Category Archives: Politics

Self-Determination: A Defining American Characteristic

My first characteristic of what makes the United States of America different than most other nations is the concept of self-determination. In other words, we chose our own form of government and our own leaders, and have maintained that for over 230 years. Actually, the choosing of our government goes back much further than that.

The residents of Waterville Vermont wrestled with choosing leaders and setting the tax rate in the mandatory annual town meeting. How interesting it was to read those records.

From the moment that Europeans came to these shores in the early 1600s, selection of leaders through voting has been a part of our nature. The form of government was at first based on what the colonists knew back home, or what was imposed on them by the terms of the charter by which the colony was established. However, slowly, the form of government changed and settled into a pattern.

First it was pure democracy at the local level, with a fledgling republic at the colony level. By the time of the revolution, when the colonies considered themselves states, republican form of government was well-established. At the local level even, a mini-republic had mostly replaced democracy. Some vestiges of democracy remained, but for the most part the form of government was a republic.

Of course, a republic requires active participation of its citizens in terms of voting. At regular intervals, from as short as six months to as long as two years, the people chose their leaders. In doing so peacefully, the people were saying, “We are satisfied with this form of government. All we are doing now is choosing those who will lead us, either returning those already in leadership or voting new ones in.” Election after election, for more than a century before we were a nation, this process took place from New Hampshire to Georgia. Those eligible to vote chose new leaders and kept their form of government.

The colonies did well governing themselves, until the King of England tried to impose new government on them. Resistance to that became the seeds of the American Revolution.

Self-determination. We will govern ourselves. How different this was than in the Europe they had left! England had a monarch, a king or queen, who ruled. In the 17th Century the parliamentary system was flexing its muscles and growing in importance. England went through three revolutions (one bloody, two peaceful) and one counter-revolution. All other European nations had much the same. The monarchy was a coercive power. The people didn’t choose it so much as the king ruled by “divine right”. France, in a bloody revolution that would eventually lead to a worse dictatorship than the kings ever were, would throw off that monarchy thirteen years after the American Colonies declared their independence. Other nations would eventually follow suit. But it was the bloody American Revolution that set much of that in motion.

As I researched my first genealogy book, Seth Boynton Cheney: Mystery Man of the West, I had occasion to look into town records of Waterville Vermont, where Seth was born and raised until he was 13. It was interesting to see the notices of the town meeting on the last Saturday in March (right in the middle of maple sugar harvest no less) and having all voters required to attend. I read how they set the tax rate: “Voted to establish the rate at $X” or “Voted a rate of $Y to construct a fence around the cemetery.” These people were governing themselves at the local level, deciding big issues as a democracy but electing representatives to lead the municipal republic the rest of the year. I “watched” as new towns were formed, Waterville carved out of Bakersfield because the Waterville residents couldn’t cross the snow-covered mountain in March to attend the town meeting. Self-government in action, the form of government chosen by the people and maintained year by year, decade by decade, century by century.

As I researched my second genealogy book, Stephen Cross and Elizabeth Cheney of Ipswich, I saw the same thing from a much earlier period, Ipswich in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the years 1647 to 1710. I actually went back earlier than that, as I was simultaneously researching an earlier ancestor in the Cheney family, the subject of a future book. I saw the same thing with the town, and more so at the county and state level. One rabbit-hole I went down with my research that took place during Stephen’s and Elizabeth’s lives was the change in colonial charters forced upon the colonies by the king of England. This did not go over well. In fact, the seeds of the American Revolution were sown right here, as people, who had chosen and maintained a form of government they liked—self-determination—had a form of government and leaders forced on them—a coercive power—who served at the whim of and benefit of the monarch, not the people. Ipswich was a hot spot about this and some consider it to be the cradle of American independence.

Now, in 21st Century America, we have a hard time conceiving what the world was like during our colonial days. Oh, we know from studying our history what the colonies were like, and may have a vague understanding of England, from whence most of those settlers came. But I think we need more study of just how different the government was in our world. And to what extent the people had, not just the right, but the obligation to maintain that government through votes and taxes. We had our faults back then, and took far too long to address those faults. Compromises would eventually be forged that would keep us as one nation rather than several regional federations, compromises that later would almost tear us apart.

