America the Beautiful: Rediscovering What Made This Nation Great (3 page)

Now let’s look at the same
DIRECT
acrostic with respect to the new Tea Party. Late in 2008 and early in 2009, a number of things happened that caused great concern to a large number of Americans. Among these were the passage of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the bailout of several major financial agencies, and talk about dramatic reform of the nation’s health care system. Scattered small protests about these things were seen around the nation, but the entrenched powers of government and most of the media denied their significance.

Then on February 19, 2009, a business news editor on CNBC by the name of Rick Santelli in a national broadcast from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange severely criticized government plans to refinance “underwater mortgages,” those mortgages whose values are less than the balance owed because of the collapse in housing prices. Many of the derivative traders on the floor in the background applauded, and the hosts of the show were bewildered.

The video of Santelli’s outburst went viral, with special emphasis on the part where he called for another tea party, during which traders would gather all of the derivatives for their mortgages and dump them in the Chicago River in protest of the massive corporate infusion at the expense of taxpayers. Shortly after that, many people on television began to refer to the various local protests as “tea parties.” The entrenched political establishment and most of the media ignored how fast these protests were growing, just as the British had regarded the colonial protests during the American Revolution. However, as the numbers and intensity of these protests began
to multiply, the media began to make fun of the protesters in the hope that this would discourage others from joining in. The passage of the new health care legislation in December of 2009, contrary to what the majority of Americans wanted, was like pouring gasoline on a fire, and it dramatically increased the strength of the Tea Party movement. From the perspective of those in the new Tea Party, not only was the government spending money that it didn’t have at an alarming rate, but it had now enacted a gigantic federal program that was going to be very expensive and impose freedom-robbing regulations.

As the protests grew, however, they could no longer be ignored, and the resistance phase began to set in. The attacks from much of the media, from several members of Obama’s administration, and from the Democratic Party were relentless and mean-spirited. As with the colonial Tea Party, resistance only served to strengthen the movement, which was beginning to be joined by many notable political figures and other individuals. During the 2010 midterm primaries, Tea Party membership had grown to the point that it was able to significantly influence the outcome of the primaries. Since their values were more closely aligned with the values of the Republican Party than those of the Democratic Party, they concentrated on the Republican primaries, where they prevailed in several states, removing the entrenched traditional Republican candidate and replacing them with a Tea Party candidate.

It became increasingly clear that the Tea Party was not simply an arm of the Republican Party, but rather a significant force for real change. Its constituents recognized that both the Democrats and the Republicans were responsible for excessive spending, incessant pork barrel projects to benefit special constituent groups, and intrusion into the private lives of citizens. Tea Party members were especially outraged by the fact that the president and Democratic congressional leaders did not seem particularly interested in the feelings of the people, as manifested by their cramming of the health-care bill down the throats of the American people. As with the colonial Tea Party, denial, ignoring, and resistance had all failed to stem the tide; therefore, it was time for them to exempt themselves from the struggle to quash the rebellion.

Commentators stopped deriding the Tea Party and began recognizing it as a legitimate political force. They began to think that maybe it was different from some of the other fringe movements that had popped up over the course of the preceding decades. Officials of the Obama administration stopped calling them “tea baggers” and began treating them with respect. As this book is being written, the conforming phase is beginning, and I
wouldn’t be surprised to see the transformation phase arise before or soon after the 2012 presidential election.

For several decades now, America has basically had a two-party system: Democrats and Republicans. Each of these parties has been engaged in the gradual but consistent growth of the central government and its claim on power. Ever-expanding programs offering benefits to the masses are difficult to resist, and with the proliferation of the news media it also became possible for elected officials to gain great notoriety and power. This power became addicting to many elected officials who, instead of going to Washington, DC, for a brief time to represent their constituency, wanted to hold their positions for extended periods of time — even for life. This growing power and the progressive intrusion of government into the lives of the people was so insidious that it went largely undetected. This process is much like the frog that willingly sits in the saucepan as the temperature is gradually increased until the water is boiling, killing the frog. The frog would have immediately jumped out of the saucepan, however, if the water was already boiling from the beginning.

In early 2009, many throughout America voiced their discontent as they began to worry about the excessive government spending for such programs as TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) and the proposed bailout for many Wall Street entities and large companies such as General Motors. The country was already in significant debt, with no clear indication of how that money was going to be repaid. It is easy to see how our growing debt, excessive spending, and elected leaders ignoring the will of the people closely resembles the set of circumstances that precipitated the American Revolution.

America got off to an auspicious start centuries ago because its citizens were unwilling to be herded like sheep by an elite group of “leaders.” They were driven instead by a desire to take ownership of their own fate and establish a nation created by them and for them. Their self-determination and celebration of freedom to control their own lives helped birth our great nation.

