"A republic, if you can keep it." -- Benjamin Franklin
That was the immediate response when someone asked what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had organized in 1787.
By definition, a pure democracy is unworkable except in small city-states where every citizen participates directly in the work of government. The term originated in ancient Greece, where citizens had the available time and resources to take part in discussions of every issue. However, voting rights were limited to men. Women could not participate, and almost all work was done by slaves, who were not citizens.
Even in 18th Century America, when the Constitution was written, voting rights were reserved for white male property owners. It wasn't until the 20th Century that women gained the right to vote. And it took many years before blacks in America, who were officially freed from slavery at the time of the Civil War, could exercise fully the rights of citizenship, including voting. Even today, there are many efforts to stifle these rights.
Therefore, constant vigilance is needed to preserve and protect the rights of citizenship, and the best way to exercise that vigilance is through voting.
Citizens do this in order to preserve and protect "a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
So says the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America.
But by neglecting to vote, by failing to participate in the hard-won rights and privileges of this democratic republic, citizens put in danger the very rights and privileges they say they cherish.
America is not a pure democracy in the original sense of the word, since not every citizen can participate directly in government. Instead, we elect representatives to do the work of government for us. In that sense, America is a republic, as Franklin rightly noted. Moreover, it is a democratic republic, since citizens select among candidates for government offices.
So to insure domestic tranquility, it's important to choose representatives best able to do the job entrusted to them.
Tuesday, Nov. 8, 2016, is the day for American citizen-voters to make that choice. This year, many say the choice is difficult, and some will decide the choice will be too difficult, or they dislike the choices, so they will not participate.
That, however, is to abandon the right and privilege of citizenship. If you don't vote, you lose the right to complain about the result. As it is, many are already complaining.
These complainers may be among the many registered voters who take no action on Election Day. Historically, some 60 percent of registered voters -- give or take a few points -- actually participate in the process of electing a President.
The choice this year may not be clear, and for many very difficult to make. All the more reason to act.
Sunday, November 6, 2016
Friday, November 4, 2016
The Politics of Smear
More people are working, the unemployment rate is below 5 percent, and the international trade deficit fell sharply as exports rose and imports dropped.
All this comes out just four days before Election Day, yet candidates have been talking more about personal problems than about economic issues that affect millions of voters.
Who knew that the politics of fear and animosity could so seriously overwhelm the more fundamental issues of how well Mr. and Mrs. Average American Family are coping?
Yet that's the picture that the candidates are ranting about, even as economic success reports continue to paint a good picture.
Payroll employment rose by 161,000 in October, the Labor Department reported today, as unemployment held at 4.9 percent. Separately, the Census Bureau said the trade deficit in September fell nearly 10 percent, to $26.4 billion, from $40.5 billion in August.
Moreover, the Federal Reserve Board held off any interest rate action at its Open Market Committee meeting the other day, deciding it would be better to wait for firmer signs of economic recovery, rather than take a chance on interfering with the moderately healthy growth.
Yet the politicians have not seized on this good news, and instead continue to attack each other on perceived and unproven allegations of criminal behavior on one side, and documented examples of sexual misbehavior and creative accounting on the other, to the extent of gaming the system and paying little or no income taxes for years.
Who's setting the priorities? It seems the politics of smear are more effective in attracting votes than the politics of progress.
All this comes out just four days before Election Day, yet candidates have been talking more about personal problems than about economic issues that affect millions of voters.
Who knew that the politics of fear and animosity could so seriously overwhelm the more fundamental issues of how well Mr. and Mrs. Average American Family are coping?
Yet that's the picture that the candidates are ranting about, even as economic success reports continue to paint a good picture.
Payroll employment rose by 161,000 in October, the Labor Department reported today, as unemployment held at 4.9 percent. Separately, the Census Bureau said the trade deficit in September fell nearly 10 percent, to $26.4 billion, from $40.5 billion in August.
Moreover, the Federal Reserve Board held off any interest rate action at its Open Market Committee meeting the other day, deciding it would be better to wait for firmer signs of economic recovery, rather than take a chance on interfering with the moderately healthy growth.
Yet the politicians have not seized on this good news, and instead continue to attack each other on perceived and unproven allegations of criminal behavior on one side, and documented examples of sexual misbehavior and creative accounting on the other, to the extent of gaming the system and paying little or no income taxes for years.
Who's setting the priorities? It seems the politics of smear are more effective in attracting votes than the politics of progress.
Thursday, November 3, 2016
Wordsmanship
Wordsman, sharp thy pencil.
Self-appointed guardians of the public morals insist that the "right" way of behaving is their way, and others should behave in the manner specified by them.
Too often, however, these same guardians do not practice what they preach. In the public world, then, it falls to others to point out the hypocrisy, and report the details to members of the general public who perversely may choose not to believe evidence, but to hold tightly to what the self-appointed leader tells them.