Yes, I believe self-determination is a defining characteristic of the United States of America. Other nations now have it. Yet many other nations only dream of it. It defines the USA. How long can we keep it?

Three Traits that Mark the USA

When the time came for a new form of government, American traits were well-established. This series of blog posts will explore those.

What is it that differentiated the United States of America? What separates us from all other nations? Or is there anything? Are we the same as the other nations, but we became wealthy and powerful by chance of time and location? Did we just happen to find the right combination of population and resources?

Many talk of American exceptionalism. When did that kick in? Were we exceptional at the beginning, or did we develop into an exceptional people and nation in response to circumstances?

These are difficult questions. I’ve been pondering them for a while—at least ten years, since I’ve been writing the Documenting America series. I’m learning more and more as I do the research on this. In addition to that, I do a lot of research into genealogy—American genealogy. My first genealogy book dealt mainly with the years 1830-1910, long after American traits would have been established. My second genealogy book dealt with the years 1640-1710, right in the foundational period. As I wrote that genealogy/family history book, my thoughts began to focus on that question: what differentiated the USA from other nations?

As I researched to finish this work, I came upon some Massachusetts Bay Colony documents that led me to concluding one of the characteristics I’ll discuss in this series.

Added to researching my books is a love of history and an ability to self-study and learn. I love to read, and history is about my favorite topic to read. Since I started writing history books it’s difficult to read history for simple enjoyment or personal learning. Still, I try.

I don’t know that I’ve finished my thought process on all of this, but I believe I have identified three items that are in our nature that made a difference in our journey to exceptionalism.

  1. The consent of the governed. Another explanation for this is self-determination. We decide what type of government we want and establish it.
  2. The common man as a landowner. A big difference in the USA is everyone—just about everyone—owned land. This gives a huge change in perspective on government.
  3. Peaceful transition of power. When we change leaders—with two notable exceptions—the transition happens easily and peacefully.

These are probably not the only things that have contributed to making the USA into the nation that it is, but I see them as critical components.

In three posts coming soon (maybe not next, but soon), I’ll cover these three factors. By the time I finish them, I may have another one or two posts to make in the series. I hope many will read these posts, and consider how these helped to make us what we are.

Combatting Racism: Effectiveness of Protests

My series on racism is drawing to a close. I’ll have this post and, depending on how wordy I am with it, possibly one more. I think I have made a convincing case that combatting racism requires looking at two things: racist acts, and racism that gives rise to racist acts. You can legislate against racist acts but you can’t legislate against racism.

Further, I believe I made a case that the role of any given person in this fight will be different than everyone else. Not everyone can or should be shouting “Black lives matter!” on Facebook or other social media every day or every hour.

Now I come to the matter of protests. How do you combat racism? A segment of the population is doing that through protests. The protests seem to be mainly gatherings in public places with much talk, repeating of slogans, denunciations, etc. Sometimes this involves blocking public places to prevent access. We have seen that where protesters block highways, preventing all vehicles from passing, including emergency vehicles.

In the speeches I’ve seen—which admittedly has only been on television and not so many there—have a “death to America” ring to them. The protesters seem to not just want change, but want to tear down our government and…do what? Start over with a different form of government? Have anarchy instead of government? The rhetoric seems not to be designed to solve the problem, but only to define it. The autonomous zone established in Seattle, later abandoned, seemed one of these types of protests.

Complicating the protests has been the violence. In certain major cities around the nation, violence, destruction of property, and looting have taken place. Again, the goal doesn’t seem to be to fix the problems in the system, but merely to rage against it.

I say that because the combination of protests and violence seem to be causing people to turn a deaf ear against the protesters. “Oh, you want to burn police cars, smash storefronts, loot businesses, and prevent free access on public streets? The heck with you and whatever it is you’re protesting.” That’s what I see happening. The protests have turned counterproductive. The very people the protesters need to change the system are turning against them. As a result the nation is going backwards in race relations, not forward.

Surely there is a way to protest racist acts in a way that will bring about positive change. That will help those in power at public institutions and at businesses to see how racism has crept in and caused racist acts to occur. Those can be changed. But will they ever be changed when all that we see is violence and looting? I fear not.

