nikolai_42
Well-known member
{NOTE : This is a somewhat long post. There were too many ideas that sprung up while writing and so I had to cut some short and even ignore some other ideas. The central thought could probably be turned into a book - and it probably already has been done many times. So I don't claim originality, completeness (!) or even full coherence. I've bitten off more than I can chew. But if the thoughts expressed are fodder for further debate, this won't have been a waste of electrons. Some of it is controversial, but I think it is so because the spirit of the age belongs to desperately shallow and unthinking ideological stances that are taken across the political spectrum and anti-religious lunacy that realizes much of 2 Timothy 3:1's perilous times. Indeed, the prophet is a fool and the spiritual man is mad and the population doesn't know their left from their right hands...or their male from their female genders. This speaks to a broader problem that, I think, can be glimpsed through the political lens. Ultimately, the problem is simple - we have rejected God as a nation - but one of the symptoms will, I think, be seen in examining this political point. It isn't as much a problem of left vs. right as principle vs. desire. There needs to be a revolution - but it may not be the one many look for...)
The founders weren't dumb. They had decent memories and were prepared to learn the lessons of history both remote and "recent" (what we call recent is probably in the order of weeks or months while their idea of recent would have extended back years...things didn't move quite as fast then) and apply those lessons to the formation of a new nation. So why have words that have been closely held in the past (to varying degrees, admittedly) been exchanged for Marxist dogma (the redistribution of wealth and "you didn't build that") and Twitter "wisdom"? Of course, George Washington told us where we were headed over 200 years ago :
Of course, this is more descriptive than prescriptive - Washington offers no solutions to the people that find themselves in that situation - but he (indeed, most of the founders) knew the tendencies of human nature and that is why they put all the checks and balances in place. Fundamental to the problem was (and is) human nature. The worst (and even on rare occasions - the best) of it was seen in Monarchical and dictatorial regimes. The consolidation of power in the hands of a few (or just one) was what the founding documents were intended to prevent. And there is an interesting set of numbers that is readily available - which shows how this human nature is just that - a tendency that takes over if not mercilessly reigned in.
There is a list of executive orders by president listed here on Wikipedia. The fascinating thing about it is that if you look at it in chronological order, you see an unmistakable trend. For almost the first century after the founding, the number of presidential executive orders is in the single digits (averaged per year in office). Franklin Pierce is the highest in that range at 8.8/yr (35 in his single term in office). But then the average jumps to double digits with Lincoln at 11.7/yr (48 in his nearly 5 years in office). There is another small jump in the average (20's and 30's after Lincoln) and then Teddy Roosevelt shatters the average by issuing nearly 145 EO's per year in his 7.5 years. There was a steady increase in the number of Executive Orders until the peak is reached with FDR - 307.8 per year (nearly one per day!). And when you consider that he was the only 3 term President, his output is even more significant. Franklin's successor - Truman - looks almost inactive by comparison. He issued "only" 116.7/yr. Outside of the span between the Roosevelts that's the most EO's of any president! Eisenhower through Carter sees the new normal as 60-80 EO's/yr - until Reagan drops just below 50. It has stayed there (and even slowly decreased) through Obama, whose average of 34.6 is the lowest since Grover Cleveland's 35 in the mid-1890's. Donald Trump's average of 45 EO's per year is hard to gauge since it isn't even a year into his presidency - so the sample period is too small to make any generalizations. Garfield - who served only half a year before his death - was an anomaly in his time as well (take him out and the trend is essentially unbroken).
It shouldn't take too much effort to see that the times which saw stark increases in the numbers of EO's being issued were during - or shortly before or after - times of war. It might be expected that the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces would issue more direct orders "from the top" when military activity is significantly heightened. But the increases typically occur BEFORE a major war begins. Lincoln is the exception (though Pierce's numbers are high - and he is often considered one of the primary instigators of the Civil War). But that could be argued to be where it started to pick up steam - in response to war. But could it not also be that the other conflicts were international when Lincoln's was civil? If ever there was a time when one could point to a clear spirit of party in the nation, that era would be it. If liberty and self-determination were guiding principles that largely characterized the country and the government up to that point (noting again the paucity of EO's for nearly a century after Washington), then it would follow that there is a direct correlation (though not necessarily causal) between the increase of EO's and the decrease in the founders' definition of liberty (as against tyranny). Volumes have been written on the dramatic changes brought about by the twentieth century - not to mention the wars that have been fought during that time. And the global cry for "peace" that saw the formation of the League of Nations and its successor - the United Nations - brought the rest of the world far closer to the nation's shores. So the complexity of life on all fronts increased exponentially as we came into the modern (post-modern) age. Is it any wonder, then, that leaders saw fit to try and manage the increasingly difficult task of governing the nation in a global society?
