Tag: questions

Considering Secession

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

An intriguing discussion erupted after a recent post by Connor. I was soon asking what history would have looked like if the South had been allowed to secede rather than fight the Civil War. Later another commenter asked an even better question:

By allowing the South to secede, wouldn’t that be setting up a dangerous precedent? If any state decided to leave just because Congress passed a law they didn’t like, what would have happened to the nation?

Under such an interpretation, what security did the nation have beyond what the Articles of Confederation provided? The Articles weren’t working. That’s why they created a Constitution that gave more expanded powers to a central government.

Considering recent comments regarding Texas choosing to secede and polls that a surprising number of Texans seem open to the concept I’d like to take a crack at answering what might have happened in those circumstances and I would be very interested to know what others think of the question or of my answer. For the sake of this supposition let’s assume that we are talking about an alternate history where the people of the United States accepted the premise that secession was a legal option and not a cause for war. We are also not talking specifically about secession by the southern states – just about a nation in which any state could decide to leave just because Congress passed a law they didn’t like and that the remaining states would not resort to violence to keep them in the union. In other words there might be arguments against secession in general or in specific cases, but no military action. With that background, here is what I believe would happen.

Any state that chose to secede would immediately relegate themselves to a position with all the disadvantages they had faced under the Articles of Confederation as well as the disadvantage of not having between 12 and 49 (depending on when in history this happened) other states upon which to lean for support. They would be required to provide for their own protections (economic and military) without assistance from their neighbor states. In all likelyhood they would very quickly be looking to form alliances with other states and other nations. In some cases they would likely begin very soon to consider the possibility of rejoining the United States. In such cases they would find themselves facing the requirements for joining the union. Having antagonized the other states in the union they would have to convince the congress to allow them back into membership within the United States. That and their experience under the Articles of Confederation would act as a deterrent to states that wanted to secede for light or transient reasons.

Assuming that there are no major holes in my reasoning above I think it is safe to say that there would be few if any cases of individual states seceding. That leaves us to consider the potential of blocks of states seceding such as the southern states in 1860. In this case we can easily see that a block of states seceding together would be inclined to form a union not unlike the one they were leaving. If two similarly structured nations composed of soverign states were to exist in close proximity to each other and to unsettled land waiting for expansion I think it is safe to assume that the two nations would be driven to compete with each other to become more politically and economically powerful and attractive to the settlers of new lands so that new political entities would chose them over their counterpart when they decided to become a member of a larger political entity. I don’t suppose that the nations would exist entirely without animosity, but they could peacefully coexist as the United States and Canada have done for nearly two centuries.

If legal secession were a political reality any number of possibilities might exist. A single state residing outside any other union would be highly unlikely, but North America could be divided into any number of unions made of sovereign states. In fact a policy allowing for legal secession could leave the door open for Canadian provinces or Mexican states joining a union as sovereign states. I believe that eventually legally accepted secession would have resulted in one or two strong unions of states in which the central government was limited more closely to what our Constitution outlined – focusing on foreign relations, military defense, and interstate issues and leaving states to independently tackle other issues and learn from each other. In the case of two stable unions existing I would give better that 50% odds that their relations with each other would be fundamentally peaceful.

The short answer is that I do not believe allowing the secession of the south would have been setting a dangerous precedent (at least from the angle of how viable the central government would remain). That leaves the question – have I missed something?

Tags Articles of Confederation, connections, Constitution, history, questions, secession

Local National State

Tea Party and Town Hall

The real effectiveness of the tea parties is not likely to be known for some time. Two days later various factions are still trying to sort out what actually happened and what it all means. I am encouraged by the prospects that it will turn out to be more than a short-lived release of frustration for political newcomers.

Last night I had the opportunity to attend a town hall meeting with my congressional representative, Rob Bishop. I had heard about these meetings from various sources, but this is the first one to take place since I moved into the district. It was an interesting mix of support for Rep. Bishop and confrontation (speaking about the questions and comments from the audience).

One gentleman, who may well have been a tea party attendee, got up and expressed his frustrations at not having a political home after the supposedly conservative Republican party had forsaken the opportunity to promote conservative government. He asked how he could ever trust the party again. Rep. Bishop gave a very unsatisfactory answer (in my mind) that he would just have to sit back and wait. I later talked to that gentleman and invited him to visit my site – I hope he does so. My answer to the question is that those of us who really believe in conservative principles need to get active in the party and make it answerable to those principles rather than blindly following whoever is incumbent. (P.S. Rob Bishop is far from being the worst Republican Incumbent around these parts.) Sitting back and waiting is a great way to allow the status quo to become ever more entrenched in the party and in society.

