How Can One Guy Get So Worked Up Over A Measly Little Letter To The Editor?

Well, some three weeks ago a short letter of mine was published in The Denver Post Sunday Perspective section, and it was like dozens of people went ape shit - as diagnosed from their comments in the e-edition of it. I'm not going to recite all the assorted blather which typically followed the usual conservative or libertarian lines we've all come to know.

No, my attention is not to harp on any e-reply but instead to critique an actual snail mail letter received merely three days ago (clearly delayed because the mail was withheld until our return from Bim).  What kind of a person, indeed, actually takes the time to search out your address then actually write to you? ( Actually the letter itself was addressed to the Editor of the Post but clearly never published, perhaps explaining why this fervent character "Lou Schroeder"  wanted to be sure I saw it. Good bet,  because I mostly dismissed and never read the online replies.)

Anyway, the letter of interest is shown below and readers can judge for themselves if the reaction is appropriate::



Of interest here is that Schroeder not only disagrees with my letter "vehemently" and "completely" - fair enough, but also "violently".  That simply doesn't ring up in terms of full mental stability and a grasp of the issues. After all, I did not propose a takeover of all health plans by the government, or the nationalization of all health insurance companies. I simply voiced the view that health care is a right under the ninth amendment - specifically as an unenumerated right.  This POV is also strengthened when one factors in (unlike Schroeder) the general welfare clause in the Preamble to the Constitution.

To remind those who may have forgotten that clause:

"We the PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity….”

This passage has been a source of incessant squabbling over every issue from states’ rights, to the degree of control vis-à-vis the individual vs. the collective or common good. Much of this, I believe, is unnecessary and merely discloses an inability of current citizens to think or even conceive of the community or the commons. So brainwashed have we become by the screeds of either ‘rugged individualism’ or Social Darwinism.

Let’s begin by quickly dispatching some of the more common canards, often circulated by the Right's darlings, like the Tea Baggers. One is that the clause refers only to military defense, or that "no positive social rights inhere in the Constitution". (All rights are ipso facto, "negative",  expressing what gov't may not do).This conveniently excludes any basis for social spending, but is erroneous on inspection.

The reason is that the phrase – “provide for the common defense” is separate from that to “promote the general welfare.” Hence, the two have no commonality in terms of language, unless one supposes the writer was deliberately redundant.

Another common error is to invoke the ‘fallacy of division’ in this case, disputing that “promotion of the general welfare” refers to anything other than the United States as the entity whose ‘welfare’ is being considered. This again is falsified on inspection. Note that the Preamble begins:

“We the PEOPLE…”


Not “The United States”. In fact, the United States is itself an artifact of the people’s will and their creation, as elucidated say in 'The Federalist Papers', by James Madison, i.e. comparing the federal system to the solar system.. The Constitution, composed by the “people”, engendered the United States as a new national entity. In the context, therefore, the United States as this manufactured entity and abstraction cannot of itself possess a “general welfare”. Only PEOPLE (citizens) can possess or aspire to a general welfare. Not people as disparate individuals, but as a collective or commonality aspiring (in common cause) toward a good.

This is a point that totally escapes Mr. Schroeder, though again, this could be because he isn't as familiar with the logical basis of the Constitution as he believes.
Schroeder in his last paragraph also blathers about "a citizen's right to another citizen's property or labor" invoking the libertarian canard that taxes amount to use of force or "theft". Which is total bullshit. Much of this libbie codswallop likely got revved up with Charles Murray's tract What it means to be a Libertarian (p. 6):

“It is wrong for me to use force against you, because it violates your right to control of your person....I may have the purest motive in the world. I may even have the best idea in the world. But even these give me no right to make you do something just because I think it's a good idea. This truth translates into the first libertarian principle of governance: In a free society individuals may not initiate the use of force against any other individual or group”

This is also where the pet libertarian canard“taxes = theft’ originates. But look at it objectively, this is arrant twaddle and illogical to boot. Further, it takes no note of actual political and social reality which may make these perceptions even more egregious.

I mean “libertarian principle of governance”?  This is an oxymoron! Governance presumes and demands the non-passive act of governing, which means the projection of force for enforcement of laws.  (The opposite of which is NOT "freedom" but anarchy). Someone is invariably and actively setting standards of expected action, and also providing the means to uphold the standards. In other words, force inevitably backs up governance. Why do you think cities maintain police forces, and the nation a large volunteer standing army - along with assorted weapons to control crowds?  It is to sustain coherent and FORCE-ful governance. The libertarians, then, espouse a philosophy which cannot possibly work in the real world - because that world implicitly recognizes and declares government the primary agent of force, i.e. to enforce laws. Look around for a "force-less" government, i.e. which retains adherence and respect for its laws with no use of force. I defy you to name one!

