The Era of Living Dangerously

[Bob's World]

Our government is excellent. But by "our government" I mean the Constitution that defines it. Our politicians and federal bureaucracy? Sadly, sadly off track.

Now, a certain amount of dysfunction is by design, as any government that can become too effective will also soon come to exercise too much control over the populace (for those who have studied our official COIN doctrine, yes, I realize "effective" governments that have "control" over the populace are promoted as excellent things. They aren't. They are just as often the cause of insurgency as the cure.)

The design of the US government is to keep control over government in the hands of the people, but it is incumbent upon the people to exercise that control or risk losing it. Even a masterpiece of COIN such as the US Constitution can be defeated if the people and the government over generations of stability come to forget or misunderstand why it is the way it is.

Even those Tea Partiers who wave their pocket copies of the Constitution like Southern Evangelists wave their Bibles don't fully appreciate WHY the Constitution is important, but even so they are on the right track in their commitment to the fact that it is.

Liberal, Conservative; Republican, Democrat. Personally I could not care less about such things. As Americans we have the right to believe whatever we want, and to stand on the corner and proclaim those beliefs alone, assembled in groups, or published in the press. That I care about. I have no entitlements as an American citizen other than the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Anything else must be earned, and I am cool with that hard fact of life as well.

We are blessed with legal options to express our feelings and to shape our government. This was not something that was given to us, this is not something that was learned by smart people reading theoretical books on democracy and liberalism. This is the product of a group of men who grew to manhood under conditions of governance that they came to see as foreign, oppressive, and illegitimate in its claims to have the right to exercise such government over them. It came from their personal experience in dealing with the measures that oppressive regime applied to retain its control over them. It came from their decade long insurgency to throw off that hand that had grown oppressive and illegitimate over time. And it came from their realization just a couple years into "victory" that pure democracy was perhaps even more dangerous than effective oppression; and that securing the principles of good governance would have to occur first, to build the requisite trust to ever get to a degree of effectiveness that would allow a nation to grow and flourish.

But we forget the reasons behind the rules and rights laid out in our Constitution. We do so at our peril.

Insurgency does not happen when a government loses control of the populace; it happens when the populace loses control of the government. We are a long ways from that point, but we have been off track for a few generations, and it is never to early recognize that we are off azimuth and get back on track.

One mil of azimuth = one meter deviation at 1000 Meters. Anyone who has any experience in indirect fire or land nav appreciates that small azimuth errors compound quickly; whereas major location errors can be easily overcome. We may not know were we are, but that will sort out. Getting back on the right azimuth is the critical task.

[Fuchs]

Our government is excellent. But by "our government" I mean the Constitution that defines it.

Hardly. You're sticking to an outdated early try to get a constitution right.
It's so full of gaps and badly outdated stuff. Just look at the election process for presidency that allows for a president who lost the popular vote.

The primitive majority vote that discards millions of votes it badly obsolete as well. It was actually never necessary to have such a primitive mode of elections. Basic math allows for a much better mode.

A mix of voting for party AND voting for candidates (~as in Germany) allows for having regional representatives with strong connection to their region AND a representation that's proportional tot he actual preferences for parties. It also allows for more than two practical parties, while the obsolete majority vote systems force a two-party system onto the land.


There's even more to be criticised, but we hadn't any major attempts at improving constitutions for six decades, thus few examples of really advanced designs.


Your constitution that was basically designed for oligarchy is hardly "excellent".

[Bob's World]

The flaws are part of the excellence. Like a beautiful woman, sure those flaws seem more obvious with age, but within the "flaws" you point out lie much of the perfection.

Like I said, most don't appreciate it for what it is, or why it is.

So, would love to discuss in detail to better highlight the points a short post on SWJ can hardly do justice to, but it was, and remains, a bit of governmental genius.

The day we "fix" the flaws is the day we begin our slide into being just like everyone else.

[Bob's World]

Also, for what it is worth, Hitler had 44% of the popular vote in 33; and the Nazis pulled down 99% with 99% of the populace offically voting in the Referendum of '36.