To a large extent, the leader's success is a combination of showmanship and salesmanship, and there are many examples of this phenomenon in literature and in life.
A prominent fictional example of rampant hypocrisy is "Elmer Gantry," the 1927 novel by Sinclair Lewis, brought to film life in the movie of the same name.
Lewis often brought his sharp pencil to bear on abuses found throughout the country, at first in news reports, and then fictionalized. John Steinbeck did the same, as did Ernest Hemingway. Their novels live on, while people forget the factual basis for much of their work.
Journalists today deal with similar issues. Their task is to expose lies and hypocrisy, comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
The downside is that they are often attacked by those same people who are the targets of journalistic exposes. The upside is that these same attacks and criticisms are duly reported in the news media, thus extending the print and airtime life of the very stories that the perpetrators prefer be buried and ignored.
Criticizing reporters doesn't make the story go away. They only sharpen their pencils and work more diligently to uncover more detailed information to back up the first story.
Magazines, too, historically have had a reputation of digging up facts to document that the self-appointed political or moral guardians are not what they claim to be. Theodore Roosevelt famously coined the term "muckrakers" to describe journalists who rake through muck to find and publicize details that would tarnish the carefully polished reputation of many public officials.
But rather than be embarrassed by the term, the diligent journalists adopted the term and gloried in their roles as muckrakers.
So it is with journalists today, and the core of the issue is a choice of whom to believe; the politician or the reporter -- the blustering candidate who insists he is the sole repository of wisdom but provides no evidence for his claims, or the many journalists who document their reports with easily provable evidence.
Or, as Chico Marx once put it, "Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?"
Self-appointed guardians of the public morals insist that the "right" way of behaving is their way, and others should behave in the manner specified by them.
Too often, however, these same guardians do not practice what they preach. In the public world, then, it falls to others to point out the hypocrisy, and report the details to members of the general public who perversely may choose not to believe evidence, but to hold tightly to what the self-appointed leader tells them.
To a large extent, the leader's success is a combination of showmanship and salesmanship, and there are many examples of this phenomenon in literature and in life.
A prominent fictional example of rampant hypocrisy is "Elmer Gantry," the 1927 novel by Sinclair Lewis, brought to film life in the movie of the same name.
Lewis often brought his sharp pencil to bear on abuses found throughout the country, at first in news reports, and then fictionalized. John Steinbeck did the same, as did Ernest Hemingway. Their novels live on, while people forget the factual basis for much of their work.
Journalists today deal with similar issues. Their task is to expose lies and hypocrisy, comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
The downside is that they are often attacked by those same people who are the targets of journalistic exposes. The upside is that these same attacks and criticisms are duly reported in the news media, thus extending the print and airtime life of the very stories that the perpetrators prefer be buried and ignored.
Criticizing reporters doesn't make the story go away. They only sharpen their pencils and work more diligently to uncover more detailed information to back up the first story.
Magazines, too, historically have had a reputation of digging up facts to document that the self-appointed political or moral guardians are not what they claim to be. Theodore Roosevelt famously coined the term "muckrakers" to describe journalists who rake through muck to find and publicize details that would tarnish the carefully polished reputation of many public officials.
But rather than be embarrassed by the term, the diligent journalists adopted the term and gloried in their roles as muckrakers.
So it is with journalists today, and the core of the issue is a choice of whom to believe; the politician or the reporter -- the blustering candidate who insists he is the sole repository of wisdom but provides no evidence for his claims, or the many journalists who document their reports with easily provable evidence.
Or, as Chico Marx once put it, "Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?"
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
Still Waiting
Those expecting a boost in interest rates to settle an uncertain economy will have to wait for Christmas or even later, as the Federal Reserve Board once again decided to take no action on its target rate for Federal Funds.
The Fed's Open Market Committee noted that the case for a boost "has continued to strengthen" from good economic signals, but the agency decided "for the time being, to wait for some further evidence of continued progress."
Part of that decision may also be based on an unwillingness to be perceived as meddling in politics, since the presidential election is less than a week away.
In any case, it's no surprise that the Fed is holding off, because while the economy is doing OK, it's not exactly a gangbuster velocity that would call for any move to tap the monetary brakes.
The Fed's Open Market Committee noted that the case for a boost "has continued to strengthen" from good economic signals, but the agency decided "for the time being, to wait for some further evidence of continued progress."
Part of that decision may also be based on an unwillingness to be perceived as meddling in politics, since the presidential election is less than a week away.
In any case, it's no surprise that the Fed is holding off, because while the economy is doing OK, it's not exactly a gangbuster velocity that would call for any move to tap the monetary brakes.
Fractions Multiply
"I belong to no organized political party. I'm a Democrat."
