Fabius Maximus

4 July 2006

Forecast: Death of the American Constitution

The world changes but America seems unable to see this and adapt as the post-WWII global order collapses around us.  The post-WWII era was defined by:

  1. America as a model state: a capitalistic democratic republic which values its citizens’ liberty.
  2. American as a superpower, or even the sole superpower.
  3. The American dollar as reserve currency; “good as gold” for holding the world’s savings
  4. 3rd generation warfare as the dominant mode of military force.
  5. Growing American wealth through the “debt supercycle”, continuously expanding debt of both Government and households.
  6. Cheap energy, largely from coal, oil, and natural gas.

Today we see all these things slowly fading away.  The daily newspapers record its passing, although most journalists are unaware of the larger significance of what they report. We are suffering from “change blindness,” a flaw in our mental processing in which we fail to recognize large changes which should be clearly visible.

Change blindness must be experienced to believe it.  Take the test at this website.  Read the instructions!  Right click on the picture to move to the next one.  If you cannot see the change and give up, reduce the “gap” to zero.

A brief check on the health of the American nation-state.

Aristotle said that the political regime of a state dominated other aspects of its society.  Let’s have a quick test about the health of the American Nation-State.  Following Aristotle’s view, it looks at the foundations of our polity.  The correct answers are given directly after the list of questions.

  1. Describe the major features of the Code of Hammurabi.
  2. List a simple majority of the Ten Commandments (either version, that of Exodus or Deuteronomy).
  3. List any three rights guaranteed under Magna Carta, the Great Charter of Freedoms - one of the foundational documents for our system of laws.

The correct answers, unless you’re are a student or teacher, are all “so what.”  Who cares?  These are all dead documents, with no current effect on our lives.

Let’s be relevant, and test our knowledge of the American Constitution.  The questions are conveniently segmented for each age group.

For the Greatest Generation, whose courage defeated fascism, whose love of freedom helped end legalized racial discrimination, and whose insatiable greed saddled their descendents with debts and liabilities impossible for them to ever pay.

  1. Quote the Preamble to the Constitution. Or paraphrase it for half credit.
  2. When drafted and by whom? Who ratified it? What came before it?
  3. Outline the Constitution’s major features, including powers of each branch of the Government and the checks of each branch on the other two.
  4. What is the Bill of Rights? Describe all ten amendments in the Bill of Rights, and list ten rights so guaranteed.

For the Baby Boomers, who passively volunteered to be the subjects of a series of social experiments whose scope and daring would have horrified Dr. Frankenstein:

  1. Quote the opening three words of the Constitution.
  2. What was the Constitutional Convention?  Date?  Name two members.  Hint: Ben Franklin was one (from which state?).
  3. List the major features of the Constitution, including three powers of each branch.
  4. What is the Bill of Rights? List six rights it guarantees.

For everyone born after 1964, who inherit the mess left by the Greats and Boomers:

  1. What is the Constitution?
  2. Who wrote it, and when?
  3. What are the three branches of Government and the powers of each branch?
  4. What is the Bill of Rights? List any three rights it guarantees.
  5. What is a living Constitution?

An excerpt from Federalist Paper #39 (Madison)

The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican.  It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government. 

Standing firmly on the foundation provided by our Constitution, the American people grew to a level of wealth and freedom unknown in human history.  IA constitution - written or unwritten - lives only to the degree it is inscribed on the hearts of its citizens. That was true throughout most of our history. That is no longer true today.

Item: A 1998 national survey of teenagers conducted by the National Constitution Center found that 59 percent of those interviewed could identify the Three Stooges while only 45 percent could provide the name of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, and even fewer (41 percent) knew the three branches of the U.S. Government! Less than 2 percent could correctly identify James Madison as the “father” of the U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.

… In another poll taken by the National Constitution Center in November 2001, for example, two-thirds of those responding could not identify the Constitution as the framework for American government, while less than one-fourth could identify correctly the provisions of the Declaration of Independence and those of the U.S. Constitution; others were unclear as to the Bill of Rights’ place within the Constitution.

