The Umpire

Who acts as “Umpire” in the great American experiment in democracy?  How is the umpire protected from big money interests to complete our nation's great unfinished business --- achieving meaningful equality of opportunity?

Thomas Jefferson felt that the happiest society was one where inequalities of condition were not great.  As president, he considered what was needed for the happiness and prosperity of the people.  Jefferson talked about “a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another.”  Further, that government should leave the people “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.”  Are these the government and conditions we are experiencing today?

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, his ideas sought to restore “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.

Today’s news media heaps praise upon America as a land of opportunity.  This praise is earned on merit.  The constitution requires all citizens to be considered equal under the law, that they should be afforded "equal protection of the laws."  But did the founding fathers designate anyone in particular to discharge the responsibility for fair dealing on a level playing field?  In other words, can we identify the Umpire?

Jefferson, for one, argued that it was the legislature, working in unison with the executive, which was best suited to play the unassuming, under-appreciated role of umpire.  On the important condition that proper policy was in place by the combined efforts of this pair, working together, then thereafter,

The path we have to pursue is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature.  A noiseless course, not meddling with the affairs of others, unattractive of notice, is a mark that society is going on in happiness.  If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy.

To this noiseless course approach,

It must be added, however, that unless the President’s mind in a view of everything which is urged for and against (a particular bill) is tolerably clear that it is unauthorized by the Constitution; if the pro and the con hang so even as to balance his judgment, a just respect for the wisdom of the legislature would naturally decide the balance in favor of their opinion.  It is chiefly for cases where they are clearly misled by error, ambition or interest, that the Constitution has placed a check on the negative (i.e.: veto) of the President.

So, it is the legislative branch which serves the role of umpire, calling balls and strikes, fair or foul, letting the citizens “play” and using its authority to maintain a level playing field.  But the ordinary citizen must be mindful that the “science of human nature” will be silently at work in the democratic process.  This involves an expectation of reasonable men acting reasonably in their own best interest.  That is to say, lawmakers face natural corruption by self-interest.

Notorious among the primary, big money, self-interest components of American democracy are the financial interests of capitalism, the resulting onset of political parties, large corporations, labor unions, lobby groups, political action committees, etc.  Importantly, each has evolved only after the constitution was enacted in 1789.  Together they tend to undermine the transparency necessary to understand how and why laws are made --- or not made.

The ordinary citizen may draw certain conclusions when wealth and income disparity are presently at an all time high, and those conclusions are not all positive.  For one, the situation is morally indefensible.  And for another, the legislative branch is inadequately protected from big money interests.  This confounds the quest to complete the great unfinished business of the nation --- achieving meaningful equality of opportunity.

How can the rules of the game be revisited to assist lawmakers with their inherently difficult role of impartial umpire in a level playing field society?  The good news is that sound, practical measures appear to be readily available.  Does the ordinary citizen possess the courage to meet the challenge of our time?

-Michael D’Angelo

Needs vs. Wants

In a land of plenty, what does the ordinary citizen really need?

What does the ordinary citizen really need?  On a collective level, an excellent place to begin analysis is on the expense side, that is, how the Prince is prioritizing the expenditure of the People’s money.  Common sense dictates that those items which relate to what the People “need” must first be identified as the so-called necessities of life.  These must be distinguished from the things which the People merely “want,” relating not to need but rather a whole host of discretionary items, or simply greed.

In the category of “needs,” much of the conduct of Benjamin Franklin’s early life evidences the truth that the only thing we need is the mere subsistence of bread and water.  However, when it comes to human nature, it is amazing, Franklin remarked, how many poor souls, given the simple choice of bread (needed) or beer (discretionary), in fact, would choose beer!

Over the ensuing centuries, a self-proclaimed “enlightened” People has continually and consistently expanded on what are presumed to be our needs.  Concepts incorporating more scientific theories about diet (other necessary subsistence in addition to bread and water), standards of “adequate” housing, “equal opportunities” in education, and “good,” meaning high-paying, jobs are identified.

In the more recent decades of the late 20^th century, prior Princes and legislatures have presumed to add to the basic list of needs certain guaranteed “benefits” atop the salaries of public sector jobs.  Although contractually promised, and presently protected under our laws, it is doubtful these benefits were ever the subject of valid actuarial accounting practices.  Surely, secure retirement payments in the form of lifetime pensions, unconscionable annual expenditures in too many cases, as well as free, unlimited access to health care and related services, are not on the ordinary citizen’s list of needs.  But, hence, the Prince calls for more revenue anyway.

When it comes to analysis of “need,” the ordinary citizen is guided by the example of Franklin D. Roosevelt, our 32^nd President.  In the throes of the Great Depression, F.D.R. left the ordinary citizen with the enduring legacy: a primary obligation of the government is to provide help to its Citizens, especially in their time of need.  During that time, need meant food, government bread delivered to hungry people waiting desperately on long lines.  The government subsidized clothing, housing and sponsored programs designed to put the People back to work.  The New Deal "freedom from fear/freedom from want" experiment was designed to confront an ongoing emergency, because the private sector had failed.

In the category of “wants,” all the People must do to distinguish needs from wants is watch just a bit of television in prime time.  In less than an hour, it is apparent that 99% of what talented Madison Avenue marketing professionals advertise involves a wish list, for which the ordinary citizen falls easily.  Just how badly does the ordinary citizen need another prescription, marketed by the powerful pharmaceutical industry, to alleviate the phenomenon of “restless leg syndrome?”

Ben Franklin also warned of excessive Debt, an ugly but sometimes necessary evil.  If permitted to grow unchecked to the point where it can not realistically expect to be repaid, Debt robs the ordinary citizen of the ability to act independently.  Debt thus poses perhaps the greatest danger to fundamental liberty.  Its potential adverse consequences can be chilling.

Finally, lawmakers who take an oath of “service” invariably find themselves intertwined with economic interests.  In a capitalist economy that often expresses itself in terms of excess, the alliance tends to corrupt both.  An understanding of how and why laws are made --- or not made --- is not always apparent.  As the line between needs and wants loses definition, the greater good is overwhelmed by an identifiable self-interest component.  May the People some day realize that all they truly need is the will to contain it?

-Michael D’Angelo