Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Eknath Ende

Post-3 of “Is Democracy the Nemesis also of the Anglo-Saxons?”

3 posts in this topic

Post-3 of “Is Democracy the Nemesis also of the Anglo-Saxons?”

Aspects of US Political History that changed the Republic to chaos of Democracy

Legend:

ASP-R == my book The Anglo Saxon Protestant Revolution; FFs == Founding Fathers of America;

TPM == Tea Party Movement; Af-Ams == African Americans

O’ism (ist) == Objectivism (ist); Dems and Reps == Democrats and Republicans

(Note two points about the following:

1. The analysis of FFs’ actions, described in the following, is to be looked at from the above angle of inheritance – all of America’s great achievements are a climax of classical English philosophy, particularly Locke, and the negatives that have caused today’s slide are also part of the same philosophy, for the later generations to rectify.

2. It is very difficult to summarize the FFs’ political thoughts in a few pages, let alone 1 – 2 paragraphs. Sometimes they were contradictory, and there were many instances of being right on some scores and very wrong on some others. Some of these wrong ideas, differences of opinion and ego-problems were so strong that only god saved the fledgling republic in its infancy! Talks of secession, charges of sedition and bloody revolutions against their own government, etc were abundant. Non-payment of military salaries and its reduction leading to defeat in 1812 almost happened. Such were the ego-problems that George Washington stopped talking to Jefferson in later years; but its climax was Hamilton getting killed in a duel with Aaron Burr! We hardly call this type of ‘chivalry’ as civilized in present times.

But still – further qualifications apply, that the contradictions / differences of opinion were about complicated issues coming from the past, many of which are even today unresolved! Honesty was not scarce despite a few exceptions – and honesty is different from ego-problems, different from being misinformed or wrong on some scores. Overall, they were the most enlightened of their times, were far ahead of most of the world and quite committed to individual liberty. What saved them is their commitment to reason, i.e. the Aristotelian atmosphere of those times.

This being the situation, I have included below, the points I found to have maximum influence on subsequent development of America.)

George Washington should be acknowledged amongst the greatest leaders of all times sincerely committed to the idea of a rational rule he demanded from the British. Apart from his military abilities and leadership qualities, his continued commitment is seen in one action he repeated several times in his life – no quest for power over others though within easy reach for him. Though he was very capable of leading the revolutionary army and appeared at the first convention of the Revolution in full uniform, he did not seek the post of commander-in-chief but was offered the same by others. He showed tremendous tenacity and courage in fighting a war with huge disadvantages of hastily recruited army without training, less money (which means fewer supplies, ammunition etc) against the mightiest empire spread all over the earth. As soon as he won the war he resigned from the post – an act that I do not know of anybody else committing in history. Nobody would have objected, mostly voluntarily, had he adorned the crown. He was unanimously chosen the president two times, and he gave up power setting a precedent of maximum two terms and an example that the post of president is meant for work alone and not for exercise of power. Because of the above Americans lost their most beloved president and he lost his life (otherwise he would not have contacted the fatal infection in the fields.) For months and months on the nation mourned. (He is an exception, perhaps the only one, to the rule, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.)

Because he favored Hamilton’s Federalist Party, he was accused by Jeffersonians of being pro-monarchy and against republican ideals, because of which they even delayed erecting his memorial; but the above mentioned aspects of his life (and some other good aspects available in his biography), surely go against the charge. I surmise from reading about him that he was the perfect republican and not merely self-proclaimed and alleged one. He believed in political equality i.e. equality in front of the law, and therefore inequality in terms of returns to the individual, which would be as per his ability to produce. Not only that he did not misbehave with lower strata of society, but preached civil behavior with them. He set up funds for upliftment of Af-Ams and even made provision to set free, after his death, the ones who served him – all of which is, as said earlier, huge progress over inheritance.

The FFs, though far ahead of rest of the world, were far from free of religion and prejudices. Continuing with Greece and Rome, they talked of ‘inalienable rights of an individual’ in gradation only, with very little of it applicable to slaves. Their individualism arose out of salvation of the individual’s soul within parameters of Protestant Christianity with aristocracy still having special privileges over ‘commons’ in England. This was the root of the intellectual war between Jefferson and Hamilton. Hatred of other races and religious denominations continued as far as 1960-70 (civil rights, JFK etc). Of-course all this is not exceptional – other Europeans were doing the same in a worse form, and Germans displayed its lowest depth in WWII – and even worse things go on all over the earth, India’s continued untouchability being just an example. Such was the hold of religion that Thomas Paine died a very disgraced death because of his atheism – and note the eulogies accorded to him later on by men like Lincoln and Edison! People even rhymed after the Revolution that without Paine’s pen Washington’s sword would have been in vain! (But such is mankind that a man who contributed so much died a disgraced death.)

