Equality and Freedom - Only Under God

“All of us do not have equal talent, but all of us should have an equal opportunity to develop our talents” –John F Kennedy, June 6, 1963.

“We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal” is the one linchpin idea found in our Declaration of Independence that justifies all else that follows. It is so powerful a statement that it destroyed forever any previous pretensions of inherent familial, tribal, national, or racial superiority or inherent class distinctions. With those words “class” would henceforth only be perceived as a difference in wealth or behavior of peoples, never a difference of the intrinsic quality of their humanity.

Surely there are differences between people; reasoned equality in fact is non-existent. From experience we know people are not equally possessed of birthright, health, beauty, personal charm, talent, wealth or even intelligence. We see inequality all around us, yet our Founders saw equality as 'self-evident'.

This couldn’t be the result of common reason for what is self-evident of people is the very opposite of equality. No, the yearning for Equality came about through a moral ideal of equality that could only be seen through the eye of an enlightened reason - a revelation.

Bowing to the weight of Judeo-Christian religious tradition and common sentiment our Founders thought at first that Equality could be plausibly believed and accepted only if expressed in terms of a sacred imperative or mandate, like those of the Ten Commandments. In fact a first draft of the Declaration contained the term “we hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable” not “self-evident.”

But further conversation with Franklin, and consideration for the authoritarian issues of the day, convinced Jefferson and the Founders that they could best advance the ideal of freedom by actualizing the ideal of equality. They bound the two ideals in a special way, knowing equality at birth is freedom's necessary prerequisite.

Then the enlightened saw that the many, were also capable, in this Age, of seeing that individual  equality was indeed “self-evident.” This became so, first in America, a land founded by religious Pilgrims and born at the crest of the age of enlightenment. Equality made America the land of opportunity and individual freedom.

The religious ideal for humanity, the equality of all men under the Creator, had finally gained its fullest expression in secular society. But in a typical human contradiction, the gain was at first only an expression for some - but it came remarkably, in what was then undeniably a slave holding society and a slave driven economy.

Though imperfectly lived, “equality ” the perfect ideal, was the keystone in the Declaration of Independence that actualized the Articles, then the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and in time, the other “Rights” Amendments that guaranteed freedom of opportunity to all.
And our Founders were profoundly wise to declare opportunity to be the result of equality, not the reverse, because freedom of opportunity does not guarantee practical equality as a result.

And wiser still were they to acknowledge freedom to be a Creator given liberty. This alone guarantees that any eventuality of gross overpowering, over controlling, or over burdening of the individual by the State or other formulations of society, whether from benevolent or malevolent intent, can be justly repulsed by vote of the people or by means appropriate to regain that liberty.

With the right of freedom to act, to the credit of our Founders, it was their subsequent words,  “endowed by their Creator,” that gave final humble justification and the legal reality to “equal opportunity.” And it was then inevitable that the "inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” that followed, justified the creation of this great land and caused The United States of America to become the beacon of freedom, - the magnet of hope for peoples throughout the world.

President Eisenhower had it right in 1954, when he caused “under God” to be inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance. He knew, without exaggeration, that any government that thought itself  to be the supreme arbiter over the individual’s life, aspirations and pursuits, - would be a totalitarian government.

Let none put away what has been given us. Rights that are above human construct, and Dignity that deserves equal opportunity. 

Campaign Finance - The Federalist Way

Why not make a political cocktail to reform campaign financing. Create an elixir of two heady ingredients that every politician understands. The first being what Tip O'Neill used to say, "All politics is local," - its what baby kissing is about. The second," money is the mother's milk of politics"- that's what winning is all about.

"Local and money" - they go well together. Put those assets in their proper place - make them politically correct in the 'Federal' sense, and we have a solution to the "money is free speech" dilemma,  and also a needed antidote for the hard money hangover of political corruption that is endemic in campaign finance law.

An antidote, because in a Federalist approach to campaign financing, ALL campaign money, hard or soft, would be raised only in the district or area a candidate is attempting to represent.

Candidates for the Senate or Congress, for example, would be allowed to raise hard money only from individuals living in the State or Congressional district. All soft money likewise could only come from the contested area. The same would hold for all contests at all levels of government.

Interest groups, business and labor associations, etc. would be allowed to raise money only through and from the chapters, locals or branches that are located in a district. No money whould be allowed to flow across districts from "home offices" not in the contested district. With this provision, only "local" money would help determine any election. And by this, excess funds in one contested race would not find its way into other contests.

Federalist ideals should apply to the Presidential race because States have Electoral Votes according to their population. Hard and soft money should only be allowed to help a candidate or party in the State in which that money is raised. No Texas money should influence the presidential race in California, or any other race there, and likewise no Hollywood money should influence New York.

 All financial contributors in any amount should be immediately identified by name and address. Sending money across boundaries to shill organizations to circumvent the Federalist structure, would be prohibited and would safeguard against a candidate being deluged with opposition or showered with beneficence from interests across the country.

America has a Federal political structure with clearly defined constituent districts. By ignoring or distorting them we have built a sense of having a National Government - we don't! Only by recognizing our Federal system can we empower, restrict, and reform campaign financing. Its our  true Constitutional identity.

Benefits are never repealed or reformed

Paul Ryan’s budget honors what Pres. Obama’s commission (Simpson-Bowles) recommended. The president ignored his own commission. They recommended Medicare reform to make it solvent while still providing assisted coverage. As with Ryan’s plan the reform was not to effect present or near users of the program.

Bill Clinton often says when benefit programs are passed, they will never be repealed. He might have added, and will never be reformed. He did not mention cost - that tells a lot about progressive strategy.

Clinton’s idea, is to pass benefit programs without regard to cost other than for political considerations. How to pay for programs is secondary to getting the legislation passed. If Conservatives balk at raising taxes they can be labeled as obstructionist and that means adding to the deficit and debt. Progressives have no down side in the spending game. Their voting base is loyal and constant and all benefit programs pay out more than they take in and so they are actually the redistribution of wealth that progressives see as necessary.

Why necessary? Here we see the difference between the parties.

Democrats are pessimistic, or is it realistic, about the prospects of the middle class in America, hence the need for big government assistance throughout life. They see an America, with a large and growing undereducated population, that has peaked productively and economically.

Republicans are optimistic, or is it naïve, to think the middle class can do better with less government assistance, if only government would get out of the way. Let American free enterprise flourish. Reduce regulations, reduce taxes on small businesses, reform education with less interference, cut government workers at every level, privatize jobs competitively, decentralize power back to the States and local governments.

This election will be self revealing. America's 2012 voters will decide the question. Is America's future outlook so bad as to need more government deficit spending or can it be made to grow with less Gov, less tax, and less regulation.

The commercial areas where the US is most productive today are in endeavors requiring fewer workers for high return, not the areas where low or semi-skilled workers can participate. That means the US will have a surplus of labor and low middle class wages and no end to the wage gap going forward. That has to change.

Our surplus labor is an urgent reason for returning America to re-industrialization. Start by legislatively protecting the astounding oil and gas industry's fracking technology that would employ America's bluecollar millions at good wages while contributing to industrial growth and energy independence lost a half century ago
.

This election will test Bill’s premise. Can entitlement spending ever be cut back or reformed?  Simpson-Bowles made a serious effort but were ignored because progressives seem to have no intention of cutting spending ever. They prefer that taxes be raised to whatever level that can be passed by Congress, and any shortfall can be monetized by the Fed or added to the deficit.