Tag: American revolution

Government Shutdowns and Debt Ceilings

Craig Axford | Canada

Government shutdowns and flirtations with default by putting off raising the federal debt ceiling have become regular occurrences in Washington, D.C. I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised given the number of representatives and senators regularly expressing disdain for the very institution they were elected to run, but still.

Americans like to believe their nation is exceptional, and it is: it’s the only developed nation on the planet that doesn’t guarantee all its citizens healthcare, higher education is more expensive there than just about anywhere else, it has the only government that it’s possible to shut down without having to resort to violence, and it’s the only nation that flirts with suicide by requiring votes on its debt ceiling.

That’s right. No other governments have even one, let alone two, kill switches built into their system. And why would they? What’s the point? Unless the intent is to erode public confidence in government it makes no sense for elected officials to even contemplate closing down popular national parks or giving all the people in charge of enforcing our public health and safety regulations an extended unpaid holiday?

The habit of shutting down the government now and then (as well as the continuing resolutions passed to avoid them) is an unintended bug in the American system rather than a feature of it. So too is the necessity to authorize more borrowing periodically once the national debt has reached a predetermined threshold. Both of these bugs are extremely dangerous but, unfortunately, they are likely to remain unfixed for the foreseeable future.

America’s founding fathers were revolutionaries. As such, they were no fans of the British government, which by the late 18th century was already well established and quite recognizable to any citizen of the 21st century. Though King George III was the titular head of state, like his contemporary successor Queen Elizabeth II, he had very little actual power to match the privileges that came with his hereditary title. Parliament was already very much in charge.

Nothing like what took place in Philadelphia following the American Revolution had ever been seriously considered, let alone attempted, in London. To intentionally sit down and craft rules for a new government quite literally being built from scratch was a radical idea if ever there was one. To call America an experiment is not an exaggeration. As with any experiment, the outcome is unknown until it has come to a close. The American experiment hasn’t ended, but so far it certainly has produced some unanticipated results.

In creating the modern world’s first republic, America’s victorious rebels were faced with the task of establishing rules for a country that no longer had centuries of tradition to fall back on. The norms of the mother country they had just abandoned had evolved over hundreds of years of power struggles between the aristocracy and the crown, with a nascent merchant middle class increasingly making its own demands over the course of the 17th and 18th centuries. The newly independent colonies wanted to distinguish themselves from the nation they had just liberated themselves from, but how?

The US Constitution settled for a president instead of a monarch, while the House of Representatives took the place of the House of Commons and the Senate stood in for the House of Lords. Each elected member of these respective branches is subject to regular fixed terms of office, with the power balanced more or less equally between them rather than resting largely in the representative branch (i.e., parliament) alone. With the exception of the extremely rare and difficult case of impeachment, the US Constitution provides no opportunity to hold any single officeholder accountable for failure during the period between elections, let alone the government as a whole. Federal judges receive lifetime appointments, something else not seen in any other developed representative democracy to this day.

In a parliamentary system, the failure to pass something as routine as an annual budget triggers a crisis. Under the Westminster parliamentary model followed in the UK, Canada and several other members of the Commonwealth, this crisis brings down the government and forces the monarch or her designated representative to dissolve the government and call an election. In unstable periods when minority governments are common, elections tend to be relatively more frequent, while in less turbulent political times a majority government can persist for five years or so before facing a vote.

Likewise, when a parliament authorizes spending beyond the government’s anticipated revenues, it is understood they have necessarily approved an increase in the national debt. Therefore, there is no need to consider raising the debt limit independently. From the perspective of citizens living in parliamentary countries, it makes no sense that the same Congress that approved deficit spending one month can spend time the next flirting with a refusal to allow any borrowing. It’s like having a government that doesn’t know its own mind.

Unfortunately, the kind of crises that bring down governments in parliamentary systems has become commonplace in the United States. Budgets go years without being approved, with Congress lurching from one continuing resolution to the next while various factions hold federal employees and the citizens dependent upon their services hostage until some pet project or favorite policy or another is approved in exchange for keeping things running for a while longer. A Prime Minister Donald Trump would either be facing a vote of the people at this point in the budget process or a leadership challenge by members of his own caucus. One year in office would be unlikely, but four would almost certainly be impossible.