If governments aren't enabled to enforce their laws , what’s the point? It’s all an exercise in mental masturbation. People can do whatever the hell they want!  Set up sex store emporiums or pot shops next to schools, or sell cocaine  and semi-automatic weapons in open stalls on the sidewalks of major cities!  Freedom thereby becomes perverted into a veritable "free for ALL". In other words, unless governance declares limits to actions - and someone (coercively) enforces governance, a functional society becomes  impossible. Now, maybe there IS a docile libertarian principle of “governing suggestion”- but this in no way is the same as “governance”! I also warrant such "suggestion" will always remain that and never be adopted.

If Schroeder is so "violently" opposed to my letter then truly his only response must be to refuse to pay taxes. (In the same way I would argue is justified to avoid my having to pay for wars of choice which I do not approve).  The fact he does not refuse to pay taxes (which he knows must also be going to support Medicare, Social Security) discloses he doesn't disagree with my points as violently as he proclaims.  None of which detracts or diminishes my central thesis that health care is a right, especially as the U.S. itself was a signatory to a 1994 UN Declaration that health care is a right - which it cannot be if one can be bankrupted by accessing it.

Perhaps the best takedown of Libertarian thinking and arguments was provided by Prof. Ernest Partridge  in his 2012 article, ‘Liberals and Libertarians’:

“Now consider the implications of this denial of the "independent existence" of "the public" and "society." If there is no "public," then there are no "public goods" and there is no "public interest." If there is no "society," then there is no "social harm," or "social injustice" or "social (and public) responsibility." It then follows that government has no role in mitigating "social injustice" or promoting "the public interest," since these terms are fundamentally meaningless. Poverty and racial discrimination, for example, are individual problems requiring individual solutions”.

 Schroeder (and compatriots) might wish to ponder those points before "violently" disagreeing again. They could also acknowledge they are the ones "misled, misguided, and uninformed" - mostly by rightist propaganda.

'"Constitutionalists"? How About TEA BAGGERS?

 

 Brother! Seems some angry "Constitutionalists" (with too much time on their hands) saw my post yesterday and it has their panties in a twist. They claim that I represent the "Anti-constitutionalists", and am really trying to subvert that  document, and hey - I also can't "think for myself". Really? Then how come I have vigorously defended the Constitution on numerous  occasions, while extolling Ed Snowden's defense of our civil liberties, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/07/too-many-americans-dont-deserve-liberty.html

 

The self-declared Constitutionalist (I call him a Tea Bagger, or member of the Tea Party) writes:

 

 "They have never been forced to seek out an inner strength, a personal treasure, which guides them to a greater purpose. Everything they think they believe in has been conditioned into them. Their uniqueness is suppressed, and their characters shallow. They have never loved an idea, or a principle"

 

Well, I dispute that, given that when I joined the Peace Corps, and served FOUR years in a backwater place, living in a shanty home - I most certainly summoned "inner strength" and saw the "personal treasure" in helping others.  As for believing and having it "conditioned" in me, I doubt it. If that were the case I'd not have been opposed to all our wars of choice (like Vietnam, Iraq etc.) as well as actually writing a book to expose the assassination of John Kennedy as a bona fide conspiracy. As far as "never loving an idea" - what bollocks! Of course, if I practice - as in the examples above - of criticizing my government I de facto must love the idea of freedom of speech as well as personal liberty. But these sort of arguments are typical for these "Constitutionalists" who claim to be the only ones to revere the Constitution and assert it is "cast in stone".

 

But this merely discloses their level of education.

 

True to form, we hear much talk from these zealots about the “original intent” of the Founders in writing the Constitution but very little evidence that these latter day, wannabe purists actually know what any single part means. For example, the Whacko Right and Tea Party (they insist they are "independents' but they're nothing of the sort), based mainly in the Federalist society and other bastions, insists the Constitution was designed to limit government – the reach thereof- and also any innovative government programs which they deem have no basis in the original parchment.

 

But dare to ask them about the “unenumerated rights of citizens" declared under the Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights (referred to as those rights 'not denied or disparaged' by the enumerated rights) and their faces all turn as blank as their minds. No wonder! The whole concept of rights that can exist without being actually mentioned is something beyond their ken, or conception!

 

Evidently, then, they have never really read the Constitution as carefully as they believe! In fact, as Prof. Garry Wills has pointed out, the unenumerated rights are all those rights not already specifically declared or described in the existing document. The Founders thereby realized and understood there could exist rights in the future they hadn’t conceived of at the time of the Constitutional Convention, and so allowed those (then) undefined rights to become realized later. In other words, the rights allotted citizens are not limited to the rights actually and specifically delineated, i.e. in the Bill of Rights.