The FFs had studied the Roman Republic well. (E.g. Cato was an inspiration for the American Revolution, and many amongst FFs, foremost Washington, were his admirers.) Yet, even while they hated democracy, condemned monarchy and aristocracy, and eulogized republicanism which they endeavored to achieve, the demarcation between a republic and majoritarian democracy was not drawn properly. Their inability to do so is seen in Jefferson’s party which is variously called as The Republican Party, The Democratic Party and most popularly, The Democratic-Republican Party! (I met many Americans on the net who beat their chest, “ours is not a democracy but a republic” – Jefferson is the father of their republic and he called it as democracy in the previous quote, “The democracy will cease to exist …”.) This line of demarcation has not been drawn even today. Another thing to be noted is that it is very difficult to draw this line – not a simple matter. It needs work to be done on lot of complicated items, some of which are mentioned at the end of Part I. (That demarcation consists of whether majority is allowed to violate individual’s rights or no, to what extent government intervenes in the realm of ideas, in the economy, etc.) Despite this short-coming, the American republic achieved huge greatness because of Aristotelian sense of life prevailing then.

(This misunderstanding about the American political system being totally different and moreover far superior to democracies and decadent monarchies of Europe is quite strongly established in American minds, so I will clarify it a bit more here, some further points being available elsewhere in the book. One explanation about American system is that it is representative democracy, not a democracy of unlimited majority rule. But all said and done, it still works on the basis of majority opinion – in America it is 50%+1 basis because of two-party system. (50%+1) is not even absolute majority, but just the majority of votes polled – and in triangular and multi-polar fights it may not even be 50%+1 of the votes polled, but just the maximum number of votes! In India parties come to power at state and centre levels even with votes between 20 to 30% of the populace. Imagine that with those numbers they can take complete rule in their hands! Remember that absolute majority is far better than maximum of the votes polled which could be as less as 20-30%, where America will eventually land when enough degeneration happens! The “Inverted America” described at the very beginning has been achieved on the basis of this 50%+1 majority (or maximum votes) only. It is because of this that I recently added the phrase “Worship of majority” to the title of Part I (this part) of the book; “Worship of majority” as major quest in American political history since the Revolution is fully described in this part.

And about Rule of Law as part of their Republic -- If one gets laws changed with the help of this 50%+1 majority, then one gets a dual advantage while inflicting injustice and carrying out plutocracies – cheat, loot and still maintain a civilized face of rule of law. Then rogues perpetrate crimes but are seen as ‘unselfish’, law-abiding, looking after welfare of society etc, while honest people become ‘selfish’ usurpers. This is explained ahead in Part II as “Achieving Sainthood and Commission by Charity, but at the cost of others”. In more backward democracies the suppression of citizens carried out by obtaining 20-30% votes is unbelievable.

Checks and balances become meaningless when the law itself is legally twisted.

As far as wrong definitions / ideas that lead to such misunderstanding as the above are concerned, Americans may be nurturing the notion about democracy as the one which was practiced in ancient Greece – deciding issues based on number of raised hands. But such a democracy can never be practiced in most modern countries including the original thirteen colonies simply because of the large population and the distances involved. If any one wanted to be as close to Greek democracy as is practicable, it would exactly be like US or India, a so-called representative democracy which ultimately (in the long run) yields results similar to a democracy of unlimited majority rule. A properly defined republic would not have allowed the US to reach today’s degenerated state described at the start as “An Inverted America”.

To give actual examples of what is going on in the US in recent times post the New Deal, apart from the sub-article on “Inverted America”, ‘too big to fail’ plutocracies etc, very recently there was a controversy about G W Bush(43) having said that “the Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper”, which was never fully clarified. There are statements attributed to him such as “There ought to be limits on freedom”; “I care what 51 percent people think about me” etc. The last one is ‘direct democracy’. Obama was charged with using the executive order too often in his first term to side-step the Congress, undermining Rule of Law, Checks and Balances, etc.)

