|
One
concern of those who drafted the Constitution of the United States was that
representatives should not have such small constituencies that the office
would fail to attract able candidates.
Even so, Chairman of the Convention, George Washington, called for a
minimum constituency of 30,000 instead of the already approved 40,000. This was his only suggestion regarding
details of the Constitution and it was adopted. THE
FEDERALIST, No. 51 states that “dependence on the people is, no doubt, the
primary control on the government.” No. 52 adds “… it is particularly
essential that ..” the representative “… have an immediate dependence on and
an intimate sympathy with the people.” Now, with
the congressional districts having average populations of about 690,000, and with only 524,160 minutes in a
year, we face a very different situation.
All Representatives, whatever their origins, become members of the
upper class by virtue of their salaries and perks alone. The long sessions and increasing details of their involvement in
nearly all matters of government, keep their minds and bodies within the
confines of the “Beltway” most of the time.
National journalists, pollsters, lobbyists, and congressional staff
members, along with legislative “earmarks,” get them reelected. Meanwhile, it is literally impossible for
them to allot one minute of their time per year to each constituent. Our
representatives should be much more numerous; they should spend most of their
working time in their districts; and they should have infrequent, but
authoritative votes on major public issues.
In order to add that to the Constitution, I suggest the
following: Proposed Amendment Page
2 |
|
FACTS TO PONDER: The First Amendment to our Constitution is
not what the First Congress proposed for that spot. Partisan divisions of Congress and the
Presidency in the second half of the twentieth century differed extremely
from those in the first half. Since 1930, no Republican President has
enjoyed a partisan congressional division as favorable as Clinton’s was in
1993-1994, but all other Democrat Presidents have fared better than Clinton. If the average Representative were to spend
1000 hours per year meeting face-to-face with individual constituents, it
would not be possible to spend 10 seconds with each constituent. In just 5 weeks of 2006, Israel lost
approximately twice (as a percentage of its population) as many soldiers in
Lebanon as our military fatalities in five years of the “War on Terror”. Just the increase of
violent deaths domestically, among American youths in the 1960’s and ‘70’s,
exceeded our combat fatalities in Vietnam. According to the World Health
Organization’s calculations of increased malaria deaths following the ban on
DDT, that policy has already been more deadly than Hitler’s “final solution”. The pension funds held by state and local
governments, and by corporations, for their employees exceed the “National
Debt”. None of the above is a secret, but none is
emphasized in the mass media. See
attached link for more
information.
American
Politics |
|
Ivan Parkins |
|
DISASSEMBLE THE HOUSE By Ivan W. Parkins PhD. |
|
To order
Dr. Parkins book, Perspectives For
American Society Contact
info@americanpoliticalcommentary.com |
|
©Ivan W. Parkins 2008, 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 |
|
Book Review: AMERICAN CREATION by Joseph Ellis Joseph Ellis’ book, AMERICAN CREATION, is a fitting sequel to his Pulitzer Prize winners, FOUNDING BROTHERS and HIS EXCELLENCY. It sets forth more clearly, than I have ever
before seen, just what our nation’s founders did achieve in the face
of specific difficulties, and what the
difficulties were that they failed to overcome. Essentially, they exceeded amazingly well
at turning colonies into an independent, large, and free republic that proved
to be both durable and expandable.
They failed to resolve two huge problems, native rights and racial
freedoms. Ellis is easy to read and especially
reasonable. He is specific about
assigning both credits and failures to individuals, most of whom he obviously
admires. He attributes much of their
greatness to their pursuit of lasting fame rather than immediate popularity. They were, along with some fortunate
circumstances and coincidences, creators of the United States. |
|
Who Is Great? I am referring
to Christopher Hitchens' book, God is Not Great; I haven't read it and do not
expect to. I have read the Bible, all of it plus some Apocrypha and some
sacred writings from other religions. Most of that was in the 1930's,
when I was a teenager. I have not been a religious person by the usual
standards. During my graduate work,
philosophy and political science, plus thirty-four years of teaching, I did
acquire some bits of what is usually considered to be culture. And, the
Hitchens book calls to mind one interesting experience that I had on three
separate occasions. Three colleagues with
whom I had more than average personal contact (a fishing companion, a
fellow-member of several committees, and a residential neighbor) all in
different institutions, and states, made nearly identical remarks to me.
