If you want to see broken government, consider the fall of the constitutional Roman Republic and the rise of Julius Caesar: "Fortune turned against us and brought confusion to all we did. Greed destroyed honor, honesty and every other virtue, and taught men to be arrogant and cruel, to neglect the gods. Ambition made men false. Rome changed: A government which had once surpassed all others in justice and excellence now became cruel and unbearable." So said the historian Sallust at the time.
But in retrospect, while moral decay surely played its part, the more complete explanation for the fall of the Roman Republic lay in the consequences of the successes of Rome's vast Mediterranean conquests. The flow of wealth into Rome from the conquered empire -- which had been built to protect the city-state of Rome -- undercut the republic it was built to protect. The Roman constitution had been designed to govern a city-state, but with the wealth of empire came severe economic inequalities that the Roman Senate would not, or could not, resolve. Demagogues arose, private armies were formed -- and finally force of victorious arms replaced republican government.
Another familiar example of broken government was our Washington government in the 1850s, which failed to peacefully resolve the matter of slavery. Once again, force of arms was required to resolve an existential crisis of a republic. Six hundred thousand Americans died during our Civil War. Although I and most Americans (at least outside the South) think Abraham Lincoln acted wisely and saved the republic -- and we returned to more or less constitutional government in 1865 -- it cannot be denied that America got its first real, sustained taste of authoritarian government under Lincoln.
We had better hope our government isn't broken -- or we are likely to have more to worry about than 10 percent unemployment.
In fact, as many have observed recently, our government is working just fine -- blocking the enactment of unpopular laws by a government that is out of step with the people. There is nothing new in that. I served in the Reagan White House and with Newt Gingrich in the 1990s. I recall feeling both times that government was broken -- the filibuster was blocking our majority rule -- because we couldn't get "vital" legislation enacted. (In fact, both times I was involved, inter alia, in the failed effort to close down the Department of Education, saving only its essential student loan functions.) We overreached. We got a lot done, but only that with which the public was comfortable.
Other administrations, including Jimmy Carter's, complained that government was broken because they generally were incompetent to lead. However, a form of government and the public are functioning adequately not only when they block bad or unacceptable law (as currently is the case) but when they are able to solve great dangers to the nation. We may soon get a test on that second matter.
There is broad agreement (as close to a universal agreement as we have seen on a great issue) that if we don't get our national debt and deficits to sustainable levels, we may never recover our prosperity -- and will then lose our military strength and our great sovereign freedom.
If, as many expect, the Democrats lose effective or actual control of Congress in the November elections, it is likely to be because the public has risen up and rejected the party that has brought us these intolerable multitrillion-dollar deficits with a budget proposal that fails even to propose a path out of the morass.
Although many hard decisions will have to be made, everyone agrees that at the core, we have to reduce vastly the current estimated $50 trillion of unfunded liability that exists in our entitlement programs -- Social Security and Medicare particularly.
So, should the election play out as described, 2011 will be the year that will test whether our government is broken, because a pretty good definition of a broken government (or more accurately, a broken polity -- a government and its electorate) is one that agrees on a great threat to society, agrees broadly on what needs to be done -- and cannot do it.
While many of us have for years complained of our failure to get entitlement costs under control, in fact, only starting in 2011 will the true test of our polity begin. Because only now is there a strong majority that sees the danger.
Until the 1990s, federal deficits were the concern merely of the green-eye-shade part of the Republican voters. Most Democrats, independents and some Republicans didn't vote based on that issue. Then Ross Perot came along and ran on the deficit issue, thereby expanding the part of the electorate that really cared about deficits. Then in 1994, Newt Gingrich and the new Republican majority championed trying to get to a balanced budget (and succeeded, with Bill Clinton in 1997).
Still, only about half the electorate really cared about deficits. However, during the George W. Bush presidency of 2001-09, most Democratic voters came -- for the first time -- to loudly, emphatically and constantly attack deficits. Thus, in 2009, for the first time since the rise of Franklin D. Roosevelt, a big majority of the public is alive to the dangers of excessive debt and deficit. And just at this moment, we get these staggering multitrillion-dollar-per-year deficits.