It is now close to three months since the death of George Floyd, the last in a line of acts that appear to be racist, where black men, for minor infractions, have wound up dead at the hands of police. Protests have been taking place daily in major cities around the USA. For a while they took place in smaller cities as well. Some changes have been made in how policing is done and how much policing these cities will have. Policing is in part being replaced with social working. How effective this will be in improving conditions for racial minorities in the cities will play out over time, time that will have to be measured in years before we will know the effectiveness of new procedures.

The protests—peaceful protests—have perhaps done some good in terms of racist acts. As a nation, we understand a little better how racist acts happen, and are making some changes. But as to racism, I think we are going backwards. White people look at the violence and pull away from admitting that racism exists. Hearts of men and women are not being changed, or, if they are being changed, it is to become more racist.

I never want to state or define problems and stop there. I want to develop solutions and state them clearly in a way that will convince people of the correctness of those solutions. In this case, however, I’m not sure what the solution is. There is a way to protest against racist acts and bring about improvement, and that doesn’t include violence. There is a way to change people’s hearts and help them to see that their racism, latent or open, is real and that they can change, and that doesn’t include violence. You can’t loot a store and say “Looting is reparations for slavery” and expect racists to turn into non-racists. Maybe you feel better having done the looting, but you have made the world worse, not better.

One of the reasons the civil rights protests of the 1960s were so effective is because they were non-violent. People could see the difference between the mostly black protesters and the white racists who committed violence against the protesters. The morality of one side and the immorality of the other was obvious. Progress was made as a result, and legislation was passed to put an end to a wide array of racist acts. At the same time, I believe we saw some hearts changed, and people who were racists came to the realization they were being stupid, that skin color didn’t matter. Not as many as needed to be changed, but some.

Violence now is being committed, not by those who want to preserve a racist system, but by those who want to change it. Or, perhaps, much of the violence is by those who seek to benefit without even trying to change what they see is a racist system.

End the violence. Protest peacefully. Show the world that your grievances are real, that you want honest change. As you do, also speak out against the violence. Denounce the looting and the violence against people and property. Help others to know that isn’t you, isn’t your group, isn’t your aim. I think that combination, ending the violence and maintenance of peaceful protests, will go a long way to achieving a less-racist system.

Fighting Racism: One Size Does Not Fit All

In prior posts in this series, I discussed the difference between racism (what occurs in the hearts of men) and racist acts (what is done in the open as a result of racism in the heart—actually, I suppose racist acts can be done privately), which includes speech.

Why do I differentiate between racism and racist acts? Because it is possible to deal with racist acts through legislation, regulations, corporate policy, and public pressure. Racism, however, cannot be dealt with in the same way. Since racism is inside a person, ending racism requires a change of the heart. Racism gives rise to racist acts.

So, if racism and racist acts are different, the former giving rise to the latter, and if different means are necessary to combat them, then obviously you need people who can work the different approaches.

I say this because of statements I see on Facebook about the needs to scream out “Justice for George Floyds” or “I can’t breath” or “Black lives matter”. One friend, a woman fellow-writer I know only from on-line writer groups, went as far as to say:

If you aren’t outraged over this, if you aren’t willing to shout Black Lives Matter on Facebook, then go ahead and unfriend me now.

That’s an approximate quote. I commented on her post, went back recently on her timeline, to review her post and the comments I and she made to it. Here’s her post.

No disrespect to anyone, if you found out I unfriended you. This isn’t coming from hatred, but anyone who posts All Lives Matter, anyone who posts negative comments toward the protestors, anyone who hasn’t mentioned anything about what’s going on AND hasn’t even liked any of my posts to show they care are being deleted off my FB.
You don’t need me in your life, and quite frankly I don’t need you either

I pointed out to her, lovingly I believe, that this essentially says, “Unless you fight racism the way I’m fighting racism you’re doing it wrong and we can’t be friends.” She’s giving a one-size-fits-all approach. I simply can’t agree with that.

Some people are called to fight racism through legislation. Some people must work on regulations. Some have to strengthen these. Some have to see them properly and diligently implemented from administrative positions. Some need to do the same from a law enforcement position. Some need to attack it from the judicial system.

