For a united democracy demands a united electorate with the vision and intelligence to hold their representatives to the task of guiding our ship of state through troubled waters. But if the public knows not the perils within the waters, how can they hold their representatives to the task of navigating around such perils?
Yes, it is the Republic in our democracy which is failing. For without the democratic capacity to hold representatives to account for basic survival skills: like top notch education for all, like fiscal responsibility, and insuring means constrain policy, like guaranteeing domestic tranquility and unity of national purpose and resolve, the Republic is doomed to fail for the very reasons our founding fathers foresaw and fretted over.
Our founding fathers fretted over greed with access to the public purse, concentration of power into the office of one, and propaganda which cloaks reality and truth in secrecy and laws designed to protect the office holder, not the nation and the public. Yet, the fears of our founding fathers, despite their best efforts to design checks and balances to protect against them, are being realized and witnessed everywhere we look throughout our political system.
Perhaps my grandchildren will be part of the new Constitutional Congress. Hopefully, my daughter will teach her children what I have taught her about politics and it will be incorporated into the new Constitution as follows:
We hold this truth to be self-evident: that money and individual power corrupt politics and governance. Therefore, in order to provide a more perfect union in which enlightened national and self interest may flourish without corruption, we lay these constraints upon office holders and those seeking office: ________________.
To be completed by some future generation.
How would you fill in the blank?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dean
Hey, things aren't bad for everyone.
Our "leaders" get their salary increases, their pensions are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United States government (read taxpayers) and their health care has got to be the best in the world.
Add to that all the travel and other perks for which the taxpayers pick up the tab.
I almost forgot the extra benefits they get when they leave government and become lobbyists and put on their alligator shoes. That's when the gravy train really rolls in.
What "leader" hasn't become a millionaire while "serving" the American people in Washington?
That's why they don't understand all the concern over the fact that the country is going to hell in a roller coaster ride.
2 - Dave Nalle
Remer, you seem to have a pretty flimsy grip on the thinking of the founding fathers. Not only would they not support your efforts to get money out of politics, they would find it inherently contrary to the spirit of the nation and the constitution.
The guys who wrote the Constitution supported laws in their home states which limited voting rights on the basis of race, gender and most importantly WEALTH. In most states you couldn't vote unless you owned a certain amount of property or could demonstrate a specific level of material wealth.
They believed that this was a GOOD thing. They wanted government run by those who had a financial commitment and something at risk in the Republic. They didn't believe in unbridled democracy, but in a representaitve Republic where money had as large a voice as ideology.
Dave
3 - David R. Remer
Dave Nalle, you ignorantly mistake the founding fathers requirement for voting to be that of landholders with bribery of the political system. The founding fathers intended that voters should have a vested stake in the proceedings of governments, and as the British confiscated personal property at will, the founding fathers believed landholders, having the most to lose at the hands of confiscatory government, would become the most knowledgeable and aware voters of the actions of government officials.
This is not to be mistaken with what I wrote in the article as to our founding fathers fretting over "greed with access to the public purse". If you think our founding fathers believed laws should be made by the highest bidder, you have a serious lack of education about our founding fathers and authors who influenced their thinking of the time like Adam Smith and his Theory of Moral Sentiment. In fact, our founding fathers made bribing an official a crime. Which makes my point quite neatly doesn't it?
4 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
David,
I do not disagree with much that you write ablut the floundering of your country. But it strikes me that your problem is not with the constitution, it is with human nature. Rewriting the constitution will not reduce greed, ill will or hatred. But it may open up questions you may wish had not been revisited, like how much liberty or dignity or privacy citizens are entitled to.
Just a thought from a third of the world away.
5 - Nancy
The problems confronting this republic are manifold: voters too apathetic or incapable of independent judgement to make sound decisions - when they bother to vote at all, an administration that contends it is above the law including the constitution, a deliberative body captive to one party that is sunk in corruption and ethical bankruptcy through having ensured themselves permanent, unrealistic levels of privilege as well as personal enrichment at the public expense. For the most part, the constitution & bill of rights are fine as they stand; the problem lies with creating - and ENFORCING - restrictions on congress severely curtailing opportunities for corruption and independent means of monitoring same, and also for reigning in and enforcing compliance with constitutional parameters on the executive, which currently is impossible with a corrupt congress totally uninterested in policing or being policed even at the expense of totally losing credibility and confidence by the public, and so dominated by the same executive that is degrading the constitutional parameters. There's the rub: they write the laws, and they've arranged it so no one can force them to either clean up their act, or even to comply with the glaringly deficient standards they have now. Witness the disgraceful situation over Jefferson & the stalled FBI investigation, with congress on both sides of the aisle maintaining he is above the law & not subject to criminal investigation or search & seizure! Incredible.