 

Many Federalists actually believe the unenumerated Rights refer to “State’s Rights” but this is false. The States have NO rights, only flesh and blood citizens can possess Rights, as the selfsame authors (e.g. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton etc.) noted in The Federalist Papers - which one would have thought the Federalist Society would be acquainted with. Indeed, in Amendment X, the reference is specifically made to powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution - nor prohibited by it to the States- are reserved to the States respectively...). Thus, the States have prerogatives and powers, but citizens have rights. This is a critical distinction that most tea baggers lack clue one about, even as they pound their chests as being the only "true" adherents to the Constitution.

Another Teepee myth is the Constitution was created to protect states from federal power, but this is bollocks. The fact is, in The Federalist Papers James Madison himself compared the federal government system to the Solar system. Just as the planets (analogous to states) could not exist as part of that system without the centralized force of gravitational pull of the Sun, so also the federal system could not exist without the centralized pull of the federal government – leading the diversity of states to be one cohesive entity as government. Thus we do find the Constitution includes limits but mostly limits on STATE governments.

If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government power it certainly doesn’t say so. In Article I, Section 8 – the longest segment of the document, we see an extended declaration of congressional power. (The States are mainly afforded their power in the articles of confederation). In addition, it ends by clearly delegating to Congress the ability “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or any Department thereof."

Another canard promoted by Tea Party idiots (based upon assorted signs at their rallies), is that of proclaiming "No taxation!" In fact, the REAL issue at the Boston Tea Party was: No taxation without representation!. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say 'No taxes', period! Again, Sec. 8 of Article I clearly states:

"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay Debts and provide for the common defense and General Welfare of the United States"

In terms of Obama's Affordable Care Act, wingnuts and Tea baggers have argued that the decision to buy health insurance must be a private one, and hence one can opt out or not. The government can't dictate such a purchase, even if it would bring down premiums for all. Thus, a young and healthy worker may simply decide the costs are not for her so she decides not to buy .But what if she then gets into a major auto or motorcycle accident and requires serious surgery? Without health insurance this means landing in an ER where the costs are much greater. Most of these costs are passed on to the regular insurance holders for whom it can be regarded as a kind of extra tax on them in higher premiums.

Multiplied millions of times this would represent a significant additional (and unintended) tax upon all the regular insurance buyers! In other words, it would be totally unacceptable. Thus, in the case above, the private decision to opt out has major impacts on the overall plan and purchases - so can't be tolerated. In other words, doing nothing - buying nothing, can be a private decision with huge deleterious public consequences! Now, is the Affordable Care Act somewhat cynical? Yes, I agree, and according to one University of Pennsylvania Law Review article: Making healthy young adults pay billions of dollars in premiums into the national health care market is the only way to fund universal health care coverage without raising substantial new taxes.

While my preference, if I were in charge, would be to raise new taxes, then let people opt out if they chose (after paying their taxes!)But again, being cynical or a law embodying it, is not proscribed by the Constitution. The most crucial aspect to grasp for any Constitutional insight(especially for students), is that it was written as a flexible set of rules which could be amended (as it has been) and not a dead hand authority restricting options, choices or novel inputs to adjust to the changing times. As I said, it's not a bible, nor should the Founders' words be treated as some kind of inerrant text (look at the provisions for black-slave citizens, to regard them as only 3/5 of white!).

The Second Amendment and right to bear arms is another case in point, which the Tea bagger crowd clearly sees fit to ignore when it suits their purpose. They insist the amendment gives them the "right to bear arms" but it does no such thing. The 2nd amendment in fact assured an equipped MILITIA (because no standing army existed when this section was written).  Thus, you were regarded as part of a state or local militia and that conferred the right! (And btw, they were allotted muskets with bayonets, not AR15s, Bushmaster .223s or Glocks!) Convenient then how these guys rag on the Constitution being "engraved in stone" but then alter it at THEIR whim!
 

Our aim then needs to be to rescue the concept of a living Constitution from being a whipping boy of the Wingnuts and tea bagger extremists. A Constitution by itself, after all, guarantees nothing. (Bolshevik Russia and Nazi Germany had constitutions). In effect, if there is no genuine spirit of liberty in the hearts and minds of citizens, then their nation's Constitution can be no more than just a "piece of paper" - as George W. Bush once memorably put it, when he enlisted a derelict judiciary to justify his (1978) FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) excesses. One thing everyone must understand is that Constitutions by themselves - including ours- don't protect our spirit of liberty, it is our spirit of liberty and the grasp of what it requires, which protects the Constitution. This is something that the Constitution idolaters, who claim to study this document so fervently and obsessively, have yet to learn.

In this sense, the Progressive opposition to Tea Party pseudo-Constitutional fetishism is correct, and their argument that if the Teepees had their way they'd repeal the whole of the 20th century is also. (They'd likely still regard blacks as 3/5 of a person too!)  It is time then to seize the document and prevent it from being corrupted by Tea Bagger hogwash if it means anything to us!

 

Sadly, once more, we see that these tropes and canards about the Constitution show that American Right wingers lack not only critical thinking skills but insight and education into the document they hold so dear.