Bill of Rights Memories” by Allen Weinstein, Archivist of the United States, in Prologue (Winter 2005)

Once we no longer revere the Constitution, or even know what it says, it becomes a different kind of living document.  Its meaning now changes to conform to the current needs of our ruling elites.  We return to the state of the Romans before the laws were posted on the Twelve Tables of ivory (or brass) and posted in the Forum for all to see.  Or, if history repeats as farce, we are like the beasts in George Orwell’s Animal Farm.  The laws are written on the side of the barn, but most are too stupid to realize that they are changed by the pigs during the night.

Death of the American Constitution

… the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.

George Washington’s First Inaugural Address (1789)

The Constitution was designed largely according to the ideas of Montesquieu and John Locke.  Following Montesquieu, it specifies the separate duties for each of America’s three branches.  Following Locke, it limits the government’s powers so as to protect individual liberties.

Its ability to do the latter function has faded rapidly since the New Deal.  For example, most of the Bill of Rights remain de jure in force but are de facto void.  This can be easily tested by a Lexis search of successful attempts to use them in litigation.  You will find almost none for most of them.

At some point in our future the Constitution seems likely to become a purely procedural document, much like that of the former Soviet Union, and equally effective at preserving our liberties.  Our rights will exist only on the sufferance of the government and our ruling elites.  This is already true in the UK, as their “unwritten constitution” protecting the “rights of Englishmen” has blown away like smoke in the wind.

One can see our future in the fracas over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review.  Judicial outrage over the Bush administration bypassing of the Court of Review cannot result from concern over our civil liberties, as the Court of Review apparently seldom if ever denied requests for government action.  The Supremes’ horror is understandable, however, as this cut the judiciary out from a role in the rapidly expanding national security apparatus – an obvious violation of the balance of power among the three Branches.

Perhaps this was inevitable, as “consent of the governed” to the Constitutional regime becomes a meaningless formula with the passing of time, as it refers to consent to the regime by folks long dead – not even ancestors to many of today’s Americans.  It becomes a founding myth, like the foundation of all traditional governments.

We have become consumers, clients of the government, instead of citizens.

What more befits a decent man, a decent, peaceful citizen, than that he should remain aloof from civil disputes?
Letter from Caesar to Cicero, from Christian Meier’s Caesar  (1982)

History shows that people’s recognition of a regime’s passing usually lags behind the facts.  Generations passed before the Roman people recognized that the Republic was truly dead.

Who killed the Constitution?

What kind of a crisis was it in which it was not Roman society that fell apart, but Roman reality - the sense of shared security in an order that was essentially unquestioned?
Meier (1982)

How did this happen? There are many possible explanations. A few are discussed below.

A. It’s the Founders’ fault.  The Constitution was just not good enough.

B. America has changed.  Perhaps we no longer meet the conditions the Founders considered necessary for a republic.

  1. A small government
  2. A citizenry of farmers, self-employed craftsman, and business owners (property owners, one and all)
  3. An educated citizenry, knowledgeable about the republic’s history and operation
  4. A people jealous of their liberties and willing to fight to preserve them.
  5. Also, our population has grown by a factor of 90 since the Convention. The Constitution might not work for such a large, complex state.

C. A contingency of history: it just happened.  The Constitution may have died to due our cumulative errors in judgment over the past two centuries. Plus some bad luck.

D. Bad or even evil people have killed the Constitution.

Both right and left sound alarms about the evil leadership plaguing America, although they differ on the names of those responsible.  Why we tolerate such leaders is seldom explained.  One exception is Thomas Frank in his book What’s Wrong with Kansas, who attributes this to the stupidity of the American people (excepting only liberals).  The cause of this epidemic of stupidity seems unclear to Frank.  Too much TV, perhaps.

E. A simple explanation.

We have traded liberty for promises of equality, security, and prosperity.  The cost is our Constitution.  Everything has a price.

