|
(The following article is a reprint from January of 2008 –Ed.) AMERICA’S CRISIS, 2008 Or How
the Media makes Popular Presidents Impotent By Ivan Parkins During the Franklin
Roosevelt Administration, and for about a decade after,
“liberal” academics contended that strong executive leadership had rescued
our divided political system. The
weakness, an inability to control powerful minority interests, was not
represented in the presidential administrations of the two Roosevelt’s,
Lincoln and Jackson. They had supposedly rescued America by an ability to
control powerful minority interests. I
did, and I do, subscribe to that broad thesis. What
materialized during the Vietnam War, and especially in the 1968 elections,
was the rise of a new special interest or elite. Burgeoning college enrollments, new and
more pervasive media communication, private foundations, etc. created a
rapidly growing mass of extensively schooled and nationally organized
persons. Dominating, as they did and
still do, the main channels of communication, they maligned old institutions
and elites. Meanwhile, they made
themselves the most politically potent and legally protected elite- and
ultimately the enemies of strong Presidents. In
this nation, a clear and lasting majority of the public can accomplish almost
anything, politically. But only a
talented and vigorous President is able to assemble and maintain majority
support. In the late twentieth
century, with the outlets for political information more centralized and
united than ever before, we had conflicts on an unprecedented scale between
professional communicators and those Presidents who won the largest popular
majorities at the polls. Americans
are now understandably confused and depressed. The solution, I’m convinced, is more
diverse information and accountability of professional communicators
regarding the information that they disseminate. The
First Amendment should not canonize professors, journalists, artists, or
protesters. I.W. Parkins, January 25, 2008 |
|
Arrow’s Dilemma: No Majority, No
Compromise Column,
2/16/81; Mt. Pleasant, MI; An analysis of President Reagan the workings of
the Congress By Ivan W. Parkins By a strange sort of irony, our government, while trying to
serve everybody, is failing to serve anybody. It is, of course, essential
to democracy that majority opinion should determine, at least in a general
way, the direction in which to go, even if that direction is only the
preservation of public order. Without a direction, any government
becomes arbitrary and capricious. Early in American history
the direction of most people, and of the government, was determined, mainly,
by the nature of this sparsely settled continent. The Constitution of
the United States, designed to strengthen our republic against divisive
provincial factions, provided only minimal unity. Further unification of
America occurred as more and more we exchanged our places of residence and
the products of our labor with one another. The growth of political
parties and the development of a popular Presidency enabled government to
keep pace with our changing society. Since World War II,
however, neither parties nor presidents have done well at organizing public
opinion and directing government. America has become directionless and
divided. James Madison, in Number 10 of "The
Federalist," suggested that, although the causes of faction would always
be with us, majoritarian principles and the difficulty of communication in
our extensive country would minimize dangers from either minority domination
or mob rule. Now, the technology of communication and the political
changes, which it sustains, have made Madison's judgment obsolete.
Messages are transmitted instantaneously throughout the land. The
scattered members of social and economic factions, being able to communicate
with and to reinforce one another, are under less pressure to compromise with
other groups. Meanwhile, emotional masses, no matter how numerous, can
tune in simultaneously to a demagogic appeal or reported crises. Our government reflects the
changed realities of communications technology and opinion leadership.
During the first half of the 20th Century the Presidency gained in power
and influence, presidents could communicate more directly with the
people. Recently, however, continuing technological advances have
enabled a variety of leaders to be heard nationwide. Furthermore, mass
media are displacing political parties as the keys to winning elective
office. Presidency and parties, once our major political unifiers, have
both declined. Today, we face in multiple
and complex forms a disability named Arrow's dilemma. Briefly it is
this. If a society divides over policy issues, not into majority and
minority positions, but into three or more positions, all of them minorities
and uncompromising in nature, no democratic solution remains possible. There is substantial
evidence in the opinion polls that our crisis during the Vietnam War was an
actual instance of the dilemma, which Kenneth Arrow envisioned. Following the Tet
offensive, Americans divided, roughly, into thirds who: 1 - supported our
government, 2 - favored unlimited war, 3 - favored immediate
withdrawal. Nearly two-thirds of Americans opposed each of the major
policy alternatives. Thanks largely to
communications technology, it is now easier than ever before to maintain
factional political organizations and viewpoints on a nationwide basis, and,
at the same time, it is more difficult to persuade and organize any
continuing majority. Adapting to these new circumstances our government
is increasingly oriented to pressures of organized minorities. Majority
and minority party votes are less significant in Congress. There,
subject matter committees, with virtually permanent senior memberships,
divide up the legislative powers. Congress sees to it that
executive branch organization does not vary too far from the congressional
model. Triangular political alliances between special interests,
congressional committees, and executive bureaus are closer and more lasting
than any presidential administration in recent history. If the
well-organized special interest meets effective opposition it is most likely
to be from some competitive special interest or as a result of an emotional
and brief wave of public opinion. The recent incapacity of
our government to identify and pursue an effective foreign policy, or to cope
with increasing deficits and inflation are not accidental, not merely the
errors of particular men or parties or the results of particular
events. Our major problems are systemic. American opinion now has
its most direct and lasting impact upon our government through special
