of immigration to other countries, many from the so called “third world” arena which embodied people of color. Today, 1 in 5 immigrants is Mexican, fulfilling a critical need to perform a whole host of new occupations in the proliferating service industries, while 1 in 4 immigrants is Asian. This places today’s era at the apex in terms of immigrants as a percentage of the total US population. The law is consequently understood to be one of the high water marks of late 20th-century American liberalism, although perhaps not what the Great Society liberals had quite intended.

Latin Americans, or Latinos as they are sometimes called, are the fastest growing ethnic group in the US today. Some look to be white, others black. And they are also all shades of color in between. Defying simple generalization, they are mainly identified as, first, Spanish-speaking and, second, Roman Catholic. Today, Latinos make up about 13% of the US population. It is estimated to be fully 50% by the year 2050. Would Congress still have passed the law had it been aware of the consequences?

In the second decade of the 21st century, it is apparent that the intent of the governing class may be far removed from the reality on the ground in at least a couple of instances.

In 2010 the US Supreme Court ruled that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited. The Court reasoned that to limit that spending would violate the 1st amendment of corporations, which it viewed the same way as people under the law. The ruling was a jolt to those who have been battling to curtail the corrupting influence of money in the political system.

Some say the high court’s decision has created an unwelcome new path for wealthy interests to exert corruptive influence on the democratic election process. But as the 2012 presidential election cycle unfolds, the grassroots political small dollar contributions to the candidacy of the populist President Barack Obama continue to pour in. The Obama re-election campaign seems to be having little difficulty in keeping up with the one percenters who would bankroll its defeat. Is this a case of unintended consequences, for reasons which are not yet altogether clear?

Finally, the US Supreme Court will soon decide on the legality of the new 2010 national health care law (more commonly known as Obamacare), whose passage had escaped every American leader tackling the issue dating back more than 100 years. The plain fact is that a significant number of what estimates project to be the 30 million Americans who will be able to obtain health insurance coverage for the first time under the new law are ordinary citizens of color.

Already, seismic tremors can be felt from a potentially adverse ruling from the conservative US Supreme Court, which some say is itching for an excuse to strike down the new healthcare law. An actual adverse decision, however, has the potential to expand the tremors to the magnitude of a political earthquake. Would it be one with unintended consequences?

-Michael D’Angelo

Unintended Consequences (Part One)

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

Facebook’s initial public offering this week may serve as a useful reminder that sometimes our best intentions are disregarded. The devil fools with the best laid plans. Hell is paved both with sorrow and good intentions. But why do these old adages attribute responsibility entirely to the dark side? Might the rich getting richer be a simple matter of unintended consequences? Here are some thoughts to ponder:

Recently, a spectacularly wealthy American capitalist named Edward Conard has written a book with the catchphrase title of Unintended Consequences. The book makes a case for income inequality, bringing to light a litany of benefits bestowed upon public society by the venerable “one percent” class. The message is obviously self-serving. But in so doing, might the book’s message serve instead to have an opposite effect? Might its message unite the other ninety-nine percent, in a way the author had not intended?

US History serves some interesting examples of unintended consequences. There was a time when the US Supreme Court actually decided that black people had no right to sue in federal court, because they were considered to be a class of property, not people. The rationale was that the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights were not intended to apply to African Americans. Moreover, since blacks were not considered to be people, Congress did not have the power to exclude the institution of slavery from the US territories which were not yet states. The will of the people who lived in those territories, which may have been to the contrary, was disregarded.

The Supreme Court ruled that what needed protection was the slaveholder’s property rights, under the 5th amendment. To rule otherwise would violate the prohibition against the seizure of their property without just compensation. The human welfare of black people was said to be secondary.

Designed to solve the controversy over slavery once and for all in the years prior to the Civil War, the decision proved to be a major political miscalculation. In reality, the opinion represented a judicial defense of the most extreme slavery position. Instead of solving the crisis, the decision intensified sectional strife, undercut potential compromise solutions and weakened the moral authority of the judiciary. It was a case of unintended consequences.

