This essay involves is a discussion of values which are a core of my religious faith, Judaism, and how they all tie-in with the secular world of American political thought. In addition, I am interested in discussing how we can incorporate these principles to build bridges between Conservative Republicans and Progressive Democrats and create “win-win” situations.
Also, the ideological brain-trust, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, who helped develop, defend and ratify the US Constitution two hundred twelve years ago deserve great a credit because without their efforts our American politics and government would be vastly different than it is today.
In addition, in the United States, the free market system (our private and non-profit sectors) accounts for 75% of the American economy. The power of the federal government partnering with other levels of government as well as our capitalist system can do enormous good.
For a plethora of reasons, I recognize that time is short in America and the world we live in. There is an emergent need to try to find a middle course so that all parties across the political, ideological, social and economic divide can buy-in to a productive agenda.
Finally, I like to think that we, Americans, are all in this together. We need to find a way to for all low income and middle class citizens ensure equity, opportunity and justice in our democratic and capitalist system to promote new programs which are utilitarian in nature. When I use the term utilitarian, I believe that public dollars should seek to be spent wisely with benefits affecting the greatest good for the greatest number.
Lastly Market Justice is a belief in the free-market system to economically benefit all Americans based upon talent, hard work and sacrifice. Social Justice is a belief that when the free-market system fails to benefit all Americans even in times of robust growth and when Market Justice falls short of the mark, effective governmental action is required. The power of government to improve the governed is truly remarkable. This participation is an implied contract between the government and those receiving benefits and places a responsibility upon both parties.
(1.) How My Religious Faith Ties-In with My Academic Studies, Professional Career and Personal Philosophy:
• It is my presumption that most major religions all believe in basic principles such as “The Golden Rule” which states, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” My research reveals that this quote is attributed directly to both the old and new testaments.
• The other day, I was having coffee with a co-worker. She asked me, “What does Judaism stand for?” I responded I said that it basically relates to three concepts Rakmones (Empathy), Tzedakah (Charity and Good Deeds) and Tikkun Olam (Heal the World).
• Although I did receive a religious education as a Reform Jew growing up in the suburbs of Long Island, New York, it wasn’t until recently that I never made the connection between the home that I was raised in, my religious faith and my studies in political science and public administration throughout college, my career in municipal government and my support of a national progressive political agenda. My thinking is that it is all these experiences and the development of ideas are connected.
(2.) How James Madison and Alexander Hamilton Advocated for Approval of the United States Constitution for Empowering the Federal Government We See Today:
• I believe in the ideas of the ideological brain trust who advocated the approval of the United States Constitution in 1787. The rationale for the US Constitution was established by a man named Alexander Hamilton who eventually became our first Secretary of the Treasury. His partner for this task, James Madison, would eventually become the fourth President of the United States.
• After the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia agreed upon a totally new framework of operating our federal government, the new Constitution replaced an unworkable document known as the Articles of Confederation in 1788. Following the convention in Philadelphia both men wrote a series of articles in order to try influence the State of New York’s Convention in Albany, New York, to approve or reject New York’s entering the new union and agreeing that this document, the US Constitution, was the new law of the land.
• Fortunately, the convention narrowly passed its approval of the new US Constitution by a vote of 30 to 27 and the State of New York remained part of the United States. This new document became the supreme law of our nation and made our federal government and the nation as a whole much stronger. It would help us to eventually grow to be a world power.
• Back when Madison wrote his chapters of the Federalist Papers, there were no political parties. However, there were individuals throughout the original thirteen states who were members of political, economic and regional elite groups. Madison referred to these stakeholders as factions. Madison believed that men at their worst were guided by greed and at their best influenced by enlightened self-interest. In Federal Paper # 45, Madison reflected those sentiments when he stated, “If men were angels, government would not be necessary.” Therefore, I understand what Madison had a realistic understanding of human nature. So at the end of the day in his way of thinking, government is sometimes our last and best hope.
• Also because of the conflict between the original thirteen colonies and Great Britain during the American Revolution and the experiences of governing during the first ten years of our new nation, Madison expressed a concern about too much power concentrated within the federal government which would be out-of-control and unfairly oppress citizens. Thus, Madison wanted each major branch of the government, the executive (The President), the legislature (The House of Representatives and the Senate) and the Judiciary (The Supreme Court and The Lower Federal Courts), to be a check against the excesses of the other branches.
• Today, some Americans are frustrated that the system does not move in a more effective and efficient manner. Governmental paralysis in our nation’s capital, and its Washington, DC, is sometimes referred to as “Grid-Lock”. In college, we had an “old school” and far more nuanced way of referring to the constitution its system of checks and balances. This concept is called Madisonian Democracy.