6 - David R. Remer
Ruvy, your point is well made that a new Constitutional Convention could have very unpredictable results, and not all of them improvements.
My point is, that unless we make this Constitution work to solve more national problems than our politicians and their donors create, a new Constitutional Convention may become an inevitability.
I don't disagree with your warning at all, however.
7 - David R. Remer
Nancy, quite right. That is why I work hard to convince Americans to vote out incumbents, for that is the only power the people have over Congress, short of revolution. If enough incumbents lose their careers, the remaining incumbents and freshman may place the voters agenda for peace, prosperity, and liberty ahead of lobbyists and corporate donors agenda's for military expansion, public subsidies, and bankrupting future workers through national debt.
8 - Nancy
You're preaching to the choir, bro, altho unfortunately there are no incumbents in any of my area's races, except at the very local level.
9 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
David,
Don't make assumptions about what the voter's agenda in America is. Many politicians have faced career change for that precise reason.
An example for you to chew on: George Wallace started out as a left leaning moderate in Alabama. After all, he was a truck driver and had a good sense of what poor people wanted. He was beaten by a segragationist.
Wallace said, "I'll never be 'out-niggered', again, adjusted his political sails and became the "states rights anti-integration" Democrat, the symbol of the segregated south. Only in his wheelchair did he return to his political roots of caring about poor people...
10 - Heloise
I think the Constitution should be amended to read that those who are not born in this country cannot hold high elected office, and those who do must prove that their grandparents on both sides were both in this country.
This would NOT exclude folks but include more people.
Heloise
11 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
It's not the constitution that's the problem. A constitution cannot by definition make corruption illegal. Laws do that. And that's up to the people. Our constitution gaurantees certain rights to the people and grants certain rights to the branches of government. The only reason it would need to be thrown out is if it made corruption a requirement for being elected, which it doesnt. Since it doesnt say corruption is a good thing, and since it doesnt say making laws against corruption is wrong, the answer is: make tougher laws against corruption.
The constitution creates a government and enumerates certain rights. Beyond that, it's up to us.
12 - Lumpy
This may be the dumbest thing I've ever read. Can you imagine the disaster of a constitution we'd get out of a convention full of the crazy one issue extremists who dominate politics today?
We're exttraordinarily lucky to have a constitution written in general terms on universal principles in a simpler age. We just need to actually pay attention to it.
13 - Dean
What the country needs most is a strict tightening of laws controlling our free-wheeling lobbyists and adding a new law guaranteeing the public hanging of any lobbyist or public official who is involved in bribery or other such crime.
14 - David R. Remer
Lumpy, you think human nature and political differences were different in 1776? You'd be wrong. Look at the vehement disagreements between Hamilton and Madison. And the issue of slavery which almost derailed the U.S. Constitution entirely.
The problem with folks who don't understand history is that they erroneously assume that human nature changes over the course of a few hundred years. It doesn't.
That said, my article does not call for convening a new Constitutional Convention. If you read it in its entirety, you may actually grasp what is being argued here. Should our current Constitution fail to save the nation from the corruption of politicians and wealthy donor agendas, a new Constitution may be in the cards for some generation in the future.
15 - David R. Remer
Dean, I agree with your drift. But, public square hangings? Whoa, a bit over the top to make a point don't you think?
16 - David R. Remer
Pleaseexcusetheinterruption said: "A constitution cannot by definition make corruption illegal."
Really? Then what do you make of this from our Constitution? "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."
Sounds like our Constitution made this particular kind of corruption illegal right in the body of the Constitution. With this as precedent, what is to prevent any Constitution from proscribing behaviors which constitute corruption of public office by its holder?
17 - David R. Remer
Heloise, thanks for the levity.
18 - Dean
Those involved in killing Linclon were publicly hanged. Public hanging should be brought back for those who cause great harm to the country.
19 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
If you read what I said I was making the distinction between laws and the constitution. The constitution gaurantees rights and a method for creating a government. That said, corruption is a lot more complex than the basic method prescribed by the constitution. Under that guideline it would be perfectly legal for me to pay off my local wetlands regulator to build a house smack dab in the middle of the swamp.
You'll note it doesnt prohibit special interest or lobby groups from giving presents does it? Just foreign governments, princes and kings.
Now, my point is that if the constitution prescribed every action to be made or not made be govt officials, it would be thousands of pages long. Furthermore, that's not the purpose of a constitution. A constitution establishes a method of government and certain rights on which it cannot infringe.
The only reason I can think of throwing out a constitution would be if it demanded that lobbying and corruption be LEGAL. Our constitution doesnt limit it either way. It's up to us to make laws - laws which would certainly fit within the context of our constitution - against corruption.
Furthermore, you have contradicted yourself. Your article is all about how our constitution doesnt prohibit corruption properly.
