Why we celebrate the United States of America

From time to time, I find myself having discussions with professionals in Europe.  “Why do Americans insist they’re No. 1?” one asked me.  “Why is that so important?”  Apparently, all Americans are ugly Americans and I am their spokesman. 

We do have a tendency to trumpet our successes and rationalize our failures, particularly when talking with someone from another country.  Our celebrations – such as the upcoming 4^th of July – tend to be loud, boisterous and overwrought…   just like ugly Americans!

Unlike most European cultures, we don’t have centuries of tradition.  My neighbor, here in Fairport, NY, traces his lineage in England back 1000 years.  Despite his preference for an American way of life, he is steeped in British culture and values.  My correspondents in Europe – both Dutchman, one living in Norway and the other in Italy – grew up in a monarchy that has persisted since the 16^th Century.

America hasn’t been around that long and the waves of immigrants that have come here are not steeped in American culture.  Indeed, my family came here less than 100 years ago.  We loudly proclaim our virtues to counterbalance the absence of generations of tradition. Our holidays, our school teachings and our political LEADERS serve to reinforce our cultural values – free speech, freedom of religion, and the right to private property – in a way that not only reminds but educates a diverse populace. 

One of my Dutch friends asked me if I thought that Americans “cling to their Constitution”.  I suggested that most Americans don’t understand our Constitution, which outlines how our government works.  However, Americans do “cling” to our Bill of Rights.  The right to free speech, freedom of religion, protections against unreasonable search and seizure and the right to privacy and private property are all delineated in the first ten amendments to the Constitution and explained in the Federalist Papers, created to gain the buy-in of a diverse group of 13 independent states.

Our Supreme Court was created to continually interpret our rights in order that we might make laws consistent with the founders’ view of a free society.  Notably, 66% of this year’sSupreme Court decisions were unanimous in that interpretation.

Perhaps more than the Constitution, Americans can recite from the opening of the Declaration of Independence.  The US was founded on the belief that all men and women were created equal and that certain inalienable rights are granted to individuals (not Kings) by God.

History teaches us that we have violated our own beliefs from time to time – from the internment of Japanese Americans during WW II to the denial of voting rights and equal opportunity to African Americans.  But, a society whose cultural values are defined by human rights seeks justice in all matters.  In the end, justice prevails.

History also teaches us that the founders’ didn’t have all the answers nor did they presume to.  For example, the right to privacy is generally regarded as Constitutionally granted in the US.  However, the word “privacy” doesn’t appear anywhere in the document.  The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Ninth Amendment to protect privacy as it specifically states that the “enumeration of certain rights…  shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people”.   

Much of our economic success has been the result of our rights to private property, again not specifically laid out in the Constitution. Chief Justice John Jay, the first to hold that title, interpreted the Fifth Amendment to afford those protections.

Much of this may be lost on those who are ignorant of our history.  However, the waves of immigrants who have come here over the last two Centuries to make a better life for their children – from the Irish who settled in New England in the 1840’s and 50’ to the Cubans who settled in Miami in the 1960’s and 70’s – have demonstrated the validity of a model of governance that has been emulated around the world.

Many, including me, disparage a federal government that seems to thrive on dysfunction.  But, America thrives on a core belief that we have the freedom to be who we want, say what we want and go where we want to go. 

And that, my friends, deserves a great celebration.  Happy 4^th!

WHO WILL LEAD?

Can the Nation's Mayors Save the Federal Government from Itself?

The press has planted a phrase in our heads – dysfunctional government.  It’s hardly a phrase the man on the street would invent.  Yet, it has overtaken the economy as voters’ biggest concern.  Sounds like a problem we should try to solve, doesn’t it?

There’s a central truth to this issue that most are missing.  The government was designed to be dysfunctional.  If you were designing a system to function efficiently, would you come up with this?

Indeed, if one were to design a government system to function efficiently, one might choose the British Westminster system.  In the UK, elections can be called at irregular intervals to throw the bums out and the leader of the party who achieves a majority appoints the ministers (from among those elected) who run the bureaus of government.

No separation of powers, no process of advice and consent, no oversight committees or any of the other nonsense that clogs up the works in D.C.

In the midst of all this federal Sturm and Drang, many states have stepped into the breach.  And, why shouldn’t they?  In a nation that is geographically larger than all of Europe, it makes sense that we would have diverse cultures with different values.  Continental Europe certainly does.

Former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels forged a new path by selling some of the state’s assets – including highways -- to pay down their debt and balance their budget without raising taxes.  It was a bold move.  What can we learn from Indiana’s experience?

In California, new/old Governor Jerry Brown chose a different direction.  He raised taxes on the wealthy to address the state’s budget issues. Unlike Indiana, California benefits from thriving entertainment and technology industries and geographically important seaports like Long Beach and Oakland.  A recovering economy has boosted state revenues and balanced the budget.  The very wealthy haven’t abandoned the state to move to Indiana or even to Arizona or Texas.

Texas pursues a different model.  A no-income tax state, it benefits from a booming energy industry and low costs of living and doing business.  Want to move from high-tax states like California, Illinois or New York?  No problem.  You’ll be welcomed. 

That Texas and California can pursue such different models and both thrive is an expression of the diversity of our economy.  There’s no need for the federal government to be involved.

Last June’s Supreme Court ruling allowed each state to make its own decision about gay marriage.  And, each state is doing so.  Easy?  For some yes and for others no.  But, the decisions made at a local level are more likely to reflect local values.

