Skip to main content

Who Decides Who Benefits?

Jefferson

"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither”
– Ben Franklin

The two most important political questions are: “Who decides,’ and “Who benefits?” The less important political question is: “What shall be done?” V. I. Lenin answered this last question in his most famous pamphlet: “What Shall Be Done?”

Lenin’s answer to this question was: The ownership of property, including wages and benefits, should revert from property owners to workers. This, pretty much, is the unstated program of our new, reform minded, Marxist tinged, neo-progressive Democrat Party.

But, of course, business questions must be decided by someone. If not property owners and the managers of businesses under the direction of its stockholders, then who? For Lenin especially, the question “Who shall decide what is to be done?” was paramount. His answer to the question was: All important matters of state, including the direction of the national economy, would be decided by a communist vanguard of the people. Marxist/Leninist progressive change plunged Russia and a good part of the Western world into an economic, cultural and political maelstrom from which, even today, it has not recovered.

Here in the United States, the U.S. Constitution provides in its governing plan an answer to the question “Who decides?” In so doing, the Constitution breaks the back of autocratic government by dividing the branches of government into three separate divisions – executive, legislative and judicial -- each equal in its own sphere of activity. When we say the separate branches are equal, we mean that each branch – because it is functionally separate – serves as a breakwater that prevents the accumulation of power without which tyranny and Caesarism are rendered less likely.

“Remember,” Lord Acton tells us, “where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that.”

The authors of the U. S. Constitution were familiar, by reason of their own immediate circumstances, with Caesarism -- executive, parliamentary and judicial corruption. And they were having none of it. When Benjamin Franklin, emerging from the Constitutional Convention, was asked by Mrs. Powel, “Sir, what have you given us?” he answered, “A republic, madam – if you can keep it.”

We were told in our Civics classes – when there were Civic classes in public, parochial and private schools – that the division of separate but equal powers into three branches of government preserves democratic or republican government.

In addition to the Constitutional separation of powers, an organic division of powers – that between federal, state and municipal governments – also serves as a political prophylactic preventing the centralization of political power in a larger and  potentially oppressive unitary government.

To be sure, an autocratic government in which the people surrender their liberties to secure safety and peace may be more efficient than our cumbersome model of governance. However, no less an apostle of liberty than Thomas Jefferson warns us, “When all government ...in little as in great things... shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”

Municipal government, whittled away in our state by a venal and oppressive, tax hungry state government, is the best corrective for an oppressive state government, even as strong and independent state governments serve as guard rails protecting the public against our increasingly ambitious and overweening federal behemoth.

Connecticut’s current crop of U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives, all Democrats, enjoy preening themselves in public as defenders of “the democracy” but, from the Jeffersonian point of view, they would be little more than the “gangsters” Lord Acton has warned us about. 

The founders of the Republic regarded governance as a brush fire controlled by eternal vigilance and the distribution of political power divided into separate branches and separate governments, federal, state and municipal. These necessary separations, which preserve the hallowed liberties of the people, cannot be destroyed by Caesars and foreign governments. They can be destroyed by solicitous politicians unmindful of Alexis de Tocqueville’s ever timely warning. The author of Democracy in America, sometimes assigned in High School Civics classes when there were Civics classes, wrote “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”

Those Americans unimpressed by the blandishments of politicians in heat during election periods should bring the Tocqueville quote with them in voting booths when they vote in the upcoming 2024 elections.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p