Almost a hundred years later, the US Congress passed the last and most recent immigration law of substance in this country. The law ended the immigration-limiting European quota system of the 1920s. Some say it was designed to bring in more whites to the country.

When President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Immigration Act of 1965 at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, he stressed the law's overall symbolic importance:

This bill that we will sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives, or really add importantly to either our wealth or our power. Yet it is still one of the most important acts of this Congress and of this administration (as it) corrects a cruel and enduring wrong in the conduct of the American nation.

The president from Texas was not being uncharacteristically modest, saying only what his advisors and “experts” had told him. But, the myriad potential consequences of the new law, little noted at the time and ignored by most historians for decades, were appreciably misjudged by the president's experts.

(Next week's second segment charts the opposite, unintended effect of the law, some interesting immigration statistics and future projections, and projects a couple of present instances where the intent of the governing class may be far removed from the reality on the ground.)

-Michael D'Angelo

Obamacare and Supreme Court Review (Part Three)

(Note:  This is the third and concluding segment in a three part series.  The first segment traced the confrontation between the executive and judicial branches to the powerful forces of conservatism to maintain and preserve the status quo.  The second segment featured examples of the confrontation in action from the archives of US History...)


In a new twist in the opposite direction of its conservative character, the Supreme Court relied on innovative readings of the constitution to resolve the disputed 2000 presidential election in favor of the more conservative candidate.  It was the first and only presidential election decided by the Supreme Court in US history.

The outcome of the election between Vice President, Al Gore (Democrat), and Texas Governor, George W. Bush (Republican), turned on a razor thin victory for Mr. Bush in the state of Florida, where his brother, Jeb, was Florida’s governor.  But the Florida Supreme Court ruled that state law required a statewide manual recount of all ballots in which a machine failed to register a vote for president.

A federal lawsuit ensued.  The five most conservative justices on the US Supreme Court issued a ruling that no more recounting could take place, explaining that the review of these ballots threatened “irreparable harm to (Mr. Bush), and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election.”  The dissent responded that “counting every legally cast vote cannot constitute irreparable harm.”

The conservative majority noted that the Florida Supreme Court’s failure to articulate a more specific standard for determining a legitimate vote violated the constitution.  Under a different set of circumstances it might have been possible to send the case back to the Florida Supreme Court to create a more explicit standard.  But the majority announced its belief that the state of Florida intended to resolve all disputes by the federal deadline ensuring the state's electoral college votes would not be challenged in Congress.  Since the decision was handed down on the evening of the deadline, there was no time left to count votes.

The practical effect of this decision was to declare Mr. Bush the president-elect.  Mr. Gore promptly conceded.

The dissent argued that the US Supreme Court had no business interfering in the presidential election dispute, stressing that these issues were more properly addressed by the state of Florida and then Congress, if necessary.  The dissent also emphasized that the majority's opinion was inconsistent with the previously expressed views of those justices on limited government and that the actual loser of this presidential election was “the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.”  Allegations of partisan decision were inescapable.

·            The present 2012 election year political environment, with a progressive Democratic president facing conservatism again seemingly retired into the judiciary, bares similarities with prior instances.  And so Mr. Obama’s recent sentiments expressed on the pending constitutional challenge should come as some surprise: “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

But Mr. Obama’s confidence may be little more than a product of wishful thinking.  The independence of the US Supreme Court in its decision-making methodologies is beyond question and as such strictly another matter.  Its own political labels and rigid ideologies may be discarded, even the opposition’s ideologies borrowed and reformulated for convenience.  History demonstrates that a conservative US Supreme Court is more than ready, willing and able to become judicially active, big government style.  It may even don the insipid label of the “L” word, “liberal”.  All judicial options are on the table, when it comes to crafting a result which protects the status quo in particular deference to its powerful conservative minority constituency.

President Obama has said: “I just remind conservative commentators that for years we’ve heard that the biggest problem is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint.  That a group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.  Well, this is a good example.”  The President is a popular chief executive who by his words has fired an interesting political warning shot across the bow of a conservative Supreme Court.  If the idea of an adverse ruling can be felt as a tremor, then the ramifications of an actual decision striking down the new healthcare law has the potential of a political earthquake.