Do not scatter diamonds before ducks. They prefer grain.
Chiun, the current Master of Sinanju (from The Destroyer series of books by Richard Sapir and Warren Murphy)

Once a people come to believe that governing themselves is too difficult or burdensome, someone will volunteer to take this load from them. After that happens there is no point in crying about the consequences.

If God didn’t want them sheared, he would not have made them sheep.
Calvera, bandit leader in the movie “The Magnificent Seven” (1960)

Consequences of the Constitution’s death

Instead of decency, self-discipline and competence, there was insolence, corruption and rapacity.
Sallust (Roman historian, 86 - 34 BC), quoted in Meier (1982)

The American government will likely continue to operate as it does today, evolving in the same directions as it has since WWI.  It will grow larger, more intrusive, and absorb an ever larger fraction of the national income.  It will become less responsive to direction from the American people and more controlled by for the benefit of our elites.

As discussed at the opening, this evolution is to a large extent unseen by us.   When it is seen, to many these things appear both natural and perhaps even desirable.  Worst of all, many of those who consider this undesirable also believe it unstoppable.  Most often we show ourselves to be easily guided by appeals to our base emotions of fear and greed, with the short memories suitable to and characteristic of sheep.

The experience of Europe shows how quickly deeply held beliefs can diminish.  Christianity was a large and fundamental aspect of European culture, whose doctrines shaped their lives and whose rites occupied a large fraction of their time.  All this faded quickly away once God died in their hearts.  After only a handful of generations the churches now see only tourists during the week and remain mostly empty even on Sunday.  Divorce is common, and the cutting edge of social policy concerns euthanasia and infanticide (both relabeled for people’s comfort).

What might be the effect of the Constitution’s death on the cohesion of the American polity?  It has been a primary source of America’s strength, helping us survive many crises of types often fatal to political regimes.

  • The Civil War
  • The Great Depression
  • The racial turmoil of the late 1960’s, which at its worst burnt large areas of several cities.

What gives us a sense of mutual belonging (social cohesion) after the Constitution dies?  What gives us a sense of being Americans?  We share no common religion, ethnicity, heritage, or (with each passing year) even a common language.  To what will we give our allegiance?

As cohesion decreases with every new generation, recruiting for the combat units of our military services might become far more difficult.  For what will these men and women putting their lives at risk?  Especially in future wars far more lethal than those now waged in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The cutting edge of the scythe

We might stumble on for a few generations not noticing the corpse of the Constitution lying about except for one destabilizing factor: immigration.  Although opposed by a large percentage of Americans of all ethnic groups (including Hispanics) our elites find open borders highly beneficial.

  • Cheap servants for the upper middle classes
  • For the business class, workers willing to work for low wages (perhaps what the Republican Party leaders find attractive).
  • Clients for the welfare state
  • Future voters for the Democratic Party

Perhaps most important, large numbers of hard-working and ambitious immigrants create competition for the middle class, spurring desperate efforts to maintain a stable lifestyle for themselves and their children.  This creates a hard-working labor force, willing to work 24-7 at their Blackberries and home computers, with no thought of unions or overtime pay, and (best of all) no time or energy leftover for politics.

However desirable to our elites, the cost to America is high.  To what will these new “Americans” give their allegiance?  To our Constitution?  That is radical concept in most lands, where they change constitutions as easily as our football teams change cities.  Nor can they learn this allegiance from us, as most of us no longer have it.

Will they give their allegiance to the American nation-state?  While our love of country lives on, it fades with each generation.  Reading our children’s schoolbooks, watching their TV shows and movies, one wonders where the next generation will learn it – let alone transmit it to millions of immigrants.

The future of America

The predominate reaction of the Romans to the death of the Republic was resignation, as seen in the popular philosophies of the Empire: Stoicism, Epicureanism, Hedonism, and Christianity.  How will Americans react when they realize that the Constitution has died?  Reform, rebellion, or resignation?