But here is the crux of my thought. When you review the list of Presidents and the numbers of EO's, you see the trend. I'm not so concerned about the individual circumstances except to perhaps put a point on display. That the trend of unilateral action and the trend of tyranny are parallel. Maybe not always the fact that unilateral action implies that the actor is supporting tyranny (they may be battling it...or so they believe) but rather that the two go hand in hand. I think that's part of what Washington was saying. When one man wants control and acts on that impetus, the liberty enshrined in the set up of the United States governmental system is strained. As the tendency to add more unilateral action to what has already been done grows, that factional spirit is strengthened. So even while the number of EO's dropped after WWII (markedly so!), there was already that individual domination that had already been ingrained in the national consciousness. We are inexorably heading towards a dictatorship if Washington was correct. And it doesn't come down to the left or the right being "right". It comes down to the ultimate stance that "I'm" right and everyone else can just like it or lump it. There is no conversation, there is no thoughtful debate. There is only SELF-justification. Never mind the facts. And one side (left or right) may well be right on the issue - but that again misses the ultimate cause of this spirit of party. It isn't the ability to exist in harmony or merely tolerate someone else's views - instead, it's quite the opposite. The vibrancy of a liberal democracy (Republic!) stands or falls on a conviction that there is right and wrong and that it can be objectively determined and debate can get us there. It's the ability to absolutely resist the other side - but in a reasoned manner, letting objective reality be the standard. Because when two sides just "get along", it doesn't last long if they are not using the same general (objective) standard. Thus, the spirit of party. Two differing fundamental standards for what is right and what is wrong.
So how in the world could one hope to govern according to the pattern set forth by the founders (to avoid tyranny) if there wasn't a common understanding of what was right and what was wrong? Not total agreement, but fundamental moral agreement. How, then, can a society that is founded on the understanding of the morality of scripture (laws of nature and nature's God) hope to survive such an absurdity as tolerance of views utterly antithetical to it? Marxism, for example, is (at its core) atheistic. Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceaucescu....the list goes on of its primary exponents. So how can Communism or any form of Marxist ideology be tolerated in a system that fundamentally disagrees with its bases? What of Islam? How can a religion that has - as part of its scriptures - the utter destruction (or at least total subjection) of the infidel be in any agreement with a society that has biblical foundations? How can any society tolerate anarchy being taught? It can't. Not if it hopes to survive. And not insignificantly, revolution and uprising is the byword of those three broad systems of belief. The nation loses its moorings - not when it tolerates the existence of Marxists, Muslims and anarchists, but rather when it tolerates the foundational precepts that undergird their beliefs. Once there is no foundational agreement, tolerance is just the allowance that their whole belief system might be right. It is a treasonous tendency. That's why the Soviets never would have let an American influence their people during the Cold War. That's why Fundamentalist Islam has violent Jihad. And that's why anarchists will never tolerate...any belief system (but their own - maybe). We have one faction that wants to enshrine the tenets of socialism and another that wants to do away with all traces of socialism. We have one faction that wants to bend over backwards to accomodate Islam (virtually ignoring its foundations) and another that sees no reason to trust any Muslim and either kill or deport every last one of them. There need not be unity on course of action, but there must be unity on what is right and what is wrong - and hold to that regardless of who (or what group) disagrees. The nation's principles are not (primarily) religious toleration and free speech - those are direct byproducts of the foundations that must be universally agreed upon. Otherwise there will be no agreement as to what constitutes breaking the law. And then...as Washington said...in steps one man to take charge and point everyone in the "right" direction. That happens repeatedly with the pendulum swinging ever further in either direction until the whole thing breaks down.