-Michael D'Angelo

Obamacare and Supreme Court Review (Part Two)

(Note: This is the second segment in a three part series. The first segment traced the confrontation between the executive and judicial branches of the US federal government to the powerful forces of conservatism to maintain and preserve the status quo.)

But as provocative as it sounds, this confrontation between the three branches of government is hardly new in the annals of US History...

As early as 1801, following the administrations of Washington and Adams, President Thomas Jefferson lamented the increasing shadow of federal power. The earliest champion of limited government astutely reasoned that its concentration within the defeated opposition party had merely been “retired” to the judiciary as a stronghold. “There the remains of Federalism are to be preserved and fed from the treasury and from that battery all the works of Republicanism are to be beaten down and erased.” His experience had merely demonstrated the prostration of the judiciary before partisan purposes.

In Jefferson’s case, the force of judicial opposition was blunted and rendered of little consequence as time went on, however, and his influence and revolution spread. His elected presidential successors, James Madison in 1808 followed by James Monroe in 1816, culminated nearly a quarter century of unprecedented Jeffersonian rule and the virtual disintegration of the opposition party.

Following in Jefferson’s footsteps, President Andrew Jackson protested an 1832 US Supreme Court decision affirming the expanding powers of the federal government. The decision provided that the federal government and not the states had authority in American Indian affairs. In response to the ruling, the colorful, quotable and enormously popular “president of the common man” was said to have remarked: “John Marshall (Chief Justice) has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”

In an otherwise progressive presidential administration, it was a rather isolated instance of conservatism with respect to American Indian affairs meeting a judicially active US Supreme Court head on.

The turn of the 20th century produced a similar chemistry under the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, a rare progressive Republican. In 1905 the US Supreme Court struck down a New York state law regulating sanitary conditions and prohibiting individuals from working in bakeries for more than 10 hours per day or 60 hours per week. The Court ruled that the law limiting bakers’ working hours did not constitute a legitimate exercise of state police powers. Rather, the proper authority was the federal government, which in this instance and to that point had not acted, resulting in a void of leadership.

It was another case of a conservative US Supreme Court tamping down progressive legislation on behalf of labor and human welfare.

The dissenting (minority) opinion, only three paragraphs long, was noteworthy. It accused the conservative majority of judicial activism, pointedly claiming that the case was “decided upon an economic theory which a large part of the country does not entertain.” The minority added that “Some of these laws embody convictions or prejudices which judges are likely to share. Some may not. But a constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory.”

Over the years the case has been one of the most condemned in US history and has been used to symbolize judicial dereliction and abuse. In other words, it is a form of shorthand for extreme right wing constitutional theory. In reality, the Supreme Court was merely protecting the conservative status quo.

By the late 1930s President Franklin D. Roosevelt introduced a reform plan to re-organize the Supreme Court on its perception as a conservative hold out in an increasingly progressive climate. Termed a “Court-packing” procedure, F.D.R.’s plan sought to increase the number of sitting Justices. The idea was to increase his ability to enact New Deal programs aimed at expanding the federal government's power to alleviate the poverty-stricken conditions of the ongoing Great Depression.

The number of Justices had originally been set at 6 by Congress. In 1869 following subsequent changes in policy, the number was placed at 9. Since appointments were for life, this limited a president's power over the Supreme Court to the ability to place new nominees into vacancies on the bench, whenever they should occur. The proposed legislation would have allowed the president to select as many as 6 new Justices, each for every member over 70.5 years of age, on the theory that this would allow for the diminished capabilities of older justices. Those diminished capabilities were decidedly conservative.

Contrary to what was originally expected from the legislation, however, its failure to pass Congress coincided with the evolution of a Supreme Court newly supportive of the New Deal. While judging whether this was merely a coincidence may be a matter of speculation, its introduction damaged and cost F.D.R. some of his political support.

By the time of the 2000 presidential election the Supreme Court remained on a conservative bent as a lagging phenomenon from the successive administrations of Presidents Reagan and Bush/”41”, dating from the 12 year period from 1980-1992. Each administration was firmly and consistently outspoken against judicial activism.

