The Founding Fathers Revisited (a History Lesson), the Euro-Trumps, a Solution to the G.O.P.'s Problem and Two Brilliant Columns on Trump's Rise

                                           

The Founding Fathers Revisited

It goes back to the Declaration of Independence where it clearly states “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”  While that elusive final right, “the pursuit of happiness” had appeared occasionally in the political and philosophical writings of the time, more usually “Life and Liberty” were followed by another “right,” that of “Property.”  (If you want to learn more about this, check out the philosophy of Edmund Burke, some of whose ideas inspired the American Revolution.)

That would have been a much more expected term for the Declaration’s main author, Thomas Jefferson, to have used.  But he didn’t. Why did he substitute “the pursuit of happiness,” which can mean almost anything you want it to mean from enjoying a piece of pie to making a million dollars,” for the very specific right to own “property”? 

Thomas Jefferson

I believe Jefferson recognized the hypocrisy of the Declaration’s statement that “all men were created equal.”  As a slave owner, he knew the Declaration really referred to “white men,” and not “all men.”  And all men could not own property; only white men could.  In fact, black men could not only not own property, but at that time, with few exceptions, they actually were the “property” of white owners.  So to avoid language which would open up the question of slavery in the United States, I believe Jefferson replaced the problematic “property” language with the ambiguous, safe “pursuit of happiness” language, which could be taken as including property ownership by those who chose to define it that way.

So the Founding Fathers, back in 1776, ducked the issue of slavery in the Declaration of Independence.  Now let’s fast forward thirteen years to the creation of the Constitution of the United States.  Up until 1789, the country had been governed by the Articles of Confederation, and were a collection of what amounted to thirteen independent republics, each with its own currency, laws and trade relations with foreign countries.  It wasn’t working and the Founding Fathers knew it and that’s why they sat down in Philadelphia to come up with something which would prevent the United States from falling apart.  And they did.

But they still ducked the question which had caused Thomas Jefferson to substitute “the pursuit of happiness” for “property” in the Declaration: Slavery.

Of the thirteen states which formed the United States as established under the Constitution in 1789, slavery was legal in six, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Maryland and Delaware.  Slavery was illegal in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New Hampshire. 
In order to get the Constituion ratified, slavery had to be kept in the background; hence it was not mentioned.  Our "peculiar institution," as it was sometimes referred to, was the two ton gorilla in the room that everyone ignored.  (Over the years, it gained a lot of weight.)

Framers of the Constitution meet in Independence Hall

Nowadays, we hear a lot about “income redistribution” which means taking from those who “have” wealth and distributing it to those who do not.  Usually the mechanisms for doing this are taxation and the providing of social benefits.  But there’s another word for this “wealth” which some would redistribute, and that word is “property.” 

The Founding Fathers, avoiding the use of the word “slavery, took the approach that the “property rights” of citizens had to be protected.  State laws saw to that, but Southerners still wanted to make sure there were no Federal loopholes in any Constitution they would devise which would reduce their property rights.  Everyone knew, in discussing this, that it was “slavery” that was the subject involved.  Imagine those Founding Fathers sitting around in Philadelphia smoking their pipes and drinking Madeira after a day of “constitution drafting."

The following discussion might have ensued:

Southerner:  We won’t sign anything which will ever enable the Federal Government to take away any of our property.  And you know what I am talking about.  Without our labor force we are ruined.

Northerner:  We won’t ever do that.  That’s because the economy in your states is vital to the entire country, and without the labor force provided by your “property,” we’d all be in trouble.

Southerner:  Yeah, but we only have six states to your seven, so you can vote to change the laws.  And there’s a lot of Yankees who want to do just that!

Northerner:  Okay, even though our states have way more people than yours do, each state can have the same amount of Senators … two … so the South will be over-represented in the Senate, considering your population.  Two from each State, regardless of size!

Southerner:  That'll be fine ... but we're still outnumbered.  And it'll be even worse in the House, where the number of Congressmen is based on population? 

Northerner:  We’ll fix that too.  Besides counting every white citizen in figuring out how many Congressmen your states will get, how about pretending that each one of those laborers you own is equal to three-fifths of a white man?  That will juice up your population numbers!  Will that do the job for you?

Southerner:  Good deal, but if push comes to shove, and some Yankee President wants to take our slaves … oops, I mean our property … away from us, what recourse do we have.  This Constitution thing is just words and worth little if the Federal Government comes after us with guns.  The Federal Government is going to have an army, right? And what’s to prevent them from coming after our property?

Northerner:  Tell you what.  You guys go ahead and sign the Constitution and we will tack on some Amendments.  One of them will guarantee your right to have your people have all the guns they want, so if looks like Federal troops are coming after your property, you can form them up in a militia to fight the Government.  Hope that never happens, but you will always have that right.

Southerners:  Good deal!  And if your fancy lawyers come up with something else to deprive us of our property, how do we fight that?

