Newtown & the gun debate–What does the 2nd amendment mean?

Last Friday, a 20 year old kid in Newtown CN with a history of mental illness killed his mom with a Bushmaster .223 M4 Carbine.  He went to an elementary school he used to attend and before he took his own life he shot and killed 20 kids aged 6 - 7 and 8 adults. The age of the dead shocked America but a mass murder in American happens so often it is no longer shocking. They’ve become all too frequent in recent years and the reasons aren’t simple. Society itself plays some part as things like reality TV has promoted the idea that making a spectacle of yourself is OK. Hollywood rating systems forbids sex but allows ridiculous amounts of violence while video games have scenes that allow a player to simulate killing dozens of people at a time.  Money for mental health facilities has decreased over the past 20 years and now many parents struggle to get medication for the kids who need it. Some of these parents play a role as the guns used in the Newtown killing were legally purchased by the mother just not in a gun safe.

The thing I haven’t mentioned because it is the point of this article is the role that guns themselves play in these killings. In this past year, there have been 7 mass murders involving guns. In 2011 – 3. 2010 – 1, 2009 – 4, 2008 – 3, 2007 – 4, 2006 – 3. In the past 7 years, there have been 25 mass murders, an average of 3.57 events per year. In the 23 years from 1983-2005 there were 37 separate mass killing events throughout the United States for an average of 1.48.  From the numbers you can see the numbers, although rare in nature, have more than doubled in recent years.

It’s a sad state of affairs but like many have stated no change is going to happen as a result of the 2^nd amendment. I’ve been meaning to so some research on the 2^nd amendment for a long time and this has forced me to act. The rest of this post is my findings.  I’m planning to go back and include hyperlinks at some point but most of the info is at billofrights.org, usconstitution.net and various wiki’s on individuals.

*****

In 1689, England deposed King James II in the Glorious Revolution and the Parliament turned to the philosopher John Locke to help them create an English Bill of Rights. The impetus for this change was King James II’s belief in the ‘Divine Right of Kings’, meaning that his power was granted by god and could not limited. The English Bill of Rights gave the people unalterable rights and added to the power granted by the Magna Carta. James’ replacement, William of Orange, was required to declare a coronation oath accepting the Bill of Rights before he took the throne. The portion directly associated with guns states:

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law

This reversed King James’ declaration that made it illegal for Protestants to own arms. Religious strife dominated his reign with continual war between his Catholic army and the Parliament’s Protestant one. This part of the declaration made it impossible for a future king to arrest people by taking away their right to defend themselves as allowed by Parliament’s laws. Another part of the English Bill of Rights clarifies the meaning a bit:

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law

After reading these two parts of the English Bill of Rights, I think it is apparent the Parliament was more concerned with limiting the power of the king and not concerned with a permanent right to bear arms.  They reserved the right to legislate gun use. As a side note, over time the English slowly took guns away from its people and in 1997 eliminated the ownership of handguns almost entirely.

When the American colonists revolted in 1775, they met the next year to discuss their response to the king’s call for them to surrender. One of the key meetings held that year was in Virginia and the result was the Virginia Declaration of Rights. The Virginia delegates tasked George Mason with writing the original draft and he used the English Bill of Rights as a basis. The final wording of the Virginia Declaration of Rights passed in May 1776 and had the following language:

Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

You can see the English Bill of Rights influence in Mason’s words as he combines the two sections I listed above. His wording is concerned with a well-regulated militia as they felt a standing army was dangerous but it makes no distinction between the militia or the army in the claim that both are subject to civil power.

The Virginia Declaration of Rights and the English Bill of Rights influenced Thomas Jefferson and the final version of the Declaration of Independence in July 1776. Compare the first lines of both documents:

Section 1 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights - That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Preamble to the Declaration of Independence - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

After the colonist won their independence, the Articles of Confederation was the method used to govern the United States but many leaders determined it too weak to be effective. During this time, states had most of the power and some took the opportunity to pass their own constitutions. The first was Massachusetts and in their Constitution, they included their own Bill of Rights, written by John Adams. The Section 1 preamble reads very similar to Virginia’s Declaration of Rights:

All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

The provision on militias and guns reads is similar too:

XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

It seems to me that John Adams and the Massachusetts legislators are clearly stating that military power, including militias for the common defence are beholden to the legislature.

By the mid 1780s the push for a new method of governance grew and in 1787 the Articles Congress called for a meeting to revise the system of government.  The result was the United States Constitution written by primarily by James Madison and the negotiations of men that came from many various backgrounds. Virginia was the biggest state at the time and its delegates echoed creating a government using the philosophy of John Locke mentioned above. The ultimate result of the convention was a government consisting of an executive branch, a two-house legislative branch, and a judicial branch. The two house legislative branch (bicameral) was a compromise to satisfy the proponents of rule by popular vote (House) and rule by state (Senate). The members left with the document and headed back to their states to gain ratification.

During the ratification process it became apparent that many states would oppose ratification if the new government did not guarantee their rights. Some states already had this protection internally and they did not want to give up any rights they had gained. Most everyone agreed the new government needed this and Massachusetts started a trend when it ratified with a list of expected amendments that would make up the Bill of Rights.

What were these rights requested by Massachusetts ratification committee? - They dealt most with guaranteeing states rights and had no mention of protection for militia, arms, or guns.

After Massachusetts ratified the Constitution their example of including requests for amendments with their ratification was copied by many other states including the two most important, New York and Virginia.

New York ratification split their provision on militia, arms, and armies into three parts:

· That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.

· That the militia should not be subject to martial law, except in time of war, rebellion, or insurrection.

· That standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity; and that at all times the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power.

The Virginia ratification was similar to what Mason wrote in the Virginia Declaration of rights 11 years earlier:

17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

One key change is in the wording. In all prior discussions the language ‘the people have a right to keep and bear arms’ was immediately followed by ‘for the common defense’. They moved the actual word ‘defense’ to the second sentence that spoke about militia. Did they see the two items as intertwined? It seems to me they did but New York definitely was saying something we had not seen from previous founders when they copied Locke and separated the provisions about the militia and the army.

The most interesting thing about the ratification process is how close the vote was in the three largest states, Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia. None of these states seemed happy with the Constitution and the voting in all 3 where within 3% of failure.

Now that the states had ratified the Constitution it was up to the Congress to pass the bill of rights. James Madison took the amendments and submitted them en masse to the Congress. The wording of the proposed 2^nd amendment read:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Over the next few weeks the Congress took Madison’s original 20 Amendments and made changes, modifying them and rejecting others until only 12 Amendments were sent to the states for ratification in September 1789.

Many people were against the Bill of Rights altogether. Alexander Hamilton said, “Bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects”. He felt that under the new government the people’s vote took the place of the king and therefore needed no protection.

The states passed ten of the amendments, which the Congress officially ratified in December 1791. The wording of the finalized 2^nd amendment is as follows:

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This time Congress cut many words out of the versions seen earlier. They placed the wording about militia at the front, the word defense removed, and nothing was stated against standing armies.

The government during that time was split in two key factions. The Federalists, wanted a strong central government and were led by George Washington and Alexander Hamilton. The Anti-Federalists (eventually named Republicans) were concerned about rights and led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The Federalist dominated the early government but quickly lost power however they ruled the Congress during the time when the Bill of Rights was discussed.

Note the removal of the provision against standing armies without the consent of civil authorities. All previous iterations of the Bill of Rights included a mention of the right to bear arms with armies. People like Locke and Mason included it in their submissions and it was included in the New York and Virginia constitutional ratifications. The removal of that portion makes sense when you consider Hamilton’s views (which mimicked Washington) which said that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary.  There was no way they were going to allow a mention of Congress limiting the army. Washington knew firsthand how crippling that could be to a general.