Yet, in a new twist in the opposite direction of its conservative character, the Supreme Court relied on innovative readings of the constitution to resolve the disputed 2000 presidential election in favor of the more conservative candidate. It was the first and only presidential election decided by the Supreme Court in US history.

(Next week's third and final segment analyzes the legal twists and turns in the US Supreme Court case of Bush vs. Gore and concludes in the present with the Court's consideration of the constitutionality of Obamacare.)

-Michael D'Angelo

Obamacare and Supreme Court Review (Part One)

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

The powerful forces of conservatism to maintain the status quo are typically easy to identify.  Through control of elected representatives in the presidency and Congress, they complete a trifecta of sorts by decrying the temptation of the appointed branch toward so called judicial activism.  Sometimes, the forces are not so obvious, yet equally effective.  When not favored by the electorate, conservatism exercises a vice grip on the judiciary to undermine the need for change, using whatever methods are required, even judicial activism in its most liberal connotation.  Political labels are relatively unimportant.  It’s the final grade on preservation of the status quo that counts on the report card.

The national media is presently flush in excited discussion.  The US Supreme Court recently entertains three days of grueling oral argument regarding the constitutionality of the new national healthcare law.  Its familiar label has come to be known to the ordinary citizen simply as Obamacare.

In March 2010 a triumphant President Obama signed into law his landmark national health care overhaul, saying it enshrined “the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care.”  The passage of this signature legislation had escaped every American leader that has tackled the issue dating back to President Theodore Roosevelt, more than 100 years ago.

The plain fact is that a great number of what estimates project to be the 30 million Americans who will be able to obtain health insurance coverage for the first time under the new law are ordinary citizens of color.  The new law focuses on reform of the private health insurance market.  Benefits include a child’s ability to remain on parents’ family insurance plan coverage to age 26; improved prescription drug coverage under Medicare; and documented cost savings of $1.3 Trillion over a 20 year period (according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, as compared to an “alternative” model where “nothing” is done).

However, one of the law’s principle benefits, the elimination of an insurance company’s previous right to deny coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions, is not designed to take effect until 2014, after the upcoming 2012 presidential election.  Perhaps Congress did get this part right.  Provide the people with a second bite at the apple, a final referendum prior to full implementation.

Meanwhile, conservative Republicans and Tea Party activists nonetheless seek to “repeal and replace” the law, believing, rightly or wrongly, that their success in the 2010 midterm elections was a mandate to do so.  But, when asked what their “replace” law should look like, they can cite no additional benefits which the new law does not already contain.  They are completely lacking on specifics.  This is an ominous indication of obstructionism masquerading as conservatism.

At issue is the authority of the federal government to require citizens to purchase insurance coverage.  Democrats feel that the problem has reached a level of scale which requires a coordinated national response.  Historically, that means the problem has to be really big by definition.  On the other hand, Republicans don’t see a problem that cannot be better or at least more efficiently addressed by the for profit private sector.

Enacted by a Democratically controlled US Congress, the new healthcare law is destined to have its fate determined by the 9 member US Supreme Court.  Of great significance, its makeup presently is understood to be 5-4 conservative-leaning Republican.  The situation presents an interesting confrontation between the three branches of government.

But as provocative as it sounds, this confrontation is hardly new in the annals of US History.

(Next week's second segment will trace the inter-relationship of judicial review with the  workings of the executive branch during the course of several highly visible presidential administrations from Thomas Jefferson to George W. Bush/"43".)


-Michael D'Angelo

The Opportunity to Plan America's Future

Students “should study American History in particular, so they can plan the future,” according to Woodrow Wilson, the young President of Princeton University in his 1902 inaugural address.  “Every concrete thing (America) has done has seemed to rise out of some abstract principle, some vision of the mind,” Wilson said.  “A general serviceableness  …  broad training would help them relate to all types and see their point of view.”

Is it any wonder that many issues ordinary citizens face today are strikingly similar to the issues of a previous day?  After all, the problems are the creations of man.  So shouldn’t it be a simple enough proposition to fix them?