The Democratic Party has long been fractious, unlike Republicans, with their tradition of tight loyalty. Those roles have been reversed this election season, however, and few bookies have begun to calculate the odds of whether the split among Republicans will cause a permanent division, or even the end of the party.
It wouldn't be the first time that a major political party in America has lost its mandate and expired. The Whig Party was quite powerful until the Civil War era, when it broke up and the Republican Party was born. And a split in the Republican Party led Theodore Roosevelt to form the short-lived Progressive Party.
Meanwhile, we're watching ripples of unrest accelerate to near earthquake proportions among Republicans, as traditional leaders refuse to follow the leader designated at the convention as the party's nominee for President.
Ironically, there seems to be more unity among liberals and Democrats than among conservatives and Republicans.
Traditionally, liberals ask why things as unfair and demand answers, while conservatives maintain that the system is fair, especially when they benefit within the system. And some go so far as to cover their claims with the blessings of Divine Providence.
As noted here last June, in trying to preserve their "betterness," those of the self-perceived elite manipulate the fears and emotions of others in order to reinforce their own power positions. And as stated by George F. Baer, president of the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad in 1902, "The rights and interests of the laboring man will be protected and cared for, not by the labor agitators, but by the Christian men of property to whom God has given control of the property rights of the country."
Sound familiar? Faint echoes of that attitude still resonate in some areas of American politics, even as the phrasing is far more subtle.
At the same time, journalists are caught in the middle as they try to maintain some neutrality in reporting who said what, where, when and why. Most reporters strive toward the goal of describing what is, not what should be, and they leave the latter to the opinion pages.
That, however, doesn't prevent some political candidates from attacking as "unfair, biased and phony" any news report that doesn't agree with them.
-- Will Rogers
It wouldn't be the first time that a major political party in America has lost its mandate and expired. The Whig Party was quite powerful until the Civil War era, when it broke up and the Republican Party was born. And a split in the Republican Party led Theodore Roosevelt to form the short-lived Progressive Party.
Meanwhile, we're watching ripples of unrest accelerate to near earthquake proportions among Republicans, as traditional leaders refuse to follow the leader designated at the convention as the party's nominee for President.
Ironically, there seems to be more unity among liberals and Democrats than among conservatives and Republicans.
Traditionally, liberals ask why things as unfair and demand answers, while conservatives maintain that the system is fair, especially when they benefit within the system. And some go so far as to cover their claims with the blessings of Divine Providence.
As noted here last June, in trying to preserve their "betterness," those of the self-perceived elite manipulate the fears and emotions of others in order to reinforce their own power positions. And as stated by George F. Baer, president of the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad in 1902, "The rights and interests of the laboring man will be protected and cared for, not by the labor agitators, but by the Christian men of property to whom God has given control of the property rights of the country."
Sound familiar? Faint echoes of that attitude still resonate in some areas of American politics, even as the phrasing is far more subtle.
At the same time, journalists are caught in the middle as they try to maintain some neutrality in reporting who said what, where, when and why. Most reporters strive toward the goal of describing what is, not what should be, and they leave the latter to the opinion pages.
That, however, doesn't prevent some political candidates from attacking as "unfair, biased and phony" any news report that doesn't agree with them.
Constitutional Crisis
The candidate now warns of a constitutional crisis if his opponent wins the presidency, because she will then be investigated and prosecuted in a criminal case.
Yes, it would be a constitutional crisis if someone launched a criminal prosecution against a sitting President. That, however, would depend on how far such an attempt got, since the Constitution says nothing about such a thing. It does, however, provide for impeachment by the House of Representatives, a trial on those charges in the Senate, presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Moreover, on conviction, there can only be removal from office. The Constitution says nothing about jail time.
There have been only two occasions when a President was impeached, and neither was convicted. Those two sitting Presidents were Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Richard Nixon was facing an impeachment vote by the House, but resigned before the vote was taken. Therefore, it cannot be said that Nixon was impeached.
Whether a sitting President could be investigated, indicted, prosecuted and imprisoned in a criminal case is a question ripe for discussion in law schools and practitioners of that sometimes arcane field.
And whether a sitting President is immune from prosecution in a civil case is yet another legalistic problem.
Nonetheless, the constitutional realities have not stopped an angry candidate from demanding just such an action. Such talk may play well in some parts of the country, but a prerequisite for such legal action is a firm knowledge of the Constitution.
Yes, it would be a constitutional crisis if someone launched a criminal prosecution against a sitting President. That, however, would depend on how far such an attempt got, since the Constitution says nothing about such a thing. It does, however, provide for impeachment by the House of Representatives, a trial on those charges in the Senate, presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Moreover, on conviction, there can only be removal from office. The Constitution says nothing about jail time.