Hamilton’s Federal Party considered men to be unequal – which is correct if seen in terms of men’s abilities and performances, but wrong if for this reason they were to be treated as politically unequal (i.e. unequal in front of law), and if this was further to be extended to privileges like European aristocracy. (Since Washington supported him more than he supported Jefferson, it is more likely that he did not propagate inequality in front of law.) The Federalist Party was mainly city based, had the support of bankers, financers and industrialists. Hamilton is normally held to be a proponent of modern capitalism in US, but his policies also included a national bank which could be the fore-runner for today’s Federal Reserve that operates the dollar printing factory to finish off the world economy. (See ** Note below.) His party’s drawback was that it never spread to the rural areas, amongst the farmers and the lower sections of society where the major chunk of voters lay – as if they did not matter at all. This party had a very strong influence on the federal government up to 1800, winning the first presidential election after Washington, but after this it never won many elections and slowly disappeared from the political scene. (One wrong view of Hamilton’s was to elect a President and Senators for life-long – it was never given any importance but merely used to malign him by his political opponents.)

** Note: The importance of Aristotelian sense of life can be seen in the following: The expenses of the national bank during Hamilton’s times almost never exceeded 2% of American GDP, at a time when America was a poor, agrarian country. (This can change during emergencies like war, but for that purpose one should not be on the look-out to create artificial wars!) Today, when America’s GDP has risen so many, many times, the government’s expenses exceed 25% of GDP! The most important difference between the two times is the Aristotelian atmosphere and its erosion due to democracy described in this book. The solution too is based on maintaining state and federal government expenses at a very small percentage of GDP. State and federal governments should be run as fiscally prudent corporations which will not go insolvent. Ahead, other instances of the importance of Aristotelian sense of life are given – the Draft, policy of FFs about wars consequent to spreading Empire of Liberty, etc.

It is more important to study Jefferson’s party because, unlike the Federal Party, all later American politics to date is mainly influenced by this party. (I believe that the statement “All men were created equal”, though of-course made with the best of intentions, upheld as great by the whole of America, is the root of today’s degeneration.) As said above, the contradictions start right with the name of Jefferson’s party – the Democratic-Republican Party. Jefferson was predominantly anti-capitalist, against banks and financial institutions (all of which he held as root of corruption, but which is not so if the market is unregulated); he was pro-agrarian to the extent that he is charged with creating inequality in favor of the poor farmer. Accumulation of wealth, the back-bone of capitalism (and of an industrial society), is what he wanted to avoid by means of a graded system of taxation. (It can be inferred that his republicanism was close to egalitarianism, but which again was not extended to Af-Ams.) Woodrow Wilson and T & F Roosevelts repeated this egalitarianism. If Jefferson’s anti-capitalist thinking had really displaced the overall reasonable pro-science and pro-technology thinking prevalent amongst the ASPs, the US would never have become today’s leading nation. While being strong amongst the Southern farmers, the party was charged with the intention of strengthening slavery, and finally it was the Southern farmers who did fight for slavery. Jeffersonians believed that every citizen had a right to education, irrespective of their circumstance or status in life – but considering that all education costs and has to be paid for, this type of thinking is the root of government entering so many fields it should never have (ideas and economy in this instance). Shedding a lot of tears for poor Mexican children, Lyndon Johnson tried to complete his agenda 150 years later – in fact today’s Democratic Party is pursuing this agenda very seriously, and how this has contributed to class and racial divide is derived ahead. As per commentators, Jefferson considered it as Americans’ duty to spread Empire of Liberty to the world – many Americans of that time strongly opposed entanglement into wars. As part of his alleged “idealism”, Woodrow Wilson later on preached the same “duty” to Americans, but strong opposition also continued and only after WW II they launched into building an American empire. (Many politicians of both the parties have been using this idea for their war-mongering policies, Republicans most recently. But there is a hitch in it – Jefferson, and most others of the time were completely against conquest and a very good quotation to this effect is given ahead. Jefferson had two ideas in mind – eliminating British / European aspirations in North America, in particular Canada then; second, they thought of emancipating other people of the world. Second idea is dangerous if stretched beyond America’s national self-interest. Today’s politicians, mainly GOP, are opportunistically using this idea not only for war-mongering but in recent years for spreading empire of slavery via the UN.)