Today, however, a fundamental shift has occurred in the role of our nation’s government and the role of its people, and so throughout this book, we will determine whether those seeds of independence still remain viable or
whether they have been supplanted by passivity and acceptance of the status quo. For freedom is an elusive bird, constantly on the move, progressively distancing itself from complacency. Do we value our freedom enough to pursue it, or have we lost our way without realizing it? Do we benefit from the principles that established this nation without understanding them?

What will we as America’s citizens write in this next chapter of our history? Will we settle for being herded by our leaders’ understanding of what is best for us? Or will “we the people” once again rally together, educating ourselves as to the best possible solutions for a way forward, communicating to our leaders our collective desires, and demonstrating that we truly are a nation that rebels for positive change?

G
ROWING UP, MY BROTHER
, Curtis, and I frequently disagreed about who was responsible for the chaos in the cramped bedroom we shared. We often left our clothes strewn about and our beds unmade, and the boundary dividing our room into his half and mine shifted depending on how much of our stuff was lying around and which one of us was having friends over.

Father was no longer at home to provide any leadership. He had left the family when Mother found out he had been living as a bigamist across town. Mother wasn’t home much, either — but for very different reasons. She was almost always out working, trying to provide for us as best she could. Consequently, we almost never had anyone around the house to referee our disputes or hound us to do our chores.

How was Mother able to establish effective rules in such a chaotic situation? Although we got into a fair amount of trouble at home, there never were any serious incidents because we had guidelines that governed our behavior in the absence of an authority figure. Mother was smart enough to realize that if she simply imposed rules on us, we were unlikely to follow them; therefore, she involved us in the rule making. We all had a say in who would do the dishes, who would sweep the floors, who would warm the food, who would take out the garbage, and so on. We also agreed upon the punishment for not carrying out one’s duties and the rewards for doing a stellar job. This system of governance was well defined and well accepted, so there was almost no trouble. I am frequently asked why Curtis and I obeyed our mother when sometimes we didn’t see her for an entire week. The answer is quite simple — they were not just
her
rules, they were also
our
rules, for ownership of an idea makes cooperation with its tenets much more likely.

So Curtis and I had to come to solutions ourselves regarding our room, and that is exactly what we did. In order to make things work, we simply each accepted responsibility for the entire room for a week at a time. The room was cleaner than ever because it was always clear where responsibility lay.

We were part of the family, and Mother treated us that way. She didn’t coddle us or tell us what to do every step of the way, as if we were incapable of making decisions on our own. She wanted us to contribute to the success of our family as a prelude to becoming successful in the world.

Throughout history, we humans have attempted to create rules that would lead to peace and prosperity, as well as fairness among the nations. Unfortunately, those goals have rarely been achieved, despite numerous and varied attempts throughout time and around the world. If we have learned over the centuries and have become so smart, why is it so difficult for us to make progress in these areas? If ownership of an idea makes cooperation with its tenets much more likely, why can’t the same principles work for a larger society?

The fact of the matter is, there are many examples in early American history where self-governance did work — and extremely well at that. Many of the Quaker societies and the Amish and Mennonite communities functioned efficiently, peacefully, and fairly. Perhaps the past tense is not the best one to use, since many of the Amish and Mennonite communities are still thriving today. We see many patients from these communities at Johns Hopkins Hospital, and we are always thrilled to admit them because they are very friendly and extremely cooperative. They pay their bills and you never have to worry about them trying to sue you. If everyone were that way, medicine would be a much more pleasant profession and costs would be considerably lower. There are no homeless people in these communities and extremely little crime. Among them, there is a strong sense of caring for one’s neighbor, yet hard work on the individual level is still rewarded. Many people in these communities own businesses and have accumulated substantial wealth, which is beneficial to everyone else in the community since many jobs are created as businesses expand in a free environment.

Many nations, such as ancient Israel and the medieval English, made admirable attempts at establishing fair and peaceful societies. Their principal idea was to allow the people to govern themselves as much as possible.
Ancient Israeli government, for example, was set up as a commonwealth of freemen. “Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof,” reads Leviticus 25:10, in celebration of the Year of Jubilee. Their basic belief was that all men should be free, and the founding fathers of our nation echoed that belief by having this same verse inscribed on the Liberty Bell. The people of ancient Israel were organized into small groups of families, and each of those families had a voice and vote in that group through a representative. Representatives of those groups reported to a higher-level group, and this continued until you reached the topmost governing level. Strong, local government to solve problems on the level at which they occurred kept the number of cases that rose to the highest level to a manageable number. (“The hard causes they brought unto Moses,” reads Exodus 18:26, “but every small matter they judged themselves.”) They focused on reparation to the victim rather than punishment or fines levied on the perpetrator, and common consent of the people was necessary for new laws and elections (or rejections) of leaders.
¹
The accused were presumed innocent until evidence revealed beyond a shadow of a doubt their guilt. In rare, borderline cases, the decision was made in favor of the accused with the mind-set that if he had actually committed the crime, that punishment could be left to God in the afterlife.