I found various statements by Bishop which I agreed with and others that I did not agree with. The subject of earmarks came up multiple times and I found some of his answers insightful. For example, Rep. Bishop recognizes that earmarks are easily used as a distraction that diverts attention while the pile of money being spent continues to grow while the size of the pile is a larger problem than the earmarking process. He explained that earmarks are Congress setting priorities for appropriated money rather than the administration setting those priorities. That left me with two questions that I will demand answers on from my congressman.

If we get rid of earmarks won’t that allow us to focus on the size of the pile of money?
While I might prefer that Congress set the priorities for government appropriations rather than the administration, why should the priorities be set at the federal level at all? (except on truly federal priorities like defense spending) Wouldn’t it be better to just appropriate money to "transportation" and direct that 2% of the money goes to Utah, 5% to California, etc. then let the states and municipalities decide which projects (I-15 expansion, Mountain View Corridor, repaving existing streets, expansion of light rail, to name a few local options) deserve the transportation funding?

Tags change, District 1, money, questions, Rob Bishop

General National

Federalist Nos. 71 – 72

In three sentences Federalist No. 71 conveys the primary reason to prefer a republic over a democracy:

It is a just observation, that the people commonly INTEND the PUBLIC GOOD. This often applies to their very errors. But their good sense would despise the adulator who should pretend that they always REASON RIGHT about the MEANS of promoting it. (emphasis original)

By separating the people from direct decision-making a republic insulates the nation from mob rule.

I found great irony in the following truth:

The representatives of the people, in a popular assembly, seem sometimes to fancy that they are the people themselves, and betray strong symptoms of impatience and disgust at the least sign of opposition from any other quarter; as if the exercise of its rights, by either the executive or judiciary, were a breach of their privilege and an outrage to their dignity.

Sometimes today it seems that the representatives of the people in our "popular" assembly have fancied that they are the people themselves and they often appear impatient or disgusted at opposition from the voters when they are busy trying to promote the will of the President.

In talking about the duration in office of the president (Federalist No. 72), Hamilton comes out in staunch opposition to term limits:

Nothing appears more plausible at first sight, nor more ill-founded upon close inspection, than a scheme which in relation to the present point has had some respectable advocates, I mean that of continuing the chief magistrate in office for a certain time, and then excluding him from it.

As in various other decisions in the original Constitution we have changed our stance on that since that time. Unlike other such examples I believe that this change has been positive or at least neutral for the nation. In fact I have been one to favor the possibility of adding term limitations to other elected positions. There is one way in which I could see someone arguing that term limits may have contributed to our imperial presidency:

An avaricious man, who might happen to fill the office, looking forward to a time when he must at all events yield up the emoluments he enjoyed, would feel a propensity, not easy to be resisted by such a man, to make the best use of the opportunity he enjoyed while it lasted, and might not scruple to have recourse to the most corrupt expedients to make the harvest as abundant as it was transitory;

I’d love to hear other perspectives on whether our two term limit on the presidency has been a good or bad thing for the country now that we have had half a century to see the results.

Tags documents, federalist, history, questions, term limits

culture National

What Should We Do About It?

Post author By David
Post date April 3, 2009
16 Comments on What Should We Do About It?

Recently someone shared The Obama Deception with me (and others) asking for feedback. Normally I would not take two hours to watch such a video because these efforts rarely shed any real light on their subjects. Mostly, they just generate heat through friction. I decided that in the interest of giving an honest response and out of respect for the person who shared it I would take the time. I’m glad that I did so that I could know what I was responding to, and so that I could share the best 8 seconds of the video which come from nearly the end of the two hours.

My reaction to the whole video is to admit that there is an element of truth in it – as there usually is to reports of conspiracy theories. Also common among such reports is the fact that the reality is generally less sinister than the report would have you believe. It’s always helpful to refer back to Hanlon’s Razor:

Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence. (or similar variations)

I don’t mean to suggest that everyone in our government is incompetent – only that the assumption of malice in everything they do does nothing to help us act appropriately as we learn of poor or misguided actions.

My thought as I viewed the video was to ask myself, "what actions would they have people take?" Similarly, my thought whenever I am acquiring new information is to ask myself "what should I do about it?" The reason that I liked those 8 seconds of video is that they addressed that question. (After two hours I was surprised that they did address my question.)

My experience in asking that question has been that no matter how varied the problems in government, the answer to that question is generally some variation on the same theme. Study the Constitution and promote a culture of individual liberty in our own actions and within our government. In order to do that we have to understand what a culture of individual liberty is. For one thing, it means that we have to let go of the assumption that the government can or should solve many of our social problems. The role of government is not to make sure that the playing field is level – it is to ensure that nobody cheats.

