Libertarians on Twitter

Someone tweeted to the effect that government protection of public safety is tyranny. I responded, initiating a couple of days of sporadic back-and-forths with tweeters who called themselves libertarians. The context was the defiance of restrictions on public gatherings, which was happening in various ways in California, Texas, and Michigan.

First, I mentioned that promoting safety is an object for which the Declaration of Independence (=Thomas Jefferson) says people organize their governments. Tweeter said it wasn't in the Declaration, so I gave him the link and told him where to find it. Properly chastened, he noted that it isn't law. So I gave him law. Multiple quotes from the Massachusetts Constitution (drafted by John Adams). My point, of course, was that protection of public safety was clearly part of the police powers of government according to the political philosophy of the founders and the form of government they established.

At this point others joined in. State law didn't matter. States couldn't ignore the Constitution. They seemed to think that States' powers are granted by the Constitution (or at least to be found in federal statute). So I pointed out that the federal government didn't create the States or give them their powers. States already existed and had their powers before the Constitution was adopted. But they reminded me that the States were bound by the First and Second Amendments. I noted offhand that it was a Supreme Court interpretation, not an explicit text, which found that those Amendments applied to the States.

Someone suggested that I didn't know the purpose of the Second Amendment, so I quoted its opening words, "A well regulated Militia." Apparently some tweeters don't believe what the Constitution says, because they continued to "like" the tweet that said I didn't know the purpose of the Amendment. Here we encounter the belief — never expressed directly but apparently behind their viewpoint — that the right to bear arms was intended to enable the people to overthrow a tyrannical government. Actually, as I learned by looking more closely at Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, one of Congress's powers is to call forth the Militia, organized by the States, to "suppress insurrection." The discussion petered out after I called that to their attention.

Meanwhile, though, there were some further tweets from me about the difference between poor judgment in the exercise of lawful powers, and tyranny; about the availability of remedies other than insurrection, such as court cases and elections; about the difference between their ideology verging on anarchism and the founders' belief in government providing for ordered liberty. Early on, I told two of them, "I'll take Jefferson and Adams over you any day of the week and twice on Sunday."

Somebody said he had never consented to the Constitution. To which the basic answer is, if you don't like it you're free to leave, but if you don't leave, you have no right to overthrow what the rest of us consent to.

There was also the person who complained that he needed to be free to earn a living to support his family. First I mentioned the bailouts enacted by Congress. I could also have mentioned unemployment insurance and food pantries. I.e., there is no need for his family to starve. But instead, I went full on sarcastic and reminded him that for decades people have been saying you need to prepare to survive on your own. If he's still unprepared to go into the forest and shoot a deer, he has been pathetically irresponsible.

At the end a tweeter from California "followed" me. I checked out his tweets and found him pretty balanced, so I decided to follow back. I also commented that unfortunately "nobody" understands or cares about Federalism, limited government, or separation of powers any more; and the gun nuts only know one word of the First Amendment, "assemble" and two words of the Second, "bear arms."

A New Birth of Federalism

The response around the United States to the coronavirus pandemic has given prominence to the governors and to differences between States. Perhaps this could be an occasion for people to become more aware of federalism as one of the basic elements of our polity, and maybe even to think about it.

When I was in school, I learned about our founding: the revolutionary war, the inadequacy of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitutional Convention, the ratification of the Constitution, and our history under the Constitution. Central to this study was the work of the Constitutional Convention. The delegates recognized the need for a stronger federal government than that established by the Articles of Confederation, but they knew that they must prevent the central government from becoming a monarchy. To prevent a monarchy or a tyranny from arising, they developed three principles for the federal government: limited government, separation of powers, and federalism. Limited government meant that the federal government's authority would be limited to the areas specified ("enumerated") in the text of the Constitution. Separation of powers meant that the powers of the federal government would be divided among three branches of government — legislative, executive, and judicial — each independent of the others and each having only some portion of the overall authority of the government. And federalism meant that the States, having held sovereign power before the adoption of the Constitution, retained full governmental sovereign power except for the enumerated powers granted to the federal government.