In Anglo-Saxon Common Law, as in the Israeli setup, the people were a commonwealth of freemen. Every adult had a voice and vote, and the groups of families were organized in units of ten, each with an elected leader. Like the Israelis, those leaders had representatives from their groups that met on a higher level, and attempts were always made to solve problems on the level where the problem originated. It was systems such as these that inspired our nation’s founding fathers to promote not only cooperation, but widespread participation.
²

The founding fathers of America were extremely well-educated men and great students of history, “the well fed, well bred, well read, and well wed,” as historian James McGregor Burns described them.
³
They represented a nouveau aristocracy, not by birth as in the mother countries, but through development of their minds and talents.

These men certainly feared having a government that was too big and too powerful, as they had experienced across the ocean, so when trying to assemble an appropriate governing structure for this country, these dedicated Americans deliberated for over four weeks trying to decide what kind of government we would have. This included heated philosophical and political discussions over the tenets of Aristotle’s six forms of political constitution, ranging from tyranny and monarchy to democracy and polity.
⁴
The situation was too critical for them to leave the organization of the new government to just anyone, and so they ultimately incorporated many of the best ideas from other cultures along with a heavy dose of faith in God and a lot of hard work.

Could a government’s power truly rest in the hands of the people? Could such an experiment really work? By definition, in legislative- and decision-making processes, a democracy requires full participation of all the people. But most people are so involved and preoccupied with daily duties and routines, they have neither the time nor energy to participate in hearings and study the issues sufficiently enough to prepare for a vote. Several times the ancient Greeks attempted to utilize democratic mass participation in governing their city-states, but each time it resulted in tyranny. As the population expands, a democracy becomes increasingly inefficient and rowdy.

Although the noble goal of democracy had been tried by other societies, power usually eventually shifted to some central authority and the dream of autonomy died. Even with the well-established system of democracy created
by the ancient Israelis, the people became dissatisfied and demanded a king. Without question, when one has a central authority figure the squabbling and arguments quickly die out and it is easier to get things done. The founding fathers understood this tendency and endeavored to create a system that would resist the urge to become a monarchy. Yes, there had been benevolent kings and queens, but they had experienced firsthand a monarch who cared not for the populace at large.

This process of developing a government that could utilize the power bestowed on it by the people to govern effectively but efficiently was tricky business. These men had witnessed the tyranny of monarchs and the ineffectiveness and inequality of large governments, and they recognized that a democracy would quickly stagnate if everybody had to weigh in on every decision. Therefore, they decided that a republic-type government would be much more efficient, in which elected representatives of the people would make decisions. Also, with a republic there is no limitation on expansion.

“A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place,” stated James Madison in
The Federalist Papers
, “opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”
⁵
A republic, he further defined, is “a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is
essential
to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.”
⁶

In other words, if this new government was to survive and flourish down through the centuries, it would need a way to prevent the abuse of power.

At the Constitutional Convention, where the US Constitution was drafted, the founders decided to divide power within the federal government to ensure that it would not be controlled by just one man or one group. Three divisions or branches were the result: the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch, each of which has duties concerning the law.

The job of the legislative branch, which consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate, is to create laws when necessary — and there was never any intention that they would just sit around arbitrarily creating laws, particularly laws that benefitted special interest groups. The executive
branch, which includes the president, the vice president, the office of the attorney general, and the departments governed by each of the cabinet secretaries, all execute the laws provided by the legislative branch. All cabinet-level appointments were to be confirmed by the Senate, and there was no provision for the appointment of czars — as we have today to oversee the implementation of policies ranging from the recovery of the US auto industry to the doling out of economic stimulus — without official oversight. Finally, the judicial branch interprets the laws. In recent decades, however, we have seen more activism by the judicial branch, which is why there is so much bickering surrounding each nomination to the Supreme Court. Each and every political persuasion wants someone appointed who is philosophically aligned with them, with the hope that the judge’s activism will work in their favor. Again this was not the original intention of the founding fathers, and it is a good reason why we need to consider term limits for Supreme Court Justices.

Each of the three branches has the ability to impact the activities of the other two, creating a system of checks and balances. This was an ingenious system created by our founders to help avoid the kinds of tyrannical governmental systems from which they had fled. As long as we maintain a degree of balance in the three branches of our government, we are unlikely to tilt too far in one direction or the other, thereby destroying our democracy. “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men,” James Madison pointed out, “the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.”
⁷