All of those in the previous paragraph relate to racist acts, not racism. Clearly one person isn’t able to do all those things in the fight to achieve racial equality. The pathway is clear, I believe, in how to combat racist acts. We as a society may disagree in a few particulars, but the general approach can be figured out and tackled.

Concerning racism, the means of combating it is also clear, though more difficult. You have to change men’s hearts. You have to help them come to an understanding that all races are equal before God and  thus should be in society. An honest belief that is true. A belief that results in their changing their behavior. Needless to say, before you can help another to come to this belief you must have that as your own belief. You must change your own heart.

Except, as a Christian I don’t believe that changing the heart is something man can do. Only God can change a heart.

That doesn’t mean that man has no part in dealing with racism in the heart. What man can do is help other men to see the error of their beliefs and urge them to bring the matter before God, asking for God’s help, His intervention. That’s our part in this equation.

How do we do that? What can we do to help people see the racism within them and do something about it? How can we help a person who has nothing to do with God to seek His help in the matter? I’m not sure I have all the answers to this. But I’m sure that if one size doesn’t fit all in the grand approach to combating racism, then one size doesn’t fit all in dealing with the range of people who hold racist views. What helps one person won’t help another.

Where does that leave us? Where are we on the spectrum of combating racism? Where am I? I’ll deal with this in my next post. For now I’ll just say that my friend’s approach, a one-size-fits-all approach, is insufficient to end racism. I’d like to think my comments made a difference in what she believes. A post she made later suggests that she agrees with me, and that her earlier post didn’t accurately reflect what she thinks about combating racism.

Racism and Racist Acts

My last post was a start to a discussion about racism in America. This is the second. I’m not yet sure how many posts I’ll have in this series. For sure one more after today and perhaps two, depending on how prolix I become and how my interest and energy goes.

From a Facebook posts by Thomas Nybo.

I used two terms in my last post: racism and racist acts, but I didn’t define them. Actually, I’m not sure I need to define them. Racist acts are actions taken against a person because of the color of their skin, or against an entire people for the same reason. Acts include words spoken or written. Racism is a condition of hate or belittlement that resides inside a person. It’s what gives rise to racist acts.

Examples of some racist acts:

  • refusing to rent an apartment to someone because they are black.
  • denying seating on a bus or at a lunch counter because someone is black.
  • enacting laws saying blacks and whites can’t marry, or college rules that say they can’t date.
  • enacting laws and practices that make it difficult for people of color to vote.
  • saying derogatory words against someone because of their skin color.
  • writing a piece that slams an entire race that’s different than yours.
  • erecting a statue that glorifies a slaveholder.

I could go on and on. Many are the racist acts that have taken place in the USA over the years.

But many, also, are the laws and court decisions which have set aside those racist laws and practices. Court decisions beginning in the 1950s and civil rights legislation beginning in the 1960s went a long way to correcting these racist wrongs in our nation. In addition to court decisions and laws, policies were changed at institutions (such as university) that corrected much.

Racist acts still happen. When they do, and when they are brought to the attention of authorities, corrections are made. Or should be made. A constant diligence is required to make sure the laws are faithfully executed and rights of people of color are not denied them by racist acts. The fact that many civil rights claims are brought before the courts indicates we are not perfect in this regard. Our administrators must figure out how to better and more faithfully implement the law, and our legislators must be looking at unintended holes in the law and find ways to plug them of otherwise strengthen them.

That’s my summary of what racist acts are. Now to tackle racism.

Racism is what gives rise to racist acts. Racism is what’s inside a person that causes them to commit racist acts. Racist acts are seen or heard out in the open. Racism is concealed inside a person. It may be concealed for a long time until it spills out in a racist act. Some people, I am convinced, are racists without realizing it, a condition I call latent racism (to be covered in a future post). When it does spill out, if it does so in a way that the racist act is against the law or policy, the law enforcement and judicial system can be called in to counteract the racist act.

But the racism, being inside the person, cannot be countered by any law or policy. How can the law say, “Don’t hate blacks, don’t look down on blacks, don’t think your race is better than blacks”? The law can’t deal with that, with what’s in a person’s mind and heart.

