Retrospect

As the semester draws to a close, I'm looking back on my American Government and Society class and trying to sum up what I've learned. In all actuality, 10 years from now I probably won't remember a whole lot about the information that was presented. Dates will become skewed in my mind, the names of authors will be forgotten, and information will fade.

I think that, overall, the main point that I got out of this class was the need to be a good citizen. Now, I realize that this is very broad, so I'll try to catagorize.

We need to be good citizens in that we must accept our heritage, the good and the bad, as unchangable. We shouldn't censure those who lived back then for their inability to see as we can with the benefit of 200 years worth of hindsight. Instead, we should recognize that we, too, have flaws that our descendants will condemn, and we will make decisions that lead to poor outcomes. Instead, we should learn from the lessons of history in order to create a better future through our ancestor's experience.

We need to be good citizens in that we must be tolerant of opinion. I once heard someone say that one of the hardest lessons to learn is that people who are just as smart, or smarter, than you can have completely opposite opinions. Demonizing or belittling others' political stances are not productive; the facts should speak for themselves. Unfortunately, this usually results in a lot of gray areas with no clear way of proceeding. This is where debate and compromise are the effective tools.

These two main points are, in general, what I am most likely to remember about this class.

Comment

This weeks post has also been supplanted by a comment on another site. It will be posted as soon as the host approves it.

Comment

My regular blog post this week has been omitted in favor of commenting on another's post here.

The Power to Correct

It has been said that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Apparently it may also be the power to correct the mistakes that Congress has previously done. House Bill 1586 proposes to put massive taxes- around 90%- on the bonuses received by executives of failing firms like AIG, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae.

These bonuses have been the center of controversy ever since news first arrived that taxpayer dollars were being given as bonuses to executives at companies that were being bailed out. (The first question was, "If they are driving their businesses into the ground, why are they getting bonuses?")

Eyebrows were also raised when it turned out that Democrats, led by Sen. Dodd, had stricken a provision that no bonuses could be given to failing companies receiving bailout money. HB 1586 seems to be their way of fixing this problem: taxing the money right back. The taxes would be retroactive on amounts already paid to executives earning more than $250,000 annually.

I think this is a good idea. These executives are responsible for the poor performance of their companies, and they have dragged the entire world economy down with them because of greed. To reward them with bonuses is tantamount to giving our approval. Instead, they should be taking the same losses as their companies and the global markets. Hopefully, this measure will fix this problem.

Changing Minds

Politicians live in a world of terrible expectations. Everything they do gets attacked for one reason or another. One item in particular is known as "flip-flopping." Any time a politician changes his stance on an issue, he is accused of this.

Now, this gripe is often legitimate, since politicians have the reputation of changing their position to suit the tastes of a particular audience, but this isn't the case 100% of the time. Sometimes they legitimately have a reason to change their minds; the electorate, however, won't stand for this. We seem to want to have a politician who is firm and unmovable in their viewpoint, no matter what. Even if their assumption turns out to be wrong, we often think that if they change their minds, this is a sign of some kind of weakness.

Our government process, however, requires the changing of minds to function. If everyone in Congress stuck with their first impression whenever they voted, they would quickly bury our country in poorly thought-out legislation. They need to be able to move between ideas in order to keep our country moving forward. However, by doing so, they open themselves up to criticism about being unsteady.

Inalienable Rights

The early part of the Declaration of Independence contains an interesting phrase: inalienable rights. The rights enumerated are of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is interesting to note that in Jefferson's estimation, these inalienable rights are not attributed to any government, but to "[our] Creator." Jefferson recognized that what we refer to as human rights are not given to us by man, but spring from a higher source. Liberty, such as it is, is God-given. The role of government is simply to protect, not provide, it.

The wording in the preamble to the Constitution follows a similar train of thought: "to secure the blessings of liberty." The framers of this document did not believe that the Constitution would create or impart freedom; rather, it would secure what already existed against encroachment both from within the government itself or from foreign powers.

This was the genius of the American system of government: the recognition both of the ultimate source of freedom, and the need to protect it against the very government they needed. That freedom is greater than government was the driving force behind the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is the reason the system has endured.

Under Construction

Welcome. This is the future site of the political posts I currently have made on my other blog. I will transfer them over sometime in April.