As surmised by me, the reason why the Federalists won initially was poorer peoples’ awe of aristocracy on immediate release from it. (Other factors like money-power, tacit support from Washington etc may have helped.) And apart from Washington’s exit, the other reason why it soon had to vanish out of the political scene is that it never tried to woo the lower sections of society who were soon to become an appreciable majority – this majority determines the rule in democracy as it progresses over the years. The success of Jefferson’s party was based on capturing this lower section of society, after which it enjoyed a near monopoly influence over power for almost 25 years.

(There is likelihood that, as men more loyal to principles of republicanism, the Federalists did not want to deviate from them in quest of wooing majority – but in that case either they had to come out with a solution to majority’s destructive power, or accept defeat.)

The Contradictory Behavior of the Splinters of Jefferson’s Party

As is normal, a large group enjoying such a monopoly usually breaks due to internal differences – around 1828 one faction separated out calling itself as (today’s) Democratic Party; the other faction formed an intermittent Whig Party, and finally in 1854, today’s Republican Party. Both the parties seek every opportunity to claim their descent from Jefferson’s party. The names of these parties do not necessarily convey what they stand for. Both are descendants of Jeffersonian ‘democracy’ in all respects, and all American virtues and vices, all pros and cons, draw-backs and contradictions of that party were inherited by both. For example, Theodore Roosevelt ®’s “trust-beating” is the same as Jefferson’s mistrust of large banks, financial institutions and accumulation of wealth in general. After Woodrow Wilson and FDR, today’s Democratic Party took over his agenda of egalitarianism-populism and heaped unearned benefits on all have-nots including Af-Ams. Prior to that, being anti-business to show themselves to be pro-people was mainly the Republican Party’s role, both parties being contradictory to their names. (What has happened is simple – while America is riding on the momentum of the past, the weaknesses / vices have magnified because of democracy.)

Some facts about these contradictions are unbelievable.

Slavery and Republic versus Democracy

Today, Republicans are taken to represent big business, capitalism, and freedom from government (i.e. a republic) etc. So Af-Ams, Latinos and poor whites are generally against it (and the party cadre is frequently accused of racism); the above groups support the Democratic Party. But in reality the Republican Party waged a civil war for abolition of slavery (it was perceived as European inheritance), while the southern wing (of that time) of the Democratic Party fought for slavery, and decades after the civil war Democratic Party’s Woodrow Wilson imposed segregation! (This means that the racist elements of Jefferson’s Party actually went to the Dems, and still it later on hijacked most Af-Am voters.) This fight against slavery is laudable – but the famous slogan of the first President from Republican party, Abraham Lincoln, about a government “of the people, by the people and for the people” is a direct blow to republicanism despite the party name, delivering government into the hands of the majority – sooner or later it is to turn into “of the mob, by the mob and for the mob”. (It could also be an attempt to show the party to be pro-majority and attract votes!) This means that they continued not to be able to draw the line between republic and democracy.

Religious views

Today, GOP is taken to be pro-religion and its church base is obvious: abortion, school prayers, Limbaugh, Beck, previously prohibition etc are examples. This is also the root of its inability to differentiate between: unselfishness and right to life, non-egoism and freedom of thought, private charity and government sponsored one!

GOP’s big contradiction about religion is as follows: private men have right to preach any religion and form any associations based on it, but for a political party, being pro-religion has only one interpretation: imposing a particular religion even on dissidents, imposing some religious views on others – a government cannot be pro-religion in any other sense, because finally it has to adopt some religion, sect, or the church of a particular denomination – or a mixture drawn from different sources to which the majority agrees – but finally it has to impose this on a disagreeing minority. GOP may just be strengthening its hold over its voter-base of ASPs / Christians, but considering the first amendment and the diversity of religions in America, its religious bias is in total contradiction to its claim of championing individual freedom. (As already explained earlier religion’s intent is specifically to crush selfishness and egoism while America’s huge moral advance over rest of mankind is to allow men to be rational egoists, even if indirectly via right to life and freedom of thought and expression.)