The learning process begins with asking questions, which promotes and inspires critical thinking.  An effective platform evolves through the telling of stories.  When one story is begun, it starts out clear and linear, like anyone’s family tree.  But, then it branches out, loops back and links up with others, until what students think is a simple piece of cloth is suddenly a more complex tapestry.  The classroom is a place so full of curiosity that, through story telling, we can see their lessons and connections to one another.

Based on my experience, students of US History do appear to be in a preferred position to best plan the future, at least when measured alongside those who choose to neglect its study.

But there are legitimate concerns that opportunities afforded to students of US History are not favorable for the development of their genius.  The prospects to exercise opportunities and capitalize on their intellectual position are equally unfavorable.  While the US Constitution guarantees ordinary citizens the “equal protection of the laws,” there is no known guarantee of the opportunity to plan America’s future.

Through history, we learn that today 20% of all Americans control 85% of all wealth, and a full 40% of all Americans possess absolutely no wealth to speak of.  Haven’t we seen this movie before?  What appears to be lacking is not intellectual capacity, for even an ordinary citizen can achieve a significant measure of intellectual achievement, but equal access to America’s economic opportunity structure.

And while the lack of equal access has traditionally been more acute among America’s people of color, it is not strictly limited to that particular demographic.  Women are and have been vulnerable, too, having been denied the right to vote until almost a full 60 years after the black man.  Imagine, then, being both black and a woman?

On the other hand, those who ask questions expose themselves to criticism from a group which claims legitimacy as the sole defenders of the faith of the American spirit.  Dissenters, arguing that while they love what America represents it can still be made better, are seen as un-American.  Challenges posed to majority rule and the status quo are viewed as unpatriotic.  Sometimes, the voices of dissent are silenced by the ruling party through various means.  This is as unfortunate as it is dangerous to our civil liberties.

While the acquiescence of the minority and defeated candidates is a necessary maxim of self-governing society, there is a real, quantifiable danger of the “tyranny of the majority.”  In his 1801 Inaugural Address the nation’s new third president, Thomas Jefferson, sought to assure his defeated foes by proclaiming a sacred principle:

that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

An “error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”  In other words, we are all loyal Americans, whose patriotism should not be questioned and who should not be at another’s throats.

But every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.  We have been called by different names brethren of the same principle.  We are all republicans: we are all federalists.

Jefferson’s tolerance for differences of opinion is admirable.  We all make mistakes.  For some reason, I have been unable to master the wisdom of an old proverb, although I continue to relate it in the hope that others will have better luck: “A wise man learns from his own mistakes, but a wiser man learns from somebody else’s mistakes.”  Can ordinary citizens learn from this lesson as we attempt to plan America's future?

-Michael D’Angelo

Map Keys

Ever try to read a road map without understanding the map “keys?”  Ever wonder how another's mind can be shaped through simple control of a reading list?  Ever marvel at a master teacher's ability to connect with those who yearn only for a nudge in the proper direction?

As we ponder our evolutionary spirit, an excellent starting point in learning how to read maps is to command the “science of human nature.”  Many historical figures of note have characterized the science as being most useful.  Its variety of behaviors is constant and predictable.  Its elements have changed little through time.  So if we were to recognize the patterns in these behaviors, then plug in an assortment of random ordinary people, places and dates, the mystery of understanding history would be unlocked forever.  That being the case, can there ever be anything really new in the world?

After human nature, other map keys follow naturally.  The first is a consciousness of how we see things.  At one time or another, we’ve all heard the expression of a person who “looks at the world through rose colored glasses.”  It’s meant to describe someone who is filled with optimism, sees the positive in everything, to a fault.  That someone cannot be deterred from the mission of turning an abstract idea into a reality, sometimes against all odds.

Lenses, filters and walls affect how we see things.  Why do we have them?  And what benefits and detriments do they provide?  Our eyes are nothing more than lenses, so the eye doctor says.  Thanks to the retina and optic nerve, they allow us to see things.  We call this vision.  Filters help us emphasize certain things and minimize certain other things.  Walls provide the mechanism to permit some to see all things, on their side of the wall, and to deny those on the other side from seeing anything at all.  Fences are a sort of wall.