Racism is a terrible thing. How does it seep into a person’s mind and heart? Are people born racists? I covered that in my last post. I don’t believe anyone is born a racist. They become racists through education, example, and persuasion. Of these three, perhaps example is the largest contributing factor. A father doesn’t say to his son, “Son, come here and let me teach you to be a racist.” No, a son watches and listens to his father, and from observing racist acts (which, remember, includes speech), the son becomes a racist.

The father may never say anything to his son directly, but the son will learn from his father’s example. When we moved to North Carolina in the mid-1980s, we were invited to a neighbor’s house. The neighbors had moved there from New York. In the party were a number of local families they had befriended. I was 32 or 33 at the time, and I’d say most of the local folks were younger than that. The women were inside and the men were out on the front porch. One of the local men said, “If the Whites would just band together we could deal with the Blacks more effectively.”

I was shocked. That man was less than 30 years old. By 1984 the major civil rights legislation had been in force for about 20 years. Yet here were racists acts being committed by men who were 10 years old when those public policies were enacted. Why were they committing racist acts? Obviously they were racists, and they must have learned it from the examples of parents, grandparents, and others in the community. They were also taking part in persuasion, either trying to convince these newly moved-in northerners that they should become racists, or perhaps reinforcing the racism within themselves. This was one of the times I didn’t speak up, but I remember thinking how sad it was that these men were burdened with the scourge of racism.

Why is all of this important? Why do I separate racist acts from racism. I do that because of what I will highlight in my next post, that many different approaches are needed to combat racism. One person’s approach may tackle one small part of the problem while others tackle other parts of the problem. For this subject, look for my next post, on Friday.

Voluntary Lawfulness

Dateline 31 May 2020, 4:18 p.m. to 6:42 p.m.

With great sadness, I’m watching the news coverage of the looting, burning, stealing, and destruction of property that is going on in the U.S.A. right now. This was after watching the news coverage and video of a black man being killed by a white policeman. George Floyd was killed by that policeman even though he gave no cause for the use of such force. It looks like murder, or at the least depraved indifference by up to four policemen. A man’s life snuffed out by policemen who acted as police, judge, and jury.

But what we are seeing is only in part protests. Much of it is simple lawlessness. It’s either pent-up rage that has spilled over into lawlessness or it’s deliberate taking advantage of the situation. Either way, a flashpoint has been reached. It’s now happening in, it seems, 50 cities. Police seem unable to keep the peace. Some of it is their unwillingness to take violent action against the criminals. Some of it might include not recognizing the difference between protestors and criminals. Some of it might simply be lack of sufficient officers.

The police are tied up with seeing that the protests remain peaceful. I suspect all police days off have been cancelled in just about every city of 50,000 people or larger, yet there still aren’t enough. While the police are in one place, looters and destroyers do their dirty work in another. It’s a desperate game of whack-a-mole.

What this is showing me is that a peaceful America depends on voluntary compliance with the law. This has been oft noted concerning paying income taxes, which to a large extent depends on people voluntarily complying with the law requiring them to pay income taxes. If a hundred million people suddenly decided to not voluntarily pay their taxes, our national government will collapse.

So it is with honoring property and people. We live in peace because people want to live in peace so they don’t go killing their neighbor or breaking into houses, stores, institutions, or vehicles. A handful of people do that all the time. But what if a hundred million people suddenly decided to act unlawfully? Same thing: the USA would collapse as a civilized society. We can’t have enough police, enough national guard, enough military to maintain the internal peace if we, as a populace, decided we were not going to respect life and property.

It’s likely that what we seeing is the activity of two different peoples. One is a group fed up with instance after instance of black men being killed by white police, with nothing seeming to change, and are protesting that. Another is a group of opportunists making hay while the sun doesn’t shine. But there might also be a third group of people who are trying to incite a race war or a general state of lawlessness as a way of damaging our nation. We hear anecdotal evidence that this third group is at work, both left wing and right wing extremists. I personally think they are “no-wing” extremists, simply wanting to see America harmed.

I have no solution. I will continue to voluntarily obey the law and encourage others to do the same. I will continue to encourage local police forces to get rid of the racists, realizing as I say this that it’s easier said than done. I will continue to speak out against lawlessness. I will be an army of one, and see if I can somehow enlarge my regiment.

