The Land of Plenty--Thanks to Capitalism

Americans celebrated the Fourth of July this past Monday.  For European readers (apparently, I get between two or three French readers every day--merci!)--or people living in progressive enclaves in the cities or up north--allow me to explain how our Independence Day celebrations work:

- Tons of food:  As will come as no surprise, Americans love to eat.  What better way to celebrate the bounteous blessings of freedom than by consuming copious amounts of barbecue (pulled pork, of course, preferably mustard- or vinegar-based)?

- Fireworks:  We like to blow stuff up (not the way radical Muslims do--we do it for fun, or to protect the weak and defenseless).  Note that we are the land of glam metal and Kid Rock.  Again, what better way to celebrate prosperity than by exploding lights in the sky, all choreographed to the strains of "Rock Me Like a Hurricane"?

- Family:  Despite the rapid growth of children born out of wedlock, and increased rates of co-habitation (and decreased rates of marriage), we Americans still honor the importance of family as the building block of any productive society.  Families also instill the values of a nation, and are the incubators of the kind of self-government and personal self-control that are the cornerstones of a free people and a free republic.

There are, of course, many other reasons to love the Fourth of July--great weather, awesome parades, bald eagles--but what makes all of this celebrating possible?  How is it that even the least-fortunate Americans are able to enjoy a hot dog and fireworks on the Fourth?

 

Sure, it's not South Carolina pulled-pork, but I'd eat it.

(Source:  http://www.public-domain-image.com/free-images/food-and-drink/barbecue-grilling-food/porterhouse-steaks-grilling-barbecue-grills-meat)

The answer is the prosperity made possible by our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.  The Declaration clearly sets forth the right of all humans to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."  The "pursuit of Happiness" is no idle phrase or call to hedonism; rather, it enshrines the freedom of any person to pursue that life which is most fulfilling to him, so long as he does not infringe upon the liberty of other free men.

The Constitution--which Abraham Lincoln called the "frame of silver" around the "apple of gold" of the Declaration--provides the legal and institutional framework to safeguard liberty.  The Constitution is also, as free-market economist Milton Friedman once said, the "rules" of the economic "game."  Not only does it protect the rights of individuals against the power of the state; it also spells out how individuals can pursue happiness by limiting the government's ability to jury-rig the economy in support of favored or well-connected interests (at least, that's how it's supposed to work).

The Constitution establishes an incredibly flexible economic framework that strictly limits congressional power to a few areas.  In other words, the Constitution enshrines a (lightly regulated) free market capitalist system.

Capitalism--when supported by a pro-growth government, protected by rule of law and the courts, and sustained by a free and responsible people--has done more to improve human life than any other economic or political system ever devised.  When China adopted free market reforms in the 1980s, it transformed from a massive, impoverished nation that experienced widespread famine and low productivity throughout the Maoist years into an economic powerhouse.

(China's continued reliance on corporatist schemes and non-representative authoritarian rule, however, has finally caught up with it; China will either become more free politically, or more repressive and, therefore, less productive; my bet is on the latter.)

 "The 'pursuit of Happiness' is no idle phrase... rather, it enshrines the freedom of any person to pursue that life which is most fulfilling to him."

Capitalism works so well that we occasionally seem to enjoy too much prosperity.  Throughout history, people have struggled against hunger.  Now, people in the Western world struggle to lose weight.  We often see the worst cases of obesity among the poorest members of society.  What kind of system creates so much food, at such a low cost, that it actually makes poor people fat?

For that matter, capitalism has created so much wealth, we can now afford to pay more money for food that is produced less efficiently.  The very hipster-elites that decry capitalism and "systems of oppression" at Bernie Sanders rallies can only enjoy their trust-funded non-GMO, organic, pesticide-free kale salads because capitalism gives people the ability to choose to eat these foods (for what it's worth, I'm on an all-GMO, factory-farm only diet).

Imagine transporting an American from 1933--during the Great Depression, and not even 100 years ago--to 2016.  He would be dumbfounded to find poor Americans struggling with fatty diets, and skeptical to witness the spiritual descendants of the New Dealers pushing for limits on the size of Coke bottles he could purchase.  He would also be blown away by the massive diversity of goods and services available (like the two-liter bottle of Coke).

Capitalism is not perfect.  It depends upon a fair and predictable legal system, and a people committed to self-control and self-government.  If anything, capitalism creates so much luxury that people become unwilling to do the work necessary to maintain their comfortable lifestyles.  It also creates enough wealth to shield its beneficiaries from poor decisions and bad moral choices, the costs of which are shifted to responsible citizens.

Nevertheless, capitalism is vastly preferable to the alternatives, and for every layabout there are dozens of eager upstarts ready to try something new.  To continue to enjoy its fruits, we must recommit ourselves to personal self-control, self-government, and moral instruction.  Otherwise, we'll party ourselves into perdition, all the way voting ourselves "free" goodies from the public treasury, because the prosperity we've earned will been seen as a "right," not a privilege.

Let's avoid this fate.  Let's exercise a little self-control--and demand it of our elected officials, too.  Then let's eliminate confusing, onerous regulations and once again unleash the creative potential of 330 million Americans.  That's a recipe for long-term happiness.

Happy 240th Birthday, America!

Today the United States of America celebrates 240 years of liberty.  240 years ago, Americans boldly banded together to create the greatest nation ever brought forth on this earth.

They did so at the height of their mother country's dominance.  Great Britain emerged from the French and Indian War in 1763 as the preeminent global power.  Americans had fought in the war, which was international in scope but fought primarily in British North America.  After Britain's stunning, come-from-behind victory, Americans never felt prouder to be English.

Thirteen short years later, Americans made the unprecedented move to declare their independence.  Then, only twenty years after the Treaty of Paris of 1763 that ended the French and Indian War, another Treaty of Paris (1783) officially ended the American Revolution, extending formal diplomatic recognition to the young United States.  The rapidity of this world-historic shift reflects the deep respect for liberty and the rule of law that beat in the breasts of Americans throughout the original thirteen colonies.

America is founded on ideas, spelled out in the Declaration of Independence and given institutional form and legal protection by the Constitution.  Values--not specific ethnicity--would come to form a new, distinctly American nationalism, one that has created enduring freedom.

