The USA is about to celebrate two hundred fifty years of existence as a republic where it had become a dominantly successful super power during the last seventy five; yet, why the nagging question about the uncertainty of its ability to hold on to it for the foreseeable future.
Seriously, why?
"At the end of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, when Elizabeth Willing Powel asked Benjamin Franklin, "well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" He gave a trenchant reply that resonates today: "A republic, if you can keep it."
Why did Ben Franklin say it and what was he thinking then? But let's first make sure we understand what a republic is and how it is different from how democracy works.
"A republic is a form of government where representatives are elected to make decisions on behalf of the citizens".
In a democracy decisions are made based on majority rule, reflecting the will of the majority of the populace. Decisions may be reached either through direct participations of all citizens or by proxy representatives they elect to represent them. So, why is that different from a republic? The majority always rules in a democracy; "a republic emphasizes the protection of individual rights and minority interests, often through a constitution.
Make note: "Democracies can exist within a republic, but not all democracies are republics".
Did Ben Franklin have a premonition about a republic's ability to sustain itself? Or, had he read and believed that the fate of empires seemed to have had predestined shelf lives throughout history? Had he known that all powerful empires that emerged could only manage on average 250 years or merely ten generations before they succumb to gradual decline, first from internal pressure and self-inflected turmoil before another empire takes over? The process was always a zero sum game, it always seemed. One empire declines as another emerges to take its place. Is that what's about to happen? And why?
Seriously, why - to get to the heart of what seems to ail this country - is the theme of neo politics these days focused on fundamentally changing what this country is all about? After 250 years from a fledgling union of thirteen original colonies to fifty united states of almost 350 million people, why the call for change that is deemed to radically pivot from the course that so far has been guided by what its founders wrote on the 1776 document that they signed virtually with their own blood. For 250 years the country has done very well. It attained unprecedented wealth and wield influence like no other country before it, saved much of the world twice during two world wars, so, seriously why change what had worked for 250 years?
Just recently in the words of U.S. congresswoman, Alexandria Ocasio Cortes, otherwise known as AOC, in a recent interview, a quote below:
"The New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez answered a question about potentially running for higher office in 2028 by declaring: “My ambition is to change the country.”
Eighteen years ago was when it may have started:
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” So declared Barack Obama in Columbia, Missouri, on Oct. 30, 2008, on the cusp of his historic presidential election.
Those are just two troubling indicators echoed by many voices from other politicians such as the newly elected mayor of New York City, to the one in Seattle, to a very vocal and popular senator from Vermont and many others who claim to prescribe socialism as the new political elixir. Troubling times indeed, according to those who'd rather conserve the old ideals of two hundred fifty years against the liberal application of remedies that have been tried in many places that all, without exception, ended in dismal failures each time. (Please refer to an earlier musing, "Are We Still Talking About Socialism?", March 8).
"Tax the rich" has become a tired mantra from the very same politicians whose campaign donations depend on rich supporters.
"Most of the government’s federal income tax revenue comes from the nation’s top income earners. In 2023, the top 5% of earners — people with incomes $272,209 and above — collectively paid over $1.27 trillion in income taxes, or about 60% of the national total".
Seriously, why attack the sector of the population that pays 60% of the country's annual revenue? That is either crazy talk or plain and simple politics of envy. Another recent AOC quote follows"
"You can’t earn a billion dollars," Ocasio-Cortez told Glazer. "You can get market power. You can break rules. You can do all sorts of things. You can abuse labor laws. You can pay people less than what they’re worth. But you can’t earn that, right? And so you have to create a myth... you have to create a myth of earning it."
So some of her ardent supporters like Taylor Swift, Oprah Winfrey and George Soros did not earn their billions? Did they break all kinds of rules? These are just a few examples of phenomenal accomplishments achieved in a free market system that she and her ilk would like to abolish. Yes, that's right, only in a free market economy that college dropouts like Michael Dell, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Zuckerberg, Hewlett and Packard were able to build billion dollar enterprises; that AOC and Bernie Sanders want to demonize. Has she even given it a thought that her iPhone was just a generation from its birthplace in a California garage on the efforts of Jobs and Wozniak?
In the world of these radical politicians, "rich" is an evil word, yet private jets that they routinely use to spread their ideology are products of "rich" corporations that pay the 60% that the government collects. For someone who went to college with a degree that dabbled in business AOC was clueless about her reason for opposing the Amazon business proposal to build a new headquarters in New York that would have benefited her district in Queens, an idea favored by the majority of her constituents. She seems to exhibit also an illiteracy in history for claiming the American revolution was against the wealthy. Here's a newspaper quote: “The American Revolution was against the billionaires of their time, and we are declaring independence from such an extreme marriage of wealth and the state,” claimed a clueless Ocasio-Cortez..." It was a revolt against taxes that her party is pushing today so, seriously why?
The fundamental question that Ben Franklin may have anticipated was that a republic can be enslaved by the very same politicians chosen by the people to represent them by doing everything they can to remain in office without term limits. The founding fathers did not anticipate that politicians were going to public service a career but for just a period of time before going back to vocations they had before volunteering to serve for just a period of time, not as an occupation, clearly not through their old age.
This republic instead, to the dismay of the signers of the Constitution if somehow they can see it today, is festered with career politicians corrupted by greed for power and a cozy livelihood with very little to account for.
That is what happened to a republic that takes more into account the loud voices of even the few who choose to change what had worked for two and a half centuries. Term limits will never become a remedy because the very same politicians who opt to remain in power will never write such a law. In a democracy, a plebiscite can vote to impose term limits by the power of the rule of the majority. But not in a republic.
The state of Texas, once the Republic of Texas before gaining statehood, is the model of a republic government and the nation can learn from it,
. Texas legislators are part-time officials, serving in the Texas Legislature.
. Many legislators maintain regular jobs outside of their legislative duties.
. Common professions include lawyers, business owners, educators, and healthcare professionals.
. Some legislators may take leave from their jobs during the session to focus on legislative responsibilities.
Ben Franklin has nothing to worry about, "if you can keep it" because today's career politicians will make sure to keep it. The republic clearly works for the likes of AOC, Schumer, Sanders, McConnel, and Pelosi, etc. who surely will want the republic to work in perpetuity to perpetuate their grip on power. The people will simply have to endure. One significant note: among the list of long serving politicians on an average of 55 years in office, Democrats outnumber Republicans by a huge majority (check it out). And what is interesting is that their parties are labeled Republican and Democrat.
Over the years, from as early as 2015, I've written about democracy and socialism from time to time. My favorite and the favorite of many is "Mountains to Molehills" and "99 Cannibals and 1". Please just copy the link to your search bar and click.
https://abreloth.blogspot.com/2018/07/mountains-to-molehills.html
No comments:
Post a Comment