But Christian roots are not exclusive to GOP alone; originally Dems too were Christianity based because of inheritance from the past; both parties were like the Christian-Democrat parties of Europe trying to “combine” Christianity and freedom via democracy. Christians divided themselves amongst the two parties on group lines like ‘pietist’, ‘liturgical’ etc, influencing party policies despite separation between state and church. But as the Dems shifted towards communism via the welfare state (post Woodrow Wilson and FDR) in response to Reps’ show of being pro-people, the Reps inducted more of Christianity in their policies to gain votes. (I have to mention here, though it has not got developed properly in the book, that GOP’s ‘Dark Ages’ agenda of relying on religion to garner votes is as much or more dangerous than the Dems’ communist push. Religion will finally end in declaring ego and selfishness to be evil, except when practiced by the nexus of politicians and businessmen, throwing the greatest achievement in mankind’s history, the American Constitution, into the sewage tank. Issues such as abortion and gay marriage which made many Americans vote for Dems despite not liking the latter’s increase in doles, may become the cause for the civil war referred to ahead. Yet temporarily I have suggested that status quo be maintained in their case so that rational men are not divided in their fight for a small government limited to its legitimate functions alone, like they were divided in 2012 presidential elections. All this is especially for GOP-voters, i.e. ASPs, who consider Dems to be inferior.)

The Draft

One more item in both the parties’ list of contradictions is the draft. But for this I will produce two paragraphs from Ayn Rand’s “Capitalism the Unknown Ideal”, article “The Wreckage of Consensus”.

From page 227: The most immoral contradiction – in the chaos of today’s anti-ideological groups – is that of the so-called “conservatives”, who posture as defenders of individual rights, particularly property rights, but uphold and advocate the draft. By what infernal evasion can they hope to justify the proposition that creatures who have no right to life, have the right to a bank account? A slightly higher -- though not much higher -- rung of hell should be reserved for those “liberals” who claim that man has the “right” to economic security, public housing, medical care, education, recreation, but no right to life, or: that man has the right to livelihood, but no right to life? Unquote

The second quote is far more shocking – traditionally, military duty has at least some aura of patriotic need, attack by enemy, security of the country etc. The second quote is direct enslavement without such a seeming excuse.

From pages 228 & 229: in World War II, the military draft was used as a justification for proposals to establish labor conscription – i.e., compulsory labor service for the entire population, with the government empowered to assign anyone to any job of its choice. “If men can be drafted to die for the country”, it was argued, “Why can’t they be drafted to work for their country?” Two bills embodying such proposals were introduced in the Congress, but, fortunately, were defeated. What political group, do you suppose, came up with a notion of this kind? Both bills were introduced by Republicans – and were defeated by organized labor, which was the only large economic group standing between us and a totalitarian state. Unquote.

(Note one important point about America, repeated for emphasis – so much the Aristotelian sense of life prevailed amongst the ASPs that organized labor played the role of champions of freedom against the alleged champions, the Reps – nowhere else on earth is such an enlightened, benevolent labor force possible as in America during her better days. Effect of Aristotelian sense of life was seen previously when comparing government’s expenses during those times and now despite a central bank then – less than 2% of poor farmers’ government versus more than 25% of trillions because of debt! One more instance comes ahead as FFs’ policy about war consequent to spreading “Empire of Liberty”. Another country would have collapsed long time back due to such assaults, but America’s foundation was reason! Since Americans do not give much importance to this magnification of vices, “simile of Mt Everest” is very correct to describe their descent.)

Today GOP is taken as pro-business, but its doings about the hugely anti-business 1890 anti-trust Sherman Act is so unrepublican, that it merits the next sub-article. But do not conclude one party to be the villain – performance of both is described all along the book.

Nineteenth Century -- The Great Era of Republic and Unregulated Capitalism

Note: In the analysis below, do not confuse capitalism with today’s plutocracy just because world calls it as capitalism and today many foolish Americans have joined them. Pure capitalism has never existed anywhere on earth, but America on her founding was the closest to it, as against today’s socialism and plutocracy under the name of capitalism.

Despite all the FFs’ short-comings and lacks, commentators say that the nineteenth century, the most capitalistic era of free markets in man-kind’s history, was also the best era of laying the foundations of future industrial achievements in western countries, while the twentieth century has undone the freedom of those days, making government the owner of business and of people. Many like Ayn Rand hold 1890 Inter-state Commerce Act as that boundary.

The start of capitalism is political, viz. granting freedom (or right to life) to the individual, but its most important social consequence or end is accumulation of money in a graded manner in the hands of a few at the top, the number of men slowly increasing (and money-power slowly decreasing) towards the bottom. Occupy Wall Street is presently protesting against this structure of society (as of Sept-Oct 2011).