There was a dream that was Rome. You could only whisper it. Anything more than a whisper and it would vanish, it was so fragile.
Marcus Aurelius, in the movie “Gladiator” (2000)

The coming years might test America more than anything in our past, including the Revolutionary and Civil wars.  America might lose both what defines it and what we hold most dear:  our Constitution, our vast wealth, and our role as global hegemon.

This transition will be like a singularity in astrophysics, a point where the rules breakdown - and beyond which we cannot see.

Such trials appear throughout history.  Consider Russia in 1942. Ruled by a madman.  Their government had betrayed the hopes of the revolution, killed tens of millions, and reduced the nation to poverty.  Most of their generals were dead, their armies were in full retreat, and vast areas were controlled by a ruthless invader.

The mark of a great people is the ability to carry on when all is lost, including hope.  We can learn much from the Russian people’s behavior in WWII.  I doubt we will fall into such peril.  On the other hand, our situation might be far more complex, with no clear enemy to unify us.  But there is no cause for despair.

People, Ideas, and Hardware. “In that order!” the late Col John R. Boyd, USAF, would thunder at his audiences.

Our wealth is just things (”hardware”), an inheritance from past generations.  What we lose we can work to replace.  Our aspirations to global hegemony were revealed as a mirage in Vietnam and Iraqi, lasting less than two generations after WWII.

Our Constitution is just an idea, inherited from the founders.  We created it, and its death will give us the experience to do better with the next version.

Our culture is a collection of discordant ideas, mixing lofty and base elements in a manner despised by much of the world - an easily understood disgust to anyone watching many of our TV shows and movies, or listening to some of our popular music.

The Constitution is not America.  We are America.  We are strong because of our ability to act together, to produce and follow leaders.  We are strong due to our openness to other cultures and ability to assimilate their best aspects.  We are strong due to our ability to adapt to new circumstances, to roll with defeat and carry on.

We will be what we want to be.  The coming years will reveal what that is.

There was a dream that was Rome. It shall be realized. These are the wishes of Marcus Aurelius.
Maximus Decimus Meridius, in the movie “Gladiator”

Other posts about this topic

19 Comments »

  1. Excellent post: For years I thought that our corporations were responsible for selling us out and exporting our manufacturing base. I thought that a small cabal of corrupt politicians were responsible for cutting taxes on the wealthiest citizens and corporations, while American middle class incomes eroded. In short, I thought that the American people were the victims of our oligarchy.

    But after long reflection, I have realized that this has happened only because the American people dont give a shit. Future generations will be aghast at our decadence. They will try to figure out how a nation with all the power in the world, and all the freedom in the world managed to bankrupt itself.

    The constitution did not fail, the people failed.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: I agree. How could it be otherwise? The Constitution is only paper. It has life only to the extent it lives in our hearts, and we are willing to act accordingly. Limit ourselves to its rules, and defend it whatever the cost.

    Comment by thepopulist — 2 January 2008 @ 10:30 pm

  2. As I said in “Some good news“:

    “To see where this leads, read Christian Meier’s biography Caesar. He describes how the Roman people grew tired of governing themselves, perhaps finding the burden too great to bear. Inevitably, strong men came forward to take this load from the people’s backs. People who will not govern themselves have no right to complain about the decisions of the elites who rule them.”

    On the other hand, I have faith that we will pull out of this slump and preserve our self-rule and freedom (two sides of the same coin).

    Comment by Fabius Maximus — 3 January 2008 @ 12:56 am

  3. Comment by truthwalker:

    Perhaps the greatest and most pervasive lie of this age is that the constitution guarantees our rights. No document, no belief, no history could ever guarantee our rights. The only thing that can ensure one man’s rights is his constant vigilance. The failure of the constitution is not the failure of the document or its enforcement but a failure of will in the people of this country. We have come to value security more than freedom. The constitution languishes because the people don’t choose to exercise their rights, not because the government choses to take them away.

    Comment by truthwalker — 3 May 2008 @ 1:51 am

  4. Comment by Plato’s Cave:

    A noble post! I certainly agree with the last sentence above, but I interpret it in a different way. Self-rule will come with “re-localization”, which will either happen gradually and voluntarily, as people discover they can buy their own power, do better with locally grown food, can steward their childrens’ education better than a distant bureaucracy — or it will happen traumatically, as state and national governments become unable to provide any services at all.