• When Madison became the United States Secretary of State under the third President Thomas Jefferson and later served as the fourth President, American bought the Louisiana Purchase from France and doubled the land-mass of America. Also to protect American shipping where merchandise onboard was being seized on the high-seas, the United States was required to send our navy and marines to the shores of Tripoli in North Africa in what is now Libya to successfully defeat the Barbary Coast Pirates. These experiences changed Madison outlook on governing. Madison was no longer was a small government conservative and Madison saw the wisdom of a more powerful President to protect American interests in a different perspective.
• Alexander Hamilton who has been dead for two hundred twelve years is now a pop-star celebrity in 2016 with a Tony Award winning Broadway musical named after him. Hamilton believed that a vigorous executive branch (President) was necessary to help facilitate nation-building to help grow a weak nation into a world power through economic alliances and trade, paying off debts, protecting some vital industries with tariffs, improving harbors at coastal ports (infrastructure) well as building a strong military to help project and protect American interests. Hamilton’s vision of a strong executive branch was one hundred fifty years ahead of its time. It was not until Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) and the New Deal took center stage in American politics and our federal government in 1933 during the Great Depression that the American Presidency grew in stature and the entire executive branch of government increased in numbers of staff and power to ensure effective governmental action.
(3.) How the Nixon-Kennedy Debates of 1960 Ties-In with The Concepts of Market Justice and Social Justice:
• When I feel unsatisfied by today’s 2016 Presidential Primary season, I often watch the 1960 Nixon-Kennedy debates on my smart phone thanks to You Tube and C-Span. These debates were the first televised Presidential debates and were also being covered on radio. TV, a new medium of mass-communication, changed the way politics was conducted. Many historians and pundits seem to remember just the first debate. However, there were four debates and all were covered simultaneously by the major networks, ABC, CBS & NBC, for one hour each on a weekday during prime time in the month of September and October 1960. There was no cable TV or internet back in 1960. Lastly as I recall, very few people had color TV at that time.
• When watching the debates, one of the most glaring features which struck me was that both candidates seemed politically closer that they would like to admit. In addition, the degree of civility between the candidates was markedly better than the 2016 Presidential Primary Debates especially among the seventeen Republican candidates who were originally running for this office.
• In terms of language, political philosophy and politics, the country was different in 1960. The Republican, Richard M. Nixon (RMN), did not use the term conservative to describe himself. At no point did Nixon reach out to Evangelical Christians in his opening remarks or in any response to reporter’s questions, RMN did not criticize John F. Kennedy (JFK) for being a Catholic nor discuss where he stood on the pro-life or pro-choice positions. The debate about reproductive freedom was not a national issue. At different times, Nixon would talk about the need for federal intervention in terms of civil rights, price supports for farmers, educational funding and the threat of international communism. But philosophically, Nixon overall tended to default in believing that the free market system, or Market Justice, could resolve many issues discussed at the federal level.
• Kennedy made it clear that individuals and the states had responsibilities in issues in which the federal government took part. Surprisingly, JFK advocated the judicious use of federal power and he was reticent to endorse policies which would involve a national take-over of entire industries. However, Kennedy wanted to also strike a balance by appearing to support the Adlai Stevenson-Eleanor Roosevelt liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Kennedy embraced the past leadership of former Democrat Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman citing reasons for effective governmental action to help seniors with Social Security retirement benefits, building and funding the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) providing cost-effective electricity to citizens and businesses over many states, providing food packages to help those hungry and less fortunate and government priced supports helping farmers against an unforgiving free market.
• It is my view that Kennedy and Nixon were both talking about the terms of market justice and social justice without specifically mentioning both concepts. Market Justice presumes that the present American System includes democratically elected politicians at the local, state and federal levels of government. Complementing the political system is a free-market capitalist and voluntary (non-profit) system which encompasses 75% if the American economy. Market Justice presumes that nearly all Americans can live the American Dream by raising children in a nice home with good public schools as well as save funds in order to send their children to college and to build a retirement fund.
• Social Justice presumes that the present system is not robust enough to help aid the chronically unemployed, low income and middle income wage earners to earn income to afford a better life and fulfill the American Dream. Therefore, our capitalist system even at its best does not always provide for equity, opportunity and justice for all Americans.
• What remedial measures can or should government provide to enhance opportunities for all through enhanced efforts in providing training, job opportunities, housing, food and health care coverage? We’ll discuss this rhetorical question in the next section.