The people had lost control of the government and did not realize it yet. That realization would come soon enough, but first they celebrated the very real positive aspects of effectiveness of government before the ugly downside of such effectiveness born of total control came to fruition.

No, I prefer the flawed beauty of goodness over the stark perfection of effectiveness any day.

[J Wolfsberger]

Our government is excellent. But by "our government" I mean the Constitution that defines it. Our politicians and federal bureaucracy? Sadly, sadly off track.

...

Excellent post.

[J Wolfsberger]

... Just look at the election process for presidency that allows for a president who lost the popular vote.

Deliberately designed to provide for exactly that possibility, by people who understood that a majority could screw things up just as thoroughly as an unelected, tiny minority (at the time referred to as "nobility") and thought it prudent to design a system that forced the presidency to represent as much of the diversity of a large country as possible.

A mix of voting for party AND voting for candidates (~as in Germany) allows for having ...

... real jerks elected on a party ticket who would never get into office any other way, since it makes it rather difficult to "split the ticket."

Your constitution that was basically designed for oligarchy is hardly "excellent".

No. It was basically designed by and for people who embraced the ideas of self determination and limited government and rejected a great deal of arrogant, hereditary "elitism" found in Europe then and now. (Then = aristocracy, now = progressive elite, both = [self snip to avoid the ire of moderators]) Which is why our government, when working properly, is structured around the exact "dysfunction" quite a few people are complaining of today. The semantic content of that complaining is: "the system is working but we aren't getting our way."

I wouldn't expect you to understand the why's of our culture and government. But when criticizing what you don't understand, keep in mind that this country was founded and built by people who wanted to discard much of what they left behind. That includes political structures designed and intended then, as now, to entrench self appointed elites. We aren't perfect, we get things wrong, and sometimes we take to long to recognize and fix our mistakes, but for all that we do a better job than most other countries, most of the time.

[Fuchs]

Also, for what it is worth, Hitler had 44% of the popular vote in 33; and the Nazis pulled down 99% with 99% of the populace offically voting in the Referendum of '36.

WRONG.
That was no election, that was a racket.

The last real election of the Weimar Republic was in November 1932; 33%

What Americans rarely grasp is that in many countries governments are not one-party governments, but coalitions. Hitler needed and got the support of the national-conservative party for a coalition to rule Germany.

[Fuchs]

Deliberately designed to provide for exactly that possibility, by people who understood that a majority could screw things up just as thoroughly as an unelected, tiny minority (at the time referred to as "nobility") and thought it prudent to design a system that forced the presidency to represent as much of the diversity of a large country as possible.



... real jerks elected on a party ticket who would never get into office any other way, since it makes it rather difficult to "split the ticket."



No. It was basically designed by and for people who embraced the ideas of self determination and limited government and rejected a great deal of arrogant, hereditary "elitism" found in Europe then and now. (Then = aristocracy, now = progressive elite, both = [self snip to avoid the ire of moderators]) Which is why our government, when working properly, is structured around the exact "dysfunction" quite a few people are complaining of today. The semantic content of that complaining is: "the system is working but we aren't getting our way."

I wouldn't expect you to understand the why's of our culture and government. But when criticizing what you don't understand, keep in mind that this country was founded and built by people who wanted to discard much of what they left behind. That includes political structures designed and intended then, as now, to entrench self appointed elites. We aren't perfect, we get things wrong, and sometimes we take to long to recognize and fix our mistakes, but for all that we do a better job than most other countries, most of the time.

You are likely ill-informed.

The very early constitution led to little more than a club of gentlemen voting on how to rule the country as an oligarchy.


German can and do "split " their vote. I have two votes. One is for a choice of candidates and one is for a choice of parties. I can withhold one or for example choose a red candidate and a black party.


What Americans left behind was economic misery, some religious suppression, some African tribal societies, some famine and last but not least some monarchies.
Their constitution answered the latter, and that was more than 200 years ago. Newer constitutions include many more lessons, most obvious in the German one. That, by the way, was influenced by Americans who gave council and did not promote a 1:1 copy, but an advance over it.