    Once again, though, Fabius, I wonder when you would locate this golden age of free and responsible citizens in our history? In the 19th century we certainly had a lively intellectual atmosphere, that directly impacted government actions, but, except perhaps for the muckraking and progressive era, I dont see anything comparable in the last century or the present. (In the present, the vaunted internet is more of a distraction and a way of keeping people separate and at home, than a channel for building democratic action.)

    I’m afraid I just see the idea of a virtuous Roman republic as a sentimental wish for this country, at this time.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: I believe — athough these things are difficult to support — that citizens had more influence in the 19th cntury than today. Compare the Lincoln-Douglas debates to those of today. Note only were those longer, far more complex and sophisticated — but reached larger audiences. Likely related and significant the number citizens per representative or senator was tiny compared to today. Numbers matter.

    Comment by plato's cave — 3 May 2008 @ 3:57 am

  5. The result of this deterioration has been the ability of the current administration to shred the rights embedded in the constitution, and indeed going back to the Magna Carta, by arguing on procedural grounds or on grounds that it’s only a piece of paper.

    Why hasn’t anyone stood up and said that many Americans have died for that “piece of paper”?
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: I agree, but the current Administration is just continuing further along the road. Look behind and you will see the footprints of the Clinton administration, and Bush Sr’s, and so forth back to Kennedy’s. Perhaps beyond.

    Comment by Cam Hui — 3 May 2008 @ 3:59 am

  6. Comment by Judasnoose:

    ‘because the people don’t choose to exercise their rights, not because the government choses to take them away.’

    Choosing to exercise your rights doesn’t guarantee them either, as Randy Weaver’s wife found out when she chose to stand in the doorway of her house holding a baby — the last choice she made in this world.

    Comment by judasnoose — 3 May 2008 @ 5:26 am

  7. Judasnoose’s observation is spot on. We see one aspect of this in Shaw’s play “Major Barbara” (Act II).

    CUSINS. By the way, have you any religion?

    UNDERSHAFT. Yes.

    CUSINS. Anything out of the common?

    UNDERSHAFT. Only that there are two things necessary to Salvation.

    CUSINS [disappointed, but polite] Ah, the Church Catechism. Charles Lomax also belongs to the Established Church.

    UNDERSHAFT. The two things are–

    CUSINS. Baptism and–

    UNDERSHAFT. No. Money and gunpowder.

    CUSINS [surprised, but interested] That is the general opinion of our governing classes. The novelty is in hearing any man confess it.

    UNDERSHAFT. Just so.

    CUSINS. Excuse me: is there any place in your religion for honor, justice, truth, love, mercy and so forth?

    UNDERSHAFT. Yes: they are the graces and luxuries of a rich, strong, and safe life.

    CUSINS. Suppose one is forced to choose between them and money or gunpowder?

    UNDERSHAFT. Choose money and gunpowder; for without enough of both you cannot afford the others.

    Comment by Fabius Maximus — 3 May 2008 @ 5:36 am

  8. Comment by Duncan Kinder:

    A thumbnail sketch of Locke’s “Life, Liberty, and Property” is that people shall be meaningfully free if and for so long as they are secure in the means of their livelihoods.

    “Life, Liberty, and Property” was the late 17th and early 18th century formulation of this more basic principle. It does not follow that, in the 21st century, that this principle can or should be formulated the same way. In particular, given the growth of monopolies and other massive concentrations of wealth and power, “property” does not jive as well with “life” and “liberty” as it once did.

    So the trick is to reformulate the old principle in a new manner calculated that the general run of the population will be secure in the means of their livelihoods on the whole and in good measure, by and large, and for the most part, in solid, substantial, durable, meaningful terms.