Without that provision, it makes the 2^nd amendment only about guns/militia’s and is less clear than before. It is possible the founders meant that to protect gun use for its citizens from meddling by Congress but why include the portion about the militia?  The Congress removed most of the extraneous language from the Bill of Rights and if they meant that then the 2^nd amendment could have read, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

When the Bill of Rights was passed was the Supreme Court had no power. The Bill of Rights website reminds us,

” Some of the Framers expected the Supreme Court to take on the role of determining the constitutionality of Congress's laws, but the Constitution did not explicitly assign it to the Court. Marbury v. Madison, the 1803 landmark Supreme Court case, established the power of judicial review.”

When Chief Justice Marshall said the court had the right to determine the constitutionality of laws, Congress and the President’s silence was their tacit agreement. Many felt Marbury vs. Madison was overreach by the judiciary and if the Congress had ignored Marshall there was little he could have done. President Jackson made this point a few decades later when Marshall ruled in favor of the Cherokee Indians with their dealings in Georgia. Jackson’s response was, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” The power to execute the law of the land lay with the President but one of Thomas Jefferson’s greatest contributions is allowing John Marshall (a man he personally hated) to expand the power of the judiciary which set the standard that all subsequent presidents were forced to follow.

For most of the first hundred years of the United States, the wording in the 2^nd amendment made sense. In the Civil War, the United States raised a few self-equipped volunteer regiments though this represented a small minority of overall forces. By World War One, self-supporting militia were no longer a part of the United States Armed Forces. Weapon technology and war training had advanced too much and it would have been irresponsible to allow volunteer forces anymore. State-run National Guard forces replaced the militia who belonged to another era.

By that time the 2^nd amendment meant something different than the original wording of a self-defense measure. Throughout the 19^th century, Americans had used firearms to tame the country and a self-image of American gun ownership developed. As the 20^th century progressed, little limited a citizen’s ability to own a gun. Automatic weapons like the tommy gun made an appearance during the depression but the reality was limited. Things changed after Vietnam. Cheap automatic weapons like the AK-47 made their way around the world as the United States and the Soviet Union fought a cold war. Weapons makers continued to innovate and created compact models with higher calibers and rates of fire. Weapons like the Uzi and the MAC-10 made their way into the private arsenals all over the United States.

This wasn’t an issue for 99% of the law abiding citizens but like most things the 1% can cause huge issues. In the last twenty years, a trend of mass killings followed by suicide has become alarming. As I stated at the beginning, the reason I looked to our past was the shootings that happened last Friday in Newtown CN . Something like that has to make you question the validity of your laws. To blindly support the past without introspection is ignorant.

If you doubt that, look at how many times the founders proposed different versions of the 2nd amendment in the 13 years from 1776 to the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.  They weren’t of one mind what the ‘right to bear arms’ meant and changed it to suit their circumstance.  We have lived with this wording for 222 years.

The problem is how do you define arms in a rapidly changing society.  In the founders day, arms were made primarily of 8 types of weapons – muzzle-loaded muskets, pistols, swords, knives, gunpowder grenades, bows with arrows, spears, and cannon.  All of these were purchasable by private citizens (though cannon were prohibitively expensive and more likely to be owned by a town’s militia).  The rate of fire and lethality of all of the firearms have increased many times since the founders were alive and the question is – does the passing of time affect the meaning of the word ‘arms’.  Today’s equivalent of the cannon is modern artillery or a tank but no one suggests that citizens have a right to own either of these weapons.  You could argue that today’s equivalent of a spear is an anti-tank device or a stinger missile yet it is illegal for citizens to own these too.  What about today’s grenade equivalents like C4 or nitrate based explosives?  Use them without being licensed you will end up in jail.  Society has clearly ‘infringed’ on an individual's ability to own any type of arms so I think the question really is – Where is the proper place to draw the line?

That is why I reviewed the history of the 2^nd amendment as it is difficult to understand the meaning by looking at the words alone. If we truly want to live by what the founders meant then it is important to understand the context. In reviewing the context I would be surprised if their interpretation was anywhere close to what we see from today’s NRA and conservative think tanks. The founders said it best at the beginning of the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

They meant for the government they created to secure the country to allow for life, liberty and happiness. The problem with the unlimited liberty to use guns is when it starts to infringe on the life, liberty, and happiness of others. The founder’s genius in including the Bill of Rights and the Amendment process is the reason the Constitution is relevant over 200 years later. The Constitution is a living document and it is the Supreme Court responsibility to look to the founders for guidance and interpret it as society changes.

A good example is the enforced segregation that was prevalence throughout the south after the Civil War. In 1896, the Supreme Court ruled 7-1 in Plessy vs Ferguson that segregation in public facilities was acceptable as long as the facilities were equal (Separate but equal). 58 years later, the Supreme Court overturned this policy in a 9-0 ruling that stated ‘separate facilities are inherently unequal’. Times had changed and the Supreme Court changed with them.

The question today is whether the Congress has the authority to limit the citizens ability to buy certain types of weapons, be forced to go through restrictive waiting periods or get registrations on guns. Does this violate an amendment that was primarily included to protect the country from foreign enemies? I personally don’t think so.

I don’t have anything against guns and gun owners. I’m sure if any of them made it this far they would disagree with my stance on many grounds but I really have no issue with shotguns, handguns, and single shot hunting rifles without clips. My problem is we seem to be ignoring the issue hoping it will go away.  The epidemic won’t improve unless we give law enforcement tools to get it under control. After 9-11 we asked Americans to go through many more screenings when travelling. We accepted it because it we prefer to be safe. Gun owners should feel the same way.

I’m sure the NRA’s response to this would be that the 2^nd amendment protects them from any changes and they will fight at all costs. Good. You know what the legislature can do? Tax guns. $1000/gun and $10/bullet. There are many ways to fight this battle but we’d prefer to make it easy.  Let’s meet halfway.

My hope is the Congress and the Supreme Court wake up and interprets the 2^nd amendment in a more reasonable way.  I think this quote says it all.

The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will.

The man who said it in 1821 is the same man who gave the Supreme Court its judicial review authority, Chief Justice John Marshall.  We should follow his lead and if the Supreme Court lacks the moral courage to do what is right then it is time for the people of the United States to create a new Bill of Rights they can’t ignore.

Tweet

How do we introduce truth into national politics?

Our government was set up in 1789 based on political theories that had been discussed in the hundred years leading to the American Revolution.  They were concerned with the abuse of power but no one had any real democratic experience as the previous democracy fell to Macedon almost 2000 years earlier.

The founders realized this and put in the amendment process to fix issues as they arose.  The first ten amendments passed almost immediately and also go by another name - The Bill of Rights.  Since then we have used the Constitution to govern the country.  No one can argue the world hasn't had massive changes since but we've only had additional 17 amendments and two of them offset (Prohibition).  These amendments include some really fundamental changes especially around voting rights but I think the founders would be disappointed that their creation hasn't changed much.

That isn't to say the document has huge flaws.  It is an amazing considering its age but the government has struggled since the beginning with banks and financing.  More specifically I am talking about how we fund our government and how we control the people in power who control those funds.

We were lucky to have Alexander Hamilton as the first Treasury secretary.  He pushed through the  Bank of the United States and this set the country on sound financial footing that allowed our quick expansion.  Jefferson and his allies had good reasons for hating the bank but even they realized the positives outweighed the negatives during the War of 1812.  They extended it and it lasted until Andrew Jackson killed it during an anti-bank frenzy in the 1830s.  American monetary policy had no central authority until 1862 when the Republicans realized they needed an easier way to finance government projects during the Civil War.  They gave certain private banks national status but required higher standards than state banks and mandated these banks use a common currency.  In turn these banks were required to use federal treasury bills to back their bank notes.  This gave the government and the public access to money which helped fuel the economic boom after the war ended.  This worked well during the next sixty years though financial panics were common and required the intervention of bankers like JP Morgan to keep the economy from crashing.  When the US economy expanded rapidly at the start of the 20th century, the system was too complex for private bankers to control.  That lead to the creation of the Federal Reserve System which is essentially 12 banks directly controlled by the federal government that lend money to all other banks in the country.  This has worked reasonably well but as the world continues to get more complex, we are faced with crisis.  Monetary policy is one of the best economic innovations in the last century but there are limits and the Fed has made mistakes.  A prime cause of the Great Depression was due to bad Fed decisions made worse when it stopped the flow of money into the economy.  The housing bubble of the early 2000s was driven by the Fed who kept interest rates too low for too long.