Now the danger is manifest. Assuming the November election plays out as suspected and the public manifests its deepest concern -- if the public will not support or the government of 2011 does not enact genuine structural reductions sufficient to honestly project our debt to be under control for the long term -- then we can honestly say that our government is broken. Then we will know that we are in for a hellish future.
There was broad agreement to do this (as close to a universal agreement as we have seen on a great issue) that if we don't get our national debt and deficits to sustainable levels, we will never recover our prosperity and sovereignty -- and will then lose our military strength.
Thus, in 2010, for the first time since the rise of Franklin D. Roosevelt, a big majority of the public was alive to the dangers of excessive debt and deficit.
The public new that there was a win-win solution but the Republicans/Democrats aligned with financial powers refused to employ it.
So we the people rose up and shed ourselves of the usurpers of our sovereignty.
We first, destroyed the source of our debt, the privately owned banker's bank--the Federal Reserve System of Banks. That odious institution had practiced its usury, unfettered for almost 100 years.
Second, we created a new currency backed by species, a la JFK, in 1963.
Third, we paid our debts with this new currency which is stronger and more acceptable than the "fiat" currency now proliferating in the world.
And, finally, we allocated funds to state and local governments at near zero rates to fund the commons.
Revolution restores freedom, from freedom springs creativity, from creativity flows the genius for the restoration of broken nations, and the progress of civilizations.
http://counterpunch.com/weir02262010.html
The problem with Ron Paul is that he has nothing to offer all those millions of people who are--as a result of nature, or nurture--unable to regulate their own lives. Libertarianism in general, while holding a great deal of appeal for its fundamental ideas on freedom, is really only attractive to people who do not need government to provide anything other than its most minimal function: keeping us safe. For people who do need government--most people, by far--libertarianism has nothing to offer.
I'd also add that Mr. Paul's belief that "life begins at conception" is unscientific and, therefore, just more republican religious claptrap. His free-market stance on healthcare is 19th century.
I would say 1.) We must first fix the unbelievable debt left by the last three "republican" presidents -- Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2, and we must spend to get Americans back to work before we can pull back; 2.) If democrats loose in november it's because of the proven ability of the republicans to lie so unbelievably well to the people of America, and who care a wit about them; 3.) Gingrich and the right were despicable in their attempt to bury Clinton's presidency.
Mr. Blankley, you are on the wrong side.
When corporations rather than businesses became common it changed to being about how to produce the product or service for less money without the stupid customer noticing the reduction in quality. The customer became the pawn in the game of "leveraging" the profits for the executives and shareholders.
When the profit becomes more important than the customer, it becomes unsustainable.
Take this so-called Free Trade, the policy that ships jobs to the lowest cost centers, dragging all wages towards a lower world rate. It may benefit shareholders, but it doesn't benefit workers. If we want to worry about what Tony worries about which is that we "...then lose our military strength", it would seem to me, that preserving the domestic tax base is the means to pay for that. But Tony and his crew want to reduce taxes on dividends, where the benefits of Free Trade inure to, which I think happened under Bush, and then wonder why we have a deficit? As a percentage of GDP, corporate profits hit an all-time high under Bush.
Then throw in the bribery in Congress (aka "lobbying") as part of crony capitalism, and that's where this country is falling apart.
Neither Capitalism nor Socialism is America's problem. It is corruption.
The only way to save our country is through campaign reform. Corruption is not a problem in our government--it has become our system. Any politician HAS to play ball.
Until EVERYONE starts talking and blogging and marching for Campaign Reform we are just spinning our wheels discussing any thing that might challenge the special interests.
We are and have always been a country that has always combined capitalism and socialism. Why people go to pieces over the two isms is a result of years of propaganda.
I believe (and every American I have ever met-otherwise no roads, social security, VA etc) the statement below: "Socialism is required for things that we absolutely must have, like health care, the common defense, police and firefighters, clean air and water, and so forth.
Free markets are wonderful for all the crap we can live without"
Capitalism can and always has existed beside Socialism. They compliment each other. They both need to be balanced against each other to prevent injustices by either ideology. That is what our two party system is supposed to be about but the corruption of our system has thrown it out of balance.
Go too far to the right, we get fascism. Go too far left we get communism.