    How this may or may not jive with the Preamble, the Commerce Clause, the meaning - if any - of the 9th Amendment, or the “penumbras,” I will leave to others.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: Is wealth more or less concentrated now than at the Founding? I know there are — very rough — studies of this, but do not know the results.
    .
    This is a different question than attempting to translate the wealth of past elites into modern terms (impossible to meaningfully do, except for fun).

    Comment by Duncan Kinder — 3 May 2008 @ 5:58 am

  9. Being selfish, as a non-US person, if it collapses, what is the external damage?

    In the end US people have to solve their own problems, however it comes out (personally I’m, strangely for me, in the longer term optimistic, though with lot of short, perhaps medium term, pain, but only if US people get off their collective butts .. and that is the rub).

    But, in the death throws of its current model, designed by the the dominant country of the world for half a century, will it go quietly or with a bang? Will it, move back quiety from the world stage, rebuild itself and then come back later as a major contributer?

    The US elite worry me, they are not like the British elite, who knew the gig was up and (Suez not withstanding) basically moved back off centre stage in a reasonably orderly way. Or the USSR elite, who basically gave up. Are they more like the Nazi elite who went down fighting to the last German?

    My gut feel, for what it is worth, they will go down fighting, unless US people basically kick them out. They will do anything do prop up the current financial model, depite its obvious failures, they will stay in Iraq as long as they possibly can, they will attack other countries. They will escalate to Russia and China.

    Sadly I can see President McCain (and it will be President McCain, get used to it), ordering phantom armies into the breach, ‘another division into Iran’, ‘more tax cuts for business’. “But sir, we have no more divisions, we have rioting in the streets, the dollar is worthless and we can’t pay to import any more oil, all the multinationals have moved their head offices”.

    Just as likely a scenario as any I’ve heard recently. But the damage worldwide, the wasted resources, the economic damage, the instability it will cause, the risk of Armageddon. I keep coming back to my consistant argument, the world needs the US, but not as it is now behaving.

    Only US citizens can prevent this and rebuild their country, none of the rest of us can change or influence anything.

    Comment by OldSkeptic — 3 May 2008 @ 12:28 pm

  10. “1. America as a model state: a capitalistic democratic republic which values its citizens’ liberty.
    3. The American dollar as reserve currency; “good as gold” for holding the world’s savings
    4. 3rd generation warfare as the dominant mode of military force.
    5. Growing American wealth through the “debt supercycle”, continuously expanding debt of both Government and households.”

    1: U.S. citizens overestimate that. Many states shared values and liberties with the U.S. in 1945 - and many typical U.S. features of society/state were rarely exported (I wouldn’t know them as typical U.S. if they were).

    3: The USA had a positive trade balance for decades after WW2 - this excludes the possibility that the USD had at that time the function that you describe. Net export (goods and services = net capital exports). Bretton Woods was very different than your description of the post-war time in general.

    4: Really? I don’t remember much 3rd generation warfare. Some episodes of Korean War early on, two conflicts involving Israel, one battle in Ogaden, some South African incursions to Angola - but most of post WW2 warfare was either militia-grade battling (IIRC that’s 1st gen?) or co-called 2nd generation warfare (most of the Korea war, much of Afghanistan and Indochina wars, South Asian conflicts).
    3rd generation warfare dominated the threats, but not the actions (otherwise - NATO planning for WW3 in Europe looked extremely linear!).

    5: Most of the growth was not due to debt, but due to technological advance.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies:
    .
    I believe #1 is a fair description, but it is of course subjective assessent. The political trends was toward things associated with the Anglo-american political system: free markets, representative democracy, individual “human” rights.
    .
    I do not believe you have stated #3 correctly. The equation is (net balance from trade in goods and services) + (net capital flows in/out) = the current account balance. The reserve currency can have a c/a balence that is zero or positive (a creditor) — like the US until the late 1960’s — but if it has a negative c/a balance (a borrower), it will eventually lose its status as the reserve currency — a storehouse of value and medium of trade.
    .
    #4 — Quite right, there were few 3GWs, although some of those were important. Korea, Vietnam (ended by standard WWII-like battles), the “6 day war”, the Yom Kippur War, the Falklands War, the Iraq - Iran war, the first Gulf War. The entire period lived in the shadow of the Cold War, the end war between the USSR and the US. But, more significant, most people considered 3GW to be the dominant form of military power, and acted accordingly.
    .
    #5 — I did not say that debt accumulation was the only or even the largest drive of wealth-generation. Rather that the accumulation of debt generated wealth but at the cost of eventually bringing to an end the post-WWII regime. I described this in detail in “Death of the post-WWII geopolitical regime, III — death by debt“.