***

Rather than rehash these ideas, however, I'd instead like to treat you to the greatest political speech ever given in the English language.  It's all the more remarkable because it continues to inspire even when read silently.  I'm writing, of course, about Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.  Here is the transcript (Source:  http://www.gettysburg.com/bog/address.htm):

"Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation: conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

"Now we are engaged in a great civil war. . .testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated. . . can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war.

"We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

"But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate. . .we cannot consecrate. . . we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.

"It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us. . .that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion. . . that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain. . . that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. . . and that government of the people. . .by the people. . .for the people. . . shall not perish from the earth. "

 ***

The Gettysburg Address is elegant in its simplicity.  At less than 300 words, it was a remarkably short speech for the time (political and commemorative speeches often ran to two or three hours).  Yet its power is undiminished all these years later.  President Lincoln was only wrong about one thing:  the claim that the "world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here" has proven untrue.

I will likely write a deeper analysis of the Address in November to commemorate its delivery; in the meantime, I ask you to read and reread the speech, and to reflect on its timeless truths.

God Bless America!

--TPP

To read different versions of the Gettysburg Address--there are several versions extant--check out this excellent page from Abraham Lincoln Online:  http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm.

The European Union is NOT the United States

Post-Brexit (yes, yes, I know I promised on Wednesday that I'd be moving away from Brexit posts, and you'll soon find I wasn't lying... completely), I've heard several arguments that boil down to "the European Union is good because unity will make Europe stronger.  Just look at the United States!  It was a mess under the Articles of Confederation, but came together to become a world power under the Constitution."

The comparison is tempting and not without merit.  Certainly, the United States benefited greatly when the sovereign States ceded some of their power--such as that over the coinage and printing of money and defense--to the national government.  Putting the power to regulate interstate commerce eliminated the practice of States placing different tariff levels on British goods, for example, and aided in the creation of of a common national market.  The formation of the Supreme Court, and the subsequent creation of the federal judiciary under the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, allowed States to adjudicate disputes more fairly.  Why couldn't Europe achieve the same "more perfect union" with its goal of "ever closer union"?

"American nationalism derives primarily from a shared set of ideas."

Unfortunately for Europhiles, the comparison breaks down quickly upon closer inspection.  There are three key areas of difference between the United States and the vision of a "United States of Europe":  common language and culture; a common legal tradition grounded in the rule of law; and a legacy of representative, democratic-republicanism.  The young United States possessed these three qualities; modern Europe lacks them.

The first point--common language and culture--will be a contentious one.  There are myriad, if predictable, objections:  Americans came from many sources, not just England;  colonials expanded into territories that either belonged to American Indians, or to European competitors (notably the Dutch and the Swedes, but also the Spanish and French); settlers to different parts of British North America came from different cultural and religious groups in the British Isles; and so on.  Indeed, German almost became the official language of a young United States.

I discussed the ethnic and religious diversity of colonial and early republican America at some length in my essay "Created By Philosophy," and previously argued that American nationalism derives primarily from a shared set of ideas (in "American Values, American Nationalism").  However, despite this vivid and ubiquitous diversity, English culture and values ultimately became the overwhelming norm in British North America, and morphed into a distinctly American identity in the 18th century (though one that was, until independence, decidedly English).  English may not be the constitutionally official language of the United States, but it is the lingua franca of the nation (and the world), and has been so for centuries.  Every wave of immigrants (until relatively recently) has understood that mastery of English is a prerequisite to long-term success in and assimilation to American culture.

English Protestantism--infused with Scottish Calvinism and German piety--was a unifying force in the colonies.  When the First Great Awakening hit in the late 18th century, it cemented America's culture, even as it spawned multiple new denominations.  The ultimate denominator, however, was a broadly Protestant Christian worldview (one that gradually and unevenly came to tolerate, and then to accept, Catholics, Jews, and believers and non-believers of all stripes).

"English Protestantism... was a unifying force in the colonies."

The story of America, ideally, is that of unity within a culture that values diversity of viewpoints, but insists upon an acceptance of a basic, common, Judeo-Christian morality; thus, "E Pluribus Unum."  That morality, in turn, informs the legal system, one descended from centuries of English common law.  Respect for the rule of law--the notion that no man, even the king, is above the law--guided the English people toward increasing freedom.

 

Evangelist George Whitefield knew how to preach to the masses of British North America, and he had the hair to prove it.

(Image Source:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:George_Whitefield_(head).jpg)

So, too, did it lead Americans to their independence.  The American Revolution--and the various conflicts between colonial assemblies and royal governors--of the 18th century in many ways echoed the struggles between Parliament and the Stuart monarchs in 17th-century England.  Americans did not revolt because they rejected bad tea or because they resented taxation--they revolted because they weren't represented.  Americans did not have a say in the taxes that were (not unfairly) levied on the colonies to help pay for the French and Indian War (the similarities to the Leave campaign should be obvious).  Rule of law was circumvented, and Americans would not abide such a trampling of their rights

Thus, we come to the English--and then American--commitment to representative rule.  The United States really took the lead here, though Great Britain began expanding the franchise and reforming parliamentary representation in the 19th century as white manhood suffrage became the norm in Jacksonian America.  (Here's a fun aside:  there used to exist parliamentary seats that represented places with no people in them.)  Regardless, the notion that the people should be represented in their government--and should be able to hold it accountable with fair, free, and frequent elections--is an important part of America's constitutionally-limited, representative, federal republic.

Europe as an entity lacks all of these qualities.  Yes, certain members states have some of these qualities to varying degrees, but the European Union as a whole is sorely lacking in these areas.

- Culture and Language:  The United States had the unique opportunity to create a nation afresh.  Europe has had no such luxury, and seems to be inexorably divided into different languages and cultures.  This division is not necessarily bad, but it makes unity much more difficult.  It explains the natural struggle against "ever closer union," a struggle that is often visceral because people sense there is something artificial and disingenuous about the Europhile vision of a united Europe.  There are, after all, still traditionalists living (and voting) throughout Europe.

 "[S]ecularism is the new, unifying religion of Europe."

The long, oft-ancient histories of these nations makes it even more difficult for them to share a common worldview.  Even secular, progressive Europe still experiences the lingering cultural effects of centuries of faith.  France might have thrown out God with the French Revolution, but the "First Daughter of the Church" is still suffused, albeit in a subtle, weakened way, with centuries of faith.  Such a faith culture, even hollowed out, will naturally, if imperceptibly, struggle to  reconcile itself with that of other, contradictory traditions.