So before anyone says that's Trump or Obama, remember that this whole thought is founded on a trend. There is no one man or woman who is responsible here. It is larger than that. It is a tendency in humanity to gravitate to a leader. And the trends in presidents issuing unilateral orders shows that this doesn't diminish over time - it increases. Getting the right man (or woman!) elected won't solve this problem. They will just be a change in momentum in one direction or the other. In his address to the Delaware nation in 1779, Washington wrote the following :
Until the basic thrust of biblical morality and the public ideals of liberty and justice for all are returned to on a large scale (in the public institutions, yet - Washington refers specifically to Congress), it won't matter who's in charge - the path to tyranny will be only further traversed. But then, maybe it's too late now anyway....
The founders weren't dumb. They had decent memories and were prepared to learn the lessons of history both remote and "recent" (what we call recent is probably in the order of weeks or months while their idea of recent would have extended back years...things didn't move quite as fast then) and apply those lessons to the formation of a new nation. So why have words that have been closely held in the past (to varying degrees, admittedly) been exchanged for Marxist dogma (the redistribution of wealth and "you didn't build that") and Twitter "wisdom"? Of course, George Washington told us where we were headed over 200 years ago :
Of course, this is more descriptive than prescriptive - Washington offers no solutions to the people that find themselves in that situation - but he (indeed, most of the founders) knew the tendencies of human nature and that is why they put all the checks and balances in place. Fundamental to the problem was (and is) human nature. The worst (and even on rare occasions - the best) of it was seen in Monarchical and dictatorial regimes. The consolidation of power in the hands of a few (or just one) was what the founding documents were intended to prevent. And there is an interesting set of numbers that is readily available - which shows how this human nature is just that - a tendency that takes over if not mercilessly reigned in.
There is a list of executive orders by president listed here on Wikipedia. The fascinating thing about it is that if you look at it in chronological order, you see an unmistakable trend. For almost the first century after the founding, the number of presidential executive orders is in the single digits (averaged per year in office). Franklin Pierce is the highest in that range at 8.8/yr (35 in his single term in office). But then the average jumps to double digits with Lincoln at 11.7/yr (48 in his nearly 5 years in office). There is another small jump in the average (20's and 30's after Lincoln) and then Teddy Roosevelt shatters the average by issuing nearly 145 EO's per year in his 7.5 years. There was a steady increase in the number of Executive Orders until the peak is reached with FDR - 307.8 per year (nearly one per day!). And when you consider that he was the only 3 term President, his output is even more significant. Franklin's successor - Truman - looks almost inactive by comparison. He issued "only" 116.7/yr. Outside of the span between the Roosevelts that's the most EO's of any president! Eisenhower through Carter sees the new normal as 60-80 EO's/yr - until Reagan drops just below 50. It has stayed there (and even slowly decreased) through Obama, whose average of 34.6 is the lowest since Grover Cleveland's 35 in the mid-1890's. Donald Trump's average of 45 EO's per year is hard to gauge since it isn't even a year into his presidency - so the sample period is too small to make any generalizations. Garfield - who served only half a year before his death - was an anomaly in his time as well (take him out and the trend is essentially unbroken).
It shouldn't take too much effort to see that the times which saw stark increases in the numbers of EO's being issued were during - or shortly before or after - times of war. It might be expected that the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces would issue more direct orders "from the top" when military activity is significantly heightened. But the increases typically occur BEFORE a major war begins. Lincoln is the exception (though Pierce's numbers are high - and he is often considered one of the primary instigators of the Civil War). But that could be argued to be where it started to pick up steam - in response to war. But could it not also be that the other conflicts were international when Lincoln's was civil? If ever there was a time when one could point to a clear spirit of party in the nation, that era would be it. If liberty and self-determination were guiding principles that largely characterized the country and the government up to that point (noting again the paucity of EO's for nearly a century after Washington), then it would follow that there is a direct correlation (though not necessarily causal) between the increase of EO's and the decrease in the founders' definition of liberty (as against tyranny). Volumes have been written on the dramatic changes brought about by the twentieth century - not to mention the wars that have been fought during that time. And the global cry for "peace" that saw the formation of the League of Nations and its successor - the United Nations - brought the rest of the world far closer to the nation's shores. So the complexity of life on all fronts increased exponentially as we came into the modern (post-modern) age. Is it any wonder, then, that leaders saw fit to try and manage the increasingly difficult task of governing the nation in a global society?