Back in 1789, monetary policy was simple.  The rulers had the ability to tax and if they needed more they went to the banks/merchants to get a loan.  If the banks didn't feel that loaning the money was wise investment they refused (This was the first real check to absolute rulers.  Some early monarchs took the head of their obstinate subjects but soon learned it was better to work with the banks as threatening them only spooked the market and worsened conditions in their country).

The United States government has three branches of government and as every kid is taught in school it is based on the philosophy of checks and balances.  The Congress passes laws, the president enforces laws, and the supreme court interprets laws to decide if Congress has overstepped their bounds.  

The question over the last century is now that the government run Fed leads the banks, how does monetary policy fit into the three branches?  This wasn't an issue for the the founders.  The Bank of the United States wasn't perfect institution but today we intermix government debt with the banking industry in ways the founders would find unbelievable.

Where is the constitutional amendment that account for this massive change?   The truth is it doesn't exist.  The only amendment to the constitution that has any link to the financial markets is the 16th amendment passed in 1913 which allowed the government to tax the income of its citizens (ironically the same year the Federal Reserve Act passed).

From my previous paragraphs you might think I'm a conservative Republican but I recognize that our country is better in the last century because of the government's ability to reallocate money to fund things like food safety, the building of roads/bridges/etc, and supporting things like public TV and the arts.  These started small at the start of the 1900s with Teddy Roosevelt but really got going during the Great Depression of the 1930s and the social strife of the 1960s.  We created huge programs that could only be supported if our economy continued to boom.  It was impossible to sustain and by the late 1970s the Democratic party had earned the reputation as the 'tax and spend' party.  Ronald Reagan promised to end that but faced with a Democratic Congress he cut taxes but did little about spending as it continued to balloon out of control.  Politicians from the suburbs, rural areas, and from conservative parts of the country realized they could get reelected by promising to fight for lower taxes.  Politicians from the inner city, locations with older voters and liberal parts of the country realized they could get re-elected by talking about protecting government programs.  Meanwhile the government debt continued to rise.  The politicians only cared about the promises they made to get re-elected and the electorate got increasingly angry as gridlock overtook Washington.

So what needs to happen?  I hinted about it in a previous chapter about checks and balances.  Who controls spending?  Congress.  Who controls congress?  No one.  The Supreme Court only is a check to the constitutionality of the laws Congress creates.  If you asked a founder whose responsibility it was to keep congressional spending in check they would say it was the responsibility of the good moral men we elected and if they didn't, the white landowners (who were the only ones that could vote) would vote the scoundrels out of office as they knew it would eventually affect the value of their property.  Things have changed a lot since then.

This country desperately needs a fourth branch of government to control government spending.  The appointments to this branch would be similar to the Supreme Court and its purpose would be to track government spending, set borrowing limits, and review budget proposals.  The key is independence.  My first thought was it should also include the Federal Reserve but realized that is probably too much power and it certainly would freak out people looking for Illuminati conspiracies.

How would the organization work?  For starters, last summer's budget crisis would have been taken out of Congress' hand as this new office would have clearly stated long before what needed to happen and forced Congress to act much earlier.  The debt level would be determined by these men and their mandate would be to find a debt number that ensured the longterm interests of the country.  In times of war - borrow.  In time of peace - pay back.  In times of plenty - tighten.  In times of trouble - loosen.

They would constantly be in meetings with Congress to let them know their annual targets so serious conversations would happen between parties.  Every mature business in America has a conversations like this every year.  Can we afford that?  What do we need to cut?  What can we do to raise revenues? 

So how difficult would it be to create this organization?  The truth is it already exists in part and is called the Congressional Budget Office.  They create reports that few Americans know about unless they hear a snippet as they change channels.  This organization would be given independence and senior 'partners' appointed.  They would continue to create the reports they do today as they chart the financial future of government policies.  Additionally, any political candidate that wants to attain an office in either the Congress or as President would submit a detailed plan of their ideas and how they plan to play for them.  All plans would be reviewed by the office and they would then publish true cost/review estimates.  Any bill that would go before Congress would need to have an economic study done.  Anyone that wanted to run a political ad would need to get certification that their claims were valid or else the ad would not be certified.  If it someone decided to run an ad that wasn't certified using 1st amendment protection, they would be required to purchase equal time following their ad for a budget office response.

This office would be non political and employees would be forbidden from making any public statement.  The appointees would speak with one voice and after stating their official opinions it would be expected they would remain silent and let the political process run its course.  Independence and accuracy would be the prime concern of the office.  You might think it would be difficult to find people for this office but there are thousands of people who could fill this role tomorrow in the field of accounting, in the SEC, and already working for the CBO.  

All American are frustrated.  There is too much nonsense flying around in politics and voters have no idea what is true so they have stopped questioning.  We need to change that.

There is been an abdication in Congress about taxes and spending.  Everyone has different ideas about the perfect level of taxation but whatever it is, our spending needs to match it in the long run. The battles that happen when we do this will be difficult but we elected our Congressmen for this very purpose.  You've put off giving us bad news for too long and Americans are tired of the cut taxes - spend more routine.  We need to change that.

Congress has proven it is not accountable and it is time that we give them a baby sitter.  We need to add another check and balance to the US Constitution and I propose the 28th Amendment - The United States Budget Office.

Tweet

Delusion and the American Political Bubble

Back in 2004 I was addicted to reading the Daily Kos and listening to Air America.  I got most of my information from those sites and we were all convinced that John Kerry was going to be elected president and save us from the disaster caused by George Bush.  We were also certain that the American people saw this too and the election wasn't going to be close.

The day of the election was an emotional roller coaster.  The early voting showed Kerry doing better than expected and the exit polls looking in his favor.  I listened to Air America as I got ready for work that day.  We were sure Kerry's win was a lock.  I made frequent checks of Kos between meetings that morning to read the self congratulatory posts.

I left work in mid day to vote and afterward stopped by my house to check the web.  One thing I remember is at the time was there was a website that sold 'stocks' in presidential candidates.  Intrade does something similar now.  As there could only be one winner, a candidates stock usually rose and fell with the polls or events like the debates.  Everything changed on election day.  When the rumors started, Kerry's stock went from around 49 to around 70 in a few hours.  I went back to work listening to Air America sure that a Kerry victory was hours away.

When I left work warning signs had appeared.  Air America wasn't as positive as they had been but I rationalized their evening guy was a pessimist.  When I got home I checked the political stock market, I saw that Kerry had peaked around 80 but had fallen below 50 during the afternoon.  I decided to ignore that warning sign and spent the rest of the evening on Kos where the posters explained away the bad news I was seeing on CNN.

I don't remember when the election ended but by 10pm I was sick to my stomach as it was obvious the blowout I expected was not going to happen.  By midnight they had called Ohio and Florida for Bush which ensured him the presidency.  I tossed and turned all night and set my alarm for 6am to listen to Air America to listen to their explanation.  It didn't help much as the announcers were in as much shock as me.  The Daily Kos was depressing as we all searched for answers to the question - "How could we be so wrong?"

The truth was right in front of our face that someone on Kos termed called the political news bubble.  All information sites fight for readership and people like to hear good news so that's what they gave us.  We didn't want to hear any other answer and Air America and Kos fed our addiction as we ignored everything else.

The day before the election my boss asked me who I thought would win and I told him I thought Kerry would win in a landslide.  He laughed at me.  The next day when he was proved right he asked me why I thought Kerry would win when all the polls favored Bush.  I didn't have an answer.