I suspect this explains why the European Union seems hell-bent on advancing as many socially progressive causes as possible:  secularism is the new, unifying religion of Europe.  But there will always be push-back against this dehumanizing, nihilistic vision of man's place in the universe.

Language, too, transmits the ideas and values of a people.  I am no linguist, but--unlike French theorists like Jacques Derrida--I believe that words have power and transmit meaning.  Such meaning is deep, part of the warp and woof of life.  Why else would educated societies devote so much time to learning and analyzing language and literature?  There's no need to read Shakespeare if you just want to a basically literate workforce.  No, there must be some power in language.  Linguistic diversity, therefore, is a beautiful thing, but it also means that different cultural values are transmitted differently throughout Europe.  No one associates Russian, for example, with greater freedom and sober living.

But I digress.

- Rule of Law:  Of course different nations in Europe have rule of law (except Belarus).  The European Union, however, does not.  Yes, it might have European law, but this law is promulgated by an unelected committee of elites, figures who don't identify strongly with their nations of origin, but rather with a vague, secular-progressive idea of Europe, one that barely tolerates dissent or input from the people.  Furthermore, how does one reconcile, say, French civil law with English common law?  The deep divisions of history are huge hurdles to overcome.

- Representative Government:  As I've stated many times, the European Union is not representative.  That's why the Brexit vote was so important, and why it has drawn so many comparisons to the American Revolution:  the normal people of Britain rose up against an unelected, unaccountable elite and boldly proclaimed their right to self-determination.  Brits seized back the ability to hold their elected leaders accountable.

The elite, Europhile vision of a United States of Europe is one of non-representative, coerced redistribution.  Give the proles bread and circuses, and they will submit on bended knee to the edicts of Brussels.  Remember, the "Remain" side of the Brexit debate was primarily premised on maintaining access to EU goodies, not about the people's ability to choose such a course.

Nothing could be further from the vision of America's Founders and Framers.  They possessed a healthy skepticism about unbridled democracy, but recognized that the people were the source of government's authority; that the people govern themselves most effectively; and that the people should be able to hold their leaders accountable.  Yes, liberty comes at a price--many prices, in fact.  One of those is the ever-present risk that the people will make mistakes.

Inevitably, they will.  But a common, tolerant culture; a shared respect for the rule of law; and an understanding of the rights and responsibilities of republican government will guide voters to wisdom more often than folly.

Self-government does not always fit neatly into the schemes of elite technocrats and busy-body regulators.  But it ultimately makes for a happier, freer, and more prosperous society.

Life after Brexit: Reflections and Predictions

I spent about two hours crafting a long, detailed explanation about my predictions for what will happen now that Brexit has won.  Unfortunately, my magisterial masterwork was unceremoniously deleted as I tried to update a quotation from an op-ed penned by National Front party leader Marine Le Pen (I'm sure my progressive friends, who will instantly dismiss anything coming from Le Pen's, er, pen as racist and xenophobic, will consider this some form of poetic justice).  So, rather than try to recreate that effort, allow me to phone in something quickly so I can get to sleep:

- Markets:  Markets have been, and will continue to be, roiled by the news of Brexit.  However, the Brexit vote--as I've argued repeatedly (here, here, here, and here)--was never about economic concerns.  The only argument the Remainers had, however, was fear:  fear of economic turmoil, fear of extreme nationalism, fear of a trade war, fear of losing benefits.

Progressives are inherently materialists.  They never can understand why humble folks--many of whom were the beneficiaries of sweet EU largess--would "vote against their economic interests."  This confusion results from both a failure to realize that redistribution of wealth ultimately harms everyone, including the beneficiaries thereof; and possession of a purely materialist worldview, that sees other concerns--religious belief, thirst for liberty, personal convictions--as illusory at worst and cynical at best.  The progressive inevitably projects his own material cynicism on those he criticizes.

(For a beautiful and uplifting description of the importance of democracy and its link to traditional Christianity, check out this post from the blog Archbishop Cranmer, entitled "Brexit, the Bible and Democracy:  The Judgment of God is the Voice of the People.")

Once the terms of the UK's exit are negotiated and the "new order" is established, markets will stabilize.  My hope is that the Brits will use this new birth of freedom as an opportunity to clean regulatory house at home; having weaned themselves from the teat of European goodies, they will continue by declaring independence from their own heavy regulations and taxes.  I believe Great Britain is facing an historic moment akin to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's election in 1979, which saw Britain restore liberty, as Parliament regained power from the state-run industries and the illiberal trades unions.

- Great Britain:  The two major political parties--the Tories and Labour--are experiencing internal upheaval.  The "Leave" side won Brexit because a substantial number of working-class Labour voters broke rank and joined about half of the Tories to achieve victory.  Labour's Bernie Sanders-esque leader, Jeremy Corbyn, is facing a vote of no-confidence. His 70s-style, statist socialism was out of step with Labour as it was.

 

Euroskeptics:  Good Policy, Bad Barbers

(Source:  https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/Boris_Johnson_July_2015.jpg/800px-Boris_Johnson_July_2015.jpg)

On the Conservative side, Prime Minister David Cameron has pledged to step down.  I predict (and hope) that Boris Johnson will become the next PM, and take charge of Brexit negotiations.

What of the United Kingdom Independence Party?  I initially thought UKIP would begin to fade, having achieved its singular mission of the past twenty-five years:  to get Britain out of the the European Union.  That was, however, until I saw Nigel Farage's uproariously funny (and spot-on) speech before the European Parliament.  Soak in the sweet boos as the globalist elites watch their utopian schemes implode before their very eyes.  Farage's speech is the kind of brash victory lap that would make him a star among movement conservatives in the United States.  I don't think we've heard the last of him.

- The European Union:  There will be other referendums--unless German Chancellor Angela Merkel, with support from France and Italy, clamps down.  There is already talk of stepping up the pace of "ever closer union," with the EU establishing a European Army and further eroding national sovereignty of its members.  If the EU gets an army, it will finally be able to accomplish by force what it has so far only been able to do through economic coercion and trickery:  create a European superstate that tramples both national sovereignty and democratic checks on unbridled power.

