Update from the Heartland
No.544
14.5.12 – 20.5.12
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Question of this century:
Question of this century:
Why have compromise and moderation
become such spiteful words in the American political lexicon?
Two relevant quotations from history, provided by the
conservative Blog Patriot Post:
“There
are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual
and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden
usurpations.”
--James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying
Convention, 1788
“Sometimes
it is said that man can not be trusted with government of himself. Can he,
then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in
the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.”
--Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801
“Five myths about gay marriage”
conversation with Jonathan Rauch
Washington Post
Published: May 14, 2012
I thought I had a fairly decent education in American
History. Occasionally, I am
reminded that neither my childhood instruction nor my subsequent novice
curiosity and interest were as comprehensive as I believed. I suspect many of us had an incomplete
course of instruction, or perhaps, it is just me? My latest journey of discovery began via the Supreme Court’s
“political question” doctrine application in Zivotofsky v Clinton [565
U.S. ___ (2011); no. 10-699] [538]
that led to the reapportionment case in Baker v. Carr [369 U.S. 186 (1962);
no. 6] [539],
which in turn ended up with this week’s reading – Luther v. Borden {48 U.S. [7 How.] 1 (1849); 12 L. Ed. 581
[1849]}. The Luther case first
articulated the “political question” doctrine, which admonishes the
Judiciary to avoid decisions regarding political questions that are the
rightful domain of the political branches – Executive & Legislative. The object of the Luther case was the Dorr
Rebellion of 1842. If the American
History curriculum of my youth covered the Dorr Rebellion, I must have slept
through the class; however, I believe it was never mentioned. We learned about Shay’s Rebellion in
Massachusetts (1787) and the Western (or Whiskey) Rebellion in Pennsylvania (1791),
but not even a whisper about the Dorr Rebellion. So, what was the Dorr Rebellion? Our story begins on 24.November.1663, when an assembly of
the People of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations accepted
the Royal
Charter of 1663 issued by King Charles II. They retained the charter government through statehood. The subject crisis grew from the fact that
the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations chose not to establish a
constitutional state government when their representatives signed the
Declaration of Independence (1776), ratified the Articles of Confederation
(1777) and the U.S. Constitution (1790). The Charter entitled freeholders to
vote on presented issues and for representatives, and a freeholder was defined
as a male state resident who owns local property for a specified length of time. A popular movement to broaden the right
to vote began to coalesce in 1835.
The disenfranchised sought redress each session of the legislature . . .
to no avail. The issue came to a
head in 1841, when a large group of residents gathered in Providence to write a
new constitution to replace the Charter.
The so-called “People’s Constitution” [AKA Freeman’s Constitution] was
proclaimed and promulgated on 13.January.1842, and granted all white,
21-year-old males the right to vote, which did not impress freemen with dark
skin pigmentation. The People held
an election in April to ratify the new constitution and elect Thomas Wilson
Dorr as their new governor. Dorr
tried to form a government on 3/4.May.1842, and led armed citizens in an
attempt to take possession of the state militia arsenal on 18.May.1842. The assault failed. On 25.June.1842, the charter General
Assembly of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations enacted and
declared martial law. Four days
later, John T. Child led troops from the 4th Regiment, 1st
Brigade, Rhode Island Militia, and forcibly entered the residence of Martin
Luther, a citizen of the State of Massachusetts, to arrest citizens alleged to
be conspirators in the rebellion.
The President and Congress chose not to interfere in the Rhode Island
political crisis. Martin and
Rachel Luther filed suit claiming their 4th Amendment right against
unreasonable search and seizure had been violated. Interestingly, for the Luther case before the Supremes,
Associate Justices Catron, Daniel, and McKinley were absent on account of ill
health when this case was argued. Chief
Justice Roger Brooke Taney wrote for the Court and noted, “Suffrage is a
delegation of political power to some individual. Hence the right must be guarded and protected against force
or fraud.” He went on to conclude,
“No one, we believe, has ever doubted the proposition, that, according to the
institutions of this country, the sovereignty in every State resides in the
people of the State, and that they may alter and change their form of
government at their own pleasure. But whether they have changed it or not by
abolishing an old government, and establishing a new one in its place, is a
question to be settled by the political power. And when that power has decided,
the courts are bound to take notice of its decision, and to follow it.” In essence, the Supremes dodged the
bullet. Associate Justice Levi
Woodbury dissented, based largely on his contention that Rhode Island exceeded
its authority in declaring martial law to suppress the rebellion. Fifty years after the states ratified
the Constitution, American citizens and residents of the State of Rhode Island
and Providence Plantations faced a classic Catch-22 – the People can reform
government but only through the government, and the government, in turn, seeks
to preserve itself and thus rejects the reformation. The entire episode was about a citizen’s right to vote for
his choice of republican representatives.