There have been only two occasions when a President was impeached, and neither was convicted. Those two sitting Presidents were Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Richard Nixon was facing an impeachment vote by the House, but resigned before the vote was taken. Therefore, it cannot be said that Nixon was impeached.
Whether a sitting President could be investigated, indicted, prosecuted and imprisoned in a criminal case is a question ripe for discussion in law schools and practitioners of that sometimes arcane field.
And whether a sitting President is immune from prosecution in a civil case is yet another legalistic problem.
Nonetheless, the constitutional realities have not stopped an angry candidate from demanding just such an action. Such talk may play well in some parts of the country, but a prerequisite for such legal action is a firm knowledge of the Constitution.
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
News Priorities
What's the news across the nation?
We have got the information
That we hope
Will serve to amuse
Youse.
Ladies and gents, Laugh-In looks at the news.
There's a major problem within the news media, in that they must choose every day which stories to run and where to put them in the limited space or time available. The standard proportion in newspapers is 60 percent ads and 40 percent news text, so the amount of news space available is fixed by the amount of advertising on any particular day.
In broadcasting, a half-hour network news program has about 20 minutes in which to pack all the important news of the day from around the world. That allows ten minutes for an introduction, commercial time, promotions for other programs, as well as closing announcements. And for a local station, which adds sports and weather to the mix, the amount of time for hard news is even less.
Now consider the pace of speech. If a news anchor speaks at the rate of 100 words per minute, and uses no video to illustrate the story, that totals perhaps 2,000 words in which to mention every news item. That comes to about 40 column inches in a daily newspaper -- perhaps half a page.
There's also the reality that many if not most reporters go for the easy stories first, especially if they're juicy and gossipy. (There's a thin line between news and gossip.) There's also the reality that news media play to their audience, whether regional or political. A North Carolina story may get big play there, but get less space and time in Pennsylvania or California. Likewise, a New Jersey story about the Republican Party, under a long-standing restraining order, possibly violating that order re: voter suppression will get big play in New Jersey newspapers, but less at other newspapers. But if it's of national interest, and one that could affect presidential election campaigning and ballot monitoring, it will get more exposure.
In short, there are always choices, and many are hard ones to make. Reality check: Some are easy, depending on the editor's regional and journalistic views. Major metropolitan and national newspapers can spend a lot resources on investigative journalism, while other newspapers may not, partly because they don't have the resources -- financial and editorial.
Nonetheless, the stuff is out there, maybe not to the extent many voters would like, but it is out there. Similarly, advocates for one political party will complain that a story is overplayed and is not important, while an opposition party will object that the same story is underplayed or even ignored.
Conclusion: When reporters are criticized by both sides, that's a good sign they're doing their jobs right.
Let's hear it for a free press and the First Amendment.
We have got the information
That we hope
Will serve to amuse
Youse.
Ladies and gents, Laugh-In looks at the news.
There's a major problem within the news media, in that they must choose every day which stories to run and where to put them in the limited space or time available. The standard proportion in newspapers is 60 percent ads and 40 percent news text, so the amount of news space available is fixed by the amount of advertising on any particular day.
In broadcasting, a half-hour network news program has about 20 minutes in which to pack all the important news of the day from around the world. That allows ten minutes for an introduction, commercial time, promotions for other programs, as well as closing announcements. And for a local station, which adds sports and weather to the mix, the amount of time for hard news is even less.
Now consider the pace of speech. If a news anchor speaks at the rate of 100 words per minute, and uses no video to illustrate the story, that totals perhaps 2,000 words in which to mention every news item. That comes to about 40 column inches in a daily newspaper -- perhaps half a page.
There's also the reality that many if not most reporters go for the easy stories first, especially if they're juicy and gossipy. (There's a thin line between news and gossip.) There's also the reality that news media play to their audience, whether regional or political. A North Carolina story may get big play there, but get less space and time in Pennsylvania or California. Likewise, a New Jersey story about the Republican Party, under a long-standing restraining order, possibly violating that order re: voter suppression will get big play in New Jersey newspapers, but less at other newspapers. But if it's of national interest, and one that could affect presidential election campaigning and ballot monitoring, it will get more exposure.
In short, there are always choices, and many are hard ones to make. Reality check: Some are easy, depending on the editor's regional and journalistic views. Major metropolitan and national newspapers can spend a lot resources on investigative journalism, while other newspapers may not, partly because they don't have the resources -- financial and editorial.
Nonetheless, the stuff is out there, maybe not to the extent many voters would like, but it is out there. Similarly, advocates for one political party will complain that a story is overplayed and is not important, while an opposition party will object that the same story is underplayed or even ignored.
Conclusion: When reporters are criticized by both sides, that's a good sign they're doing their jobs right.
Let's hear it for a free press and the First Amendment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)