I suppose that this was widely taught to members of my generation in history and civics classes. Every "boomer" should have learned it. Unfortunately, I fear the lesson has been lost or forgotten over the decades with the result that now most people look to the federal government to solve all major problems, and tend to consider the president responsible for everything that the federal government does. There are several factors for this development. The first goes back many generations. The Civil War, with its emphasis on preserving the Union, shifted people's focus from their States to the Union. Nowadays, virtually nobody would feel the kind of loyalty to his State which was commonplace in 1860, an example of which is Robert E. Lee's decision — as a Virginian — to join the army of the Confederacy. A second factor is the expanding reach of the federal government, especially as the economy became more unified — for example the Interstate Commerce Commission. There were also such things as Social Security and the establishment of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Finally, it seems to me that civics education is no longer mandatory in schools, with the result that recent generations have grown up with many people unaware of limited government with enumerated powers, separation of powers, and federalism as fundamental to our form of government. I fear that Donald Trump spoke for many in his generation and following ones when he stated that the authority of the president is total.

In all this, the prominence of governors and the recognition that it is appropriate for different states to have different rules provides a reason for a bit of hope. If influential people with wide audiences begin to speak seriously about federalism, perhaps the principle can again become on which guides political thought and action — to the benefit of liberty. It will probably require academics to make themselves heard on talk shows. If enough manage to do it, the message can become heard and discussed even among those who are inclined to look first and always to Washington.

Donald Trump's Inaugural Address

As I watched the inaugural address on TV, there were several points where I thought he was wrong or hyperbolic and some where I thought he was ungracious; but for the most part, I thought he was proposing good objectives. Before I turned of the TV, I listened for a few minutes to the commentators on CNN, and they said that the populism expressed made it the "most radical" inaugural address ever. On reflection, I had the thought that much of it could have been said by Bernie Sanders. Now I have a transcript on another window, and I'll review it a little more closely, without giving a line-by-line analysis.

I liked the part early on about returning power to the people, away from the establishment and the promise that the forgotten men and women would be forgotten no longer. I hope that the corporate CEO's and politicians he's appointing to his cabinet will follow through on his promise. Of course, the people can't exercise their power over the federal government directly except on election day, so it will be up to our politicians and administration officials to put the promise into effect.

Some may quibble with the seriousness or extent of the "carnage" he spoke of, I think that job loss, ineffective education, and urban violence are all real problems. As one who believes strongly in federalism, I don't think that the federal government should be considered responsible for solving every community's crime problems or improve their schools. These are areas which call for the people to exercise their power locally. As for the problems of the "rust belt," I don't know how much of them can be cured by better international trade policies, but it's worth a try.

I agree with him that every country's primary obligation is to its own people. So it makes sense for our needs to be the focus of decision making. Still, I don't want to see us prosper by impoverishing other people, which is why I'm particularly hopeful that the infrastructure program will be effective. I also hope the global economy can grow along with ours.

I was very pleased to hear him say, "We will reinforce old alliances," since his attitude toward NATO has been worrisome.

Given the support he had from the alt-right, I thought it was very important that he said clearly, "[T]hrough our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other. When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice," and, returning to the theme later, "A new national pride will stir ourselves, lift our sights, and heal our divisions. It's time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget, that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots. We all enjoy the same glorious freedoms. And we all salute the same great American flag."

I'd have appreciated some words about limiting the size and scope of the federal government and protecting freedom of conscience from governmental intrusion, but I'll take what we got and hope for the best.

Are We in Danger of a Fascist Regime?

From time to time the suggestion is made that the answer to my title for this post is, "Yes." I'll admit that at times during the presidential election campaign I was alarmed at some of Donald Trump's rhetoric and the things said and done at his events. Clearly his rhetoric attracted neo-Nazis and white supremacists. There was a certain cult of personality in which he seemed to see himself as the one who could solve all the country's problems, that he needed to be unfettered i doing things his way; and his supporters seemed to agree. There seemed to be tactics of intimidation employed by his supporters without any disapproval on his part. In short, it seemed that he was leading a movement with clear similarities to those of Mussolini and Hitler.