Another map key involves a consciousness of what we are actually witnessing.  One of the more challenging difficulties of human existence is distinguishing what is real from what only appears to be real, separating the wheat from the chaff.

And who provides access to the video room?  Powerful corporate interests behind a seemingly invisible curtain employ talented Madison Avenue professionals to influence the ordinary citizen's reality.  They expertly filter what we see and don’t see for their own purposes.  Oil companies advertise an attention to the environment.  Pharmaceutical companies focus on safety detail and quality of life advances.  Financial services firms tout the “fact” that the average returns of their managed investments typically well exceed historical norms over time.

But, do we ever stop to consider what these major industries are not telling us about their prized, revenue generating products?  Or the money they spend their obscene profits on?

Finally, they manage to transform things we want into things we somehow need, like prescriptions for restless leg syndrome.  Perhaps it would be productive to needs from what are merely wants.  We may be surprised to learn that in the end our needs other than bread and water are quite modest.

Understanding who provides access to the video room may provide the essential force in identifying what is necessary to preserve the American Dream.  Is the American economic opportunity structure of once upon a time still generally and readily available?  Are the yelps for less government today loudest among those whose funding sources are the monopolizers of economic opportunities?  Are the two questions fairly related?

Perhaps the central question that has vexed the most inquisitive minds involves the equality of all men under our constitution and laws.  Theodore Roosevelt said our country’s history has faced two great crises: first, when it was formed, and then, again, when it was perpetuated.  T.R. articulated the substance of the third great crisis which was upon us, the struggle "to achieve in large measure equality of opportunity," bringing it back to life in 1912 if only briefly.  A full 100 years later, America is still trying to figure out how to solve this confounding problem of our time --- completing our nation's great unfinished business.  In truth, all roads still lead to this place.

Perhaps we are at a crossroads.  It’s a good thing the ordinary citizen has map keys.  We must respect the powerful forces of conservatism in discharging the obligation to protect the status quo.  Otherwise there would be chaos and anarchy.  But we also must respect the need for change, understanding that if we do not change we must surely die.  Is one principle more important than the other?

Do we play it safe and fly under the radar, shining our beacon from under a bush?  Do we have any further obligation?  Or do we act more aggressively --- perhaps throw caution to the wind --- knowing that the harder we push for change the greater the assurance of our own personal destruction?

-Michael D’Angelo

An Ordinary Man's Pursuit of Happiness

Perhaps the closest expression of the pursuit of happiness comes in the form of an inspirational poem, related by Bill Maione, a wise and dear friend.  Titled Desiderata, its prose offers a simple positive credo for our ordinary yet hectic lives.

The common myth is that the poem was found in a Baltimore church in 1692 and is centuries old, and of unknown origin.  It is said that Desiderata was in fact written around 1920 (although some say as early as 1906), and certainly copyrighted in 1927, by lawyer Max Ehrmann (1872-1945) based in Terre Haute, Indiana.

It is reproduced here below in its entirety, with gratitude to its long deceased author:

Desiderata

Go placidly amid the noise and haste,

and remember what peace there may be in silence.

As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons.

Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others,

even to the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story.

Avoid loud and aggressive persons; they are vexations to the spirit.

If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter,

for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.

Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.

Keep interested in your own career, however humble;

it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.

Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery.

But let this not blind you to what virtue there is;

many persons strive for high ideals, and everywhere life is full of heroism.

Be yourself.  Especially, do not feign affection.

Neither be cynical about love, for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment,

it is as perennial as the grass.

Take kindly to the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth.

Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune.

But do not distress yourself with imaginings.

Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.

Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself.

You are a child of the universe

no less than the trees and the stars;

you have a right to be here.

And whether or not it is clear to you,

no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be.

And whatever your labors and aspirations,

in the noisy confusion of life,

keep peace in your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams,

it is still a beautiful world.

Be cheerful.  Strive to be happy.

The poem needs no epitaph.

-Michael D’Angelo