So Much Anger

Is it the shut down of normal life due to the corona virus that is causing people to be so angry of late, including me?

We all know that fights can break out on social media. The only social media I do is Facebook (well, I just joined Next Door but haven’t gotten into it). It’s easy to witness fights there. Yesterday a friend shared something about injection of medicine into someone’s lungs. The original poster (not my friend, but a person unnamed) said she was a respiratory therapist, and that, while President Trump’s recent disinfectant comments were poorly worded he was actually spot-on for what the treatment is and does. She wasn’t saying that an effective treatment of corona virus has been found, but that the president’s question was actually of something worth considering. To show that she has no political agenda, she said she has never voted and isn’t even registered to vote.

Enter an acquaintance—I won’t call him a friend—who used to attend church with me and the one who shared that post. He said this: “This person needs to shut the hell up!!!! Not registered to vote, won’t vote, your [sic] not neutral your [sic] a moron sheep that has no right to share their opinion. No vote, no whining about anything!!!” That struck me the wrong way. First off, the respiratory therapist wasn’t whining, just sharing some of her experience. Second, I wasn’t aware the First Amendment had been rewritten to allow free speech only to those who voted. That’s the sort of thing I would expect in China. I replied to his comment with those sentiments. He then responded:

Dave is your head up your ass?

Sue is a friend, dear friend we can disagree or discuss a topic with out your two cents for sure!!!

He and I aren’t Facebook friends (not sure why, just never connected after life took us in different directions) and it looks like we won’t be. If he doesn’t think the First Amendment applies to all, we have little in common politically.

The other item of anger that helped define my week was in real life, not on social media. I lost my cool with someone who pushed my buttons (not my wife!). I let my anger loose in a phone call when the person once again pushed my buttons, for perhaps the fifth straight pone call. This person has always pushed my buttons and I’ve always controlled my anger much better. This week I let it go. I’ve since sent an e-mail of apology, but haven’t heard back yet. The person doesn’t regularly check e-mail.

So what caused my outburst? Yes, my buttons were pushed. Not one button but three by this person, three issues raised where he/she criticized me and my wife. It’s been happening for years, and I had finally had enough. But has the shutdown/lock-down/stay-at-home movement had a negative effect on my ability to deal with negative people?

I just read a post where someone was critical of some teenage girls who were out on a trail by a river and lake yesterday dressed in skimpy bikinis, more thongs. I agree with the poster that I’d rather not see such sights. I started to post in agreement, then stopped. I decided it’s just not worth it and moved on.

Life is good. God is good. There’s no reason to dive into these negatives. Controlling my own behavior is what I’m called to do, not to fix stupidity or wrong-headedness in others.

Looking at One Person’s View On Impeachment

I write this on Thursday, December 19, 2019, for posting on Friday.

Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Trump. Passions are running high on both sides. One FB friend I never would have suspected is FOR impeachment, mainly on the charge of obstructing Congress. I have debated him on FB, saying the president has no obligation to cooperate with those who are trying to remove him from office.

In past similar situations, thinking mainly of Nixon, he also defied Congress. Congress took him to court and asked that the SCOTUS fast-track the process. In compliance with the court, Nixon handed over the subpoenaed items, they showed he had indeed committed crimes, and he would have been impeached had he not resigned.

That’s not what Congress has done here. They have subpoenaed Trump for documents and witnesses. These have not been produced. Rather than go to court to have them enforced, they just impeached him.

In the debate with my friend on FB, another friend said Trump had already committed impeachable offenses and he offered a video of Robert Reich from April 5, 2017 as proof. While I have no respect for this former Cabinet member, I decided to listen to his video to see if I may have overlooked anything. Reich suggests four impeachable offenses at that time, with a fifth one brewing. Let’s look at them

One: Trump is “unfaithfully” executing his duties as president by accusing his predecessor, President Obama, of undertaking an illegal and impeachable act, with absolutely no evidence to support the accusation.

Sorry, Mr. Reich, but no one appointed you of what is or is not faithful or unfaithful execution of office. It is unfaithful execution to criticize your predecessor? Give me a break. This is ridiculous.

