Carol Hubbard Queries John Heatly
December 2010
Reading John Heatly's earlier piece, Carol—a Master's degree student at the Korbel School of International Studies
at the University of Denver—wrote a stream-of-consciousness comments:
* Special interest groups are the bane of any society, democracy
included. Which is why the U.S. was not created as a democracy (which,
at its worst, is mob rule -- as Heatly pointed out) but, rather, a
constitutional republic designed by (later President) James Madison and
Alexander Hamilton (the "apologists" of the Constitution via "The
Federalist Papers"). This system of government operates through
separation of powers (legislative, executive, and judiciary -- at the
federal, state, and local levels) and the rule of law via the
Constitution and other statutes subservient to it -- thus preventing the
dangers of factionalism run amok (Madison's greatest fear) or mob rule.
That said, the American system of government has gone through -- and
will continue to go through -- periods where one branch or another
becomes dominant. Currently, we're in a period of the "unitary
executive" (an overly powerful executive branch). Will either the
legislative or the judicial rein it in? Hopefully so. It's the see-saw
flexibility provided by our compound republic that is a strong
protective (and corrective) mechanism in the face of imbalance. But the
continuation of our constitutional republic requires an informed and
vigilant citizenry. We need to elect officials who understand and
enforce the Constitution, and we need to do a much better job of
teaching our children about our system of government (and how it's
supposed to work).
* As for "Americans loving [our] military," that's generally true. But
don't forget that much of the rest of the world also loves our military
(even if it's a love-hate relationship at times). After all, without the
military power of the U.S., the Nazis would not have been defeated, the
former Soviet Union's aspirations for global domination would not have
been checked, rogue nations like Iran and North Korea would have few
concerns about proceeding with their apocalyptic plans, and many
countries who have the luxury of having weak or virtually nonexistent
militaries because of the promise of U.S. protection would have to
deplete the resources they use for social programs (and risk significant
political upheaval).
Our challenge as Americans -- and the challenge to the rest of the world
-- is to not let our massive military-industrial complex become a
self-perpetuating (and growing) industry. After all, Rome was once an
honorable republic, but runaway executive and military power eventually
led to a cruel and corrupt empire. History has cautionary lessons for
the United States (or any other hegemonic state) that we would do well
to heed.
Carol Later Hubbard wrote:
In case you didn't get the brief reply I sent you from my phone
yesterday, I sent it while on the run to let you know that I (1) really
enjoyed reading your very interesting response, and (2) was not offended
in the least. I put in the comments about the American military to
simply note the "other side of the coin" but also for three reasons
"close to home": (1) My oldest son served with the U.S. Army in
Afghanistan and Iraq, (2) I have a brother and two cousins who have
served or are serving in the Navy, and (3) the 21st century
role/activities of the American military has been a frequent topic of
discussion in a number of my classes at the University of Denver's grad
school for international studies. My son told me that in Iraq, in
particular, he and his unit spent as much time on "social welfare"
projects as they did patrolling, guarding, and fighting. (And this was 7
years ago.)
Reading your impressive comments about the U.S. government, political
science, and certain 21st century challenges we face was like a
combination of a crash course (and refresher course) in political
science and U.S. government. It reminds me of a similar conversation I
had at a dinner in Israel in 2005 -- sitting next to an official from
the Ministry of Tourism who just happened to have a Ph.D. in U.S.
Constitutional Law. He was a brilliant man, and I was worried that at
any moment, he might give me a quiz!
But what if the citizenry is neither vigilant (pre-occupied with other
things such as material wealth - Roman Bread and Circuses come to mind)
nor informed (or their sources of information are, themselves, captured
by vested interests?) Or simply feels dis-enfranchised and powerless?
Viewed from abroad US politics seems to be becoming increasingly shrill
and tribal in nature with neither side's activists prepared to
co-operate with the other in anything and eager to ascribe the basest of
motives to "them". At this point the system's "checks and balances"
become paralysis - it will be interesting to see how the new Congress
plays out - controlling the executive is not quite the same thing as
ensuring nothing can be done at all.
I have similar concerns and questions. And the danger of "bread and
circuses" continuing to seduce the population into relinquishing their
responsibilities as citizens is real. One of my professors, Dr. Paul
Viotti, repeatedly emphasizes in his security classes that liberty and
security are inversely proportional. Therefore, if most of our
population keeps demanding more security (against ill health,
consequences of unhealthy lifestyles, financial loss, terrorism, and
threats of virtually all kinds), the continuing loss of liberty may be
inevitable.
[Re pharma/insurance men move seamlessly in and out of "regulatory" posts, etc. etc.]
What's going on with the massive pharmaceutical and insurance agencies
is one of my biggest peeves. Medical insurance companies, and the entire
Western medical system, is a mess. (I'm very much into preventive and
holistic medicine -- and I remember that as a child, even though my
family was relatively affluent, we didn't have medical insurance
[virtually no one did] and doctor's visits were infrequent.
[How do we ensure money doesn't capture politics ...?]
Good question -- especially since elections in the U.S. can be paid for
(and therefore controlled by) by massive corporate contributions.
I fear that the "Western" democratic model, as we understand it, is on a
rocky road. After all it's only been around for about 250 years -
there are alternatives that have survived the test of time for much
longer - and if people stop believing they have a stake in it there's
always a "Big Man" round the corner only too happy, with his friends, to
take it off our hands......Which, of course, is why this is such a
valuable debate to be having.
|