Each volunteered that there is one intellectual discipline that is more
profound than any other; it is literary criticism. Need I add that they
all taught modern literature? I may have encountered
more obvious and aggressive proselytizing, but I can't recall it. And,
I married into a family of Methodist ministers, in rural Georgia - where I
soon felt welcome. It is now clear that
this planet, the species that inhabit it, and the universe surrounding are
far more complex than our ancestors had means to envision.
Unfortunately, too many of the special class who study and earn livings by
rationalizing the varieties and interrelationships of things, living and
dead, are more interested in defining their own personal and class status
than in shaping more catholic and mutually satisfying visions of the whole. |
|
THE BIG CHANGE? Ivan Parkins, February, 2008 |
|
About
Ivan W. Parkins: Dr.
Parkins is a retired professor of Political Science from Central Michigan
University. He received his PhD from
the University of Chicago and is a graduate of the United States Naval
Academy. Dr. Parkins served as a naval
officer during WWII aboard the battleship Alabama. He is a recent widower with three
daughters, 3 grand children and 2 great grand children. Dr. Parkins has written extensively, having
authored 3 books and a newspaper opinion column for many years. |
|
WHAT HAVE THE PEOPLE NOTICED? By Ivan
Parkins Democracy rests upon an assumption that the people are
well-informed. Or as Thomas Jefferson
put it, “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with
their own government. Whenever things
get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they can be relied upon to set
them right.” A long life of studying, teaching, observing, and writing about American
government has left me with two main conclusions. First: that the public has generally been
right, and is so now in its belief that “the system” needs changing. Second: that the public is greatly confused
regarding what changes are needed. Authoritarians may deny their people some information, but mostly they
brainwash them with disinformation.
Old sayings about the pen being mightier than the sword can be
misleading. Often the sword has been
used first, to control most of the pens.
The pens are then used to “disinform”
the people in ways that permit most swords to remain sheathed. Once firmly established, authoritarians
control virtually all schools, publishing, news facilities, and other sources
of information. Today, that is becoming more difficult.
But, what if most of the pens, i.e. professional communicators, were
to unite in cooperation with one another and with one political party? That is the transformation that I have
witnessed in American society since World War II. Mass communication, especially television,
has invaded households to an unprecedented degree. Schools and teachers have been nationalized
by union and governmental actions.
Possible competitors such as families and churches have been harassed
and legally restricted. The one place in our national system where information has been most
extensive and public choice most informed has been presidential
elections. There, three recent
Presidents, (Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan ) won reelections by the largest
popular pluralities and by three of the largest majorities in our
history. Johnson was then discouraged
from seeking the additional term for which he was legally qualified. Nixon was promptly forced to resign. Reagan survived and in many respects
triumphed, but only by facing long and severe harassment. Since then, President Clinton survived two terms in office, in spite of
having been impeached by the House of Representatives and losing in the
courts on the several challenges that he brought there. He and his defenders claimed that it was
all over a “private sexual matter”.
Congress, unwilling to face media friendly to Clinton with another
election pending, left most other issues to Clinton’s own subordinates. Even so, the House indicted, and a secure
room filled with hundred of documents showing evidence and testimony of
witnesses was provided for the Senate.
No Democrat Senator signed into that room before voting to
acquit. Coincidentally, Clinton was
the only President since Wilson, many years earlier to win the office twice
without winning a popular majority either time. Our current President, Bush, did win a popular majority in 2004, only a
slim one, but better than any Democrat since Johnson. He has faced what have probably been the
most voluminous and intense media attacks upon his Presidency and his person
endured by any President. Now, talk radio, cable television, some of the new publications, and a
few websites offer promise that the people may become better informed. But several decades of public brainwashing
by the media have left scars that threaten democracy in America. How can people choose a better course when
they know so little about the one that we have traveled recently? -February 2008 |
|
Re-Runs Page 3 |