I hope there will be referendums in many more countries; I suspect there will be at least in the Netherlands and Poland.  Poland is heavily Catholic and traditional, and is naturally wary of Germany consolidating power.  Its worldview does not fit neatly into the progressivist schemes of the European Union.

"If the EU gets an army, it will finally be able to accomplish by force what it has so far only been able to do through economic coercion and trickery:  create a European superstate that tramples both national sovereignty and democratic checks on unbridled power."

Look for Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Front, to continue to gain ground in France.  Le Pen has done much to purify the party of her father's anti-Semitism and blatant racism.  There are those that argue that the party is still xenophobic, and that its rhetoric now is merely a "dog-whistle" to closet racists.  This strikes me as inaccurate.  It would be akin to arguing that the Democratic Party in the United States is still racist because it supported first slavery and then segregation, the latter as recently as the 1960s.

Here are some choice excerpts from an op-ed Le Pen contributed to The New York Times, entitled "After Brexit, the People's Spring is Inevitable":

"British voters understood that behind prognostications about the pound’s exchange rate and behind the debates of financial experts, only one question, at once simple and fundamental, was being asked: Do we want an undemocratic authority ruling our lives, or would we rather regain control over our destiny? Brexit is, above all, a political issue. It’s about the free choice of a people deciding to govern itself. Even when it is touted by all the propaganda in the world, a cage remains a cage, and a cage is unbearable to a human being in love with freedom....

"One thing is certain: Britain’s departure from the European Union will not make the union more democratic. The hierarchical structure of its supranational institutions will want to reinforce itself: Like all dying ideologies, the union knows only how to forge blindly ahead. The roles are already cast — Germany will lead the way, and France will obligingly tag along."  (Emphasis added)

 

 Is Frexit Next(it)?  Not if Germany has anything to say about it.

(Source:  http://ian.macky.net/pat/map/fr/fr.html)

As the sinking ship of the European Union takes on water, watch for it to grow increasingly tyrannical in its flailing desperation to remain afloat.  Perhaps pressure from Eastern European members will help aright the ship and move the EU toward reform that allows national sovereignty while maintaining more appealing aspects of the organization, such as the free trade zone.  However, the Eurocrats in Brussels will not give up their posh, secure jobs and their cosmopolitan lifestyles so easily, much less their incredible power over the peoples and (semi-)sovereign states of Europe.

The peoples of Europe and the United States fought two world wars in the last century to prevent an imperial and fascist Germany from ruling the Continent for a reason, and European Realpolitik has been premised on a balance of powers since 1815, and really as far back as the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.  A supranational United States of Europe, at least as conceived by progressive Europhiles, is unsustainable and unworkable given the cultural, linguistic, and economic diversity of Europe.  Free trade between free nations is wonderful; coerced and artificial unity through heavy-handed, undemocratic edicts is the height of tyranny.

Cold Turkey

Last week, approximately 52% of Brits voted to "Leave" the European Union in a national referendum.  They did so peacefully and democratically.  Already, 23 June 2016 is being hailed as Britain's "Independence Day."

I've written several posts about Brexit recently (here, here, and here).  Last Friday's post, which I wrote as the results were coming in Thursday evening, explored why liberty--a vote for "Leave"--was worth the price of temporary economic disruption and, too, of giving up certain "benefits" bestowed to EU citizens.

(A quick aside:  I still find it interesting that a supranational organization that originated as an economic free trade zone evolved into an entity capable of forcing twenty-some-odd nation-states to pool sovereignty; didn't Europe fight two world wars to prevent Germany from ruling the Continent?  But I digress.)

Based on several comments on my Facebook page, and from personal conversations, it seems that some of my pro-Remain friends and colleagues missed this point, or very candidly admitted that national sovereignty and liberty are not worth the price of sweet EU bennies (one colleague--a reluctant Brit--discounted the entire "Leave" campaign as fundamentally xenophobic and racist, implying that those alleged qualities alone invalidated the entire movement).  To the latter contingent, I can only hope we can agree to disagree.  To the former, allow me to address some points.

"[D]idn't Europe fight two world wars to prevent Germany from ruling the Continent?"

One poster discussed at length that Brits have "become VERY accustomed to the benefits," and that, whether they are in the EU or not, they "will still be governed, regulated, and heavily taxed by their own government but no longer enjoy the goodies that come with EU membership!"

Consider, if you will, a drug addict.  Let's say someone addicted to heroin seeks treatment and begins taking daily doses of methadone.  Would we say, "Oh, well, sure he's off heroin, but he's still chemically dependent on methadone, and now he's missing out on the sweet high that only heroin can provide"?  Or would we continue to encourage this recovering addict to kick his methadone habit, too, and restore a sick, dependent body to healthy independence?

Quit me cold... and don't let me in the European Union.

(Source:  http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=28721&picture=turkey)

Generous government benefits--whether they come from the EU or the British government--might come with some nice "perks" (every pro-Remainer I've talked to seems preoccupied with the ability to travel freely through Europe, something most of us plebes haven't had the luxury of doing without a passport; this, to me, seems to be the definition of a "First World Problem"), but those "goodies" come at a price.  The British people have freely said, "Thanks, but no thanks."

Naturally, there will be those who will start jonesing for cheap travel opportunities to economically depressed parts of Southern Europe, where they can live out leisurely, government-funded retirements.  There will also be everyday people who still find themselves frustrated by high taxes and tight regulations, and missing out on certain opportunities afforded them by EU membership.

"The Brits have thrown off one level of bureaucracy because... they realized it was not worth the cost."

But is the solution more regulations and higher taxes?  The Brits have thrown off one level of bureaucracy because, despite the redistribution of wealth it brought (which mostly went away from productive countries like Britain and Germany and to profligate nations like Greece), they realized it was not worth the cost.  One of two things will now happen:  either Brits will demand further deregulation and reform of their own government, which will further ease their burdens and lower costs; or they will make an oft-repeated mistake and demand more redistribution and more taxpayer-funded goodies.

Crucially, though, the choice will be theirs to make.

Leaving the European Union will be like tearing off a bandage.  It will hurt like hell initially--we're already seeing the effect on markets, which can't stand uncertainty--but the pain will be fleeting (as I've argued in my earlier posts on the topic).

Similarly, any nation facing heavy regulations and stifling taxes can pursue a similar course--if it hasn't become too hooked already.  "Austerity" failed in Greece not because it demanded that the Greek government stop paying janitors wages comparable to skilled tradesmen; it failed because the Greek government couldn't kick its habit (and because austerity required tax increases, not stimulating decreases).  The nation--and the Greek people--have become so dependent upon handouts, they can no longer function without huge bailouts from wealthier nations.  That dependency will only perpetuate the cycle of addiction.

The best approach is not more dependency--more bureaucracy, more social programs, more taxes--but quitting cold turkey.  Rip off the Band-Aid, then get back to being free... or end up like Greece.

(Some parting notes:  to shield myself from slander and libel, let me make it clear that no xenophobia is intended or implied--I hope the Greeks can lift themselves out of poverty, which would be much easier if Germany had let them leave the European Union a year ago.  In this Wednesday's post, I'll discuss what might happen next now that Britain has voted to leave the EU.  That will likely be my last post on Brexit for awhile, as we return to the American scene.  --TPP)

Economics: A Human Science

If you've read my blog the past couple of weeks, you know that I am strongly in favor of Brexit, or Great Britain voting to "Leave" the European Union.  I've laid out my reasons here and here.  As I write this post, results are trickling in on that historic vote, and I am intermittently checking them with great interest--and not a small bit of trepidation.  Right now (about 10:30 PM EST/-5 GMT), "Leave" has a slight edge, but the outcome is too close to call.

Already, though, the British pound and the euro have taken a beating in value, as gold prices soar (this blog is conservative in viewpoint, so I probably should start urging you to buy gold, guns, and freeze-dried food reserves; source:  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-23/pound-surge-builds-as-polls-show-u-k-to-remain-in-eu-yen-slips).  One of the major bogeymen of the "Remain" side in the referendum was the threat of economic downturn.  As I conceded in both of my previous posts on Brexit, there will no doubt be major economic disruption should Britain vote to "Leave."  However, a (likely temporary) drop in the value of the pound sterling is a price well paid for restored national sovereignty.

 

God Save the Queen... and Great Britain from the clutches of Eurozone bureaucrats

(Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_pound_(British_coin))

As conservatives, we're accustomed to viewing economics--or, at least, economic growth--as a positive good.  After all, we believe in the power of free markets to satisfy human needs and desires, and to innovate new ideas and products that alleviate human suffering, drudgery, and toil.  Conservative politicians tend to focus on job growth and prudent deregulation--often coupled with tax and spending cuts--as perennial, bread-and-butter issues that directly affect voters' pocketbooks for the better.

 "...these [fiscal] policies are not about making gobs of cash... but about what those gobs can do to improve lives."

But economics, like much else, is not a means unto itself.  The reason conservatives like economic growth--besides, well, making money--is that it demonstrably improves people's lives.  Deregulation, similarly, can work beneficially (if you doubt me, just ask anyone who has ever dealt with the Affordable Care Act and the Department of Health and Human Services).  In essence, these policies are not about making gobs of cash--although that is certainly nice--but about what those gobs can do to improve lives.

Thus, we have a stark contrast between the organic, healthy, occasionally unpredictable economic growth of a free market and the regimented, inequitable, limited economic growth of progressive corporatism.  Our current economic environment, I fear, is far closer to the latter than the former.  Complex, heavy regulations benefit larger firms and discourage the formation of smaller, newer firms by raising the upfront costs of entry.  Perverse incentives raise the costs of healthcare for young, fit Americans, while making it unrealistically cheaper for older, sicker, chubbier patients.  Overly-generous social safety benefits (some of which, like the food stamp program SNAP, the government actively advertises and encourages people to use) discourage able-bodied Americans from pursuing work.

I could go on (and on... and on).  In short, conservatives are used to being correct on principle and on economic outcomes.  Typically, conservative fiscal policies align with, rather than try to manipulate, economic realities, so the outcomes of those policies tend to be both principled and positive.

"As fiscal conservatives... let us never lose sight of the human side of economics."

In the case of Brexit, however, the quest for restored sovereignty--a stand on an important first principle--will result in some negative economic outcomes.  A major argument of the "Remain" side is that staying in the European Union will preserve Britain's economic stability and ensure it a place in a European common market.

Such an argument is seductive, but it leads to a gilded cage.  Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman famously said that economic freedom is a necessary precursor to, though not a guarantor of, political freedom.  With Brexit, the axiom is almost reversed--by reclaiming its political freedom, Britain will then be able to pursue renewed economic freedom.

As fiscal conservatives--or those that support free markets, freer trade, and light regulations--let us never lose sight of the human side of economics.  We too often treat economics as a science.  Instead, it should find a home alongside the humanities.

Our chief aim should be to unleash human potential.  So liberated, its creativity and ingenuity can lift human life to greater heights.

We already have a model:  we've been doing it in the United States for over 200 years.

Brexit: It's Now or Never

Tomorrow--23 June 2016--the people of Great Britain will make an important decision:  to either "Remain" in the European Union, or to boldly "Leave," and seize back their national sovereignty.  Should they vote for the former, they will never again have the opportunity to regain the latter.

As I detailed in a post from 13 June, "Brexit:  The Antidote to Supranational Tyranny," Brexit is the best option for Great Britain.  I laid out a number of arguments as to why I believe this is the case, chief among them being that this vote is about national sovereignty more than anything else.  Today, I'd like to expand upon that point.

 Brexit--it's a good thing.

(Source:  http://publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=165945&picture=brexit)

There are many compelling arguments for why Britain should vote to "Remain."  Many argue (and I think they are correct) that voting to "Leave" will cause economic upheaval and a dampening of markets.  Others argue that European Union offers a collective bulwark against Russian expansionism.  Related to those arguments is a third, namely that Britain is now so intertwined with Europe, that neither can truly divorce the other.

These arguments carry certain weight, but when viewed from the perspective of sovereignty--that of the British nation-state, and that of the British people--they account for little more than dross and window-dressing.

First, voting "Leave" will almost certainly cause some turmoil in international and domestic markets.  Why?  Because investors crave stability.  But in light of freedom from an increasingly tyrannical, centralist, and bureaucratic European Union, Britain will very quickly recover economically, as will the world.  Once investors and analysts realize that Brexit isn't the end of the world--and once Britons are freed from the EU's onerous regulations and redistributive schemes--the British economy will flourish.

Currently, the European Union is experiencing zero percent--let me write that again--zero percent--economic growth (Source:  Douglas Murray's excellent essay--"Exit Britain?"--from the 13 June 2016 issue of National Review, Volume LXVIII, No. 10).  Why should the British stay in an organization run by recklessly humanitarian Germans that props up profligate Greeks and unemployed Spanish teenagers?  The short-term negative economic impact would be well worth Britain's long-term economic prosperity and, more importantly, national sovereignty.

Unless Europe callously blocked British trade--something it can ill-afford to do--and the United States dragged its feet on a bilateral trade agreement, Britain would bounce back quickly.  There is no excuse for the latter, despite President Obama's threat to send Britain to "the back of the queue," but the former would be unsurprising.  The engineers of the European Union seek "ever closer union," which in their twisted take on federalism translates to "ever greater control."  However, even Brussels seems prudent enough to avoid a trade war with one of the largest economies in the world.

Why should the British stay in an organization run by recklessly humanitarian Germans that props up profligate Greeks and unemployed Spanish teenagers?

The second major pro-Europe argument revolves around defense.  Russia under Vladimir Putin represents a real threat to Europe, especially to the old Soviet satellite states in Eastern Europe.  However, Britain's exit from the European Union would seem to have little impact, at least in the long-term, on how to approach this problem.  Putin will still be there on the 24th regardless of how Britons vote on the 23rd, and Europe would be "biting off its nose to spite its face" if it didn't continue to work with Britain as a part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

The whole "Remain" argument seems to rest on the premise that Brexit would destroy NATO.  This argument melts away under the slightest of scrutiny.  The United States and Turkey are both NATO allies, but not part of the European Union.  The NATO alliance can still work whether Britain is in the EU or not.

Additionally, the silver-lining to a possible Brexit vote--and to Putin's incessant saber-rattling--is that European nations are finally picking up their share of the tab for their defense.  In some ways, the fecklessness of American foreign policy has done a great deal to strengthen militaries across Europe.  I would wager Brexit would continue this trend, which might help some of the Continent's more spend-thrift nations get their fiscal houses in order.

The third point--the meshing of Britain with Europe--is the stickiest of all, but that's ultimately a technical and diplomatic problem that can be resolved.  Besides, what has this intertwining given Britain?  Unsustainable, exploding immigrant populations?  Soldiers and shopkeepers beheaded by Islamist radicals?  As I pointed out last week, Britain should praise God and Margaret Thatcher that it stuck to the pound sterling.

Regardless, it's foolish to think that Britain will simply stop interacting with Europe.  Again, any substantial block to a fruitful economic and diplomatic relationship between Britain and Europe would come from a vindictive European Union.  Even then, elites in the EU and Britain would quickly work out how to keep business going between the British Isles and the Continent.

How could so much freedom emanate from one little island?

(Source:  https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/1790_Faden_Map_of_the_Roads_of_Great_Britain_or_England_-_Geographicus_-_England-faden-1790.jpg)

Historically, Britain has always stood apart from the rest of the Continent.  Trying to force upon it the label (and reality) of being "European"--something it assiduously avoided for hundreds of years--flies in the face of British character and values.  Those values place a premium on rule of law and representative government.  Since the Magna Carta of 1215, the people of England have held their ever-widening rights and freedoms dear.  It would be a shame to see the crucible of so much liberty succumb to the glossy seductions of cosmopolitan tyrants.

Instead, 801 years later, let us have a New Magna Carta, a new birth of liberty and sovereignty.  Once again, I would urge my friends in Britain to vote "Leave" tomorrow.  Yes, it will lead to short-term uncertainty.  Yes, the road ahead is unclear.  In the final estimation, however, liberty is always full of questions, but it is well worth the price.  In the case of Brexit, no other consideration matters.

Federalism Denied

In last Wednesday's post, "Politics, Locally-Sourced," I urged readers to become more interested in and educated about their local and state governments.  A keystone of modern conservative political philosophy (and of the classical liberalism of the Framers) is decentralization, the idea that power should be spread broadly, both in terms of population and geography.  Due to the massive power the federal government accrued during and after the Second World War, decentralists also argue that power should devolve from the federal government back to the States.  The federal government, of course, plays an important role in maintaining the national defense, conducting foreign affairs, and regulating interstate commerce, among a number of other constitutionally delineated areas, but a great deal of power is reserved for the States in the X Amendment.

The X Amendment reads thus:  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  Clearly, then, where the Constitution is silent, the States are reserved broad powers.  They cannot become dictatorial--their constitutions must not conflict with the national supremacy of the US Constitution--but they can have broad latitude in determining statewide regulations, taxes, and the like.

In theory, at least, this federalist structure is how our nation is supposed to operate, and it manages to do so, despite significant hobbling from the federal government.  Congress has forced upon the States a number of unfunded federal mandates.  Essentially, a large portion of State budgets are consumed with fulfilling orders from Washington, D.C., without any form of assistance.  Additionally, States are often coerced into adopting certain policies or passing certain laws, lest the federal government withdraw their funding (this tactic was used to increase the drinking age from 18 to 21--not necessarily a bad thing, but the means matter almost as much as the ends; such coercion circumvents the proper amendment process).

What brought about this change, and how can we reverse it?  How can we restore the proper balance between the States and the federal government?

There are no easy answers here, and the centralization of power in the federal government occurred for a complicated host of reasons:  the acceptance of a desperate people of a greater role for the government in the economy during the Great Depression; the (temporary) success of a massively planned economy during the Second World War; the massive expansion of the welfare state during the Great Society; the (necessary) fight at the national level to protect the civil rights of black Americans; and more.

However, I would argue that a major source of this problem was the passage of the XVII Amendment.

The XVII Amendment replaced the old system of selecting senators with their direct election.  Prior to its passage, senators were selected by their state legislatures, which were themselves chosen in local elections.

There are a number of compelling arguments for why this amendment was adopted.  For one, many states had already moved to a de facto system of direct election, in which voters essentially "elected" their senator, and the state legislatures were duly pledged to vote in accord with the people's choice.  Also, there were several scandals in which senate candidates merely bribed state legislators for their votes.  Finally, many state legislators found that voters cared more about who the legislators would elect to the Senate, not what they thought about state problems.

You can review these arguments in a (rather condescending) piece from Slate by David Schleicher entitled "States' Wrongs."

"[T]he States no longer have a constitutional role in the federal government."

However, while there certainly appeared to be need for reform in senatorial elections, many of these problems still persist.  Voters are still overly-fixated on national politics, even more so than voters in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  If anything, state elections are even more focused on national issues than they were before.  Special interest groups still manage to exert influence over the Senate, and can do so even more effectively by whipping up voters.

Most importantly, though, is that the States no longer have a constitutional role in the federal government.  The Senate used to serve as the representative of the States' interests, while the House still operates as the representative of the people's interests.  Now the people have direct influence over both branches of Congress, and an important, necessary brake on the fickle will of the majority is gone.

States' rights has become an ugly phrase, associated as it is with slavery and segregation.  However, just because states' rights has been invoked to defend the indefensible doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea.  The States function as an important bulwark against tyranny, and federalism affords many opportunities for policy innovation and experimentation--Louis Brandeis's "laboratories of democracy."  Also, the geographical, ethnic, religious, and cultural diversity of the United States practically demands states' rights, as different States have different needs, goals, and desires.

Repeal of the XVII Amendment is extremely difficult and unlikely:  people like to vote (actually, people like to know they can vote, even if they often choose not to do so).  But Congress, specifically the Senate, can do much to keep the further expansion of federal power in check.  Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska is spearheading this effort through his speeches, delivered from the Senate floor, about the proper role of the Senate and its obligation to be an august, contemplative chamber.

We, the people, can also take steps to become more involved in state politics.  Ultimately, the drive to restore federalism starts with us.

***

For more information about the XVII Amendment and different approaches to addressing it, here are some resources:

The Campaign to Restore Federalism (pro-repeal of the XVII Amendment):  http://www.restorefederalism.org/

"Repeal the 17th:  Problems to Address" by constitutional scholar Rob Natelson:  http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/08/26/repeal-the-17th-problems-to-address/

"Repeal the 17th Amendment?" by Gene Healy of the Cato Institute (great piece that is sympathetic to the idea, but recognizes the political problems involved):  http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/repeal-17th-amendment

"States' Wrongs" (mentioned above) by David Schleicher of Slate (anti-repeal, with some interesting historical background and a lot of elitist sneering at movement conservatives):  http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/02/conservatives_17th_amendment_repeal_effort_why_their_plan_will_backfire.html

What is Popular Sovereignty?

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016, I posted a piece entitled "American Values, American Nationalism."  In that piece, I discussed the "Five Core Values of America," a set of values inspired by a government textbook I used to use with my US Government students.  The second value, "popular sovereignty," is deals with the idea that power in our political system ultimately derives from the people--as Abraham Lincoln said in the Gettysburg Address, our government is "by, of, and for the people."

This post received quite a few comments on my Facebook page, including this one from a good friend of mine:

Now watch as I set my progressive-libertarian friend straight--respectfully.

My friend raised a very valid point:  the Framers of the Constitution were suspicious, if not outright terrified, of democracy.  Aristotle had identified democracy as one of the "bad" forms of government that came when rule by the people went bad.  The Framers had seen the consequences of a federal government that was too weak, namely the barely-contained chaos of Shays' Rebellion in 1785.  Naturally, they wanted a government by, of, and for the people--thus the requirement that the Constitution be ratified by 3/4ths of the States in special ratifying conventions (designed to circumvent the Anti-Federalist state legislatures)--but they recognized that unbridled populism would lead to demagoguery.  It's pedantic to say it, but Nazi Germany is the quintessential example of a desperate people granting dictatorial powers to a charismatic individual.

"Pure democracy, without any checks on the majority's power, quickly turns to one-man authoritarianism."

The French political philosopher Montesquieu argued that the English government succeeded because it balanced monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy effectively, which further influenced the belief of the Framers that government should filter the will of the people through a complex system of checks and balances, and a rigorous, jealously-guarded separation of powers.  Thus we have such institutions as the much-maligned (but quite brilliant) Electoral College, and a Senate that is designed to act as a break on the people's (often fickle) will.  Indeed, before it was corrupted by the XVII Amendment, the Senate was intended to represent the interests of the States themselves, rather than the will of the people, which is represented in the House of Representatives.

***

So, how did I address my friend's concerns?  Here is my reply (with some minor edits for clarity and brevity) to my friend's remarks, and to elaborate on the concept of "popular sovereignty":

You are correct in noting the skepticism with which the Framers viewed unbridled democracy. There was much wisdom in their skepticism, precisely out of concern that a well-positioned demagogue could, in the right circumstances, sway the fickle populous to his whims. Pure democracy, without any checks on the majority's power, quickly turns to one-man authoritarianism.

When I write about popular sovereignty, then, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I mean "consent of the governed." The people consented through our constitutional order when they elected delegates to special state ratifying conventions (circumventing the generally Anti-Federalist-controlled state legislatures). The people, then, ultimately gave consent to that government, and continue to do so through regular elections. Of course, a complex system of checks and balances tempers the will of the people (voiced primarily through the House of Representatives, which controls the power of the purse), balancing with it the will of the States, and vesting a great deal of authority to halt dubious legislation in the hands of the executive.

As for Thomas Jefferson's love of revolutions and his proposal to rewrite the Constitution each generation, the actual Constitution provides a useful mechanism that makes such rewrites generally unnecessary, but possible: the amendment process. So far, every proposed amendment has come from the Congress, and all but two have been ratified in state legislatures (the other two were ratified, like the Constitution itself, in special state ratifying conventions). However, the Constitution provides another method--one that has yet to be used--to propose amendments: 2/3rds of the States can convene a constitutional convention to propose amendments. Texas's current governor, Greg Abbott, is currently working on just such a convention of the States. In short, the Constitution provides us a way to change it to fit current needs without throwing out the whole document.

Of course, I would argue strenuously for an originalist reading of the Constitution and its amendments, all of which should be read in the context of those who proposed them. This still allows for changes through the amendment process, and for congressional elaboration. The Constitution is not meant to cover ever eventuality, and gives a great deal of space to Congress and (this is important and often forgotten) the States.

"It approaches something like tyranny when the President has the power to write laws (indirectly through the bureaucracy he manages) and to enforce them."

As for your comments about technocrats, perhaps I should clarify here, too. What I am primarily concerned about is the ability of federal agencies to write their own rules, many of which have the force of law. This practice is dangerous because most of these federal agencies operate within the executive branch and have little congressional oversight. Law-making powers are meant to rest solely within the Congress, and the job of the President is to duly enforce those acts to the best of his ability. It approaches something like tyranny when the President has the power to write laws (indirectly through the bureaucracy he manages) and to enforce them. Even scarier is the prospect that the federal bureaucracy has become so large that the President cannot exercise effective control over it, or even know what it's doing! Many presidents--particularly our current one--have used bureaucratic rule-making to push unpopular measures without input from the people's representatives. Congress is complicit in this, as it has delegated these powers to the executive bureaucracy, and the Supreme Court has allowed it to do so.

That being said, you are absolutely correct that there is a need for an intelligent, qualified, and motivated civil service, and, naturally, we want our dams to stay sealed tight and our roads to be paved and efficient. I would never dream of proposing we elect, say, the head of the South Carolina Department of Transportation. Here, again, the Constitution provides precedent: at the national level, the President appoints his cabinet heads, as well as federal and Supreme Court judges and justices. The Senate, however, has the responsibility of confirming these nominations, helping to prevent egregiously bad appointments.

If these proper checks and balances are maintained--if the different branches stick to their constitutional duties and limits, and if the proper relationship exists between the federal government and the several States--even a reckless executive can only do so much damage. If Congress vigorously protects its legislative prerogatives, an unqualified or authoritarian-minded president may still do some harm, but his ability to do so will be greatly diminished, and the damage can be contained.

***

This conversation went back and forth for a few more posts, which I will possibly include in future pieces.  In the interest of space--as this rumination is already quite lengthy--I will refrain from sharing them now.

However, I would ask that you permit me one parting thought:  we should be on guard against the lionization of the presidency.  The Congress--which represents the people and is, therefore the seat of popular sovereignty--may be consistently unpopular, but it is the proper branch to resist the huge expansion of the presidency.  Presidents increasingly attempt to speak for the people, but in a country that is divided between two entrenched, fundamentally incompatible political philosophies, it is nearly impossible to do so.  Indeed, attempting to do so leads to a Rousseau-style attempt to impose "the common will" on people--whether they want it or not.

Instead, let's speak for ourselves.  We can do that through involvement in local politics, but also by communicating with our Congressmen and Senators.  Let them know that we expect Congress to reclaim its proper legislative powers from the executive bureaucracy.

Politics, Locally-Sourced

Yesterday was election day in Florence, South Carolina, and in other localities throughout the state.  Specifically, there were a number of primaries, both Democratic and Republican, for various local and statewide seats, including an exciting State Senate race for my district, SC-31.  That race saw a long-serving incumbent, Senator Hugh Leatherman, face challenges from local insurance agent Richard Skipper and current Florence County Treasurer Dean Fowler, Jr.  This race was of particular interest because of the huge sums of money spent on it, as well as Governor Nikki Haley's injection into the race (she endorsed Richard Skipper).  Ultimately, Senator Leatherman retained his seat for another term (he's currently been serving in the SC State House and/or Senate for thirty-six years) handily, with a respectable showing from Mr. Skipper.

(For detailed results of yesterday's elections throughout the Pee Dee region, click here.)

 

Mmm... sweet, delicious numbers.

(Source:  http://wpde.com/news/election-results; screen-shot taken at 10:09 PM, 14 June 2016)

For all that time, money, and effort, 10,953 voters cast ballots (according to returns from WPDE.com).  In essence, those voters picked the State Senator (as there is no Democratic challenger, Leatherman will run unopposed to retain his seat in November).  I don't know the exact number of eligible voters in SC-31--it's a strange district that includes parts of Florence and Darlington Counties--but I would wager there are far more than 10,953.

Turnout for primaries, especially off-season and local ones, is typically very low.  Voters in these primaries tend to be more involved politically and more informed about local politics... or they happen to be friends with a candidate.

It's often said that politics, like much else in life, is all about relationships.  This quality is what gives local elections their flavor, and what keeps candidates accountable to their constituents.  In other words, it's usually good that we know the people we elect to serve us, or at least to have the opportunity to get to know that person.

Indeed, our entire system is designed to work from the bottom-up, not from the top-down.  As I will discuss on Friday in a longer post about the concept of popular sovereignty (written in response to comments about last week's post "American Values, American Nationalism"), this does not mean that we don't occasionally entrust professionals to complete the people's work--after all, I wouldn't want a dam constructed by an attorney with no background in hydroelectric engineering.  But it does mean that ultimate political authority derives from the consent of the governed--from "We, the people."

In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, Americans often knew very little about the goings-on in the nation's capital.  Washington, D.C. was largely seen as a distant, almost alien place that served an important role in foreign policy and in times of national crisis, such as war, but few people followed national politics too terribly closely.  Indeed, even presidential candidates were nominated by state legislatures or party caucuses, and were elected at conventions by national delegates (as opposed to the current system of "pledged delegates" that exists in conjunction with democratic primaries).

"[U]ltimate political authority derives from the consent of the governed--from 'We, the people.'"

Instead, most Americans' focus was on local and state politics, because those were the levels of government that most affected their lives.

Today, that relationship is almost completely inverted.  Due to a complex host of factors--the centralization of the federal government; the standardization of mass news media to reach a national scope; the ratification of the XVII Amendment and the subsequent breakdown of federalism--Americans now know far more about national politics than they do local or statewide politics.

The irony is, the national government is where everyday people have the least influence, and where it is the hardest to change policy.  Also, changes in national policy affect all Americans.  What might work well in, say, Pennsylvania could be a poor fit for South Carolina or Oregon.

At the local level, though, Americans can have a great deal of impact--they can more easily talk to their city councilman than their congressman (although I would like to note that SC-7 Congressman Tom Rice is one of the most accessible and approachable people I've ever met).

Let's follow the trends in dining and shopping and go local.  Learning more about local politics is healthy for the body politic, and is one small but effective way we can begin to restore the proper balance and focus between the people, the States, and the federal government.