Democracy Explained, a Maureen Dowd column, a Response to my Pro-Clinton Position and Some Automobile Purchasing Advice

                                           
Dirty Word: Democracy

Democracy wasn’t a very nice word in the 18^th century. It implied “rule by the people” which translated as a takeover by uneducated, uncouth masses who might pose a threat to existing institutions. But when our Founding Fathers established our country back in 1789, when they devised and approved the Constitution of the United States, they wanted to give some voice to the people. It wasn’t until over 70 years later, however, that a President recognized that our Constitution had established a government of, by and for “the People.”  The writers of the Constitution would have shuddered at that thought when they wrote it.

First of all, the only part of our government originally elected directly by the people was the lower house of our national legislature, the House of Representatives. And among the thirteen new states, everyone could not vote. Suffrage was initially limited to property owners in some states. States, to which all powers not specifically given to the Federal government by the Constitution were reserved, had legislatures as powerful as the one in Washington.

The upper house, the Senate, was not elected directly by the people until the 17th

amendment was passed in 1913. That was a job for the various State legislatures and not to be trusted to the people. In fact, when the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates took place in Illinois in 1858 to determine who would become a Senator from that state, the vote actually was to elect state legislators who would be favorable to either candidate, and not for Republican Lincoln nor Democrat Douglas themselves. Statewide, legislative candidates favorable to Lincoln polled more votes than those supporting Douglas, but Douglas ended up with more votes in the legislature than Lincoln, so Douglas went to Washington as Senator. That wasn’t particularly democratic. (Two years later, Lincoln defeated Douglas for the Presidency.)

We still don’t elect the President.  We elect “electors” who choose the President.  

Originally, electors, like Senators, were appointed by State legislatures, another job not to be trusted to the people. 

Our first six Presidents were elected during an “era of good feelings” when there wasn’t very much competition for support by "the people."  Campaigning took place among State and Federal legislators who would have power and votes in the Electoral College.  Washington and both Adamses were Federalists while Jefferson, Madison and Monroe called themselves “Democratic Republicans.”  All six came from the same elite group which was tied to the Founding Fathers.  (Even though the Presidential elections of 1800 and 1824 were hotly contested battles, the action took place among the politicians and did not involve the people on the streets and on the farms.  Their involvement, where they could vote, was limited to electing the legislators who selected and often made up the Electoral College.)

By 1828, however, by which time many States had moved the choice of Presidential electors from their legislatures to the people, things were changing.  In most states by then, all white males had the vote, regardless of whether or not they owned property.  Andrew Jackson appealed directly to these people, whose voices the politicians finally were hearing, and looked to them to put him in office and not continue to support the propertied elite classes from which prior Presidents had come.  Like 2016, the 1828 election centered on dissatisfaction with the "establishment" which had been in power in Washington for years.

   
Sanders and Trump manifest dissatisfaction with the "establishment" today. Jackson was unhappy with the "establishment" in the 1820's.
 
In fact, Andrew Jackson even dropped the word "Republican" from the name of the "establishment" party (the "Democratic-Republicans) and simply called himself a "Democrat" and that has been that party's name ever since.  It was time for "something new" and that party name change was significant.  (While both democracies and republics are responsive to, and elected by, the people, a Democracy is "purer" in that it can follow the unbridled will of the people, while in a Republic, that will is tempered by law. The U.S. is a Republic.)

So the military hero of New Orleans, the scourge of the Indians, the leader whose troops loved him, "Old Hickory," won office in 1828 and was re-elected in 1832.  This was, in effect and for better or for worse, when "the people" finally got to cash in on the revolution which had started back in 1776.   Tennessean Jackson, like Frank Sinatra, might have sung out "I did it my way" which was certainly different from the tune played by his more aristocratic predecessors all of whom came from either Massachusetts or Virginia.