What you demonstrate is the belief in (U.S.) American exceptionalism (in a positive meaning). That's quite fitting, as it's an as outdated view in this context as in many others.
Nowadays the U.S. constitution is merely an obsolete piece, full of poorly designed features, lacking incorporation of many important lessons and fitting only for a culture of inability to reform.


I don't claim that ours is near-perfect or a good example, but it was written to incorporate advances of more than 150 years over the U.S. constitution.


Btw, the U.S. constitution wasn't the first or even the first modern constitution. Corsica had the first modern one, in 1755. The oldest constitution still in use dates back to 1600; San Marino.


I understand that there has been a revival of interest in the U.S. constitution, if not even worshipping. Same for "founding fathers".
This doesn't change the fact that its lack of reform (instead mere amendments) means that it's a low quality constitution by modern Western standards.

You gotta read more than one constitution to see that with your own eyes, of course.

[J Wolfsberger]

German can and do "split " their vote. I have two votes. One is for a choice of candidates and one is for a choice of parties. I can withhold one or for example choose a red candidate and a black party.

OK. Your country, not mine. Sorry if I gave any impression that I thought I had a detailed understanding of how your electoral process works. I'd be interested in what the two vote system accomplishes, if you want to explain.

The very early constitution led to little more than a club of gentlemen voting on how to rule the country as an oligarchy.

No. Period. To borrow a quote, "You are likely ill-informed." But then, it's our history not yours, so that's understandable. And if you have tried to get an understanding of our history from left wing, revisionist, post modern, progressive, etc. "historians" you have a great deal to unlearn.

You might, however, consider that our form of government is "republican," not "democratic." It is based on the concept of shared, limited sovereignty. That is a fact quite a few of my fellow countrymen don't grasp, and since many of the writers for national media fall in that group, if they (or the previously mentioned "historians") are your source of information you'll be a bit confused about what the U.S. is and is supposed to be, as well as one of the major sources of our current internal dispute.

If I understand your criticisms, The U.S. Constitution is "low quality" because

1. it's not shiny new
2. doesn't include some undefined "lessons"
3. fitting only for a culture of inability to reform.

OK. The first, I'll give you. Many of us are quite happy with that, see no need to change it for the sake of changing it, have severe reservations about some of the esoteric features of shinier, newer constitutions, and tend to tune out critics who can't explain the features of what we've got now. On this point, guilty as charged and happy about it.

On the second, you could describe the "lessons" you think we should pay attention to.

On the third, well, I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. You could clarify that, too.

[Fuchs]

Wolfsberger, the early U.S. elections had property requirements for voting eligibility. That WAS oligarchy. Less than 1% of the population voted in 1792. Medieval independent German cities were more of a republic than that.
The constitution did not ensure that voting rights were truly universal. That lesson had to be learned and was incorporated in later constitutions with a more precise wording.

The U.S. itself corrected much of this problem with a patchwork of amendments, but there are still over 5 million people excluded from voting because of felonies in the U.S. - and the responsible legislation varies between states. Even minor offenses suffice to take away many people's voting rights.

This and the horrible effects of a pure majority voting system (-> two party system) are among the most important lessons learned for later constitutions. The lingering threat of rotten boroughs is another failure of the U.S. and many states' constitution(s). Some congressional district redefinitions have strongly favoured the ruling party of the state.

No. Period. To borrow a quote, "You are likely ill-informed."

I retract the "likely".

[J Wolfsberger]

I retract the "likely".

As will I.

[motorfirebox]

I think our Constitution is pretty good for what it is, but I had my druthers there would be some changes. For instance, to heck with this 'one man, one vote' crap; I want one man, five votes, weighted by order of preference. Or at least something like Germany's simultaneous candidate/party vote. That, plus some very sharp limits on corporations.

But frankly, I would be absolutely terrified if a new Constitutional Convention were formed in this day and age. With tempers this high, and rhetoric this inflamed, the best we could possibly hope for would be semi-peaceful Balkanization.