    Comment by Sven Ortmann — 3 May 2008 @ 2:35 pm

  11. Comment by Duncan Kinder:

    I can’t state off hand what the relative distribution of George Washington’s vs. Daniel Boone’s was in 1788.

    The point was that Daniel then had the capacity to tell George to take his powdered wig and shove it. The point being that George’s plantation did not then threaten to gobble up Daniel’s farm - the way that Walmart now threatens to gobble up the local grocery store.

    My favorite summary of this old idea is Longfellow’s village blacksmith standing tall under the spreading chestnut tree - looking every man in the eye for he owes not a dime to any man.

    To the extent that contemporary Daniel’s likewise share have this capacity, then the fundamental essence of the Constitution will endure.

    Actually, the stuff John Robb is currently writing about resilient communities seems to be not too far off from what I am now talking about.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: I agree. The founders believed, to varying extents, that this independence of a large fraction of the citizenry was necessary for a successful Republic. There are indications we are moving towards a Client-Patron system, like Mexico’s — incompatible with self-government.

    Comment by Duncan Kinder — 3 May 2008 @ 2:51 pm

  12. Btw, I see different sets of comments on this blog when I click on the “comments” link than when I click on the “more” link!
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: My screw-up. The 3 May post was a pointer to the 4 July 2006 post. I forgot to block comments on the 3 May post, and tell everyone to hit “more” in order to post comments on the “real” post. I have moved all the comments over here. I apologize for the confusion.

    Comment by Sven Ortmann — 3 May 2008 @ 4:04 pm

  13. You might also consider changes in educational and intellectual standards. The Federalist papers were written as propaganda aimed at the politically involved. They require a certain degree of education and skill in reading. Would they be effective propaganda today? What does this imply about the politically involved and their ability to handle complex concepts?
    .
    .
    Fabuis Maximus replies: Yes, that is a powerful and revealing comparison. The Fed Papers were written for a mass audience (18th century version): farmers, merchants, craftwmen. Today it is high-level reading, for an academic audience.
    .
    However, to call the Fed Papers “propaganda” sets the bar pretty high. What topical writing on political issues is not propaganda?

    Comment by rjh — 3 May 2008 @ 5:02 pm

  14. Comment by plato’s cave:

    I thought I had posted a comment on this thread last night, but as it was similar to a contentious comment I had made to a post by Fabius a few days ago, maybe he censored it.

    In less elegant words, I agreed with the idea Duncan refers to above — resilient communities. I called it after a current slogan — relocalization.

    I also questioned — and I think Fabius heartily disapproves this line of attack — where in earlier American history he found evidence of this sturdy, indepent, civic-minded American citizens — having an impact on government — other than the limited class of property like the founders?

    An informed electorate is truly an indispensable theoretical requirement of democratic government, and a great anguish to democratic-minded people today that we clearly dont have one. But I wonder when we have ever had one? Isn’t it truer that Americans have largely gone along with the actions of their government because they were doing well under them? That is a very passive form of consent, not the active virtuous participation imagined by Fabius, and others on this thread.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus: Due to a technical error on my part, comments were being posted in two places. I have moved them all over here. I apologize for the confusion.
    .
    I do not delete comments with leaving an entry and an explanation.

    Comment by plato's cave — 3 May 2008 @ 6:35 pm

  15. Comment by plato’s cave:

    Sorry — should have typed “property-owners” above. Also, does anyone else have a problem with the sidebar on the right of the page hiding the last several characters of the comment line?
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: try purging your memory cache.

