Posted on 12/09/2007 6:39:31 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
In last week's column I highlighted comments made to the Financial Times of London by U.S. Comptroller General David Walker in which he compared the current political, social, and economic situation in the United States to that of the Roman Empire shortly before its collapse.
I heard from a number of readers in response to the column… Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians. While a couple of folks used the opportunity to plug a particular presidential candidate or legislative issue, almost all were in agreement that things in our nation must change drastically and quickly.
Despite a booming economy, low unemployment, and a stock market near record highs… most people feel a sense of gloom and a greater disconnect from their government than I have ever witnessed. This is verified in a recent Reuters/Zogby poll that shows President Bush's approval rating falling to 24%. Think that's bad? Nancy Pelosi's Democrat congress has an approval rating of only 11%.
If you drill down deep into various polling data, you'll find that most Americans are furious with Bush over his failure to deal with illegal immigration. Then you have liberals who want us out of Iraq and conservatives who believe Bush didn't allow the military to hit hard enough in the first few months of the war and now we have a quagmire. Then we have continued runaway federal spending by donkeys and elephants.
In response Democrats gained control of both houses of Congress, only to have America say, "Hey we let you in because we were mad at Bush and the GOP… not because we want socialism." Many Americans feel as though they now have no voice remaining in national matters.
For the next few minutes let's lay aside political party, economic status, race, religion, and all the other multitude of differences that politicians are all too adept at exploiting. Keep an open mind and look at each issue from the standpoint of what is good for the long-term health of our nation even if it negatively impacts you personally. Here are some changes that might help America reverse course.
Money In Politics: Only allow federal candidates to receive contributions from individuals, and that would be capped at $2,000 per contributor per election cycle. No more political action committee donations. No more money spent by political parties or third parties on behalf of candidates… and wealthy candidates could only spend one dollar of their own money for every ten they raise from others.
Term Limits: I've never been sold on the idea, but obviously Congress would not pass restrictions on campaign contributions like those above, so I guess our next step is to force them out after a few years.
Abolish The 17th Amendment: Under the U.S. Constitution as adopted the people elected U.S. House members to represent their interests. However the public did not vote for their U.S. Senators. The senators were appointed by their respective state legislatures to represent and protect the interests of the various state governments. This was designed to keep the federal government from overreaching with unfunded mandates that would unduly burden the states, etc. However, in 1913 the 17th Amendment was passed that allowed public election of the Senate and it has been all downhill from there.
Change the Presidency: It's ridiculous for the next presidential campaign to start the day after a president is sworn in for his term of office. Let's elect our Presidents to a single six-year term, and prevent potential candidates from raising money or forming exploratory committees until twelve months before the next general election.
Additionally there is no Constitutional right to vote in a presidential primary, though most states hold them. Let's abolish primaries and let each political party hold conventions at the state level to select delegates. Then the national party conventions would once again become the place where nominees are chosen instead of being the obscene beauty contests we have today. Hold the national conventions in July and the presidential nominees would then have at least three months to campaign… no more of these four-year long debacles.
Re-Constitutionalize The Federal Government: I'm not sure if re-constitutionlize is even a word, but I'll take credit for it. Somebody drop a line to Webster's for me. Our founders envisioned each state as an incubator for new ideas with the Constitution guaranteeing free trade between the states.
Current federal programs such as Social Security, Medicaid, SCHIP and other entitlements… or even federal funding of education or transportation should have never have been allowed constitutionally. As envisioned by our founders, states would compete against each other on tax rates, social programs, etc. If New York wants to provide healthcare for all of its residents, and Virginia doesn't want to cover any of its citizens… then that's fine. Let the free market decide which state will be most successful.
It would have been easy for me to harp on specific legislative solutions to some of our problems, but the truth is… until we correct the flaws in our system of electing Congress and the President… and also guide our nation back to adherence of the Constitution as our founders intended, we'll never have the national will to do anything more than put bandages on the problems facing us.
Upon adjournment of the Constitutional Convention, when a citizen asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the founders had given us… Franklin said, "A republic, if you can keep it." Today the question should be, "Do we want to keep it?" If the answer is yes, are you willing to work to make the necessary changes?