As shown in detail in ASP-R, ALL societies have the same pyramidal structure (with rulers at the top and masses at the bottom), except that only in capitalism it is based on morality, while in all other societies it is based on immorality, force and fraud. In capitalism men rise to the top as per the returns they get from the free market in exchange for the ideas and materials produced by them. In all other societies, Plato’s Men of Gold rise by suppressing rest of society. That is the reason for the massive boom in knowledge and production, that under capitalism the producers get freedom and strong incentives to do their best, and major portion of society strives to rise.

It was this requirement of capitalism that was hit by the 1890 anti-Trust Act – the result was that the structure remained (i.e. few at the top and maximum at the bottom), but honesty was compromised and government and plutocracy crept in, exposing businessmen to compromise with causeless government authority and intrusion. It did not instantaneously change America to a completely irrational society like communism or religion but rendered it as an in-between diluted semi-rational version.

Reason given for the passage of the 1890 Act is to restrict monopolies that cause danger to society. Many commentators (libertarians, Ayn Rand and her associates) have shown that free-market monopolies are not the same as the co-ercive government monopolies. The intent of non-coercive private monopolies is “selfish”, but they come into existence and continue to exist only so long as they keep serving the market the best i.e. finally giving best returns to society; else competitors are just behind to replace them at the first chance. Government monopolies (i.e. coercive) on the other hand exist by suppressing all competition (i.e. capability) and holding knowledge static, freezing all impetus for improvement, though their alleged intent is unselfish (i.e. alleged welfare of society).

The 1890 Act, in which again the allegedly pro-business GOP had taken the lead in promoting governmental control over business, does not have any basis or rational arguments to back it except “majority opinion”. This act was believed to be pro small farmers (a huge majority) and anti “big business” (a minority). Theodore Roosevelt of GOP is said to have made the maximum use of this act against big businesses while the Dems like President Cleveland (The Bourbon Dems) were then pro-business. Perhaps TR is the only President called as “trust-beater” for too strong a stand against large corporations – this is apart from passing the Sherman Act in 1890 -- so much for GOP’s pro-business, pro-individual rights stand. TR coined the term “a square deal”, to convey that the ordinary man would get justice under his rule – instead of everybody getting justice, why single out the ordinary man during the days of trust-beating if not to please the majority? And who did he mean threatened the ordinary man? Of-course the small minority of “big men”, the businessmen! A famous sentence about his life is that his father was unselfish and would not tolerate selfishness in the children – what this is to be taken to mean in a rich family of slave-owners some of whose relatives had joined the Confederate army? Like his relative FDR later on, TR too is voted as one of the greatest of US Presidents – their only specialty seems to be using the government to favor the small man for personal elevation. (GOP’s anti-business stance then, is one of the major factors that have today made the government so very big that the Soviet Press made the above observations of the US having far surpassed them in socialism.)

Why such contradictory positions and somersaulting of the two parties? The clue to it is the word majority in a democracy. This is the word over which the Federal Party vanished. If a party did not have enough votes, the party would become useless in democracy if a firm line of demarcation between democracy and republic did not exist. The developments just ahead will explain the reasons for this.

But it can be argued that the source for transformation from free markets to government controls is in the Declaration of Independence itself, or rather in man-kind’s tribal state over which the FFs were making huge progress, though not complete. The idea of “unalienable rights of individual” in the Declaration is a giant step towards civilization, but the phrase about “consent of the governed” has potential of going back to savagery, which is slowly actualizing. Rights of man are not subject to consent of the majority – the majority has to accept it as self-evident truth and basis of a civilized society, else the majority is a tribe. (This paragraph includes a very important idea for a burning issue today, viz. that civilization is a gradual process and men cannot be separated from each other (i.e. a Free Society cannot be achieved) overnight – it will happen only gradually, with issues being separated out serially.)

“Consent of the governed” seems to be borrowed from John Locke’s essay on Civil Government. In the same essay he says that all men have to submit their sovereignty to the majority, qualifying that “it being only with the intention in everyone the better to preserve himself, his liberty and property (for no rational creature can be supposed to change his condition with an intention to be worse)”. (Chapter IX, ‘Of the ends of Political Society and Government’ of essay on Civil Government, Page 130 in the book ‘The Political Philosophers’ edited by Commins and Linscott, Modern Pocket Library, New York, 1st Printing 1953.) Locke and FFs after him have the correct intention of implementing individual rights but have depended on the good sense of the majority (Aristotelian sense of life) being dependable forever, which it did not remain so in the 20th century in America. (Its effect is shown in the first casualty in Atlas Shrugged, the first businessman who does not vanish but retires, “You did not expect the majority to do this to you?”) To depend on the majority for individual rights one has to draw a very distinct line which the majority will not violate to infringe on the individual’s rights.