Northerner:    Everything has to be done legally … and look, we’re loading the Senate and the House in your favor, so such new laws won’t be passed, believe me.  And if some wise guy President tries to do stuff on his own, you guys can threaten to walk out.  After all, we’re allowing you to have all the guns you want.  Remember, if it isn’t laid out in the Constitution as something the Federal Government can do, it is strictly left up to the individual States; hey, we’ll tack on an Amendment for that too, so you can keep doing whatever you want with your “property.”

Southerner:  Okay.  We'll buy in, but promise us, you won’t use the word “slavery” anywhere in the Constitution.  Just say “property” and that’s okay with us.  You know, Jefferson was right on the mark when he said “pursuit of happiness” instead.  Avoided a lot of problems.”

So they cut a deal, and the country was born.  No one can ever claim that it came out of a democratic process.  It came out of horse trading and avoiding the issue which would plague the country for the next seventy years.  The Constitution was a bundle of compromises.  But if “the people” in both the north and the south had had their say, in a democratic manner, and compromises such as those discussed above had not been made, we probably would have split into two countries right then and there, one with the seven northern free states and the other with the six southern slave states.  (And guess what, the British or perhaps the French, would have moved in to take over both countries within a few years.)  Anyway, that split-up is what was attempted, violently, seventy-one years later, and prevented by a President who preserved the Union.   

By that time, fortunately, (1) “democracy” was no longer a dirty word, and (2) slavery was recognized as an evil no longer to be accepted in our expanding nation, these two changes being the accomplishments of Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln respectively.

Although the initial emancipation of slaves applied only to those who were the property of those in rebellion against the United States during the Civil War, ultimately the Thirteenth Amendment freed all slaves in this country.  By then most Western countries had already done so.

A great conflict always arises when the interests of the people are lined up against the interests of property.  Throughout history, those with property have fought with laws and armies to hold on to their property.  Read all about it in play by Shakespeare called “Coriolanus.” And in doing so, they have opposed “democracy” which ultimately threatens their property.  This is why, at least to the propertied classes, “democracy” has always had nasty connotations, featuring images of mobs in the streets taking what is not theirs.  Carried to its unworkable maximum, it becomes Marxism, where there is no private property at all.  Such an association is why it is often difficult, for example, to get Federal legislation passed which regulates business and in effect, private property, in the public interest.  

So when “income or wealth redistribution” are discussed, the historic conflict between “democracy” and “property” comes to the forefront.  And in the United States, we cannot be blind to the fact that for many years, “property rights” included the right to possess slaves.  That only complicates the situation, and is reflected today in many of the social and economic problems the nation confronts, including equal employment opportunity, crime, housing and public education.

   
Hamilton and Madison 

But if Thomas Jefferson and the framers of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, had not made the kinds of undemocratic compromises discussed above, finessing the issue of slavery, we might not have a “United” States of America today.   But we do, and unlike in 1789, “democracy” is no longer something to be feared.

 

The pedestal to which the Founding Fathers have been elevated is one founded not on nobility but rather, on some pretty ugly compromises.  But for being able to swallow their pride and commit to them, they still should be honored.  They created a nation which later leaders have moved closer to their dreams.

Jack Lippman

                                           

European Parallels to Trump

Last week’s Bloomberg Businessweek featured an opinion piece featuring the idea that while Europe Is horrified by the idea of Trump in the White House, he’d fit right in with politics on the Continent.  There’s dissatisfaction there with the European Union, a financial crisis, but most of all very significant support for Trump-like politicians in almost every country there “who draw their support from globalization’s losers—working-class voters who feel squeezed between an elite that doesn’t have their interests at heart and a growing class of immigrants they worry doesn’t share their values.”  

In France, Marine LePen, less extreme than her ultra-right, formerly neo-nazi father, appeals to the same base as does Trump.

Does that sound familiar?   And the constituency Trump is building in this country, regardless of what happens here in 2016, is likely to remain a factor, just as the extreme right Le Pens (father and daughter) are a permanent factor in French politics.   But I’ve said enough.  Just click here and read the article for yourself.

JL

                                                       
                                             

A Solution to the G.O.P.'s Problem

Without a consultant’s fee, here is a solution for the Republicans in their efforts to nominate and elect a President other than Donald Trump.  I think is has a small, but possible, chance of succeeding for them.

It’s very simple.  Cancel their convention in Cleveland.  Let Donald Trump, who has in effect stolen their party from its long existing “establishment,” set up his own rump convention and have the nomination. 