Sadly, universal suffrage would not be realized until 1965. The Dorr Rebellion gives a
not-so-pleasant look into our history and offers another uncomfortable example
of how we have not always lived up to the ideals we espouse. Let us not forget the Dorr Rebellion.
Comments and contributions from Update no.543:
Comment to the Blog:
“Your health news sounds very good. I hope your employment
situation clarifies just as well.
“The only obvious mistake in the article you linked is where
the writer says the speaker is ‘not a godless heathen.’ That contains an
oxymoron. The young speaker is indeed not a heathen, but heathens have plenty
of gods, just not Christian ones. Beyond that, I would like to point out that Christianity
(or any religion) is not a legitimate basis for public policy in the United
States. In any case, per Wikipedia Christianity is in a long decline in the
developed world. Christians’ attempts to cling to political influence just
hasten that decline. The North Carolina results will change eventually, when
North Carolina wants or is compelled to move into the current century
“The tea baggers have won some of the Republican primaries,
thus harming the Republican Party. We need to remember amidst all the hype,
hoopla, and hogwash of the political season that most American voters have not
lost their minds. Just because a candidate can attract 51% of Republican
primary voters by using a lot of extreme rhetoric does not mean that a majority
of voters will buy the same stuff. What I think will make this season more
interesting is that both of the major-party candidates for President have
issues with their own bases. Romney is a Mormon and has much too moderate a
record for many Republicans. Obama’s claims of ‘war powers’ sit very poorly
with Democrats who also see him as giving way to Republican minorities on too
many issues. This will be another election where people must hold their noses
to vote.
“The current JPMorgan fiasco gives still more support to our
mutual position that ‘too big to fail’ is simply too big.”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
health. Yes indeed!
Re:
employment. Jury is still out; the
dust storm still blows. Time shall
tell.
Re:
religion in public policy. In the
main, I would agree . . . thus, Jefferson’s admonition to keep church and State
separate. History is replete with
examples to validate Jefferson’s observation. On the contrary, religion has also tried to order society,
to diminish bad traits or actions, and encourage respect for others. There is much good in religion in
contrast to the often parochial interpretations by flawed men to incite the
believers to violence in the name of God – in defiance of those teachings.
Re:
voters. I sure hope you are
correct. Extreme political
rhetoric in any direction is not productive, helpful or consistent with the
founding principles. Interesting
observations regarding this silly season.
Re:
“too big to fail.” Spot on! Yet, JP Morgan Chase is hardly close to
failure or even jeopardy, just a little less profit and perhaps dividends for
stockholders. The bank happens to
have a shareholder’s meeting this week, which should be quite incendiary. To me, the far more injurious aspect of
this event is seismic trauma to our fragile faith in our financial institutions
and system. The market impact
inflates the lack of confidence.
Whatever responsible bankers there may be out there, they will soon
suffer for Chase’s mistakes.
. . . round two:
“There is some degree of good in almost any religion but a
great deal of conflict among them, particularly if one considers religions as
different as mine versus conservative Christianity or Islam. Society ought
never to kowtow to any given form of religion, particularly as none of them
shows any respect for the large, growing, and often admirably moral population
of atheists. If I had an either/or choice, which could easily happen here, I
would vote for an atheist over any believer in any religion who saw his or her
religion as an appropriate guide for the larger society.
“I do not understand why you would see ‘faith’ in our poorly
regulated financial institutions as a good thing. I used to have faith in those
who regulated them, but that day has passed, perhaps to return if government
can free itself from the bonds of campaign contributions. Responsible bankers
need not fear regulation, but the likes of JP Morgan Chase are not responsible
bankers.”
. . . my response to round two:
Re:
religion. Well said! Religion is a private matter – a means
of individual strength, comfort and guidance. Religion has no place in public life or political
debate. From my perspective, any
religion that cannot accept and tolerate another, different religion, including
atheism, also has no place in a free society.
Re:
regulation. We have reason to be
dissatisfied with the effectivity of regulation on a variety of topics that are
important to the People. We are
not yet to the point withdrawing our funds and stuffing them in a mattress or
coffee can buried in the backyard.
Banks give us reason to doubt.