Two: The Constitution forbids government officials from taking things of value from foreign governments. But Trump is making big money off his Trump International Hotel by steering foreign diplomatic delegations to it. And will make a bundle off China’s recent decision to grant his trademark applications for the Trump brand, decisions Chinese authorities arrived at directly because of decisions Trump has made as president.

Is Trump “steering” business to his hotel? Or are foreign delegations using it because it’s a good venue in Washington DC? Is Trump donating the profits from that hotel to charity? Hardly impeachable. And, as to China, has any president in the last 100 years been tougher on China than Trump? Reich, your argument doesn’t hold up.

Three: Trump’s ban on travel into the U.S. from 6 Muslim countries, which he initiated, advocated for, and oversees—violated [the free exercise of religion clause].

The courts struck down that travel ban and it wasn’t enforced. How can it be impeachable when Trump complied with the court? Again, Mr. Reich, that’s ridiculous. I also point out (since you don’t seem to know this), that there are some 30 Muslim majority countries. If travel from individuals of six of those were banned, then travel from individuals from 24 of them was allowed. That’s hardly against the free exercise of religion.

Four: Trump’s labeling the press the “enemy of the people” and choosing whom he invites to news conferences based on whether they’ve given him favorable coverage, violates [the freedom of the press provision of Amendment 1].

What Reich is saying is the president cannot criticize the press. How did this criticism prevent them from doing their job? It didn’t. They were still free to publish. He denied them an audience. Guess what, Mr. Reich, the First Amendment doesn’t grant the press an audience. The president is free to give interviews to whom he wants to.

Five: Evidence is mounting that Trump and his aides colluded with Russian operatives to win the 2016 presidential election—which Reich says meets the definition of treason.

Reich was so wrong on this, where to begin? Several investigations failed to find the alleged collusion. The evidence mounted against this. If this took place, it happened while Trump was a candidate. Do you really think a president can be impeached for things he did before he was president? I think not.

I’ve never liked Reich, never thought he had the country’s best interests at heart. Now I’m sure of it.

Thoughts On Impeachment: Original Sources

One of my copies of the Federalist Papers. Yes, I bought it used, to have at the office. This copy stays in the sun room; my other stays in The Dungeon.

As we deal with impeachment of the president in 2019, we have few precedents to base a position on. Impeachment has happened only twice, and would have occurred one other time had not the president resigned.

What is an impeachable offense? What was on the Founders’ minds at the Constitutional Convention? How would they approach it today? The place I always turn first on Constitutional issues is the Federalist Papers. What did Madison, Hamilton, and Jay have to say concerning this?

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves. The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.

Federalist #65, by Alexander Hamilton

I don’t find this particularly helpful. Or, rather, it’s helpful, but not very comprehensive. Impeachment is a political process. Because the president is immune from being charged criminally while president, so that he/she wouldn’t be continuously harassed in office, impeachment by the House, trial by the Senate—resulting either in acquittal or conviction, resulting in removal from office, and then charging and trial by the courts. That’s the process, but for what can the president be impeached? I just went through the entire Federalist Papers, searching for “impeach” and other related terms. I’m surprised at how little is included. They include much discussion of why the Senate is the right body for impeachment trials. But, as far as discussions on what is and what is not an impeachable offense, I find very little, except what I’ve quoted above from Federalist #65.

An additional source is James Madison’s notes on the Constitutional Convention. I just went through those notes, looking for discussion on what is impeachable, and I found this.

The clause referring to the Senate, the trial of impeachments agst. the President, for Treason & bribery, was taken up. Col. MASON. Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason. Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined. As bills of attainder which have saved the British Constitution are forbidden, it is the more necessary to extend: the power of impeachments. He movd. to add after “bribery” “or maladministration.”

Mr. GERRY seconded him.

Mr. MADISON So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS, it will not be put in force & can do no harm. An election of every four years will prevent maladministration.

Col. MASON withdrew “maladministration” & substitutes “other high crimes & misdemeanors agst. the State”

On the question thus altered

N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. no. Pa. no. Del. no. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.

James Madison, Notes on the Constitutional Convention, for September 8, 1787

 This gives us a little more to go on. The original clause on impeachment was for treason and bribery. Mason of Virginia wanted to add “maladministration” as a reason for impeachment. What, exactly, is maladministration? I interpret it to mean “doing a bad job” or “not doing a good job”. In other words, incompetence or malfeasance.