The election was actually quite close in the electoral college.  If Florida or Ohio chose Kerry he would have won but both states followed the polls.  Florida went to Bush by 5% and Ohio by 2%.  Leading up to the election everyone knew these were the most important states and I guess I thought I knew the people living around me better than a silly poll.  Air America and Kos reinforced that belief until it all came crashing down on election day.

Since then I have tried to broaden my information sources.  It isn't fun to hear things opposite to what you want to happen but ignoring the truth only hurts you in the long run.

Last night I spent much of my time on an Ohio State website called the Ozone.  It's a site full of rabid Ohio State fans and posts on the main site is limited to Ohio State news.  The off topic forum is open to anything you want to discuss.  I have ignored it since the beginning because many of the posts I have seen there remind me of Kos from 2004 only with an extreme conservative bias.  The other reason I don't look is I have grown to respect many of the long time posters as Buckeye fans and know my opinions of them would be affected negatively if I got involved off-topic.  I prefer to think of them as Buckeye fans only and nothing else.

Yesterday, I ventured over to the off topic forum and it was like I'd been taken back in time to Kos circa 2004.  90% of the posts expected a Romney landslide and I just couldn't believe what I was seeing.  The worst offender was a guy I used to respect by the name of 'buckeye in georgia'.  Last year he was the leader of a group of Buckeye fans that felt Jim Tressel was a spy for the FBI which is why he had to lie to the NCAA.  I found it hard to believe this was true but he writes with such passion that he gives the impression he knows something you don't.  Eventually most realized the guy was a fraud and I thought he'd left the site but yesterday I found he only posts in the off-topic forum where is seems to be one of the leaders.

Once I started reading the off topic forum I couldn't stop.   They were so sure Romney was going to win.  I checked other websites online and didn't see anything to support their beliefs but their confidence confused me as no reliable news source was making statements either way.  Did these guys know something they didn't?  Buckeye in Georgia is the worst example of what I saw.

• All of these last minute polls have done nothing but solidify my prediction and sealed Obama's fate. Romney will win - buckeye in georgia [21:50:47 11/05/12] (3)

• This might end up being more than 340 EVs for Romney. * - buckeye in georgia [17:28:15 11/06/12] (16)
• I don't even think that's close to mathematically possible * - duke_buck [17:46:46 11/06/12] (1)
• My guess was 340 +/-, not 340 exactly. I was guessing on the - side, now I think it will be on the + side. * - buckeye in georgia [17:49:24 11/06/12] (0)

• PA, OH, MN, MI, CO, IA, NH, FL, VA, NC, WI all going Romney. * - buckeye in georgia [17:47:24 11/06/12] (23)

• This is going to swing hard for Romney. I might be able to hit the bed by 10! * - buckeye in georgia [19:49:07 11/06/12] (14)

• LOL...you all are NUTS! Romney wins this thing big! Relax! * - buckeye in georgia [20:16:33 11/06/12] (11)
• Can't wait to hear the excuses. I'm sure they're already prepared * - Cloud of Dust [20:19:51 11/06/12] (0)
• what are you smoking, they want some in OR & Cali * - Y-Town Buck [20:19:07 11/06/12] (3)
• Just watch those numbers move. I'm from the same area as you, so hard to believe. But, the numbers are going to move. * - buckeye in georgia [20:21:20 11/06/12] (2)

• Hang out for another 2 hours. About to blow up for Romney! * - buckeye in georgia [20:26:29 11/06/12] (1)

• Dude, Ohio is breaking big for Romney - anyone got some Doritos? * - buckeye in georgia [20:26:38 11/06/12] (3)

• So.....VA looks promising, OH looks like a train-wreck and FL looks like 2000 * - Buck Weaver [20:35:21 11/06/12] (3)
• Not what I see at all! All three are Romney. * - buckeye in georgia [20:39:01 11/06/12] (1)

• Not worried, kicking ass, actually!--->>> * - buckeye in georgia [20:55:33 11/06/12] (0)

• Obama lead in Ohio now 175K * - BCSBuck [20:56:02 11/06/12] (1)
• His lead will be -200K by midnight. * - buckeye in georgia [20:57:09 11/06/12] (0)

• Chuck Todd says FL is surprisingly close....I still don't buy it. * - FanO'theBUCKS [20:15:11 11/06/12] (2)
• Closer than 7 pts would be a surprise, I think. * - buckeye in georgia [20:17:34 11/06/12] (0)

He had over 107 posts in 24 hours on election day.  His post that said PA, OH, MN, MI, CO, IA, NH, FL, VA, NC, WI were all going Romney made me break my promise to myself not to post.

• I don't come to this side often but I see you are consistent in fringe thinking like your FBI/Jim Tressel posts 

Not my finest hour but after seeing what he was posting I couldn't help myself.  As it turned out Romney won only North Carolina.  As late as 8:55 he was calling for a Romney landslide.  He wasn't the only one to post things like that but he was the loudest.  When things started to solidify he didn't post for a while and the forum started to turn on him.  He had promised to pay something like $10 for every electoral vote Romney trailed Obama and the people that believed him didn't let him forget.

• Get out the checkbook BIG. You owe a BIG check. * - idiot_boyfriend [21:35:35 11/06/12] (5)
• It was a schtick. Anyone who thought otherwise is way out of it * - Cloud of Dust [21:37:23 11/06/12] (3)
• yep... half the stuff he says is BS * - the outsider [21:39:13 11/06/12] (2)
• LOL at "half" * - Solomon Dangerfield [21:45:54 11/06/12] (1)
• Not at all. GFY if you think otherwise. I'll honor my obligations. * - buckeye in georgia [21:48:30 11/06/12] (0)

• Buckeye in Georgia... where are you? you were SO #%^* sure... * - the displaced Buckeye [23:23:01 11/06/12] (5)
• I'm shocked, and I'll pay. * - buckeye in georgia [23:24:04 11/06/12] (4)

At 11:12pm, the election was called for Obama which by election standards is an early night.  Right now it looks like Obama has Florida which would give him a 332 to 206 electoral college win.  If the $10 is right it was a very expensive night for the poster named 'buckeye in georgia' and I can be thankful that my delusion from 2004 only lost me a some sleep.

In hindsight the 2004 election was important but I doubt Kerry would have been much better than Bush.  Every time I see him it reminds me of group think and how it can make even the most rational person believe something that deep down they know is not true.  It is something we all should guard against.

Tweet

Ranking the presidents in my lifetime

I was born in 1967 and on election day I thought it might be fun to rank the presidents of my lifetime.  The interesting thing about presidents is they are tough to judge when they leave office as their decisions have implications long after they are gone.  The role call is as follows:

Lydon Johnson
Richard Nixon
Gerald Ford
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan
George Bush
Bill Clinton
George W Bush
Barack Obama

All these names bring out distinct feelings and here is the first word that comes to my mind when I think of each:

Crude
Liar
Clueless
Naive
Actor
Boring
Impeachment
Overmatched
Embattled

Looking at these words you might get the impression that all of these men have been a disaster for the country.  I think all of them have done what they thought was best but in an age where the United States is the leader of the world combined with unending media attention they all have faced daily difficulties that make the issues facing Washington and Jackson seem minor in comparison.

So how have they done?  Here's my ranking from worst to best:

#8 - George W Bush - He got us into an unnecessary war while reducing taxes to take a government surplus he inherited to a $1 trillion deficit.  The American people will paying for his lack of vision long into the future.  Fans of US Grant especially like him because many lists have replaced the Union General with Bush as the worst United States president of all time.

#7 - Lyndon Johnson - He is similar to GW Bush in that he started an unnecessary war but instead of tax reduction he added many programs that have proved to be unsustainable in the long run.  The difference is at the time he was in office the United States had a robust economy and was at the height of its power so some of the hubris from his administration is understandable.