When I pointed out that a constitution is not made to regulate corruption, you break out quotes about how our constitution already prohbits corruption. This would seemingly contradict the thrust of your article.
20 - David R. Remer
Pleaseexcuse, man, you make some pretty outrageous allegations there. First you say the Constitution does not prohibit, it enables rights. I gave you an example of how you are wrong. I have seen this, "don't confuse me with the facts" defense before. Nuff said about that.
Second, you claim "Your article is all about how our constitution doesnt prohibit corruption properly."
Please, quote something from the article in context that makes that outrageous claim. Defend your statement. Since, I don't have edit capacity for the article, you can be assured it has not changed.
I enjoy good debate, and even critical thinking that logically and defensibly counters assertions in my articles. But, your critique here is baseless and false and the evidence of that is here in black and white.
That said, I appreciate your commenting on the article, and many of your original points were quite logical and correct. Thanks for contributing to the discussion.
21 - David R. Remer
Dean, thanks for the reply. Seems to me America has enough death occuring in its streets and on its highways and in its hospitals. But, I see your point about deterrence. I just don't agree with it. Many states have the death penalty. Doesn't seem to deter capital crime much.
22 - Lumpy
In actuality I think it is you who missed my point' david.
If we cannot have a functional government with the extraordinary constitution we currently have, how could we be expected to come up with a decent one to replace it?
23 - David R. Remer
Lumpy, so your argument is that if this Constitution fails the nation, there's no point in trying to improve adapt it. Sounds a bit defeatist to me. But, hey, we are talking pure hypothetical here.
The problems are these: Political parties and big money agendas are preventing Congress persons from carrying out the responsibilities they are charged with, like fiscal responsibility, securing our borders, and maintaining a unified nation as in United States, instead of red and blue states similar the blue and gray states of the 1860's.
The laws required to change these circumstances must come from the politicians themselves. But, should they make such changes, their political parties and big money donors would abandon their reelection campaigns. Hence, the nation's entire political system charged with managing the nation's affairs is corrupted.
As I said in the article. There are two ways for voters to respond. Remove incumbents until those left standing and the freshman replacements recognize that their reelection is even more beholding to their consitutents demanding responsible, accountable, and efficient management than to the wealthy donors, lobbyists, and political party leadership. And the other alternative is to allow the nation to fail, which would result in trying to create a new Constitutional government that would prevent a reoccurance.
That is the point you missed in the article which was not so elaborately made as here, but, was posited in these exact terms.
24 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
First you say the Constitution does not prohibit, it enables rights. I gave you an example of how you are wrong.
I didnt say that. The constitution obviously prohibits a wide range of actions. I said the constitution cant make corruption "illegal." It makes it "unconstitutional." There's a difference between the LAW and the CONSTITUTION. That was my only point. All im trying to say is, laws against corruption etc. should be exactly that - LAWS.
The constitution only gaurantees us a method for making those laws. The U.S. constitution provides ample opportunity to make such laws and even goes so far as to specify certain types of corruption that cannot be allowed - presents by kings, princes + foreign govts.
Second, you claim "Your article is all about how our constitution doesnt prohibit corruption properly."
Please, quote something from the article in context that makes that outrageous claim. Defend your statement. Since, I don't have edit capacity for the article, you can be assured it has not changed.
OK. Ill quote something back to you from your article.
"Perhaps my grandchildren will be part of the new Constitutional Congress. Hopefully, my daughter will teach her children what I have taught her about politics and it will be incorporated into the new Constitution as follows:
We hold this truth to be self-evident: that money and individual power corrupt politics and governance. Therefore, in order to provide a more perfect union in which enlightened national and self interest may flourish without corruption, we lay these constraints upon office holders and those seeking office: ________________."
Those last two paragraphs would seem to imply there is something wrong with the current constitution and that any future constitution needs to specify exactly what actions office holders and seekers can take - to gaurd against corruption.
Hence my statement "Your article is all about how our constitution doesnt prohibit corruption properly."
Again, all im saying is that the current constitution has ample room and would even encourage laws against corruption. We dont need to revise it.
25 - David R. Remer
Pleaseexcuse, I don't mean to be pedantic here, but, the passage I quoted from the Constitution does precisely what you claim it doesn't. It proscribes an activity that shall be deemed illegal by virtue of the Constitution.
Second, logically, your argument has no merit in trying to distinguish between law and the Constitution. The Constitution is the FIRST body of law for the nation. As a body of FIRST law, all other laws must be measured against it to insure that no subsequent laws contradict the FIRST laws. The only method proscribed for altering these FIRST laws is by amendment.
Your distinction between the two on this basis has no merit. There are differences between the Constitution and all subsequent laws that promulgate from it, but, to fail to recognize the Constitution is our First set of laws, is a fairly big oversight.