(4.) Is Social Justice Necessary?
In attempting to answer the question, “Is Social Justice Necessary?’ I will ask rhetoric questions and make the following comments:
• Should government focus on spending public dollars for paying for an individual’s trade school or college so that individual will have a marketable skill to seek a job in the private, voluntary (Non-Profit) or public sectors? If private sector jobs are not available, should government provide the difference with the goal of full employment? If so, what kind of jobs should be made available? Are the jobs which could be assigned having anything to do with infrastructure (building roads and bridges) development? Might the recent problems of lead in the drinking water of residents of Flint, Michigan, reflect a larger nation-wide problem with the government tasked with another infrastructure problem essential to the public good?
• If we were to align people’s skills through training so that work could be performed in an effective manner, how would we pay for this? Through a gas tax (consumption) tax, another form of taxation or deficit spending? If a decision is made not to go ahead with job training or a jobs program, will those citizens cast-aside have no other recourse but to turn to crime as an alternative?
• Will the funds not spent on job training and building roads, bridges, reservoirs and sewage treatment plants whether city, state or federal monies be spent instead on the criminal justice system including the police, the courts and the prisons?
• Why the word infrastructure is frequently discussed in terms of job programs? I suppose that the answer to this question is that historically government has focused on the services mentioned above as well as treating and maintaining water for the common good as well as sewage treatment. These are services all citizens use, rich or poor, and businesses (private, non-profit and government) for the common good. If private businesses are reluctant to render services, its frequently necessary for government to fill the void to benefit all citizens.
• For example, from time-to-time, the federal government has aided key industries of great importance to national economics for sustained growth. In the 1860s, the federal government gave land to the railroad and telegraph companies to help facilitate the trans-continental railway and telegraph endeavors.
• We do not live in a planned economy where the government announces a five-year production plan for consumer goods. We let the market place decide what goods the private sector should produce in terms of new and innovative products. The digital revolution which has transformed business in the past twenty years was a reflection of American ingenuity and the capitalist free-market system. The federal government may have originally helped develop the internet. However next steps were advanced through Americas free-market economy. Through the past generation, it was entrepreneurs including Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerman and others who changed the way business was conducted in America and throughout the world by combining technical innovation and wise business practices.
(5.) What Going On with the 2016 Elections?
We have been in the process of selecting a future President of the United States through the Republican and Democrat primaries. We will also be having political races for the new United States Congress as well as elections at the state-level for governor and the legislatures. Please note the following:
• Today, it appears that the country is in much better financial shape than eight years ago in 2008. At that time, there was a belief that our biggest banks were not financially healthy and that in worst case scenarios depositors would come to the banks and ask that all of their money be returned. This situation of massive withdrawals based upon fear of our economic future is referred to as a run on the banks which could result in banks defaulting and possibly going out of business. During and after a financial melt-down, it was feared that there would be chaos out on the streets including rioting and looting of businesses.
• In order to calm the financial markets and assure the American people, President George W. Bush, hired a new Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, who was able to persuade our Congress to appropriate $800 billion in funds to be loaned to the banks with interest along with aid to a prominent brokerage house (Goldman Sachs) and funds to a giant insurance company (AIG). The Obama Administration was elected into office and these funds were then distributed. Some firms such as the Lehman Brothers brokers were allowed to fail. The federal government favored some industries including the American auto industry which was saved through financial assistance to two of the United States’ big three car companies, Chrysler and General Motors, which were given a financial loan bail-out.
• Since the 2008/2009 financial crisis, many of the bank loans have been repaid with interest, the unemployment rate has been reduced, gas prices at the pump have been lowered, the American Auto Industry has once again become profitable, annual federal budget deficits have been cut in half and the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) is functioning in a bull market even though China continues to manage its challenging financial difficulties.
• So if our nation’s economy is in good shape after eight years of slow but steady growth, why are so many disaffected voters supporting Trump in the Republican primaries and Sanders for the Democrats? It appears that many middle class Americans don’t feel middle class any longer and are just getting by. Many are juggling more than one job with both heads of the household working. Many people including homeowners and renters have little savings and are living from pay check to pay check. These days it all seems impossible to do all of the following at the same time while raising children, paying a mortgage and maintaining a home, saving for a child’s college and investing money for retirement.
• The top Republican candidate, Donald Trump, a self-proclaimed billionaire, a reality TV star and a successful entrepreneur, has been using nativist language pointing out that 11-12 million undocumented residents living in the United States should be deported because these people are living here illegally, many are violent criminals and the surplus labor is either driving down wages in the job marketplace or taking jobs away from citizens who are out of work.