But as time has passed, especially since the election, the resemblances have faded, and my fears have abated. There have been signs that Trump has come to realize that he doesn't have all the answers and can't, and shouldn't try to, rule by decree. He seems to be getting some degree of understanding and acceptance of what it means to be President rather than ruler. His Cabinet choices have not simply been people who have been "movement" loyalists from the outset, and in the first couple of days of confirmation hearings they have demonstrated disagreement with some of his campaign rhetoric.

At this point, therefore, I would answer my question with a definite, "No." No doubt he will take actions and adopt policies with which I disagree, perhaps very strongly, and I'm sure there will be others who oppose even more of what he does. But I see no likelihood at all that a subservient Congress will pass an enabling act that would grant him absolute power. He may very well chafe at the necessity for obtaining legislation to pursue many of his proposals, but he will learn that that's how it is. Like Reagan, he may well be able to appeal to the people and develop enough support to get his proposals enacted, but that isn't dictatorship. Dictatorship is a government which does as it pleases regardless of public support or opposition.

But as I was mulling over the question of whether Trump could be our Hitler, I came to another question: if there is any danger of a neo-Fascist regime in the U.S., whose fault is it? When I was in school I was taught that our system of government contained a threefold bulwark against tyranny expressed in the principles of 1.) limited government, 2.) federalism, and 3.) separation of powers, all three of which were enshrined in our Constitution. Because the President was the head of only one branch of a federal government with limited powers, it was impossible for him to become a tyrant.

Why, then, do people now seriously fear a dictatorship? It is because all three principles underlying our Constitution have been lost sight of. Americans in general look primarily to government to solve whatever problems we face, and they see no problem which is outside the purview of the federal government to solve. In other words, the federal government is regarded as omnicompetent. If there is no area in which the federal government cannot take action, then there is nothing to prevent tyranny except the separation of powers. Unfortunately, we live in an era of hyperpartisanship, and there is a widespread acceptance of the idea that the President runs things, and resistance to what he wants is obstructionism. It is this state of affairs which makes it even slightly plausible for people to imagine an American dictator.

I come again to the question: "Whose fault is it that we've reached this point?" Since at least my college days, going back more than 55 years, I've been a conservative. I've said that matters such as public education, relief of poverty, prosecution of crimes such as murder and robbery, construction of housing, medical practice, drug policy, consumer protection, and marriage laws are no business of the federal government. When conservatives complain about any federal action as being outside the constitutionally limited powers of the federal government, the usual liberal response is that the matter in question is just too important to leave to the States or that we need uniformity. But most people seem to accept without question that the federal government can do whatever it decides to do (apart from taking away their guns).

How did we get from 1787 to here? The Civil War discredited the idea of States' Rights, which, properly understood, is merely a corollary of federalism. The sense of being a citizen, and not merely a resident, of Massachusetts, or Pennsylvania, or Ohio as a significant part of one's identity faded away. It may be a matter of cultural pride and awareness, but not of real political significance. (This is why people can glibly call for the abolition of the electoral college.) Then came the Great Depression which brought acceptance of the idea that if a problem was big enough, the federal government was responsible for solving it. And recently, it seems that most people accept, unthinkingly, that there is almost no zone of personal freedom which the government cannot intrude on "for our own good." We may not smoke in public buildings, even in public housing which we occupy, nor, in various jurisdictions, in outdoor public spaces. We may not purchase various foodstuffs. We may not use various recreational drugs. We must fasten our seatbelts. We must wear helmets when riding motorcycles and bicycles.

There is more that could be said to flesh out my theses and to nuance my broad assertions, but I think it's fair to say that if there is any real danger of dictatorship in the United States, it's the fault of the liberals who see no limits to federal power and care about separation of powers only when a Republican is in the White House.