[Dayuhan]

I think our Constitution is pretty good for what it is, but I had my druthers there would be some changes. For instance, to heck with this 'one man, one vote' crap; I want one man, five votes, weighted by order of preference. Or at least something like Germany's simultaneous candidate/party vote. That, plus some very sharp limits on corporations.

I've always thought of a "none of the above" option: if "none of the above" won the parties would have to pick new candidates and do it again. Of course in practice that would probably just leave us stuck with the incumbents, which would suck.

I don't really see "the system" as the problem, more the people in it, and no system is going to be immune to that problem.

Americans all love to hate "the corporations" [insert warding-off-evil symbol here], but might do well to reflect on where those "high paying jobs" everyone talks about actually come from. Ghastly as the corporations are, we'd be well stuffed without them.

[J Wolfsberger]

I've always thought of a "none of the above" option: if "none of the above" won the parties would have to pick new candidates and do it again. Of course in practice that would probably just leave us stuck with the incumbents, which would suck.

Or we could just leave the office empty.

Which ...

... might not suck when you think about it.

[Entropy]

I understand that there has been a revival of interest in the U.S. constitution, if not even worshipping. Same for "founding fathers".
This doesn't change the fact that its lack of reform (instead mere amendments) means that it's a low quality constitution by modern Western standards.

Fuchs,

Constitutions reflect the the values of the people and the circumstances under which they are governed. America is exceptional in this regard, and by exceptional I do not mean "better" but "different." The USA is a political union and not a nation-state like Germany which, like most of Europe, is a collection of people who are largely homogenous in terms of ethnicity, language, culture and religion. You don't see, for example, something like birthright citizenship in most nation-states for this reason - a homogenous people are ever afraid that the "other" will come in, multiply and dilute the ethnic and cultural values upon which the nation-state is based. Birthright citizenship is one feature our political union that sets us apart from nation-states. Another is decentralized power since our states are, technically at least, still sovereign entities in many respects. The federal government has no power to redraw state borders, for example.

Our constitution was a compromise between the original states which were, at the time, sovereign entities, and its purpose was to create a federal government to provide services for those states. The other states that joined since the first are now part of that "deal" and are more that mere administrative divisions.

Secondly, stating that this or that constitution is "better" doesn't really mean much. How does one define "better" in terms of a constitution? Is there some objective standard that all nations aspire too? I don't think so once one moves beyond basic civil rights. People's and cultures are different and to suggest that something is wrong, or outdated, or obsolete is to engage in the arrogant paternalistic assumption that one knows what's best for others. The US system is not without its flaws but it's served us well throughout our history.

[slapout9]

Real news Network interview on is Capitalism dead. Near the end you will here the comment of how we are living dangerously.There is some Marxian analysis in here also on how economics leads to Revolutions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy5iG...&feature=feedu

[Ken White]

It's not dead -- or even wounded. Humans living dangerously is not new, that's well over 5,000 years old as well -- only the predators and jungles change a bit.

Marx, OTOH is dead and though his system and aberrations of it still live, sort of, they're on shaky legs simply because people can be greedy and just won't play fair. Every system of nominal socialism over the last 50 centuries has failed and has generally done so catastrophically but folks will keep trying...

Those failures are proof that capitalism won't die. Instead of trying to replace it -- which is futile -- great thinkers ought to concentrate on ways to improve it instead of wasting time on something that human foibles will not permit to attain lasting success.

I never cease to be amazed at the number of folks who want to make frontal assaults instead of figuring out what and where the flaws are and using those as leverage to obtain lasting as opposed to possible temporary improvements. Many of those folks want level playing fields, forgetting the earth has very few level spots and if man makes one, he needs to watch it or Mother earth will unlevel it for him. They also want people to be equal -- that's not going to happen until we can manufacture them. Greed, energy, ambition and ego intertwine in too many ways for perfect or even much improved social equilibrium to ever be attained. Instead of trying to replace a natural tendency with one that is unnatural we should try to assist Mama Nature and do it her way...