• Trump is a showman who skillfully uses new modes of communication including the internet and social media to reach out to supporters. He is also a smart, ambitious, opportunistic and ruthless businessman turned presidential candidate. Trump answers to questions as a candidate about perceived problems are either not true or simply disruptive to the economy. Trump is being praised by his supporters regardless of what he says as “not being a politician”. In addition, supporters who praise him say that “he tells it like it is”.
• People who disagree with him believe that his rhetoric is rubbish and creates an atmosphere of anger, disharmony and potential violence. If Trump was elected President and was able to magically deport 11-12 million undocumented residents, America’s image would be tarnished at home and internationally and much work we now take for granted would be left undone. Also for example, crops would not be picked on farms, dishes would not be bused in restaurants, beds would not be made in hotels and construction projects would be delayed.
• The Democrats are for effective governmental actions to improve the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Obamacare, to raise the federal minimum wage, to create a new entitlement for paying for citizens attending public college and to rebuild America through public works (Infrastructure) projects. If legislated into law, it’s uncertain how these initiatives would be paid for?
• In the past eight years, the Republicans have been against most of Obama’s initiatives include health care reform (ACA), trade (the Trans Pacific (TPP) Partnership), nuclear proliferation (The Iran Nuclear Deal), global warming (The Paris Climate Accords), Wall Street (Dodd-Franks) Reform, diplomatic relations with Cuba and a Supreme Court nominee to fill the late Antonin Scalia’s vacant seat. Compared to 56 years ago, both parties and major candidates share little common ground on domestic and international policy.
• At this time, it seems to me that the most prominent Republican proposal looks to Market Justice through trillions of dollars in tax cuts to the wealthy to stimulate the economy and to generate new jobs. These policies were previously advocated and implemented by former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. There is no talk among Republicans about remedial government measures or Social Justice in an attempt to rejuvenate America economically and to help the disadvantaged.
(6.) In Conclusion:
My initial thoughts in this essay were about how my religious faith’s values have influenced me academically, professionally and personally. I am aware that many of our Founding Fathers who wrote the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were Christians and very familiar with both the old testament and the new testament. So starting with the Golden Rule along with the concepts of empathy, charity, good deeds and healing the world were values I presume that they were familiar with.
In the eight years Barack Obama has been President, there have been few instances where both Democrats and Republicans have been in agreement. After the November 2016 elections, I believe that there are several pieces of legislation which both sides might be able to compromise. One agreement is the Iran Nuclear Agreement. I would hope that elected Republican representatives would seek out the counsel of three knowledgeable, experienced and trusted individuals, Brent Scowcroft, Colin Powell and Robert Gates, all who have served Republican Presidents with expertise in foreign policy, defense and intelligence issues who are all supportive of this agreement. Even though Iran can be an adversary regarding other issues within the middle east, I think that the United States can make adjustments with our allies in this part of the world to make policy decisions to counter Iran when necessary while still verifying the compliance of this important international accord. In addition, the United States had had similar differences with the Russians in the past during the Cold War and even today. However, our differences with negotiating partners has not stopped us from moving forward with a nuclear test ban treaty, arms reduction and the elimination of nuclear proliferation.
With the presidential political campaigns and other elections ongoing throughout most of 2016, I think that the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) will not be voted on by Congress because it is a contentious political issue. Most Republican and Democratic candidates have been running against TPP. Even after five years of successful Obama Administration negotiating with other countries including Japan, Australia and Vietnam, etc., based upon Congresses “fast track” authority, the President may have one last opportunity to seek approval with the “lame duck” session of Congress in November (’16) following the upcoming elections. With many Democrats on record against this agreement based up labor and environmental considerations, the President will need to reach out to the Republican Congress and make concessions before this legislation is approved and the President can sign an acceptable bill. Democrats went through a similar challenge and were ultimately successful when the Clinton Administration decided to go forward with the North American Free Trade (NAFTA) Agreement with both Canada and Mexico in the 1990s.
Lastly, I hope that the current President or the next President is able to introduce a nation-wide infrastructure construction bill through Congress. After the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed and the House of Representatives then was taken over by a majority of Republicans, the President then went on TV to give a speech whereby he announced that his bill would include construction projects within congressional districts where sitting Republican congressman had previously submitted similar legislation. This attempt to co-opt the Republican leadership went no further. So, it is my understanding that agenda items sometimes change in politics & governing and that future attempts to introduce a jobs bills could be approved in both houses in the spirit of bipartisanship and then signed into law by the President.
No comments:
Post a Comment