Then, the 60% of remaining Republican voters should immediately sit down together and quickly settle on a candidate to run for President (more about that later on). They can call their party the “Real” Republicans as contrasted with the “Trump” Republicans.  Then they will then have to plan campaigns against both Trump and the presumptive Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton in a few carefully selected States.  This campaign would not be directed toward Trump’s constituency which seems to ignore issues and facts.  Their strategy will have to be based on targeting specific voter groups to supplement their 60% share of Republicans which would be their base.  And these targeted voter groups would be those whom the Republicans have traditionally ignored, and which will not be supporting the “Trump” Republican Party.  They will have to be torn away from the Clinton camp!  They will consist of Women, Black and Latino voters.

To do this, the “Real” Republicans will have to make it very clear that a free enterprise, business-oriented economy, with less emphasis on government regulation and involvement would actually be better for the targeted groups.  “What has government actually done for you?” they will ask.   They would have to show how the traditional “trickle down” benefits of tax relief for corporations and the wealthy would improve opportunity, creating jobs and income for these targeted groups.  This strategy has worked for many Republican candidates in the past, electing many Republicans in Democratic areas.  It might work again.  Of course, it would have to be done within the framework of the “compassionate” conservatism which George W. Bush advocated.  They would also have to bite the bullet and soft-pedal traditional Republican opposition to abortion, immigration, gay rights, gun control and government involvement in health care, all of which the “targeted” groups favor.  This might shock the Tea Party wing of the party, but they probably would be in Trump’s camp anyway so it won’t matter. 

This approach, if concentrated in a few states (New Jersey, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, for example ... all with liberal majorities but conservative Governors) would be aimed at capturing just enough electoral votes (which would otherwise go to Clinton) and move them over to the "Real" Republican candidate so that none of the three candidates would receive a majority of votes (270 out of 538) in the

 
This was the 2012 result.  (Blue- Obmaa, Red- Romney).  Electoral vote numbers remain the same.

Electoral College.  If they won even just one state's electoral votes, while Clinton and Trump evenly split the rest, a majority would be prevented, which would throw the election into the House of Representatives where each State would have one vote.  If "Real" Republicans won the electoral votes of several populous states, such an outcome would be even more likely, even should Clinton or Trump have a significant plurality of electoral votes.  Pluralities don't win in the Electoral College.  If that happens, because most State delegations in the House are Republican-dominated, the G.O.P. will decide who will be President.

 

It won’t be Clinton nor Trump.  It will be the “compassionate” conservative Republican, dressed in his liberal disguise, who was on top of the “Real” Republican ticket.  Despite their denials about running, it could be Michael Bloomberg or Paul Ryan.  It might even be John Kasich but it won’t be Ted Cruz.  Who it will be will be decided within a few days of the cancellation of the G.O.P. convention, if it comes down that way.  Could this happen?  Who knows?

(Note:  Most efforts by Republicans to “dump Trump” have come from the far conservative right, which feels he isn’t a true conservative.  Such efforts will not succeed since they will only lead in the direction of Ted Cruz, who is just as unelectable as is Donald Trump.)

JL

                                         

Two Columists Explain Trump's Support

 
Morici  and Krugman
 

Donald Trump’s ascendancy in the Republican nomination race is connected to the rise in importance in the electorate of the white working class male, many of whom are experiencing occupational difficulties.  Two brilliant columnists, liberal Paul Krugman and conservative Peter Morici, addressed this subject last week.  If the G.O.P. doesn’t buy into the suggested solution I have made to them as to how to win (see above article), they may follow Morici’s hint as to what may happen at their convention.  To access the columns, just click on Morici or on Krugman.   Read them both.

 JL

                                              

HOW TO BE ALERTED TO FUTURE BLOG POSTINGS.

Many readers of this blog are alerted by Email every time a new posting appears.  If you wish to be added to that Email list, just let me know by clicking on Riart1@aol.com and sending me an Email.  

HOW TO CONTACT ME or CONTRIBUTE MATERIAL TO JACK'S POTPOURRI. 

BY CLICKING ON THAT SAME ADDRESS, Riart1@aol.com   YOU ALSO CAN SEND ME YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE PUBLISHED IN THIS BLOG AS WELL AS YOUR COMMENTS.  (Comments can also be made by clicking on the "Post a Comment" link at the blog's end.)

MOBILE DEVICE ACCESS.

DID YOU KNOW THAT www.jackspotpourri.com IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON YOUR MOBILE DEVICES IN A MODIFIED, EASY-TO-READ, FORMAT?   

HOW TO VIEW OLDER POSTINGS.                                                

To view older postings on this blog, just click on the appropriate date in the “Blog Archive” midway down the column off to the right, or scroll down until you see the “Older Posts” notation at the very bottom of this posting.  The “Search Box” in the right side of the posting also may be helpful in locating a posting topic for which you are looking.

HOW TO FORWARD POSTINGS.

To send this posting to a friend, or enemy for that matter, whom you think might be interested in it, just click on the envelope with the arrow on the "Comments" line directly below, enabling you to send them an Email providing a link directly to this posting.  You might also want to let me know their Email address so that they may be alerted to future postings.

Jack Lippman