Mississippi will never have it.  Vermont always will.

Contrast that to the 40-year-old Supreme Court ruling on abortion.  Proponents and opponents are still marching in the streets. 

Enter the nation’s mayors. 

More than 80% of the population now lives in or near a big city.  So, our mayors are likely to have an increasing impact on society.

Many focus on economic development.  Denver has established a Business Incentive Fund that has attracted large national companies like Southwest Airlines to its environs.  Raleigh, NC has a well-educated workforce and has attracted financial companies like Fidelity, Credit Suisse and MetLife.  Seattle benefits from a resurgent Boeing and has also attracted technology companies like Amazon and Google to build new operations there. 

But, it’s not all about economics.  Cities may also serve as laboratories for social experiments. New York’s new mayor, Bill de Blasio, ran on a platform of taxing the rich to fund universal pre-K.  If he receives the necessary support of the state government, we’ll get to see if that experiment works before liberals in Washington take a crack at it.  Will Wall Street big shots relocate their HQ’s to White Plains, Princeton or Greenwich?  It will be interesting to find out, won’t it?

Seattle’s city government considers raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour.  Will the rise in incomes lift local businesses and cause the city to thrive or will it drive out local employers who reckon they can’t carry that burden? Will Seattleites be buying Tex-Mex from Taco Bell or from Burrito Box?

Conservatives point to the first principles of economic freedom as drivers of prosperity.  The elected governments of California and Seattle have chosen a different direction.  Liberals see the divergent incomes at the top and bottom of the economic ladder as a challenge they must address directly.  The elected governments of Indiana and Texas have chosen a different direction. 

I don’t know about you.  But, I would rather see how these many experiments work on a small scale before imposing them on the entire nation. 

The accretion of special interest lobbying and its impact on the federal taxes and regulations violate Americans’ sense of fair play.  The decentralization of American governance can only serve to make elected officials more responsive to the electorate and the results better aligned with our values and beliefs.  The folks in Washington will not endeavor to slow the momentum of our central government.  Change must be driven from outside the system and it’s more likely to be driven by political, social and economic forces at play in our states and cities than by those who pretend to represent us in Washington.

WHO WILL LEAD?

The U.S. Constitution Was Designed to be Amended

It’s time to get military weapons out of the hands of civilians.  Yes, I know that the assault weapons ban passed during the Clinton administration was rendered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.  But, the Constitution was designed to be amended.  And, if we need to amend it to get a ban on weapons manufactured with a military purpose, then amend it we must.

I am a great respecter of the U.S. Constitution.  It is a brilliant document, a reflection of the Age of Enlightenment and the courage of the men who wrote it.  Among its most brilliant elements is Article V, which outlines the procedure for amendments.  The Founders knew that society would evolve. 

The Second Amendment was written at a time when we had just concluded a revolution against the King of England.   There was a legitimate fear of the tyranny of a central government.  Would a new United States government confiscate private property to serve its own ends?  No one could be sure.

The Founders wrote the Second Amendment to the Constitution as part of the Bill of Rights with that in mind.  The United States had yet to take the form of a single country and it only made sense to grant the citizens the right to bear arms against a potentially repressive government.

Is such a fear rational in the 21^st Century?  And if it is, what group of citizens could defend itself against the U.S. Army?  Not those guys in camo holed up in the woods of Michigan or Idaho. 

Now, I have heard the argument – haven’t we all – that the school principal in Newtown, CT might have defended herself rather than sacrificed her life to protect the children.  And, perhaps that’s so.  But, do we really want to live in a society where our teachers need to arm themselves?  Where will that lead us?  Should our teachers be required to carry and use guns?  What of those who won’t or can’t?  Should they lose their jobs because they don’t carry weapons in the classroom?

It’s a ludicrous argument.

I grew up in New York where today anyone carrying an unlicensed gun risks going to jail.  There is good reason to fear gun violence in the city that never sleeps as it is in many of our big cities. 

But, I also lived in Colorado where gun ownership is routine.  I worked with a guy who told me he used to go home after school to get his .22 caliber rifle, tie it to the handlebars of his bike and go hunting rabbits.  No one thought anything of it.  I know that ranchers and farmers consider a rifle an essential tool, and often use it to defend their livestock from a hungry coyote or to put down an injured animal.  I met another guy who used a .45 caliber pistol to kill a grizzly bear while camping in the wilderness.

But, none of them owned an AK-47.

Could Adam Lanza have killed first-graders with a pistol or single shot rifle?  Yes, he could have.  But, not so many and not so quickly.

Do we still fear that our government might confiscate our property, as did the Founders?  Isn’t it time to get past that argument?

Clinton’s assault weapons ban, passed in 1994, gave impetus to the NRA to target Congressional Democrats who had voted for it in the mid-term elections.  Their campaign contributed to that year’s change of control from Democrat to Republican for the first time in 40 years.  Democrats have not pressed for gun control legislation since. 

However, the President expressed the feelings of many when he said on Monday, “a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals –– that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities….  that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons; … that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily. These steps shouldn’t be controversial. They should be common sense.”

Any measure must be able to withstand the scrutiny of the Supreme Court, bound to interpret the Constitution and apply it to Congress’ legislation.   But, Article V…  well, Article V grants the power to amend the Constitution to the Congress and the state legislatures.  The President has no role in the process.

Great change comes about when large majorities demand it.  Will a large majority of Americans demand the change we need? 

Do we have the will to do it? 

WHO WILL LEAD?