The summary of the debate, somewhat spare in Madison’s words, was that maladministration would never in fact be used as a reason for impeachment, and the correction for maladministration is elections.

Facing rejection of his motion, Mason changed the motion to add “other high crimes & misdemeanors”. In other words, for crimes other than treason and bribery. This seems to me to be more or less the same as felonies and misdemeanors—things that would result in being charged in criminal court if not the president.

Others think the word “high” applies to both crimes and misdemeanors. If that were the case, the bar would be a little different than my interpretation.

The question now comes down to whether the impeachment of the current president meets the constitutional definition. Alas, I’ve already exceeded a reasonable word limit for a blog post, and will have to answer that in a future post. I may post earlier than my normal schedule.

Thoughts on the Rising Cost of Health Care

I’ve made a few political posts on An Arrow Through the Air (okay, perhaps more than a few), but tend to avoid them. Plenty of news outlets and commentators do a good job saturating us with news and news analysis.

But this one I must, because I found a magazine article that agrees with me and presented the same analysis of health care costs that I did at least five years ago.

Somehow we got on the mailing list for Imprimis, the magazine published by Hillsdale College. We’ve never given them money, so it was a curiosity when it first showed up in our mail. It’s a good magazine, however. I tend to read the issues in batches, whenever the magazine basket gets to overflowing.

Last week I read the September 2018 issue. The article is titled “A Short History of American Medical Insurance” by John Steele Gordon. I don’t know him, but I like his article. Perhaps I like it, in part, because he agrees with views I already had, yet gave me new information at the same time.

I’ve said for a long time that things paid for with other people’s money tend to rise in price faster than things you pay for with your own money. Or, put another way, what you don’t pay for yourself and directly you won’t fight to keep the cost low.

Health insurance isn’t exactly other people’s money, but, when you go to the doctor’s office and have a $25 co-pay, or when you pic up a med at the pharmacy and have a $4 co-pay, you tend to not pay any attention to the actual price of the thing. $4 for a month of pain pills? Great. $25 to see my PCP to see about my chronic condition? Best bargain in town.

Thus, forgetting that the actual cost of going to the doctor is $188, with you paying $25 and insurance paying $163. Except, you have to pay for the insurance, but that’s taken out of your paycheck and you never see it. And for sure you never see your employer’s contribution. The prescription or office visit looks like a bargain, but it probably isn’t. You see no need to fight to keep the cost down, or find a lower-priced alternative.

Slowly, over the years, those who provide those services learn they can increase their costs to a fairly high level, up to a point where the insurance company starts pushing back.

Now, I realize you shouldn’t purchase medical care based on low-bidder. These are professional services. You want the best you can get. The problem is, removing the payment away from the consumer results in the consumer simply not paying much attention, and prices go up.

Don’t worry; it’s not just you. A hundred million purchasers of medical services in America are doing the same thing. One person trying to buck the system isn’t going to get far. It’s an unfortunate result of believing that the “windfall” of having your bills paid for with other people’s money means you pay more in the end. You paid for a big chunk of your health insurance. And, if your employer didn’t pay for the rest of your health insurance, that money would be part of your salary. With the greater amount of money you could shop around for the best services at the lowest acceptable cost, and would most likely come out ahead. Health insurance would become true risk mitigation, which is the true definition of insurance.

The phenomenon is the same with other things that are paid for with other people’s money. The main one that comes to mind is a college education. When 50% of the cost comes from scholarships (other people’s money), 40% from loans (temporary use of other people’s money) , and a mere 10% from out-of-pocket during the college years, the payments are so far removed that the consumers of college educations don’t try to apply pressure to keep the costs down.

These are things I see the results of, but have no answer on how to reverse a trend and make it better. Too many people are enamored at the thought that other people are paying their bills to ever change back.

I should take time to quote a number of places in Gordon’s article where I feel he is spot on in his analysis. My post is already too long, however. Perhaps I’ll make a second post. If not, I leave it by saying I’m glad to have had corroboration, from a source I admire and consider authoritative, for some long-held beliefs.