Government cannot ensure a level playing field because each individual is different and not equal. No matter how much I might try to imagine otherwise the fact is that I can’t compete with Alex Rodriguez in baseball, LeBron James in basketball, or Tiger Woods in golf. The government is only there to enforce the rules of fairness. No matter how sophisticated a handicapping system they devise I will never be able to beat Tiger at a fair golf game. The rules are not to make sure that I score somewhere close to my competitor, they are to make sure that Tiger does not choose to take a mulligan or sign an inaccurate scorecard and that I don’t do those things either. On the other hand, the rules do not prevent Tiger from spotting me a shot or two (per hole) in the interest of keeping the game interesting.

In case anyone is wondering, individual liberty does not mean that the course owners can’t enforce a dress code despite the fact that my breaking the dress code does not give me any advantage in the game. In other words, the argument that "I’m not hurting anyone but myself" is not sufficient reason to strike down a law (contrary to what many libertarians might argue). It is acceptable for us to codify into law the values that we want to promote within our society.

Tags Constitution, liberty, questions, sports, values

General

How Do We Maximize Political Power

Post author By David
Post date March 18, 2009
No Comments on How Do We Maximize Political Power

This is a question – not a dissertation. I would like to get more perspectives and experience than I have on the question of how citizens can have the most political influence. Suggestions must be activities that all citizens can participate – in other words, holding office does nto count because if I hold an office you can’t hold that office. Things like voting in general elections, primaries, caucus meetings, or party organizing conventions as well as activities such as writing to the newspaper or your elected representative are what I aam looking for – in other words activities where my action on an issue does not take away your chances of partaking in the same activity.

I’d like to know which activities are the most effective at bringing about the changes that citizens might be seeking and why. I’ll be sharing my own experience and the input I receive in a future post.

Tags civic participation, questions

General

Federalist Nos. 52 – 53

Federalist No. 52 and Federalist No. 53 begin an exploration of the individual branches of government as defined in the Constitution by considering the purpose, composition, and structure of the House of Representatives. While they were trying to rectify the weaknesses of existing legislative bodies, sometimes it can feel like we still live under a system where:

The only dependence of the representatives on the people consisted in the right of the latter to supply occasional vacancies by the election of new members

The final paragraph of Federalist 52 contained this sentence:

It is a received and well-founded maxim, that where no other circumstances affect the case, the greater the power is, the shorter ought to be its duration; and, conversely, the smaller the power, the more safely may its duration be protracted.

This got me thinking because that would suggest that the Senate has the less power than the House of Representatives. I had always believed that the Senate had comparatively more power than the House. I’d be curious to know what others think about their relative power.

Federalist 53 makes passing reference to:

a Constitution established by the people and unalterable by the government, and a law established by the government and alterable by the government.

I stopped for a minute to think about that. With the way our Constitution today is almost invisible within the laws passed by Congress I almost believed that our government was busy changing the Constitution. I soon realized that I was wrong. They may ignore the Constitution, but they cannot change it. In order to change the Constitution both houses of Congress must pass a bill for the change by supermajorities, but even if they were unanimous the change cannot go into effect until majorities in three quarters of the states also ratify the amending bill. It’s no wonder they ignore the Constitution so much, they can’t change their minds about it with every administration if they were to try making a change to our legal foundation. And yet our Congress acts very much like the British Parliament that they were designed to improve upon:

Even in Great Britain, where the principles of political and civil liberty have been most discussed, and where we hear most of the rights of the Constitution, it is maintained that the authority of the Parliament is transcendent and uncontrollable, as well with regard to the Constitution, as the ordinary objects of legislative provision. They have accordingly, in several instances, actually changed, by legislative acts, some of the most fundamental articles of the government.

I particularly liked the description of the challenging task that representatives in the federal government would have to undertake. Even before we allowed the federal government to reach into every aspect of our daily lives the citizens were supposed to select someone who could tackle this:

The laws are so far from being uniform, that they vary in every State; whilst the public affairs of the Union are spread throughout a very extensive region, and are extremely diversified . . . A branch of knowledge which belongs to the acquirements of a federal representative, and which has not been mentioned is that of foreign affairs. In regulating our own commerce he ought to be not only acquainted with the treaties between the United States and other nations, but also with the commercial policy and laws of other nations.

Finally there is another instance of the federalist authors making an assumption that turns out to be less than accurate:

A few of the members, as happens in all such assemblies, will possess superior talents; will, by frequent reelections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages.

Sadly, it is not a few who become members of long standing by frequent reelections. Instead it has become almost universal, and they almost universally avail themselves of the advantages of their office.

Tags documents, federalist, history, political figures, questions

State

How Do They Do It?