#6 - Gerald Ford - Many still hate Ford for his pardon of Nixon but I dismiss him for the lack of action during his 2 years as president.  He has the distinction as the only person to become president without being voted into office as either president or vice president (Nixon replaced his elected vice president in 1973).

#5 - Ronald Reagan - Many conservative blogs rank Reagan in the top 5 of all American presidents.  I've always considered him highly overrated.  His main contribution were the tax reform act in 1986 and making Americans feel good about themselves again.  Unfortunately he also set the trend of reducing taxes while allowing Congress to ignore the out of control spending from Johnson's reforms.  You can do one but not both and he put the United States on the path of deficit spending that continues to plague us to this day.

#4 - Jimmy Carter - I've always felt Carter's heart was in the right place but his passive communication style turned off most Americans.  He preached moderation and that we needed to accept that the days of America's post WW2 dominance was over.  There was sharp contrast between him and Reagan in the 1980 election and the American people chose Reagan's message of hope vs Carter's stark realism.  I have often wondered how America would look today if Carter had Reagan's ability to turn a phrase.  The Iran hostage crisis, long gas lines, and an economy struggling to adapt to the huge influx of baby boomers into the work force didn't help either.

#3 - Richard Nixon - History remembers him leaving office in disgrace after Watergate but many of actions he took in office were forward thinking.  Working with China to open dialog was the first step in thawing the cold war and helped stop the worldwide trend towards communism.  He proposed the EPA, OSHA and even government health care for low income families.  At the time he was demonized by the left for his policies mainly due to Vietnam but he eventually got us out of the conflict and would be considered a moderate in today's America.

#2 - George Bush Sr - He was considered a wimp and a poor communicator but as time passed I came to appreciate his presidency.  His reversal of his "no new taxes" pledge  killed his reelection chances but his policies were moderate and he did what he considered to be best for the United States in the long term.  He set the stage to get the budget in order though he never got away from the shadow cast by Reagan.  If Carter had beaten Reagan in 1980, it is likely Bush would have won the 1984 election due to Reagan's age and conservatives today would look to him as the herald of new conservatism.  Perhaps then his level headed approached might have had more influence on his son.

#1 - Bill Clinton - His presidency was gridlocked by a sex scandal but his policies combined Bush's moderate conservatism with liberal ideals to find a middle ground.  Baby boomers were in their 40s during his presidency and America definitely moved to the right during his time in office.  Despite that he passed legislation that helped get the spending from Johnson's policies under control while raising taxes to get government to balance its budget for first in my life.

Unranked - Barack Obama - It is unfair to give Barack a rank at this time.  He inherited a government deep in debt and an economy in crisis as the banking industry was near collapse.  He signed the largest spending plan in American history knowing it would hurt him at the polls four years later.  He said at the time he knew proving to the American people that the economy would be worse without this package would be difficult.  He did it anyway as he thought it was the right thing to do.  He has a bit of Carter's naivety in him as his repeated attempts to work with the conservatives in Congress were rebuffed and they took advantage of him on quite a few occasions.

My last comment on Barack Obama is a hurdle all these men faced.  This is the sad state of American politics at this time and it has only gotten worse during my life.  No matter what happens in today's elections, my hope is that the Congress learns to represent all of America better in the future.  Most of what is wrong with American politics occurs in their halls but the men listed above get the blame.  As President Clinton once said, he thinks all president have the good of the nation in their hearts and we all need to keep that in mind when we consider their actions.  They need to learn to win over the minds of the nation with our reasoned words and stop with hateful soundbites.  It isn't productive but I don't think it is going to change.

Tweet

Societies with the greatest change in a lifetime

I was writing a short story about the Sioux set in the 1600s and really dove into the details of how they lived their lives.  As I wrote the story I couldn’t help but think that the grandchildren of the characters in my book would have a clash of cultures that would dramatically change to their lives.

That got me to thinking – “What group of people had the biggest change in their living situation in history?”  I quickly created a list and I’m sure I’ve forgotten some but I thought it might be interesting to compare peoples at the two ends of a long lived life.

Roman born in 310 – 390 - The Roman had been the dominant power in the west for four centuries and while they had periods of unrest had always come back stronger.  Life in Rome was great if you were a citizen and peaked in the first century around 1.5 million people.  By the year 300, the population had declined by at least half that but Constantine showed the empire still was formidable.  Two things he did changed everything – First he created an eastern capital and also made Christianity the official religion.  Constantinople meant that the grain that Rome had depended on in the past would be going elsewhere and was one reason for emigration.  Non-christians were persecuted with additional taxes and other methods throughout the empire so that the Roman Gods were set asided.  By the end of the 4th century Rome had decreased in size to around 200,000.  Alaric took the city a few decades later and looted much of what remained.  Two centuries later only around 20,000 people were left to farm around the ruins of the once great capital.

English born in 400 – 480 - The English were is a special situation as they were one of the last to be conquered by the Romans so the influence wasn’t as great.  When the Romans left in 410 they left behind great roads, buildings, aqueducts, and other engineering projects that the people left behind had no idea how to maintain.  There wasn’t a school that taught English or Latin along with any engineering/mathematics study and soon the country was falling into disrepair.  The only learned people were the priests and they Christianized the populace.  All authority was localized and few thought much beyond their next meal.  A feudal society was set up of landowners that had the poor working for them.  Cooperation formed slowly but was sped up by the invasions of the Angles and the Saxons from the continent.  Battles raged over the next two centuries but eventually the country was as much Saxon as Roman British.

Sioux born in 1830 – 1910 - They were essentially a hunter-gatherer society that ranged from Minnesota to the Dakotas.  Horses and guns had been introduced by the whites a few centuries early and created a massive change on their society as possession of either gave the owner a great advantage over other tribes.  The Sioux had seen white traders but the only impact on their lives at the time was the push west from the gun toting Chippewa into their former territory in Wisconsin.  As the whites pushed west, the Sioux also got guns which made them a feared enemy by all who faced them.  The high point was the Battle of Little Big Horn but it was the beginning of the end.  They were surrounded and those that didn’t return to the reservation escaped into Canada.  White settlers took their land as the area set aside for them was decreased and many integrated into American society.  Those that didn’t were left on a reservation system totally dependent on government handouts as the ecosystem that allowed their former way of life was gone.

American born in 1790 – 1870 - The United State was a small country with uncertain borders coming off a war with Great Britain.  The government was new and most were unsure of its success.  The population was 4 million and comprised of a small area on the east coast.  Over the next eighty years the country grew at a rapid pace to become the worlds most productive country with a population of almost 39 million.  It had just undergone a bloody Civil War which proved to all that the Union would last while the borders of the country now stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific.  The country had gone through the industrial revolution and over the next century dominated the world commercially.

Japanese born in 1850 – 1930 - The Japanese were a feudal society that was big enough to keep foreign powers out until 1853 when Commodore Perry of the United States forced them into a trade treaty. This only opened Japan to trade but the most dramatic change was the adoption of western thinking. Within twenty years the shoganate power was stripped and the Emperor made a figurehead as it’s military leaders used technology and an able Japanese public to transform the country into the modern age. By 1900, the Japanese were able to defeat the Russians and by 1930 they were racing across Asia, bent on dominating the region.

American born in 1900 – 1980 - Americans in 1900 thought they lived in the best time possible. The country was certainly growing and the future was definitely bright. The next eighty years brought not only the outrageous idea of manned flight but eventually to someone landing on the moon. Mathematics was made easier by counting machines then computers. Farming production was increased so that a majority of Americans living on farms left so that only >1% do it today. Cities such as New York, Los Angeles, Dallas, and Chicago boomed in population. Photography and motion pictures were invented and made so simple that anyone could do it. I think it is safe to say that someone born on a small farm in 1900 and died in an air conditioned house in the suburbs in 1980 would look back on their life in wonder at just how much had changed.