(Everyone who opposed Andrew Jackson, despite their own disagreements, banded together forming the Whig Party which survived for about twenty more years before self-destructing over the westward expansion of slavery.  It was the predecessor to the Republican Party which elected ex-Whig Lincoln in 1860. Credit Jackson with bringing more democracy into the choice of a President. Credit the Whigs, who elected two Presidents, with inventing the political party convention, a more democratic vehicle than a “smoke-filled room.”  We were well on our way to the more "democratic" government we have today!)

So the new United States of America wasn’t such a democratic place after all when it started.   It was, and still is, a work in progress. Some Americans feel that the more democratic mechanisms in effect now are not an improvement.  In fact, late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wanted the 17^th amendment repealed, returning the people’s role in selecting Senators to the State legislatures.

Certainly, today’s population is not uncouth nor uneducated, but it is often extremely gullible, succumbing to television commercials, slogans and campaigning which has little to do with the real issues National elections involve. John Fitzgerald Kennedy was a far more attractive candidate than Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan had far more voter appeal than any of his opponents. But in a less “democratic” country than we had in 1960 or 1980 when they were elected, in a country like the one envisioned by our Founding Fathers with a very limited democracy, would they even have been nominated and elected?  How many of the candidates running for President in 2016 would even come close to being nominated if the present American electorate was similar to the voting population, and the manner of selecting the President, which existed in 1800?  Things were less "democratic" then.

During the 1830’s, a Frenchman, the Marquis de Toqueville, came to this country to write about “Democracy in America.” Europe was interested in how our “experiment in democracy” was working. No other country in the world had tried it to the extent, however limited, we were attempting. He wrote that it was working out just fine, and to grossly oversimplify his book, he attributed it to the balance resulting from the separation of powers in the United States, with independent, but interrelated, Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches. It continues to work out just fine, and over time, it has become more and more democratic. Women can now vote. Restrictions on voting, imposed at the State level usually for political reasons, have been reduced. We are even starting to correct the undemocratic result of legislative “gerrymandering.”  “Democracy” is no longer the “dirty word” it was in 1789.

(In a future blog, we will try to pin down precisely why “democracy” was thought of so negatively in 1789.  It had something to do with preserving property rights, a polite way of referring to that great blight on America’s history, slavery.)

Jack Lippman

                                              

Dowd's Take on Trump

Dowd

Here’s a wonderful quote from Maureen Dowd’s New York Times column of March 5 (which appeared a few days later in the Palm Beach Post, which publishes the writings of two excellent nationally syndicated columnists each day).  

“Real estate developers are con men by nature, trying to get what they want at the lowest price and sell it at the highest price, overpromising how great it’s going to be.”

So what’s new?  That bit of information is axiomatic here in Florida, deeply ingrained in the minds of every resident of the Sunshine State.  And of course, the closest I can come up with for a definition of Donald Trump’s occupation happens to be “real estate developer,” despite his calling himself a “businessman.”  I suppose real estate developers indeed are “businessmen” but so are the owners of used car lots and hot dog stands.  You will enjoy reading the entire column in the New York Times which actually is mostly devoted to “wickedness.”

JL

 

                                            

An Answer to My Pro-Clinton Remarks

My pro-Hillary Clinton remarks in the last posting drew this reply from Marnin Spigelman who leans toward Senator Sanders.  It would be great if more of you sent me your thoughts, along with your “okay” to include them in the blog.

I read your piece on Trump, and your de-facto endorsement of Hillary Clinton. But, what has Hillary really done, significantly, that can lead people to believe she is really a leader that can be the commander in chief?

She was in charge of a health plan for Clinton, but it failed. She promoted healthcare for children, but she was not the only one plugging for it, but has given herself sole credit for its enactment. She also did not apparently speak up too strongly, if at all, while Clinton eliminated most of financial regulations that many, including myself, believes was the ultimate setup for the 2008 crash. Glass-Steagal comes to mind. During BIlly's term she also covered for his extracurricular activity not only to protect his presidency but also herself with the "right wing conspiracy" number. That was an outright lie. We don't even have to get into the VInce Foster, and the Whitewater situation.

