I OPPOSE (PURE) DEMOCRACY

 

I admire the ancient Greeks and draw wisdom in their view of citizenship- being a member of a polis (city-state) has the common expectation that a citizen is an informed participate in the political life of the polis. This civic engagement was the foundation of their democratic process. Granted those Greeks were not perfect who they allowed to be citizens but at least they possessed the basic concept of civic participation and willing to defend their freedom to do so in a series of land and naval engagements against the Middle Eastern colossus of the day, the Persian Empire.

Nevertheless, I depart from the Greek ideal of democracy for our modern times. Popular assemblies open to all citizens were effective for them in directly electing leaders and judges, setting tax rates, and determining policies such as war and peace. But Greek democracy was also open to manipulation by soaring oratory feeding the people’s fears. As a result, tyrants became powerful and those who were at time in the political minorities could be exiled by their polis or even executed. This is pure democracy at its best and worst.

In our contemporary United States we have several examples of pure democracy- village and town meetings in our New England states, juries of our peers deciding justice in civil and criminal cases, and in a sense, the unicameral legislature of Nebraska. But a the national level pure democracy would be a disaster. Our Founders were wise enough to realize that the rule of the mob (their view of pure democracy) so they created a constitutional republic rather than a democracy. There is a difference between the two and that is why I am a constitutional republican (not the small r.).

Our Federal Constitution skewed towards republicanism in several ways:

·       Enumerated powers for the national government.

·       Power sharing between the national government and states.

·       Checks and balances among the three branches of the national government.

·       Presidents elected by electors and not by popular vote.

·       Senators elected by state legislatures (since amended to popular vote) and one- third elected every two years for six-year terms.

·       Representatives only to live in state they represent and not in district from which elected.

·       Each house of Congress able to determine its own rules (hence the Senate filibuster rule).

·       State legislatures to determine their own election laws.

Therefore, when you hear someone mention democratic ideals, ask him/her what exactly what  do they mean by democracy. And remember the following quote by Edmund Burke, British political theorist and Member of Parliament (mentioned in the movie and musical 1776)- “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."  

Thank you, Edmund Burke and American Founders for insisting upon constitutional republicanism rather by pure democracy for the order of government.

WHY I SUPPORT UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME (with one caveat)

 Universal Basic Income (UBI) has come to the forefront of American political discourse primarily through the efforts of reformist businessman Andrew Yang during the 2019-20 Democratic presidential primaries. Several years before Yang’s candidacy public intellectual Charles Murray, working at the American Enterprise Institute, also advocated for UBI.

Yang also ran for mayor of New York City and has since left the Democratic Party to found the Forward Party, a third party effort which includes in its platform a call for UBI. This thinking is in line with Yang’s human-centered capitalism ideas. Murray approaches UBI as a libertarian. So you have Murray supporting UBI from a center-right perspective and Yang from a center-left perspective.

There are perhaps several different definitions of UBI used today so for the purposes of this brief essay I define UBI as follows- “Very American citizen shall receive from the Federal government a fixed tax-free payment regardless of personal income.” Notice what my definition includes:

·       American citizen- no green card holders, no permanent residents, only citizens

·       Fixed payment- every citizen receives the same amount

·       Regardless of personal income- no means test

Since there are several different UBI plans I offer my own plan-

1.     UBI will be mandatory for those citizens 30 years of age and younger when the law goes into effect.

2.     Citizens will begin receiving Full UBI in the month following his/her 18^th birthday or the month he/she obtained US citizenship. At birth, citizens will receive Half UBI to be administered by their parents or legal guardians until their 18th birthday.

3.     The annual UBI benefit would be thirty thousand dollars. Six thousand would be immediately deducted and placed into a Personal Medical Trust (PMT) for the beneficiary to draw from for medical insurance, copays, and prescription drug purchases.

4.     The remaining twenty four thousand would be divided into twelve equal payments of two thousand monthly. There would be no restrictions on how the money is spent by the beneficiary.

5.     UBI would be a Federal benefit. State and local governments may add to UBI if they so desire, but would not receive Federal assistance to do so.

Any citizen receiving UBI will NOT receive any other Federal benefit including Social Security and Medicare. That is the only way UBI would stay solvent.

I realize that there may be very legitimate arguments against UBI, both from the right and from the left (especially with my stipulation against additional Federal assistance). I am not an economist so I believe it may be the time for a serious debate about UBI.

 

 

LIMO LIBERALISM- ELITISM AT ITS WORST

 

It is important in this tumultuous political season to engage in honest and passionate discussions, not necessarily debates, to discover solutions to our common dilemmas. To negotiate and compromise fairly on desired results is not to surrender convictions.

For example, I am a registered Independent. More exactly, I am a limited government libertarian and a social conservative in the mode of Edmund Burke. Nevertheless, throughout my life I have worked with or associated with liberals. Liberalism overall has been a strong positive force in our national history and I have personally benefited from some liberal programs. Heck, I even like the style and personality of Bernie Sanders, though not his substance. So, I like most liberals and I can associate with them without losing my core convictions. Discussions between us can produce understanding and sometimes agreement on basic issues.

Nevertheless, I am becoming quite tired and annoyed with a certain class of liberals whose actions do not match their rhetoric. I find it very difficult to engage in honest dialogue with these folks. I will call them Limousine Liberals and one could be a “Limo Liberal” if their words and actions generally fit most of the following contour:

·       Espouses gun control but has armed security for himself/herself and/or family members

·       Believes in open borders but lives in a gated or guarded community

·       Rejects school choice except for his/her own children

·       Claims solidarity with the poor and the working class but does not associate with either

·       Desires government welfare programs as he/she declines to volunteer in the communities which those programs impact

·       Decries capitalism but has profited from that economic system

·       Demands constitutionally protected free speech for his/her views but not for whom he/she disagrees

·       Believes due process is a good thing except when it is inconvenient

·       Advocates laws for others to follow but feels he/she is above the law when it is desirable

·       Perhaps thinks about moving to Canada but never to a developing nation if things do not go right for them in the U.S.

·       Champions feminism but looks down on women who freely choose a traditional lifestyle

·       Thinks of reproductive choice more of a matter of abortion rather than adoption

·       Respects all religions except for those who act too Christian

·       Label those who disagree with them as Nazis (without realizing the historical truth that German Nazism was socialism in their context)

·       Advocates for a lessening of our carbon footprint but flies around the globe in their PJs (personal jets)

The above list is not exhaustive but you get the picture. Yet three points must be added in closing. First, most liberals are honest and genuine in their beliefs and actions. Second, one does not necessarily need to be wealthy to be a Limousine Liberal- it is a mindset of elitism rather than an income bracket. Third, granted, some of my conservative friends should also get their acts together but that is for another person to describe.