I know my list is centered too much on America and its spiritual ancestors but I don’t know enough about Persian, Indian, and Chinese culture to speak much about it without a lot of research.  As I reviewed the list it dawned on my the huge gap in my lists.  As I tried to think of something in between I considered the Turks as the Islamic Arabs changed their society, Italy in the Renaissance, Spain during the Inquisition, and the British during the Industrial Revolution.  They would have been great additions but they didn’t represent a total shift of an area culturally, militarily, and economically like the ones I listed.

One other thing I noticed is that my two early inclusions are bad while the ones afterward were considered improvements (with the notable exception of the Sioux).

If I was part of one society and had to pick the one I’d like to have been gone through I’d have to say a Roman in 400 AD.  The Sioux went through a horrific time at the hands of the Americans but their former living situation never came close to the luxry that the Romans experienced.  That had to come as quite a shock to the Roman nobility.

The best societal change would have to be the Americans in the 20th century.  With our current struggles let’s hope we don’t see a repeat of what the Romans went through though I’m guessing there are a few Sioux that would smile.

Tweet

The best day of class I ever had

I reached adulthood during the Reagan administration and I distinctly remember being excited when he got re-elected in 1984.  He spoke bluntly, increased military spending, and made everyone feel good about being an American.  Considering that most of my spare time was spent reading history books about military conquerors and great empires, Reagan’s persona was perfect for someone like me.

The turning point was when I got to my senior year and my American Government class.  The person responsible was pretty unlikely to teach anyone anything.  Mr Jamison was always late to class, never had a lesson plan ready and rarely used the book.  By the end of the class I remember we made it through the 2nd chapter of our text which infuriated my classmates who had to endure the whole thing.  If I give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he didn’t believe it was best to learn about the American Government from a text book.  Maybe he was just lazy.  I really don’t know.

A good example of his teaching method was the last 6 weeks.  We were told to write 2 papers about anything in world history that impacted the American Government. My 2 papers were about William the Conqueror and his opponent Harold Godwinson. When I got authorization for these papers I remember arguing that these two represented a turning point as the rise of the Normans led to English Common Law and the Magna Carta which had a profound impact on our government.  My concept was a bit simplistic as I look back and I’d love to write it today as there really is a good paper in there describing what happened under William and what could have happened under Harold. The truth was when I did my research I saw a book on the two men and wanted to read it. I read it in 2 days, returned it to the library and forgot all about the project.  Mr Jamison’s classes after that consisted of nothing but goofing off and most times even he skipped class.  The one thing I do remember is he never said a word about the project until the day it was due and I was totally screwed.  I didn’t have the book and it had been well over a month since I read it. He gave us until the end of class to finish and frantically wrote the two papers from memory. As I recall my grade ended up that six weeks as a D.  At first I wasn’t too upset as I’d already been accepted to college and only needed my diploma. My nonchalant attitude changed a bit when I realized how badly this class killed my class rank as it dropped from 24th at the end of the 1st semester to 47th when I graduated.  That changed my class rank % from top 10% to top 25% which isn’t nearly as prestigious.  Oh well!  This was another lesson of sorts.

I’ve digressed but I told that to give flavor of Mr. Jamison’s teaching method.  His classes were very loose with lots of discussion and not always about politics or government.  In hindsight I don’t know if his classes were by a genius that got kids interested in political happenings by reading the issues of the day or a lazy guy that had tenure and didn’t care to teach that hard.  It’s been too many years for me to fairly access that.  All I know is one day he began class with a simple question.

“Are you are Republican or a Democrat?”

As we were in a suburban classroom, almost everyone raised their hand that they were Republican.  The only person that answered Democrat also happened to be the only African-American in our school at the time.  I remember a few of the popular kids tried to get him to switch his allegiance and his response was simple, “I’m black, we’re all Democrats”.  Everyone laughed but in truth the opposite was also true.  We were all Republicans because we were white suburban kids. 

What Mr. Jamison did next was possibly the best lesson I ever learned.  He told us to pull out a sheet of paper and asked us 20 questions that revolved around the most divisive issues of the day.  When we finished we made a copy and turned in our answers.  He quickly totaled the results and revealed the questions on the chalkboard which he read again.  As we went down each question we were told to grade our own papers as he told us whether the position was Republican or Democrat.  My result was 65% Democrat – 35% Republican.  The totals for the class were about the same and when the teacher asked people who answered more Democratic, almost everyone in the class raised their hands. 

He put the class totals next to each issue and I was amazed just how most people toed the Democratic party line.  Mr. Jamison went over each question and had someone from each side talk about why they felt their answer was right.  The discussions got a little heated at times (especially around abortion) but it was amazing insight into how my fellow students thought.

I’ve always thought I went into that classroom a Republican and exited a Democrat.  The truth is that I’ve always been more Libertarian/Independent but that day taught me to look into the details before aligning myself to anything.  The lesson Mr. Jamison taught me that day was a huge first step in developing my critical thinking and I’ve always been grateful that at least on that one day, he cared enough to teach and I really do believe my life is different as a result.  On that day, his class was certainly better than memorizing lines from a textbook (even if he did give me my first D).

Tweet

End of the American Republic

This article is in desperate need of editing as I know I repeated myself a few times but I wrote it in about 2 hours of uninterrupted thought and want to keep this as a record for myself as the next decade unfolds.  The thing that set me off was the Supreme Court re-affirming the Citizens United case.
****************************

As a kid I felt I was lucky to live in a country like the United States.  It was so obvious we weren't only the wo

rld's most powerful country but also one with a political system that was the fairest in history led by enlightened men that only wanted the best for the world. This was true because as my teachers insisted, the American people demanded this from their country due to American Exceptionalism.

To my 12 year old self, it was so obvious who the bad guys were in the story. All you had to do was watch the television and see images of the dastardly Russians with their godless communism. It was a thinly disguise form of totalitarianism like we'd escaped in 1776 and we were the world's best hope.

As I got older I realized that the world wasn't that simple but I remember writing a paper in high school where I tried to imagine that we were in fact the bad guys. My imagination wasn't good enough for the task. After all, we allowed the vote. We protected people's rights. We made other countries toe the line when they committed human rights violations. This wasn't true in the rest of the world.

Since I've gotten out of college my disillusionment with my country has been mostly about money and the fact that the American electorate is willing to turn a blind eye to elected officials who aren't fiscally responsible and unwilling to protect American jobs and industries. The mantra they always spoke was about free trade. They argued that only free trade would allow us unfettered access to the rest of the world as while they took the manual jobs like making cars and computer chips, we would dominate industries like banking and computer software. Retraining was all that was needed.

This logic always has frustrated me because the American education system isn't up to the task of that 100% of it's graduates would be able to work on Wall Street. Frankly no country can be made up of all white collar jobs. And of course it was inevitable that the United States economy was going to crash at some point. After World War Two were were the only country to come out of the war in a better position than we entered. Our industries had gotten a huge shot of capital which killed any remaining vestiges of the Great Depression while the rest of the world had to totally rebuild. This set us up for two decades where the world literally couldn't match our production.

Everything changed around the time of Watergate and OPEC in 1973. These events were merely coincidental as by that time countries like Japan and Germany had recovered from their war time losses and now were able to compete with the United States on equal footing. For most of the 70s the country seemed to take a downward trend. That is until Ronald Reagan got into office in 1981.

After he was in office a shift happened in America. Instead of protecting our steel industry we shipped them overseas where they could make the steel cheaper. Instead of protecting our industries with tariffs, the sales went overseas as well. Big business is mostly to blame as companies like IBM and GM weren't able to make changes in the modern economy or produce quality chips/automobiles. Unions played a role too as it was difficult to argue to companies that they needed to keep jobs here when they had to pay $20/hour here vs $.20/hour overseas. Even our citizens seemed blind to the danger as millions of them seemed to be happy buying Sony, Toyota or Lexus. As a result, twenty years later we virtually have no heavy industry left in our country.