(I surmise the intent of the FFs, and I have to surmise it because they were not explicit about all their ideas, as follows: that the individual has the unalienable right to his own life (i.e. rational selfishness, also see the phrase “it being only with the intention in everyone the better to preserve himself, his liberty and property (for no rational creature can be supposed to change his condition with an intention to be worse”)), but in running a government there will be huge differences of opinions and occasions of conflict – to overcome these, opinion of the majority is to be resorted to, so as to keep the overall right to life of the individual intact! The point where the slip occurred is not ensuring that the majority did not become the arbiter of truth in every aspect of life, which is what it has almost become today. This point is important and should be used for future development – to protect the individual from the majority to the extent possible (i.e. where knowledge is clearly established), but to take recourse to majority opinion in case of a few emerging issues becoming controversial.)

Achieving Sainthood and Commission by Charity, but at the cost of others – the Witch-Doctor

(This idea is explained better in Part II with examples of Johnson, Kennedy etc Democrats. As said in ‘Note of Helplessness’ at the start, this book lacks organization, but that can be done only later on.)

So far (upto Theodore Roosevelt, about 1910) the Republican party was the most un-Republican, undoing the republic, playing by the side of the majority to get votes – now it was their opponents’ turn to play the same card. The response came with a big bang! Woodrow Wilson ended the competition between the two parties by incorporating all irrationality of the past into ‘Wilsonian idealism’, which heavily influences American domestic and foreign policies to this day. (Every evil that is practiced by US rulers of both parties today is preached in his ‘ideals’. Nobody can come close to him, let alone surpass.) Apart from his typically non-American Southern Racism (segregation even after Civil War), his policies that are most relevant to this discussion are: pushing America into wars for the suicidal purpose of “making the world safe for democracies”; opening the gates for ‘unlimited’ government interference into economy by de-linking dollar from gold and establishing the Fed (allegedly to overcome crises in economy); establishing the Federal Trade Commission to strengthen the 1890 anti-monopoly act. With his “idealism” he made it possible for others to achieve what I have called as “achieving sainthood (and commission) by Charity, but at the cost of others” (i.e. practicing charity via government to achieve superiority (while grabbing money), private charity being legal). Commission and money are in brackets because of the higher probability that corruption became common later on. His undoing the gold standard to support Bank of England’s irrational policies (including empire building) later led to the biggest economic crisis in modern history, the Great Depression.

Crises like Great Depression are a normal consequence of every governmental intrusion into economy, to undo which repeal of the original action and time for healing are necessary. But instead, irresponsible politicians and bureaucrats blame it on businessmen’s greed, freedom, capitalism, etc – and follow up the original irrationality with further intrusions as remedial measures. To cover the crisis caused by Woodrow Wilson’s abolishing the gold standard, FDR initiated his New Deal communism supported by printing dollars, which almost landed America into the abyss. (Any rational man who reads details of the New Deal will call it only as that except that the first amendment was not undone, so it was economic communism. Making the first amendment redundant without declaring the intention to do so is being pursued in the 21st century, after the irrationalists having devastated the economy!) Only luck saved America in the unexpected form of Adolph Hitler, who did what is very necessary to come out of a deep recession, viz. creating new demand-supply equations, eliminating manufacturing capacities and several ‘consumers’, forcing a strong ‘belt tightening’, and giving time to business to overcome wrong policies. (Such was the belt-tightening that even cigarettes were not available, or were on ration.) Massive pains and a magnified version of today’s unemployment had to be borne -- whole developed world was brought back to square one, and got new markets in regions like Far East. (That ‘belt tightening’, imposed by the free markets with the government merely protecting individuals’ rights, is the only solution to today’s frequent recessions growing ever-stronger and longer – but see ahead whether that can be achieved in today’s social atmosphere.)