[Bob's World]

Agree. Capitalism, that is properly regulated, is the way to go. The debate of Capitalism vs Marxism reminds me of one of my favorite quotes on Democracy.

"We are now forming a republican government. Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate government." Alexander Hamilton, June 26, 1787

The "extremes of capitalism / Marxism" are to economies much as the extremes of despotism / democracy are to governance. Finding that sweet spot and guarding effectively against those who will always seek to abuse any system for their own selfish gains is the key to success.

We are so far away from the "sweet spot" that it is no wonder many are ready to throw out the baby with the bath.

[slapout9]

I never cease to be amazed at the number of folks who want to make frontal assaults instead of figuring out what and where the flaws are and using those as leverage to obtain lasting as opposed to possible temporary improvements.

I was tempted to say so you agree completely with Marx But I think you would want a little more detail. So I will break it done in parts. First there were 2 Marx (probably done intentionally by the Commies) There was Marx the economist and Marx the social revolutionary. One wrote On Capitol and the other wrote the Communist Manifesto(which was probably more Engels than Marx,some evidence to that but no real proof).

Some back round on how I came to this conclusion. My main mission in life at the time I joined the 82nd back in 72 was to find the Billy Jack Green Beret manual and to find out what these Green Beret guys really did. I accomplished both reasonably well IMO. When I went through the one minute guerrilla warfare course I had to stay behind for 2 extra days after the problem was over(for reasons I want go into) but I spent a great deal of time with a Team Sergeant who had been doing his job since.....a long time. Behind an excellent Fish Camp he drank a lot of beer and I ate a lot of cheeseburgers and drank a lot of coffee. And he told me to read Karl Marx for basic grounding on what is happening in the world and a lot of other things as well. So as soon as I got back to Bragg I beat feet down to the Special Forces bookstore and got a copy of the Commie Manifest but had to go to the Main Post Library to get On Capitol. To very different people wrote those books even though there is some basic commonality in both of them.

So in order to understand the enemy I came away with 3 main rules of Commie Revolutionary Warfare(Living Dangerously). Rule 2 is that the Commies believed the best way to take over a country is to destroy the Economy, this makes Capitalism(capitalism is banking) extremely vulnerable because of our belief that if the Government acts to protect the economic well being of the people we are all turning into Commies by default as opposed to actually stopping the threat from gaining hold in America. As you point out it is out vulnerable flank and they are exploiting it to this day, except now they have religion thrown in with it. End of part 1

[Ken White]

I was tempted to say so you agree completely with Marx

With respect to what you quoted, yep, I do. BUT that sin't "completely."

First there were 2 Marx (probably done intentionally by the Commies) There was Marx the economist and Marx the social revolutionary. One wrote On Capitol and the other wrote the Communist Manifesto(which was probably more Engels than Marx,some evidence to that but no real proof).

Agree it was probably more attributable the guy from the even more wealthy Engels family. While I don't agree with Marx on capital and its evils, he wasn't totally out to lunch economically speaking -- politically, he was just overly hopeful. People can't or won't go that route for very long, greed and generational change get involved...

...had to go to the Main Post Library to get On Capitol.

If you'de been there three years earlier, we might have bumped into each other -- I spent a lot of time there...

Rule 2 is that the Commies believed the best way to take over a country is to destroy the Economy, this makes Capitalism(capitalism is banking) extremely vulnerable because of our belief that if the Government acts to protect the economic well being of the people we are all turning into Commies by default as opposed to actually stopping the threat from gaining hold in America. As you point out it is out vulnerable flank and they are exploiting it to this day, except now they have religion thrown in with it. End of part 1

Education. True on the economy and on religion (or strong secularity...) -- and they had success in getting us to harm our own economic system by properly leveraging our flaws.

However, they also spent much time and effort on corrupting the western education systems. Due to our decentralized approach, they had a great deal of success here as was true in the UK. France and Germany with more centralized systems were able to blunt most of the efforts of the KGB et.al. with respect to dimunition of the educational systems. Note that education attack had and has -- and will continue to have -- follow on second, third and more order economic effects as well...