    Comment by plato's cave — 3 May 2008 @ 6:37 pm

  16. ‘where in earlier American history he found evidence of this sturdy, indepent, civic-minded American citizens — having an impact on government — other than the limited class of property like the founders?’

    It can be difficult to separate legend from history, but the Revolutionary War a.k.a. War for Independence was characterized by rather strong-minded individuals who fought from ideology. This undoubtedly supported the government, but I think the question was intended to discover whether the individuals had much of an impact on policy.

    Certainly the U.S. government handed out a great deal of frontier land. Westward expansion would have been impossible without this proto-socialistic handout to a (sometimes lower-class) special interest group. Any time in American history when the lower or middle class started a movement and the government decided to run to catch up and then put itself in front of the parade, a similar observation can be made. Consider irrational popular movements like alcohol prohibition.

    Comment by judasnoose — 3 May 2008 @ 10:47 pm

  17. Speaking as an amateur historian, I believe one important factor weakening the American polity started in the late 19th century.

    The gold standard “capped” US growth during the late 19th century. Instead of a long expansion, like that in post-WWII emerging nations, we had a painful boom-bust cycle. Brutal depressions, which vaporized much of our middle class. That was one factor behind our side into a capitalist - proletariat class structure, which had so many ill results in the first half of the 20th century.

    Another factor was industrialization, destroying the craftsman class. Much later, the New Deal and later regulatory programs favored large corporations over the small business class. All of these, and other developments, broke the “class” of independent Americans (the American bourgeoisie**), replacing them with a mass of dependent employees for whom economic security is the primary goal. (as Duncan said in comment #11)

    If only we had a modern financial system in the 19th C! One might just as well wish that we replaced kerosene with nuclear power.

    ** I use bourgeoisie in the Marxist sense, the social class which profits from ownership or trade in capital assets, or from commercial activities such as the buying and selling of commodities, wares, and services.

    Comment by Fabius Maximus — 3 May 2008 @ 11:23 pm

  18. Iran-Iraq war was either no 3rd generation war or I misunderstood the whole generations stuff badly. It was by 99% a positional war of attrition.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: Correction noted!
    .
    What you have really seen is that I phrased that item wrong (not the list of examples). After all, for most of the post-WWII era the US military was a 2GW force. #3 s/b “Conventional military forces were perceived as dominant (2GW and 3GW) by most States, although their effectivenss in actual conflicts decreased over time as 4GW mastery spread.”

    Comment by Sven Ortmann — 3 May 2008 @ 11:24 pm

  19. “If only we had a modern financial system in the 19th C! ”

    Ben Franklin knew and practiced the issue of fiat currency. The trick was that his currency was debt-free, unlike Federal Reserve Notes.

    The problem wasn’t the lack of a “modern” system — the modern system is optimized for wreck-it-and-run profiteering. The problem was the presence of traitors (who attempted to profiteer in various ways, including banking) and the lack of Andrew Jacksons to keep killing the bank.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: Judanoose refers, I think, to an interesting work by that polymath, Franklin. However, since Franklin never acted as treasurer for a nation or state, I suspect he overstates the significance of this little essay (2,175 words): “A Modest Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of Paper Currency“; Benjamin Franklin (1729).
    .
    Frankin shows that some special interest groups benefit from inflation, others from deflation — insights which apply to our time as well as 18th century America. However, I suspect both 19th and 20th century economists knew that too much money in circulation was bad, as well as too little. The question is how to know what is “too much” and “too little.” Franklin does not tell us this secret.
    .
    There are many solutions to this problem. Some use fixed rules, and cause consideable suffering as a corrective force. Some rely on human judgement, and cause considerable suffering when they do not work. The best currency rule, like the best political regime, remains a subject for study and debate. I believe the late 19th century system served America poorly, but might have been the best possible given the state of economic science at that time.

    Comment by judasnoose — 4 May 2008 @ 1:05 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.