The economy continued to boom during this era and the heroes weren't the Rockefellers in oil or the Carnegie's in steel but the bankers on Wall Street. Thees people moved money around the world and manipulated the world with their money. Corporations downsized middle management through computerization while most of the jobs turned into some sort of service industry.

My question has always been this - If everyone is providing a service for someone else then who is really doing the real work? The answer is no one as the economy in the United States was based on a lie of paper.

It's been about 5 years since the bank collapse took much of the savings from the middle class of the world. People are rebuilding but it is now a different place. One where the money is sitting in the hands of countries like Saudi Arabia and China who could literally destroy our economy if they wanted by selling the T-Bills that fun our debt. The only reason they don't is because Americans still are buying Arabian oil and Chinese goods. Their economies aren't to the point where they could handle the loss of our consumers. Every year we dig ourselves a little deeper and the world is increasingly able to live without our consumption.

How did we get here? What did we do wrong?

I've hinted on it above but the real problem was that like my teenaged self, the American voters couldn't see what was really being done in their name. Jobs left the country but taxes were low and porkbarrel projects were high. It was morning in America.

I still believe that the Soviet Union was evil. That may have been too strong of a word as I have learned Russians are in reality pretty nice but their government was totalitarian and we are a republic. That made us good and them evil to my 12 year old brain. As I said earlier, I struggled to imagine a world where American could possibly be anything but good. It's like movies like Omen 2 where the devil was attempting to gain the presidency. I always laughed at movies like this or the Manchurian Candidate as the simple fix was our president couldn't legislate and was only in office for 4 years before he had to face the electorate. There was no way that we'd ever have a situation like happened in Rome over 2000 years ago when the Roman Republic was replaced by a Totalitarian Empire. That was impossible ... the American people wouldn't allow it.

What I didn't consider was money. Politicians need money to get reelected and television ads have a big impact on the electorate. Term limits don't help because our two party system means anyone that wants to get involved is funneled through those two organizations and have to toe the line or the next person in line will get the money. Add to that the recent development of the Supreme Court recognizing corporations as having all the rights of an individual and now you have entities whose only loyalty is to their stockholder who are spread out all over the world with the ability to pump millions and billions into elections and create negative television ads against any politician that dares to oppose their views.

Politicians aren't rich. They constantly raise funds for re-election every two/six years. The thing is you are now see prime time attack ads in someones district in the middle of their term from a non-descript organization like "Americans for America". Since we are only likely to hear one side of the argument it eventually becomes our truth. Ultimately we'd rather not get into the details of politics because they are difficult so we distracted like the Romans but instead of gladiators we follow stories about the foibles of Hollywood starlets.

All this isn't enough to end the American Republic but the republic is teetering.

In the next 10 years (and I'm probably being generous), we will see inflation like we haven't seen since 1920 Germany hit the economies of the world making all the paper shuffling of the last 20 years irrelevant. The only thing that will matter is solid goods and the only people able to provide them to the American people will be corporations from their enterprises overseas. As the American dollar becomes worthless and the American consumer is unable to spend on credit any longer, the world will turn to a new currency and we will no longer be able to abuse the system.

This would have happened years ago if oil and goods weren't sold in American dollars. This has been our blessing and our curse. It's simple supply and demand and today the world needs dollars. Despite financial policies that would cause inflation and a decrease in buying power in other countries we escape because if we collapse the world economy the world is forced to turn to the only safe investment - the dollar and the T-bill. This actually causes an increase in demand for these items which increases our buying power and allows us to run up our debt even more. Compare that to Argentina in the 80s that had a disastrous war they couldn't afford and their money lost most of its value. We are actually lucky Greek economic policy made moving to the Euro impossible or we could be facing that crisis right now. (OPEC was already making noise they were headed that direction in 2002 but backed off due to American pressure (having tanks in the area helped) and the Euro crisis).

In some ways delaying the inevitable is making it even worse. Instead of getting periodic adjustments like the rest of the world, every bad decision by the United States government is rewarded. Unfortunately for us, every balloon will eventually pop.

When the collapse happens millions will be out of work as the country struggles to figure out if we can do anything anymore. Mega corporations will have all the money and they will own the politicians. I'm sure that people will attempt to stop it but throughout history when all the money is controlled by a few the result is totalitarianism in some sort be it Soviet Communism, German Fascism, a Military Dictator, a Roman Emperor, or a Hereditary Monarchy.

The power of the United States has always been the and the possibility that hard work combined with the natural resources at hand would create personal wealth. This caused a historical anomaly of a majority of citizens in a middle class between rich and poor. Those days are almost at an end.

As a child this idea seemed so ridiculous. We were the United States and our Republic could only be a force for good. Today, I don't see how we can avoid something much much different.

Tweet

World War Two revisited

I saw an interesting argument on a bulletin board the other day that had two guys making the following comments:

We *&%*&% saved the world in WW2, next time some European country goes bat shit crazy and you've all got your balls on the chopping block we will be the only one to call

 The response to this was a profanity filled no to which the original poster commented:

Name a single country that had the power to take over germany, besides the united states. Great Britian was on the verge of surrendering, the soviet unions 2 greatest cities were under seige, and any other country barely has an army.

The response was this:

Lol in the case of U.S vs The Third Reich the Third Reich would've won. Without a doubt. It's a fact that the German army at that time period could totally butt rape anyone they wanted too. I don't like saying it, but it's true.

Germany had better technology (even though the american technology was easily the most advanced amongst the allies), better trained and motivated soldiers and a better society.
Without America, the allies would've been ^%amp;amp;$. Yes. But it's vice versa too.

The conversation devolved into a  name calling contest but the original exchange is a bit interesting.  Are these guys right?  Did the United States save the world?

To start the conversation I thought I'd come up with a few arbitrary categories for comparison for discussion for the main combatants.

Allies	Prep	Mil	Pop	Resource	Tech	Prod
United States	1	3	7	9	6	9
USSR	3	1	9	9	2	4
Great Britain	6	6	3	3	7	5
France	5	5	3	3	5	4

Axis	Prep	Mil	Pop	Resource	Tech	Prod
Germany	8	9	4	4	9	6
Italy	7	2	3	3	3	3
Japan	8	7	4	1	4	4

France
At the start of the war this is no doubt that Germany had the most preparation and the best trained military in the world.  At the beginning of the war they faced the combined military of France and Great Btitain through superior tactics quickly forced the British from the continent.  That allowed them to take on the French alone and quickly force them from the war.  This step alone gave the Germans a huge advantage as they controlled all the land in Western Europe from the Arctic Circle to Gibraltar.

Great Britain
The British were isolated on their island and there is no way the British with their small population and lack of natural resources could have ever done much damage to Germany's 'Fortress Europe'.  In fact imagine if the war was just Britain vs Germany.  Do you think that the war in northern Africa would have had the same outcome?  While it is true that the British ruled the seas, the Germans ruled the air and as the war in the Pacific showed, airpower wins over naval forces.  All it would have taken was for them to invade a few key locations, especially Gibraltar and Malta, and the Mediterranean would have soon been a German lake.  That would have opened up the Middle East all the way to the Persian Gulf.  One key thing this would have done is make it difficult for British bombers to hit at the German industry or raw materials like the oil fields in Ploiesti, Romania.  If the war was left to the British alone, the whole continent would be speaking German today.

USSR
There is no doubt the dumbest thing Hitler did in the entire war was invade the Soviet Union.  He saw the biggest problem facing Germany was they didn't have room to grow and he saw the great Russian plains as an ideal place for expansion. He is supposed to have said, 'Everything I undertake is directed against the Russians. If the West is too stupid and blind to grasp this, then I shall be compelled to come to an agreement with the Russians, beat the West and then after their defeat turn against the Soviet Union with all my forces. I need the Ukraine so that they can't starve us out, as happened in the last war.'  The issue is it would have taken years to offset the resources needed to invade the USSR with any potential gains. If he had waited five or ten years once he stabilized the situation in the rest of Europe it would have been much different. In his defense he assumed that Great Britain was no longer a threat and the United States would stay out of the conflict. When that didn't happen he had spelled his own doom.