I’ve been living in Canada for the better part of a decade now. On most days I find myself feeling pretty ambivalent about the monarchy if I even think about it at all. That’s not because I can see equal merit in both sides of the argument regarding having someone born into the role of head of state. It’s because I recognize all societies require a sense of continuity and for some countries that can take the shape of a monarchy that has existed in one form or another for centuries. A woman that appears on our money while playing an entirely ceremonial role is harmless, if not for the actual person forced into the job by an accident of birth then at least for the rest of us.

I’m not feeling so ambivalent about having a parliament, however. I have strong opinions about the two Canadian prime ministers I’ve lived under so far. But the extent of my approval or disapproval aside, at least I know that the nearby Pacific Rim National Park will, weather permitting, always be open and that with the exception of national holidays at the local Services Canada office the door will never be locked. Even the UK Brexit debacle hasn’t convinced me parliaments are less effective or ultimately less democratic than the divided governments that have become the norm in the US.

If for some reason, it turns out parliament can’t do its job there will be an election lasting a little over a month while the people try to vote one in with a sufficient mandate to do it. In the meantime, things will go on pretty much as before without any nightly news reports about government employees unable to pay the rent because someone got it into their head they wanted to build a wall. I know it’s incredibly unAmerican to say so, but if you were to put me in a time machine and send me back to 1776, I would tell the founding fathers to get rid of the monarchy if they must, but at least keep the parliament.

Follow Craig on Twitter or read him on Medium.com


71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon.

Featured Image Source

Advertisements

How Libertarian Were Our Founders?

By Andrew Lepore | USA

 

Were the founding fathers of the United States Libertarians? We who prescribe to the ideology often find ourselves placing heavy emphasis on historical examples from the early republic, and quoting names like George Washington, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Paine. But how libertarian really were those figures, and do policies of the time truly reflect the libertarian bastion which many proclaim the early Republic to be?

Firstly for convenience sake, we will simply define “libertarian” as minarchist with the only real role of government being to protect life liberty and property, with virtually no interference by the state in markets or the economy. As well as a non-interventionist foreign policy. We will be using this as the ideal definition of libertarian, comparing this ideal to how well the founders (and the founding) matchup in philosophy and policy. Both advocates and critics of libertarianism have taken to the internet with claims such as “The founding fathers were libertarians” from the Ron Paul Institute, and “No, the founders were not libertarians” from The Federalist. Both of these titles are misleading and point to a simple black and white conclusion. Are those at the Ron Paul Institute saying all of the founders’ policies lined up with “Libertarianism”? And are those at The federalist saying the founders were in no way libertarian as if they were describing Mao Zedong? The question both of these publications should be asking is how libertarian were the founders? Even that question, which is the question of the day here, can be misleading. People may define libertarianism differently. Also as there were many founders with a variety of beliefs,: and how often they acted on those beliefs when it came to policy is another question. Of course, any analysis of this type requires some degree of simplification and subjectivity, it’s important to keep these variables in mind.

The truth of our founding is that it cannot be perfectly classified or lineated into one single ideology. Although that does not mean that the founders were not libertarian, or that libertarianism and the founding aren’t rooted in similar viewpoints. Truthfully, we haven’t seen a more libertarian government in the history of man, but the founding was far from perfectly libertarian as one would suspect. The strongest correlation between the two is the ideological foundation of both, which is strict adherence to the natural law of man, or Lockean philosophy. The natural law of man states that there are certain inalienable rights which are inherent in human nature, endowed by our creator. This language can be found most notably in the declaration of independence where Thomas Jefferson quotes

“When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

To me and other libertarians, there isn’t a word in this statement we don’t agree with. If anything it could be the introduction to the libertarian party platform. Us libertarians agree fully with these natural rights and believe protecting them is government’s sole purpose. But although the founders believed in a strictly limited government they did not make it abundantly clear that this was the only role of government. The tariff act of 1789, the Alien and Sedition acts of 1798, the adherence of slavery, and the ability of states to violate the natural rights of its citizens, among other things, are contradictory and show that the state could get away with doing much more than just protecting life liberty and property. This is where the founders delineate themselves from pure libertarianism, and also I believe to be the reason for the growth of the small government which our founders created, into the oppressive corporate monolith we live under today.

In conclusion, the framework with which our country was founded on is the same framework of libertarian Ideology. The adherence to the natural law of man. Though the two have much in common, the two are not mutually exclusive. Although the founders were not by any means pure blood libertarians, they were quite libertarian indeed.