Most of the our elected leaders in the state government come from the ranks of retirees, homemakers, business owners, lawyers, and other similar professionals who have a high degree of control over their own schedules. There are a few exceptions however such as Kory Holdaway who is an educator.

As I gain more information and perspective on the word that our legislators do during the session I wonder how an educator could possibly serve in the legislature considering that the session takes 6 out of the 9 months that school is actually in session. Admittedly I don’t know if Rep. Holdaway is a classroom teacher or an administrator and I could see an administrator being able to pull this off, but I wonder how anyone who is not self-employed or has an extremely flexible profession can ever hold such an elective office – are they simply limited to offices such as city council which can be filled largely during evening hours?

Tags legislature, questions, Utah

culture

Lippmann vs Dewey

In his final chapter, James Fallows introduces the argument between Walter Lippmann and John Dewey that took place through their writings in the 1920’s regarding what constituted the most desirable form of representative government. I would like to read more of their original writing, but for now let me react to what Fallows has covered.

Lippmann argued that the world was too large and complex to allow for an expectation that the common citizen could be sufficiently informed to make wise decisions on many policy issues. Government, with it’s ability to draw upon the knowledge of experts should therefore have a relatively free hand in creating the policies that would best serve the nation. The extension to this attitude was that the journalist was expected to play the role of expert in explaining the expert government actions to the people.

Dewey argued that without a healthy democratic process no government could be expected to consistently make wise choices for the nation, no matter how much expert information they had available to them. The implications of this would be that the journalist should play the role of examiner and fact finder (as should the elected official), but that the decision should generally play out in the court of public opinion.

The arguments of Lippmann certainly are accurate in describing the complexity of the world – a world that is even more complex when it is not tempered by the moderating influence of broad democratic participation based on broadly disseminated information. However, my own biases have me leaning in favor of the perspective of Dewey that the very process of public democracy has benefits which we cannot afford to set aside.

Journalists have a special role in society in that they have the opportunity to study an issue and dig beneath the surface to examine the realities that escape the surface understanding of that issue. I believe the real problem lies in cases where a journalist, acting as an expert, not only tells their readers what they believe, but fails to report facts contrary to their own beliefs thus preventing the consumers from making an informed choice.

Does anyone else know more about Dewey or Lippmann?

Tags democracy, discourse, media, questions

culture technology

24 Hour News

James Fallows talks about what he calls the tyranny of technology – the way technology has changed news from having a daily news cycle, where organizations could take time to react and respond to news, to continuous coverage news where the responses and reactions must be nearly pre-planned. The tyranny here, as I interpret it, is that we have lowered the bar for what passes as news and increased the likelyhood of having the wool pulled over the eyes of society through a barrage of information that is no longer meaningful.

What do others think? Has 24-hour instant coverage news improved our access to useful information? Were there benefits to the daily news cycle that we have lost?

Tags media, questions

National

Rethinking the Electoral College

Post author By David
Post date September 16, 2008
2 Comments on Rethinking the Electoral College

I have long been a staunch supporter of keeping the electoral college despite the weaknesses I see in having most states take a winner-take-all approach to their electoral college votes. The calls to abolish the current system in favor of a national popular vote have been growing for as long as I have been interested in politics. Today I started to wonder if we could honor the purpose of the Electoral college while using the support for a popular vote to institute reforms for the weaknesses that have grown in the current system.

The idea that I had in mind would be comparable to the way the BCS chooses a national champion for college football. (Stick with me here, I know the BCS is unpopular.) Consider our current system to be like the pre-BCS method of choosing a champion based on who the polls ranked as #1 at the end of the season. With the BCS, those polls become only part of a broader equation without resorting to a playoff (the equivalent of a national popular vote in my analogy).

My idea would be to implement a national popular vote where every vote counts equally and where the results weigh in as 82% of the final choice. Each state then has two representatives in the reduced electoral college with the electoral college votes accounting for the remaining 18% of the final tally. The reason for the 82% weight for the popular vote is because that represents 441members of the current 541 member electoral college which are supposed to be comparable to the representation in the House of Representatives. The states are represented as sovereign entities with the remaining 100 votes with the ability to apportion those votes as they see fit – winner-take-all or with a representative split (such as one vote for each candidate with more than 40% of the vote or both votes if one candidate exceeds 60% of the popular vote in the state).

The 18% weight from the reduced Electoral College would decide close elections, but it would do so in a way that would virtually eliminate any value in selective recounts for disputed elections. Recounts would not materially affect the 82% weight of the popular vote and would only be able to swing up to one vote of the remaining 18%.

I have not had time to consider all the nuances of this idea but I would love to hear what others thing of such a plan.

Tags elections, electoral college, ideas, questions, sports