Let us not forget our contribution to this crisis. We expect constant, perpetual, property
value increases, and ever increasing profits on investments, driving bankers to
search for ways to satisfy that demand.
Perhaps, we should blame capitalism. Perhaps, we should all just embrace communism as the
inevitable ultimate equilibrium.
Yes, the banks deserve our condemnation. Yes, the regulators deserve our contempt and our
reformation. Let us also look at
ourselves and our unreasonable expectations. Let us not focus our ire on one element or the other.
. . . round three:
“I suspect the economy, as with other issues, could be
simpler than it looks. Follow the money and solve the mystery. Blaming the
middle-class people who believed intense marketing by realtors and bankers
presented without resistance by the media over several decades is disingenuous
at best. That conflicts with the idea in your original posting that ‘faith’ in
banking institutions is a good thing. Either we believe what we're told by
experts or we're basically on our own in a very complex field.
“I assume you meant your capitalism versus communism
statement as sarcasm. We both know that any given government will not choose
either ‘pure’ communism or totally unregulated capitalism, or at least not for
long. The discussion concerns the appropriate level and type of regulation. JP
Morgan Chase has given us another bit of evidence for that discussion.”
. . . my response to round three:
Re:
middle class. It is not my nature
to blame anyone, but I try to do the best I can to understand the broad
perspective. Sure we can focus on
the banks; they are logical, appropriate contributors. The warning caveat emptor (buyer beware) has been true at least since the
heyday of the Roman Empire. Let us
make sure we look at the whole equation.
I suspect we are in violent agreement.
Re:
communism. Yes, sarcasm!
Re:
regulation. I believe I noted in
my original opinion [543] that the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act [PL 111-203; 124 Stat. 1376;
21.July.2010] so-called Volcker Rule [Title VI, § 619 et al] had been
successfully watered down by banking lobbyists. Again, I believe we are in agreement. From what we know so far, it appears
JPMorganChase may have violated portions of Dodd-Frank, and if so, they should
and hopefully will be prosecuted.
We shall see.
Another contribution:
“Re the Greek situation- the country had been courting this for decades…They don’t pay taxes there, tax evasion is almost a national sport, and the government has not cracked down. In addition, for years, they were providing the EU fudged financial reports, until a minister decided that he would not continue the practice. Then things really started going downhill.”
My reply:
Re:
Greek situation. Spot on! And, apparently, the Greeks feel no
compulsion or inclination to pay the price for living beyond their means. They choose to evade their tax
liability or enforce their tax code.
They chose to live as they do.
They will pay the price one way or another. As I used to tell our kids, we can do this the easy way or
the hard way, your choice. For the
Greeks, it is the hard way or the harder way. Disintegration from the EU will not be easy, but that
appears to be the way they are headed.
Whatever they are going to do, they need to make the move and be done
with it. The markets have to
stabilize, and the Greeks left to their fate. We are paying the price for their largesse.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
Compromise and moderation have become such spiteful words in the American political lexicon because the culture of greed demands no less than everything. Thus, “compromise” in that context comes to mean “give me what I want and shut up about it.”
I think of myself as a student of history and I was likewise unaware of the Dorr Rebellion. However, I have enough study behind me to be dubious when someone asserts that they can do something because “it’s a free country.” Catch-22 came along long before that book named it and remains alive and well.
You mentioned the market in your discussion of JP Morgan Chase. As others have pointed out (Baseline Scenario, for example), the markets do not regulate banks the size of JP Morgan Chase. Other lenders and investors remain aware that the tab for their mistakes will be paid by taxpayers; market forces might apply to smaller banks, but not to them.
Calvin,
Re: compromise. Both poles are comparably intransigent. Your observation is certainly validated by the public statements of Richard Mourdock [543]. However, the unwillingness to compromise is much larger than greed. Too many of contemporary politicians use the phrase, “I cannot compromise my principles,” as if they have sworn a blood oath to God. Solutions are found in compromise, not in bludgeon the other group to death.
Re: free country. Well said. We are free to choose our path to Happiness . . . along as that path exists within acceptable or tolerable boundaries. We are NOT free to cause injury to other people or property; we are generally not free to threaten other citizens, e.g., exceed the speed limit in residential areas, or distribute deficient products.
Re: Catch-22. Again, we said – 1961 was quite a bit later than 1842; but, as you say, the paradox has been around for millennia.
Re: market. I do not think JPMorganChase is bigger than the marketplace; they are experiencing the consequences of their actions as we speak. I will agree big banks are more buffered from the market than small banks.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment