In its beginning America was populated by farmers, merchants, common laborers, and an influential minority of highly educated persons, some of whom were plantation owners or part of the intelligentsia. Within each colony, there was a strong sense of social identity and of ambition for self-government. What is remarkable about this time in history is that men and women were willing to forgo colonial self-rule, merge into a union of disparate groups, and follow the enlightened course of our founding fathers. Naturally, this period was chaotic and filled with insecurities. Declaring independence from the British monarch not only invited a military suppression, but exposed the newly formed union to the expeditionary and hegemonic forces of many advanced European countries, like France, Portugal, Spain, and even Russia. Why would this fledgling, young nation expose itself to such foreign threats? Well, our history books have attempted to unravel the many forces and motivations that helped form our revolution and emergence as the new American republic. But, today, two motivations have captured my imagination because of their relevance to present day America: the desire to unite formerly self-governing colonies and the willingness to trust elected representatives to develop a Constitution and form a federal government.<\/p>\n
At the outset of the American experience, the Federal Government was tasked to preserve the union and to protect it from foreign threats and interventions. George Washington, in his farewell address to the nation, called this task an \u201carduous trust.\u201d He not only had led our forces to win American independence, but \u201ccontributed towards the organization and administration of the government\u201d and defended it from those subversive European elements intent on dividing it and thereby undermining its independence. In his farewell address to the nation, he stated that our \u201cunion ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.\u201d He took the occasion of this address to warn the nation of \u201covergrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty\u201d and of \u201cdesigning men (who) may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views.\u201d The former message presages President\u2019s Eisenhower\u2019s warning about the \u201cmilitary industrial complex.\u201d The latter message includes both foreign and native provocateurs. It also resonates with Barack Obama\u2019s call for unity in his memorable introduction to the public stage. In his 2004 Democratic Convention speech, he declared that America was not a collection of red states and blue states but that \u201cwe are the United <\/em>States of America.\u201d As President, Obama often ended his speeches with an aspirational quote from the Preamble of our Constitution, restating the purpose of that document \u201cto form a more perfect union.\u201d<\/p>\n Washington was concerned with attempts to undermine America\u2019s fledging union and democratic system from external and internal agencies. The context in which he stated this concern is still relevant. He found \u201cdesigning men\u201d both within America\u2019s political class and without, in the form of French and English espionage. Further, he identified how they operate to undermine America. Specifically, he condemned obstructionism, which he termed a \u201cfatal tendency.\u201d In his words, it serves \u201cto organize factions . . . to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of the party . . . to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.\u201d He feared that these factions \u201care likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.\u201d He warned that obstructionists would put the \u201cwill of the party\u201d ahead of the \u201cpower of the people\u201d to elect a representative government. In other words, Washington outlined for future generations what might subvert our union and potentially lead to despotism. <\/p>\n In President Obama\u2019s farewell address, he echoed some of the same concerns but from an historical perspective and with a characteristic touch of hopeful optimism. Since Obama did not foresee his successor\u2019s proposal of an 84 billion dollar increase in military spending over an eighteen month period, he made no mention of concerns about the \u201cmilitary industrial complex.\u201d His Administration had already addressed that possible concern when it ended the trillion dollar deficits incurred by two major wars and began to resize the military to a non-war footing. The Trump Administration inherits a deficit that is one third the size that Obama inherited and a country no longer engaged in any large combat operation. Obama did, however, revisit Washington\u2019s concerns about \u201cdesigning men\u201d who challenge our constitutionally protected human rights and rule of law. From without, that challenge comes from \u201cviolent fanatics who claim to speak for Islam\u201d and from those \u201cwho see free markets, open democracies, and civil society itself as a threat to their power.\u201d From within, he foresaw the threats to our democracy coming from unequal opportunity, discrimination against minorities, irrelevant and uncompromising political debates, and citizen apathy.<\/p>\n Obama reminded us that America is exceptional because it has \u201cshown the capacity to change and make life better for those who follow.\u201d That potential for change and improvement, he warned, \u201cwill only be realized if our democracy works.\u201d But \u201cstark inequality is . . . corrosive to our democratic ideal . . . and requires us \u201cto forge a new social compact.\u201d Wealth and income inequality are residual effects of many factors, including government actions, international commerce, and \u201cthe relentless pace of automation.\u201d The new social compact should include education that will better prepare our children for the world they will inherit, support for workers \u201cto unionize for better wages,\u201d and tax reform so that those who have benefited \u201cthe most from this new economy don\u2019t avoid their obligations to the country that\u2019s made their very success possible.\u201d<\/p>\n The second warning Obama offered is about America\u2019s ongoing struggle with discrimination. He not only included African Americans as recipients of discrimination but also immigrants, refugees, rural poor, the transgender community, and the middle-aged white person left behind by economic, cultural, and\/or technological change. It will never be possible to create a more perfect union if Americans are unable to assimilate our diverse community. And that assimilation will not happen unless we learn to put ourselves in other\u2019s shoes and persistently uphold \u201claws against discrimination\u2014in hiring, and in housing, and in education, and in the criminal justice system.\u201d Besides the democratic and moral imperative for this assimilation, Obama had a persuasive economic justification: \u201cIf every economic issue is framed as a struggle between a hardworking white middle class and an undeserving minority, then workers of all shades are going to be left fighting for scraps while the wealthy withdraw further into their private enclaves.\u201d<\/p>\n Obama\u2019s third warning reflected our contemporary struggle with conflict resolution and problem solving that has affected debates around the kitchen table, in news commentaries, and in the chambers of Congress. As he stated the problem, the battle of ideas has evolved into debates \u201cwithout some baseline of common facts.\u201d Here are just a few current examples\u2014though not mentioned by Obama\u2014that speak to this phenomenon:<\/p>\n \u27a3 \u201cthe most recent trade deficit was 800 billion dollars\u201d (President Trump\u2019s address to a joint session of Congress). Actually, the trade deficit peaked in 2008 at just above 700 billion dollars, precipitously declined during the Great Recession and has never reached its peak since then. In 2016, the deficit was 502.3 billion, 347 billion of which represented our trade imbalance with China. \u201cAs a percentage of U.S. gross domestic product, the goods and services deficit was 2.7 percent in 2016, down from 2.8 percent in 2015\u201d (CB 17-17, released on February 7, 2017 by the US Department of Commerce). This downward trend, except for a slight rise in 2015, has been a feature of the Obama years as American exports have steadily risen; These specific examples are just a few of the many distortions in President Trump\u2019s recent address to Congress. In general, the problem with quoted numbers is context and relevance. Anybody can find numbers that seem to support a position. The ongoing discussion about Obamacare is a relevant example. How does one reconcile the fact that Arizona experienced 116% increase in premiums, while the ACA exchanges across the country averaged <\/em>a 25% increase and healthcare cost overall increased by only <\/em>3.9%, the lowest rate in decades? Well, you have to understand how these numbers reflect the whole system and why they seem to deviate from each other. Without that systemic understanding, it is impossible to reach mutual agreement on any positive intervention into our healthcare system. As Obama stated in his address, \u201cthis selective sorting of the facts . . . is self-defeating\u201d for \u201cit betrays the essential spirit of this country\u2014the essential spirit of innovation and practical problem-solving that guided our Founders.\u201d <\/p>\n President Obama concluded his remarks with an appeal to a more participative citizenry. \u201cOur democracy is threatened whenever we take it for granted.\u201d He urged his fellow Americans to adopt the ideals established in our Constitution. As he put it, that document \u201chas no power on its own . . . we, the people, give it power.\u201d Finally, he concludes his farewell address by drawing excerpts from Washington\u2019s own address:<\/p>\n \u201c. . . self-government is the underpinning of our safety, prosperity, and liberty, but \u2018from different causes and from different quarters much pains (sic<\/em>) will be taken . . . to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth.\u2019 And so we have to preserve this truth with \u2018jealous anxiety;\u2019 that we should reject \u2018the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest or to enfeeble the sacred ties\u2019 that make us one.\u201d<\/p>\n From the beginning of his Presidency until its very end, Barack Obama has never ceased being the community organizer and professor of Constitutional law. His clarion call to America has always been to encourage participation in government in order to form a more perfect union. From our first President to our last, this message is the same. Maybe the threats to our democracy they outlined for us will arouse us from our complacency. If not their warnings, then perhaps our present reality will stir us to action. The promise of America was never self-executing; for only we, its citizens, \u201ccan form a more perfect union.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In its beginning America was populated by farmers, merchants, common laborers, and an influential minority of highly educated persons, some of whom were plantation owners or part of the intelligentsia. Within each colony, there was a strong sense of social identity and of ambition for self-government. What is remarkable about this time in history is […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-682","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-domesticissues"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p3UqUK-b0","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/aculpableinnocence.com\/home5\/aculpabl\/anthony_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/682","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/aculpableinnocence.com\/home5\/aculpabl\/anthony_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/aculpableinnocence.com\/home5\/aculpabl\/anthony_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aculpableinnocence.com\/home5\/aculpabl\/anthony_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aculpableinnocence.com\/home5\/aculpabl\/anthony_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=682"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/aculpableinnocence.com\/home5\/aculpabl\/anthony_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/682\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":683,"href":"https:\/\/aculpableinnocence.com\/home5\/aculpabl\/anthony_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/682\/revisions\/683"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/aculpableinnocence.com\/home5\/aculpabl\/anthony_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=682"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aculpableinnocence.com\/home5\/aculpabl\/anthony_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=682"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aculpableinnocence.com\/home5\/aculpabl\/anthony_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=682"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n\u27a3 \u201cwe\u2019ve lost more than one-fourth of our manufacturing jobs since NAFTA was approved\u201d (President Trump, as quoted above). Actually, America\u2019s manufacturing output is at the highest level in history. The job loss has more to do with the continuing rise of automation than with any NAFTA effect. In fact, millions of jobs are now involved in our export trade with Mexico and Canada, our trading partners under NAFTA.
\n\u27a3 \u201cNinety-four million Americans are out of the labor force\u201d (President Trump, as quoted above). Everybody above the age of 15 is included in that number, that is, high school and college students, the disabled, stay-at-home parents, and millions of retirees. Actually, there are 7.6 million people who want to work and are currently unemployed, according the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That number represents 4.7% of the workforce, a significant drop from the 10% unemployment rate at the peak of the Great Recession.<\/p>\n