interest organizations, which demand, chiefly, greater benefits for their own
members. Congress tries to accommodate each group. That is
inflationary. Meanwhile, other opinion
becomes articulate and effective in relatively brief and emotional flurries
(i.e. McCarthyism, antiwar protest, and Moral Majority). This is
especially inadequate as a basis for foreign policy. What President Reagan is
attempting to accomplish will require, almost, a political miracle. Our
fundamental problem of recent years is not that we have lacked wise leaders
or policy proposals. Our greatest problem is that we have lacked a
capacity to identify and to sustain political majorities in support of any
policy whatever. If Ronald Reagan can, by
his appeals to our latent national pride and his cultivation of former
opponents, unite a majority of Americans, his achievement will be
substantial. If he can then devise means of sustaining an effective
popular majority beyond one term of office, it will be a near miracle. And yet in retrospect he did just that-8/16/2008, I.W.Parkins |
|
Page 13 |
|
We know what happened to
President Nixon, but how much do we know about why? Nixon resigned rather than
risk a bitter and nationally divisive impeachment fight, which it appeared
that he would lose. Chief among the charges pending against him was
abuse of power. And, one of the most substantial items in that charge
was that he impounded, i.e. refused to spend, about half of the funds which
Congress had appropriated for Senator Muskie's Clean Water Act. Even
the Supreme Court held against the President in that matter. Years later, it occurred to
me that there should be new evidence re that charge. I checked THE
STATISTICAL ABSTRACT for what we actually did spend. With Nixon out of
the way, we spent just about what he had recommended. I.W. Parkins |
|
The Presidency And Our Constitutional System Part One The following articles are centered around the power of
the President, and the role that
political parties and the media have in it. |
|
VOTE
REPUBLICAN! FOR A CHANGE You Just Might Get Real Change By Ivan W. Parkins
This is a largely negative account.
My excuse is that I believe most Americans are not
conscious of the fact that they have never witnessed one four-year term in
which a Republican President was able to function with the support of
substantial Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress and substantial
media support. I have, but as a
first-grader I was too young during 1928 to remember much of it. For a great majority of Americans, such a
term may be the greatest change possible within orderly political processes.
Since Franklin Roosevelt took office more than three-quarters of a
century ago no term of Republican Administration has included both the
Presidency and comfortable majorities in both Houses of Congress. In more than seventy-five years only six
years have included Republican control of all three elected branches, and
those were all by narrow margins.
Democrat Administrations, especially in the early part of that period,
had many more years of partisan unity, and by much larger margins. In comparing party accomplishments,
shouldn’t that be considered? As
the crisis in Georgia illustrates, the War on Terror is not the full extent
of our danger. Both our continuing
leadership in civil matters and our ability to defend ourselves are
challenged. And, since the mid-1960s
Democrats have been mostly noise or dead weight. Now, the question of a dependable supply of
oil, both as an energy source and as a feed stock for much of our industry,
has become critical. Democrats, in
varying degrees, are largely opposed to our further exploitation of domestic
resources.
Regarding our economy, Democrats devote their attention mostly to
oversight of our business enterprises, often hobbling them with taxes on
investment, unpredictable legal liabilities, and social responsibilities
better assigned elsewhere. In spite of
that, our economy has prospered, and it is doing so in international
trade. But, Democrats are reluctant to
encourage such trade because of their heavy dependence upon the support of
labor unions, predatory lawyers, and sanctimonious social action groups.
Where our unelected Judicial Branch is concerned, Democrats have made
lengthy tests of “social service,” as opposed to judicial experience and
temperament, the chief hurdle to advancement.
Often they have shown no regard for the Constitution as a
multigenerational consensus on the form of our government, and seem obsessed
with it as just another instrument of policy formulation. The next administration will likely have an
opportunity to decide whether Western and Anglo-American constitutionalism or
more quasi-Marxist domination by “ruling class” politics prevails in the
United States. The
elections of 2008 will be a watershed, in part, because of their implications
for the future of our nation’s information system. Democratic dominance, referred to above,
especially that in the Houses of Congress and their success in hobbling the
Executive Branch, has been possible largely because our information system,
academic and artistic as well as journalistic, has been heavily biased in the
Democrats’ favor. Recently, that has
begun to decline. As major Democratic
victory at this time would almost certainly be followed by efforts to
reinforce the old bias. And that
places America’s future as the leading example of representative democracy in
danger.
Need I add; I will vote Republican!
I believe that a major party in temporary control is essential to the
effective management of our government.
I regret to say that I believe only one American party is, now, an
appropriate choice for the job. On
behalf of Republican Presidents I note, again, that beginning with
Eisenhower, they have faced an historically unique hurdle in the almost total
lack of partisan majorities in Congress.
And I attribute that, largely, to the increasing role and unity
of our mass information media in our
political choices. Yes, Republican Presidents have often agreed to spend too
much. But, recalling President George
H.W. Bush’s acquiescence, who wouldn’t yield a few billions to congressional
“boodlers” in order to prevent hostile dominance of Middle Eastern oil
resources? In foreign affairs, where
the Constitution grants the initiative to Chief Executives, Republican
Presidents have served us particularly well—at least until Democrat
Congresses could get the upper hand. |
|
©Ivan W. Parkins 2010, All articles, text, web pages property of
Ivan W. Parkins. Use of any material
requires permission of the author
and can be obtained by contacting,
info@americanpoliticalcommentary.com |