But here is the crux of my thought. When you review the list of Presidents and the numbers of EO's, you see the trend. I'm not so concerned about the individual circumstances except to perhaps put a point on display. That the trend of unilateral action and the trend of tyranny are parallel. Maybe not always the fact that unilateral action implies that the actor is supporting tyranny (they may be battling it...or so they believe) but rather that the two go hand in hand. I think that's part of what Washington was saying. When one man wants control and acts on that impetus, the liberty enshrined in the set up of the United States governmental system is strained. As the tendency to add more unilateral action to what has already been done grows, that factional spirit is strengthened. So even while the number of EO's dropped after WWII (markedly so!), there was already that individual domination that had already been ingrained in the national consciousness. We are inexorably heading towards a dictatorship if Washington was correct. And it doesn't come down to the left or the right being "right". It comes down to the ultimate stance that "I'm" right and everyone else can just like it or lump it. There is no conversation, there is no thoughtful debate. There is only SELF-justification. Never mind the facts. And one side (left or right) may well be right on the issue - but that again misses the ultimate cause of this spirit of party. It isn't the ability to exist in harmony or merely tolerate someone else's views - instead, it's quite the opposite. The vibrancy of a liberal democracy (Republic!) stands or falls on a conviction that there is right and wrong and that it can be objectively determined and debate can get us there. It's the ability to absolutely resist the other side - but in a reasoned manner, letting objective reality be the standard. Because when two sides just "get along", it doesn't last long if they are not using the same general (objective) standard. Thus, the spirit of party. Two differing fundamental standards for what is right and what is wrong.
So how in the world could one hope to govern according to the pattern set forth by the founders (to avoid tyranny) if there wasn't a common understanding of what was right and what was wrong? Not total agreement, but fundamental moral agreement. How, then, can a society that is founded on the understanding of the morality of scripture (laws of nature and nature's God) hope to survive such an absurdity as tolerance of views utterly antithetical to it? Marxism, for example, is (at its core) atheistic. Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceaucescu....the list goes on of its primary exponents. So how can Communism or any form of Marxist ideology be tolerated in a system that fundamentally disagrees with its bases? What of Islam? How can a religion that has - as part of its scriptures - the utter destruction (or at least total subjection) of the infidel be in any agreement with a society that has biblical foundations? How can any society tolerate anarchy being taught? It can't. Not if it hopes to survive. And not insignificantly, revolution and uprising is the byword of those three broad systems of belief. The nation loses its moorings - not when it tolerates the existence of Marxists, Muslims and anarchists, but rather when it tolerates the foundational precepts that undergird their beliefs. Once there is no foundational agreement, tolerance is just the allowance that their whole belief system might be right. It is a treasonous tendency. That's why the Soviets never would have let an American influence their people during the Cold War. That's why Fundamentalist Islam has violent Jihad. And that's why anarchists will never tolerate...any belief system (but their own - maybe). We have one faction that wants to enshrine the tenets of socialism and another that wants to do away with all traces of socialism. We have one faction that wants to bend over backwards to accomodate Islam (virtually ignoring its foundations) and another that sees no reason to trust any Muslim and either kill or deport every last one of them. There need not be unity on course of action, but there must be unity on what is right and what is wrong - and hold to that regardless of who (or what group) disagrees. The nation's principles are not (primarily) religious toleration and free speech - those are direct byproducts of the foundations that must be universally agreed upon. Otherwise there will be no agreement as to what constitutes breaking the law. And then...as Washington said...in steps one man to take charge and point everyone in the "right" direction. That happens repeatedly with the pendulum swinging ever further in either direction until the whole thing breaks down.
So before anyone says that's Trump or Obama, remember that this whole thought is founded on a trend. There is no one man or woman who is responsible here. It is larger than that. It is a tendency in humanity to gravitate to a leader. And the trends in presidents issuing unilateral orders shows that this doesn't diminish over time - it increases. Getting the right man (or woman!) elected won't solve this problem. They will just be a change in momentum in one direction or the other. In his address to the Delaware nation in 1779, Washington wrote the following :
Until the basic thrust of biblical morality and the public ideals of liberty and justice for all are returned to on a large scale (in the public institutions, yet - Washington refers specifically to Congress), it won't matter who's in charge - the path to tyranny will be only further traversed. But then, maybe it's too late now anyway....