Until we have campaign reform both you and I are irrelevant.
The will of the senate is the will of the special interests.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/174.html
Under Reagan, Social Security started taking in more than it spent. It then "loaned" the excess to the Federal government, holding Federal securities in return. The commission looked at these securities as follows. "They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures."
They had no intention of paying that money back. But, there was a problem, namely, the budget surpluses. http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/issuebriefs_ib159/
"OMB (2000) projects that the federal budget will show a surplus until 2075 if discretionary expenditures grow with inflation, and until 2040 if discretionary spending grows with GDP". If we had surpluses, then, the money owed Social Security could be paid back.
So, in order to "starve the beast", they ran up the deficits, and predictably, now their minions are here calling for reductions in Social Security. This was the plan from the 1st day that they took office in 2001.
There's no such thing as public "virtue". And what does wealth have to do with virtue, anyway?
Rising economic inequality and poverty INCREASE a nation's instability. Just ask Tsar Nicholas and Marie Antoinette. The Russian and French Revolutions did not happen by accident. The starving, PISSED OFF serfs and peasants were finally screwed over one time too many.
Nick and Marie didn't pay attention and didn't care. It cost them their lives.
There is NOTHING necessary about economic inequality.
MANY of the most talented and hard working people in this country continually get screwed over, BIG TIME.
MUCH of the obscene economic rewards go to colluding, self-serving, deceitful individuals. The Wall Street Kings are only 'talented' and 'hard working' as much as it benefits their rapacious, amoral greed.
Wealth=Power. Leaving great wealth in a few hands is a recipe for disaster. Yes, the wealthy have shown they invest and create jobs - in INDIA, CHINA, etc.
And "rising tide that lifts all boats"? Please. That's the same "trickle down" economics crap.
The rising tide of corruption and corporatocracy lifts its OWN cruise ships - while sinking the damn public fleet of row boats.
This damage is already done. I can truly say that for the first time Rush Limbaugh is instructive here.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201002190020 1min, 36 seconds.
The point of the clip is to hear Rush talk a little Negro, but that's not what I want paid attention to. Rush also talks about how we handled the Dalai Lama visit. And who's brilliant policies put this country in the position where we have to kowtow to the Chinese? Good ole Republican policies, where deficits don't matter. Between the WTO, where we've lost our financial sovereignty, and our indebtedness to the Chinese that makes our foreign policy subordinate to our financial obligations, the damage is done.
At this point, we have to worry about what happens when the Chinese pull back the monetary punchbowl. At this point, it would seem that they have a few too many eggs in the US monetary basket already.
Blame Reagan.
To mention that in the second paragraph and then never mention the quite astonishing and growing wealth inequality in the U.S. currently is amazing and very very funny.
The problem is conservatism.
Conservatism was founded and continues to be for Destroying the Republic and the Democracy and selling it to the plutocracy.
Conservatism was founded to undo the Enlightenment and the French revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
Ever wonder why the Right make Liberal such a dirty word?
Liberal Republicans and Liberal Democrats should be working together against Conservatism.
Conservatives run both parties, though the GOP is much worse.
Vote for Liberals against Conservatives in the Primaries, then vote straight Democrats in the main election (and certain other party candidates.)
The foundering fathers of American were LIBERALS: Republican AND democratic.
"America, the first modern liberal state was founded, without a monarch or a hereditary aristocracy.[8"
"Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. The French Revolution, which implemented some of these new ideas, was a seminal event in the history of liberalism. John Locke is often credited with laying the philosophical foundations of liberalism.[3][4][5] "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
This is almost stand-up comedy. During the Bush years, the deficit almost doubled, while Cheney was running around stating that Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. It seems that from Republican advocates, that deficits matter only if Democrats are in charge? A financial collapse occurred under the Republican watch, decreasing tax revenues, and we're only now hearing about deficits.
We're always going to have deficits from Republicans under their proposals of less taxes and Big War. I think cutting about $200B from the defense budget would be a good first step towards deficit reduction; don't hear an awful lot from Republicans on that one.
I think Republican histrionics are getting a bit old. People are going to want a serious discussion on our priorities, and I have a feeling that nation building will be low on the list.