Chuck Shiflett is a smart guy. I like all his points.
Let’s do it.
And this is going to save us from falling like the Roman Empire, huh? Since there doesn’t seem to be much consensus on what exactly caused the downfall of the Roman Empire, it’s interesting to see these solutions.
Current federal programs such as Social Security, Medicaid, SCHIP and other entitlements… or even federal funding of education or transportation should have never have been allowed constitutionally. As envisioned by our founders, states would compete against each other on tax rates, social programs, etc. If New York wants to provide healthcare for all of its residents, and Virginia doesn't want to cover any of its citizens… then that's fine. Let the free market decide which state will be most successful.
If I am correct, this was how it was under the Articles of Confederation.
In his list, the most important reform is TERM LIMITS. There should be no professional politicians.
I tend to disagree with Pat Buchanan about half of the time, but his new book seems to point toward many of the same things that Shiflet is saying and I am in agreement with both men.
The US is in trouble and Buchanan has nailed a vast majority of the reasons. Where Shiflet seems to fall short with the sampling of solutions he presents is that he doesn’t mention anything about shrinking both the size and influence of the federal government to conform more with the vision of the Founding Fathers. Also, he doesn’t address the horrible tax structure we have, the bloated national debt (albeit shrinking), and the theft and re-direction of taxes collected for specific programs (gas tax and SS come to mind).
For my own $0.02 worth, not only would I like to see term limits imposed on all elected positions, I would also like to see them imposed on federal judges, especially the SCOTUS. At present, we have no way to get rid of SC justices who shouldn’t be on the bench. I propose a term of 10 years with the option to be re-appointed for a second 10 year term. I also propose that Congress be prohibited by law from transferring its regulatory and taxing authority to other agencies that have no accountability to the taxpayers.
Finally, I would like to see Congressional sessions limited to 6 months every other year. This cuts down on a lot of the shenanigans and grandstanding they engage in and requires them to focus on the business of the country. If needed, the president should have the authority to call then into special sessions. And, while I’m at it, I want the Capitol to be occupied for only 1 of those 6 month sessions. Communications technologies today are more than capable of providing all of the services required for the Congress to meet and keep the representatives and senators in their home districts. This way, they have to live in the mess they make, instead of isolating themselves in Washington where they insulate themselves from the people who put them there.
/rant
A good question to those who would love to see it go the way of the Roman Empire would be: do you want to live in the world that is run by China, Russia and Europe fighting over who will grab what?
While I agree with the desired outcome, here is the fatal flaw with term limits: imagine the entire government run the way the State Department is run, that is by an entrenched bureaucracy. The issue with term limits is that the pols who come and go cannot stay long enough to gain an institutional memory. They must rely on the ever-present staff employees, who know that pols will come and go, so they can do almost whatever they please. Term limits only increase the power of the bureaucrats who become even less responsive to citizens because citizens have almost no power over them.
Success caused its downfall.
As envisioned by our founders, states would compete against each other on tax rates, social programs, etc.
At a Fred Thompson meeting I asked why he called himself a federalist. In his answer he talked about the importance of states competing.
You make a good point but, IMO, that’s a simple enough fix - clean house. When the politician goes, so does the herd of barking dogs who supported him (staff) other than the admins who can train his replacement how to turn the computer on and access pending bills.
Without a crew of “Yes men and women” anround to tell the moron how to think, he/she may actually have to write their own speeches.
I know that’s an overly simplistic answer to a complex problem, but the rot at all levels of government has to stop. The best way to stop rot is to replace all the rotten components.
Starting in 2010, 401Ks for politicians and judges. Let the taxpayers do a 6% match and then give ‘em a rollover whenever they leave. Gotta grandfather the current bunch or they won’t vote for it.
Right now they can screw up the country and not have to worry about their retirements - now at the taxpayers’ expense, complete with COLAs. Maybe if their own future was as stake like ours, they’d be a little more careful on how they voted.
You do know the Articles of Confederation were replaced because they were not allowing for an effective Government?