So much is made of the New Deal, but one quote of 1937 attributed to FDR’s Secretary of Treasury, Morgenthau, tells the whole story about where America is headed today – “We have spent more money than ever before, and it does not work. … After 8 years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started – And an enormous debt to boot” Unquote. Morgenthau on stimulus as of 6:34 AM IST, 8/2/2011, reference book cited in the article (Roosevelt and Morgenthau, pg 256 by John Blum, Houghton Mifflin, 1970). (Look at it from angle of today’s stimuli and quantitative easing meant to reduce unemployment.) Same internet site also quotes Morgenthau as saying: "If anybody knew how we really set the gold price through a combination of lucky numbers, etc., I think they would be frightened." (Reference book cited in the article, The Forgotten Man (2007), p. 163, 148 by Amity Shlaes. The last quote tells about FDR type of bureaucrats’ basis for decisions, their capability to lead the nation, handle crises etc.)

The most important change that occurred after the Great Depression was that the rulers gave up paper money and shifted to Gold Standard at Breton Woods. There were many wrong interpretations about the happenings, like ‘creation of governmental jobs saved the economy’ etc, but in reality Hitler slapped them, even if inadvertently, into the realization that people had to work to earn money, not just print it for war-mongering and distribution of doles. Today again, the US is on the same course as after FDR’s New Deal – the same unemployment, ‘stimulus packages’ etc, but remember that if Wilson’s ‘elastic money’ and FDR’s New Deal were a success, they would not have gone back to gold-standard in Breton-Woods! (Today it is because of the Republican, Nixon, undoing the gold-standard.)

Most of today’s evils like Social Security, government ownership of businesses etc started with the New Deal, but Hitler’s Nazi’ism converted the communist FDR into a national hero in same league as George Washington, as one of the top three American Presidents! He is the biggest example of “achieving sainthood via charity, but at the cost of others”. Same is the case with most Dem-Presidents like LBJ, JFK etc. All of this is detailed in Part II while dealing with the degenerating aspect of democracy and may be merged in a later revision conditions permitting.

The Founding Fathers had struggled very hard to save the populace from the ill-effects of exactly those “ideals” and politics of Wilson and FDR but had not made the constitution fool-proof. On the other hand, these very policies, particularly government being turned into an altruistic institution, are liked by so large a number of voters that any party resorting to populism would instantly become a winner. With these two decisive events, Wilson’s ‘idealistic push’ and FDR’s communism, the Democrats hijacked lot of GOP’s voter base, the people for whom they fought like yeoman farmers and Af-Ams, as well those by whose side they enacted unjust legislation (like Sherman Act against big business) – any mistake on the part of GOP, and Dems would be in power.

The case of Af-Ams has to be specially mentioned -- the GOP had fought a civil war with the Dems (who were pro-slavery), to emancipate them, and they were GOP’s loyal voters till FDR’s first term, the other reason being Wilson’s anti-black segregation policies, Ku Klux Klan in the South etc. Yet as soon as FDR offered doles, along with other have-nots they too changed loyalties.

Note important point about democracy (and also an unrestricted policy of emancipation, spreading democracy to ‘undeveloped’ nations etc): huge sacrifices like Civil War are made to emancipate the lower sections of society from religious and other dictatorships (i.e. not merely Af-Ams, but also poor whites, and even others trapped else-where, for example under communism like Cuba, other dictatorships like Libya today, etc) – but finally, evil intellectuals / politicians use these lower sections to take-over the political rule of democracy and lead it to collapse. It raises a crucial question about America’s internal and external policies – If certain section of the populace, referred to ahead as Group G3, Plato’s Men of Bronze, is so very fickle-minded and can be easily made to behave irrationally by offering doles, is it worth endangering a good country’s stability to emancipate them, which is what America is doing all over the earth today? The continuation of this leads to the most important question about democracy, around which fate of civilization hangs – it leads to the phenomenon of civilization turning full circle, dealt with ahead. (This important aspect applies not only to America’s internal democracy, but today also to their global endeavors of spreading democracy and enlightenment, where most of the undeveloped world considers them to be evil, while America is giving victory to the evil UN family.)

Left with no alternative after the above, the GOP was pushed to the side it previously opposed, big business, capitalists, banks, corporations etc, and talks about protection of individual freedom and rights. Such is the story of the contradictions – the twists, gyrations and somersaults -- of American politics in pursuance of that elusive, magical word “majority” that could make a politician a king or a beggar in democracy.

The Doings of the Conservative GOP (post New Deal), the other splinter of Jefferson’s Party – The Attila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Ruveyn. This is political history of America (very brief, mainly about its degeneration from republic to chaos). As I said about communities’ need of appreciation (or their demoralization), so also individuals more obviously need it. I believe that my book will play a good role in stopping the slide and turning America around. But if there is only demoralization around then we have to accept our fate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0