In any event,  the Germans launched the largest invasion of the war in June 1941.  Within months the Germans had 150 divisions marching deeper and deeper into Soviet territory.  The German army that marched into the Soviet Union was unmatched by any force in history to that point.  Their reletively few casualties in the war in France, Norway and the Balkans gave them a well trained army led by some of the most able commanders of their time.  To give you an idea of the size of the German army, it totalled about 200 divisions at the time, and the ones not in the USSR were sitting along the Atlantic coast as a safeguard against invasion.  Over the next two years the German army actually grew to almost 300 divisions.  They were able to do this by conscripting the young, the old, and by accepting troops from countries in Southeast Europe.  As the losses on the Eastern front mounted, the quality of the German Army declined as more and more soldiers were fed into the Russian meat grinder.

The Russians were used to this kind of warfare.  Life in the Soviet Union was hard and one of the biggest obstacles was their leader Josef Stalin.  In the early 30s the Russian Army was on par with the rest of the world technologically and with their large population had a formidable force.  Stalin was well aware that Germany and Japan were threats to his country but instead of working to modernize the army like Hitler, he instead chose to decimate it during the purges meant to root out traitors.  In 1937-8, 3 of 5 marshals, 13 of 15 army commanders, eight of nine admirals, 50 of 57 army corps commanders, 154 out of 186 division commanders, 16 of 16 army commissars, and 25 of 28 army corps commissars were removed from their posts and most were killed. It is estimated that 30% of lower level Russian officers were removed from their posts during this time though many were reinstated in the years after the start of the war.  Stalin's reasoning is he wanted a force loyal to him when war came but the immediate effect was to drastically reduce the readiness of his army.  When the war started, this inexperience would prove deadly.

At the beginning of the war in the East the manpower was tilted slightly in Germany's favor as the Soviet Union had their forces spread throughout the country and a large force was stationed in the East as a safeguard against Japan in Manchuria.  As the German forced ripped though the Russian forces the size the armies shifted.  At the start of the war, Germany had a population of around 70 million while the Soviet Union was over 170 million.  For comparison sake, France, Great Britain, and the United States had populations of 42, 48, and 131 million respectively.  The problem for Germany was as they advanced further and further into Russia, they got further from their base of supply and every soldier killed meant the the combat readiness of their forces declined while the inexperienced Soviets got better in every battle.  The peak hit in the winter of 1942 during the battle of Stalingrad and once the Russians stopped the Germans the initiative switched sides and the Germans moved to the defensive.

This doesn't answer the question posed by the  poster - Could the Russians have beaten Germany by themselves?  That's a tough question to answer as there are a few variables at work.  First, if the Germans didn't need to worry about Great Britain or the 50 divisions sitting on the Western Front the Germans would have easily taken Moscow in the first year.  They almost did it with the 150 so it would have been easy with 200.  Would that have meant anything?  It didn't to Napoleon as he took the city only to realize the futility when the Russian Army continued to retreat further east.  Warfare had changed since that time but the Soviet Union used their huge advantage in labor to start new industries east of the Ural mountains.  The only question is whether they could have survived without the United States sending billions of dollars of transportation equipment and food to the Soviet Union through Iran and Vladivostok.

Ultimately my answer to this question is yes and no.  While there  is no way the Soviet Union could have stopped them east of the Urals, I don't see how the Germans could have advanced much further than they did.  The amount of land they were trying to hold was immense and partisans were already becoming an issue.  To give you an idea of what the Germans faced they had taken an area twice the size of Germany and held barely 15% of the Soviet landmass.  It was impossible to split their forces to control every part of the country nor was that ever their intention.  Once they took Moscow they would have consolidated their lines and pushed to the Caucasus.  If the Russians couldn't be convinced to surrender, the next few years for the Germans would have consisted of trying to hold off the invading Soviet armies while domesticating the conquered lands.  As the American Army in Iraq can attest, conquering a country is much easier than governing it.  The line most likely would have started in the Caspian and followed the Volga to where it ends just northwest of Moscow then North  following the rivers and canal systems north to the White Sea.  This line would have been especially hard for the Soviets to penetrate especially in the south where the Volga was over a mile wide.  That would be the best case scenario.  I doubt the Soviets could have decimated the Germans like they did in the war without support and the best they could have hoped for is a German retreat back to the original line of battle.

United States
This question is a tough one because it really depends on American public will.  For the Americans to enter the war alone you have to assume the Germans took Great Britain and now control all of Western Europe while the Soviet Union is biding its time under a non-aggression pact.  Would the United States invade to liberate Europe?  I'm sure Roosevelt would have liked to do just that but most Americans were against going to war right up to Pearl Harbor.  Hitler made it easy for Roosevelt as he declared war on the United States the next day who then responded in kind.  Roosevelt then joined with Churchill and Stalin in making Germany the prime target, saving Japan for last.  Imagine if none of that happened.  Would we have gone to war with Germany by ourselves?  I highly doubt it.

But let's assume we did.  Where would we base our operations?  The only choice would be West Africa as everything north of that is easily defended.  The first step would have been to take the Azores, Madeira, or the Canary Islands then to Casablanca, through Western Africa to form a base in Tunis.  That would need to be followed by an invasion of one of the Mediterranean Islands like Malta, Corsica or Sicily and that would be used similar to how we used England in World War II for an eventually invasion of southern France, Italy or Greece.  My guess is France would have been the target with the hope that eventually we'd end up in Berlin to make the Germans sue for peace.

Did the United States have the power to do that?  Almost definitely.  Would they have done it without Pearl Harbor?  It is doubtful.  Public opinion would have crucified Roosevelt when casualties of 1 million+ occurred during an invasion of Southern France.  Keep in mind that Britain and the United States only faced about 60 weakened German divisions in Western Europe on D-Day.  Imagine instead if they faced an additional 200 elite divisions from the Eastern front.  The war material the United States could produce was immense but without the the bases in Britain, German production capability would have increased and that might have been enough to push the Americans off the continent.  American public opinion would have done the rest.

What about the reverse?  Is the posters assertion that in a battle of Germany vs the United States that the Third Reich would have won?  Frankly this is a ludicrous assertion for the same logistical reasons that would have made it difficult for the United States to invade Germany.  In a battle of the US vs Germany, the only possible outcome would have been a draw.  One side didn't have the will and the other didn't have the capability.

Conclusion
It is fun to sometimes think about the what if's of history.  What gets lost in the original posters argument is for anything similar to the historical outcome to occur, all 3 powers were needed.  If it were Germany vs Britain, Britain would have lost.  Soviet Union vs. Germany would have most likely ended up in a stalemate with the Soviets conceding lands.  The United States vs Germany most likely would have never occurred due to American public opinion.  The only thing that allowed the war to work as it did was that the British held on which eventually gave the Americans a base of operations in Europe.  That forced the Germans to hold troops on the Western front which combined with American food and logistical support gave the Soviets enough breathing room to allow them to use their manpower to turn the tide of the war.  D-Day was important as it hastened the end and prevented the Soviets from ruling post war Europe but by that time the Germans were beaten through the prior efforts of all three powers.

Atomic thought
One interesting thought is how the atomic bomb have been affected under the above scenarios.  The only reason Roosevelt was able to start the Manhattan project is we were in a time of war.  If the United States isn't at war then we most don't develop the bomb.  That would have allowed German scientists the freedom to develop it instead.  The idea of Hitler with the bomb is scary indeed and  we are lucky the man lacked patience.  His premature attack on the Soviet Union changed world history as there is no doubt the world we live in today would be very very different if that didn't happen.

Tweet