I like his ideas about Campaign finance reform. Term limits often seem to me to be a solution in search of a problem.
Allowing a government with virtually unlimited powers in such a large country without a free press is a formula for despotism because it is impossible to keep track of what the lying thieves in DC are doing unless you are accurately informed.
But since the press is no longer free (in the sense of presenting competing opinions), but almost monolithically leftist, we need an amendment to restore press freedom by licensing journalists and/or fining media outlets for bias in reporting, etc.
read
This is the point. It’s not about WANTING to keep it; it’s that we are definitely starting to LOSE “it” (federalism). We need to go back to states’ rights and to find some compromise re free speech/elections/money. I believe that this triangle may need some sort of Constitutional amendment. I believe the founders, if alive, would be huddled over this one, what with immediate countrywide information spread that we have today.
Someone else said that nothing will happen as long as we have dumbing-down driveby media, and there is a good point to this. But we need to fight for it anyway. Will President Fred Thompson have the cojones to put aside the urgent for the Very Important and try to sit down with the American people and explain it to them? Without a serious leader, nothing will change. Americans need to understand that we are at a crossroads and need to make sure we move in the direction the country was intended, toward freedom, and clean up the money-power-election fiasco which is leading us to oligarchy and feudalism.
Another idea could be a school of journalism that would somehow crank out freedom-loving constitutionalists. In other words, not indoctrinate.
Hmmm... since success caused the fall of Rome, then if we destroy most of America's success, then we won't fall like Rome did! See? The Left really does have America's best interests at heart!!
Bump for bookmark
The "money in politics" thing is always a thorny issue though. I kinda like the idea mentioned further down of only allowing donations from within a district, though it would most likely be really hard to police. I suspect we'd benefit more by transparency. Disallowing bundling would go a long way into letting us know where money is coming from that funds a given candidate.
Term limits: probably an idea whose time has come.
I'm right there with him on abolishing the 17th amendment! In addition to giving more power to states, (as it was originally intended), it would probably help to reinvigorate state party organizations because they would become more meaningful. Read through the Texas party positions, and you'll see that it is a heck of a lot more libertarian than national ones are.
I don't see any point in changing the term of the presidency.
I'd also get rid of the income tax, and the war on (some) drugs.
We’ve been falling for some time.
Rome declined over centuries, with some ups and down, but the overall trend was down.
We are doing the same.
The rise of the left, and the slide to the left of those who today call themselves “conservatives,” are all part of our decline.
Bumperoo!
Yes, however, we really do need a government that is competent to execute the enumerated powers such as running the courts and seeing to our defense. We will not be well served by a continual churn of newbies getting OJT (on job training) by making the same, sometimes expensive, mistakes the last crop of newbies made.
There is an old physician’s axiom: Obstruction Begets Infection. When bureaucrats can insulate themselves from the view and control of the taxpayers, their activities start to take on a self-serving life of their own. This is the infection that we often see, such as the one raging through our intelligence community and State Department. The puss from that infection just leaked out in the form of the well-tuned bomb of the recent NIE, the one that now makes it almost impossible for the US to lean on the Iranians to stop their rush to building a nuclear weapon.
To clear an infection, it is essential to remove the obstruction- to allow the public to be aware about the activities of as much of the bureaucracy as possible. The sheer magnitude of our government makes this impossible, which is yet one more reason that for our own liberty, we must have smaller government.
In reference to your suggestion, maybe the best way to do this is to just create a brand new function of government, staff it with people whose loyalty has been vetted, and decommission the previous department. Even after doing that, it will only be a matter of time before that new department must share the same fate.
I don’t know about consensus about the Roman Empire and parallels to the United States, but my take is this: The Roman Empire succeeded mightily when it was important to become a Roman citizen. The Romans first goal was to acheive empire. That kept people busy doing it as a national focus. Then the second goal was to have conquered nations or individuals wishing to join the empire EARN CITIZENSHIP. When the people of the empire inherited citizenship or it was sold to raise money for the empire, it all went downhill. Our current empire needs a national focus that requires something just as big as what the Roman’s were trying to do on earth at their time. Something like the colonization of Mars or eternal life. Humans get bored when we more or less have it all. It’s that simple. We may not be able to get out of this pattern without the national goal before we are attacked with a WMD. Our economy is fragile and greed for toys cannot be our sole national focus.