As a Senator she voted for the Iraq War, and was part of a group of senators who voted for the funds to renovate the world trade center, and some women's rights that she now claims she was in the forefront. As Secy of State there is no convincing areas that I can see she excelled in other than taking instructions from Obama and delivering them worldwide, as task that is typical of any Secretary of State. The fact that she used her personal server for potentially classified material, a judgment she should have made if some of that material, now classified, might have been in a gray area. And, then of course the Benghazi situation, as well as those emails, which the Republicans will blast her to bits with during the General. Of course, if an indictment might come from the FBI that would change the game.

I do not agree that Sanders will drop out as long as he keeps getting those contributions from individuals who are willing to part with their money on his behalf. Why should he as this is not a get of rid Trump deal on the Democratic side. Meanwhile, it appears that the media has been extremely biased towards Hillary, as they have been with Trump giving him unlimited publicity time for free. The debate with Sanders in Flint showed Anderson Cooper letting her babble on with little concern for controlling her, while Sanders was left standing until he asked her not to interrupt until he was finished. For that he was partially booed, and the media seemed to chastise him, and excuse Clinton.

This is an election of the bottom of the barrel, with the exception that I do think Bernie is truly for the lower and middle classes, and that is refreshing. Whether he succeeds or drops out remains to be seen.

JL

 
                                                

Attention - All Supporters of  Trump or  Sanders 
Replace Protectionism with Patriotism

Both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders advocate some sort of protectionism (higher tariffs on imports or less "free trade") as a tool to bring back jobs to America.  There are several reasons why this may not be such a good idea.  (1) Protectionism invites retaliation by other countries which can cost American jobs by destroying overseas markets for American products, and (2) protectionism increases prices of imported products for American consumers, and when domestically manufactured goods replace them, they still will be higher priced because the cost of manufacturing here is higher than in Asia, for example.  

I feel the long range solution is fair and equitable agreements with our trading partners, and job creation here in areas such as rebuilding our infrastructure (which cannot be imported) and developing new jobs here in the technology and service areas.  Until that is done, however, we should not think in terms of protectionism.  Rather, we should be thinking in terms of patriotism.  And the best place to start is in the most visible area, automobiles, where American-made products are relatively competitively priced!  

Here, then, are two assignments for those of you who subscribe to the protectionist approach advocated by Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.  It's a  patriotic way for you to personally jump start job creation here in the United States:

 

                       Chevy (etc.) Yes!


    
                            Hyundai (etc.)  No!
            

1. If you own a car manufactured outside of the United States, immediately trade it in and replace it with a car manufactured in this country.  By having purchased a foreign-made car, you have contributed to job loss in this country!  (It does not matter how fervent your support of your candidate is, or how much you love your imported car.)  Also, it doesn't matter if your foreign car was assembled at a plant in this country as some of them are.  That's no excuse.  Those plants are located in low-salary areas where wages are far lower than those historically paid to American auto workers and have contributed to the decades of salary stagnation which have plagued our entire economy.  Make sure that the car you buy is entirely made in the United States, preferably in Michigan, and not in Mexico or Canada as some of them are.
3.   
4. Organize picket lines to discouraging customers from patronizing the showrooms of all Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, Mazda, Volvo, Lexus, Acura, Infinity, Suzuki, Kia, Volkswagen, BMW, Mercedes and Audi dealerships in your area.  Avoid violence but treat these enterprises in the same manner as “Pro-Life” advocates treat abortion clinics.  Please refrain from harassing potential customers other than verbally.

Not following these two simple assignments would indicate that your support of either Bernie or Donald is tinged with hypocrisy since you are unwilling to practice what your candidate preaches in trying to bring jobs back to this country.   (While there may be some serious overtones to this article, feel free to take it as something written with "tongue in cheek.)

(Those of you who have read some of my previous blog postings know that I question the wisdom of any American who purchases a car from a manufacturer that is part of a foreign conglomerate that maintains cozy relationships with a rogue nation that frequently threatens to attack the United States.  One of their products is pictured above.  Check out the final article on my February 9, 2016 posting.)

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