The citizenship issue is what I look at too. When Rome was great, it was a great honor to be a Roman citizen and an honor to be admitted into the legions. When citizenship became unimportant (and by the end it was a mockery of it’s former self) and military service was something to be avoided (and mocked), you had an empire in decline.
Basically, when a good number of a peoples believe that their country isn’t better than others and isn’t something to be proud of, you can start counting the years before it is gone as you knew it.
Abolishing the 17th amendment will do that by natural attrition
“Since there doesn’t seem to be much consensus on what exactly caused the downfall of the Roman Empire”
Global Warming?
You got it Laptop - and that is how the Left feels about our nation now, that it is bad as it is and must be changed. Truth is, much of what is bad is from the Left. Their hand-outs and wealth redistribution causes laziness and time to think about how ‘discontent’ people are. That is what happened in France and that is what is going on here. Of course, the good people bearing the burden stop becoming productive after ahwile, because it means nothing to themselves or their society.
It’s a snowball effect and one that must be broken. Hopefully, a good POTUS could get us all dreaming of what can be, like a Regean did or a JFK. I don’t see these kinds of people around but then again, Regean did surprise all of us continuously.
But unfortunately as stated, the shame is that it is likely this will be our enemies to make the majority of America realize what we truly have. If 911 didn’t do it, I shudder to think of what will in that regard. This next elected President may be the last in terms of our current political structure. Someday, it might just be the United America under God once we have reclaimed and rebuilt this land after catastrophe. The Romans did it, it is now simply Italy.
I agree, but it's an endless cycle. We expected, I trhink, the Dems to get more liberal, but I don't think we expected them to reach out to the fringe elements as part of their base, nor did we expect them to drag the 'Pubbies further to the left with them.
Which leads us to a conundrum - if we know that we can't trust the elected reps to stick with their commitments to the US, the Constitution, their states and their constituents, how can we expect "people whose loyalty has been vetted" to keep their commitments year after year?
You more or less answer your own question, but this is a fundamental part of the problem we see with the State Dept. IMO, it has been slightly less of a problem in the Congress with staffers that go from politician to politician as the voters make changes but, never before in our history (that I'm aware of) have we have a political situation such as we have today - voters who want solutions, but not the ones being proffered by the Congress. And, as current polls indicate, the voters are none too thrilled with either political party. Frankly, based on the current political situation, I think that next year's election is a tossup, despite the predictions by the pundits. Currently, the voters are less than thrilled with representatives from either party.
Really? How will abolishing the 17th Amendment get rid of the Dept. of Education, the Dept. of Agriculture, the DHS as well as the FCC, the IRS, the CBO, etc., etc., etc.? By abolishing the 17th Amendment, all we do is restore the Representative Republic from the "democracy" we currently have. That's a big step in the right direction (and I certainly support!), but I'm missing the "natural attrition" component of your comment. Please explain how you envision the natural attrition effect to address the size of government subsequent to abolishing the 17th Amendment.
The Founders had no illusions about the press-- both Hamilton and Jefferson paid editors to publish scandals about each other and each other's parties.
But while they knew any given newspaper would be partisan, they assumed that there would always be a multiplicity of partisan viewpoints, unless the government suppressed partisan outlets contrary to the party in power. Hence the 1st Amendment.
They never foresaw the kind of alien and despotic European-leftist cultural and political uniformity fomented by mass society, mass education (or mis-education). So how moght one reintroduce a multiplicity of voices in mass media is not just a practical problem but a methodological one-- maybe 'mass media' (analogously with 'mass production') are just better (more profitable) at stamping out one type of opinion and distributing it broadly.
So how can we incentivize (financially) the distribution of multiple viewpoints? Or is it already happening through the internet and we just have to wait for the boomers to die off?
Not ignoring you...Just processing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.