Democrats Reject Founding Fathers

The Democratic Party has rejected the one of the main ideas embodied in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers.  In Federalist Paper 10 James Madison argued  that the US government should be a republic, not a democracy.  A republic acts through representatives of the people, not by direct votes of the people themselves.  In defending this position Madison says:

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages,and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of thelatter….

Excerpt From: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay. “The Federalist.” Apple Books.

The Constitution did not originally say who was qualified to vote for the representatives of the republic; it left it to the states to decide who was eligible to vote.  Most states allowed only white, male, adult, property owners to vote for representatives.  This was far from a democracy where everyone had a say in the government, as is the case in some New England town meetings.  Over the years the right to vote has been greatly expanded by amendments to the Constitution.  This expansion has created some of the very problems foreseen by the Founding Fathers.  The Democratic Party believes it can get its representatives elected by promising free stuff, particularly to blacks, Hispanics, and recent immigrants, but also to whites, e.g., Medicare and Social Security.   Typically, it has made wider public provision of healthcare the focus of Democratic campaigns in the midterm elections. 

One of Madison’s arguments was that representative government would make it harder for special interests to influence the government, because the representatives would have a broad, diverse constituency.  In practice today, however, gerrymandering and lobbying have undermined this principle.  Congressional districts are not diverse, and the huge amounts of money controlled by the lobbyists give them inordinate power over the wishes of ordinary citizens.  The result has been a distortion that benefits both ends of the population spectrum.  Poorer voters get more government benefits because Democrats pander to their demands, and richer voters get more government benefits because their lobbyists bribe lawmakers to give them.  The middle class essentially gets left out.  Their votes are not for sale, but they can’t afford to buy politicians. 

Madison’s response would probably be that the elected representatives should be people of high moral character and intelligence who would serve the country’s interest, rather than a few of their constituents, but this does not seem to be the case today, with a few exceptions. 

Stopping immigration weakens the Democratic approach of winning over poorer voters with government benefits.  There are remedies for limiting the influence of wealth in the Republican Party, such as higher income and inheritance taxes, and limits on campaign contributions, perhaps requiring that all campaigns must be limited to public funding; however, I don’t see any movement toward these reforms. 


Jews and Trump

President Trump has attacked Fed Chair Jay Powell for being crazy, in an attempt to place the blame on Powell for the recent stock market declines. I like Powell because he is the first non-Jewish chair of the Fed in about 50 years, except for one year in the 1970s under William Miller. I think the Jewish chairmen have used their position to financially benefit their Jewish brethren at the expense of non-Jews. I don’t think they have done anything illegal, but when there are several approaches to dealing with problems, they have usually chosen the one that will benefit other Jews. This has been apparent for the last 10 years, when interest rates have been held close to zero, benefitting investors who take bigger gambles, typically Jews, rather than people who just want to invest conservatively for the long term. Before the 2008 crash, conservative investors could buy bonds or just put money in savings accounts for the interest they paid; after the crash bonds paid nothing, and for any return investors had to buy riskier assets. One result of this Jewish approach has been to radically increase income and wealth inequality, benefitting the wealthy, including Jews disproportionately, and penalizing the middle class, mostly non-Jewish whites. By increasing interest rates, Powell is taking away the Jews’ punchbowl.

Rather than hearing complaints from Jews in the financial industry, such as Goldman Sachs, we are hearing criticism from President Trump. How do we account for that? One answer is that Jewishness has nothing to do with the matter; it’s just about money! Another possibility is that the Jews don’t have to speak out because Trump is speaking for them.

I’m not sure what kind of relationship Trump has with Jews in general, or if he even sees it as a different relationship from his relations with other types of people, white Christians, Hispanics, etc. New York is a Jewish city, particularly Manhattan, where Trump has lived and worked most of his life. Roy Cohn, Jewish lawyer for Senator Joe McCarthy, was one of his mentors. I think New York real estate is a particularly Jewish profession, but Trump has succeeded at it while being a white Protestant. He has worked so closely with Jews that his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is Jewish and his daughter Ivanka has converted to Judaism. Yet establishment Jews have broken with him on many of his key issues. Gary Cohn, who was supposed to represent the best of Jewish financial thought, has left his administration. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin is still there. Trump is a strong supporter of Israel, breaking with the rest of the world and moving the US embassy to Jerusalem.

On the other hand, his opposition to unlimited immigration and support for Southerners’ defense of their heritage have put him at odds with many liberal Jews. Most recently, his nomination of and support for Brett Kavanaugh for Supreme Court justice put him at odds with most of the Jews in the Senate, particularly Diane Feinstein, who led a Democratic Jewish attack casting filthy accusations against Kavanaugh in an attempt to block his approval. This vile confrontation was basically a religious one, with Jews opposing Kavanaugh because as a Catholic Christian he opposes abortion, while Jews support access to abortion.

I was pleased when Trump named a non-Jew, Jay Powell, to be chairman of the Fed, breaking with tradition. But now Trump is criticizing Powell for trying to raise interest rates to a normal level. Trump is now siding with the Jewish speculators against his own Fed chairman. Which is the real Trump? The one who named Powell, or the one who attacked him? I don’t know, but I want Powell to stay.

It looks like the conservative Jews who were so prevalent in previous Republican administrations — William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Scooter Libby, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith, for example — are either opposed to Trump or missing in action. I’m sure that Trump has some Jewish friends and colleagues from his years of living and working in New York, but they are not too visible right now, except for his former lawyer Michael Cohen, and Trump would probably prefer that he had remained invisible.

Jews Still Crucifying Christians

In the Brett Kavanaugh Senate hearings regarding his appointment as a Supreme Court Justice, two Jews — Diane Feinstein and Richard Blumenthal — led the character assassination of Judge Kavanaugh.  The attack was to a certain extent religiously motivated.  As a Catholic, Judge Kavanaugh is opposed to abortion, although he has refused to say whether he would try to overturn Roe v. Wade.  The two Jewish senators are pro-choice, and want to retain the ability to have abortions, protected by Roe v. Wade.  Thus, religion is at the heart of the animosity. 

The Democratic attack on Judge Kavanaugh has been about as filthy, underhanded, and dishonest as possible.  Senator Feinstein had long advance knowledge about the allegations of sexual assault made by Christine Blasey Ford, but she didn’t reveal them until the last minute.  Feinstein’s goal was character assassination, which she did rather well with a thoroughly coached and prepped Blasey Ford.  No one in the media was concerned that there was no concrete evidence to back up her testimony.  She seems to have a weak personality, and it seems likely that something happened to her, and she has been mentally unable to cope with it, which may well have led to her making up a version of events that absolve her of any blame.  What was she, a 15-year old girl, doing drinking at an unsupervised party with older boys, and then going up to the bedroom?  Did she plan to lose her virginity and then lost her nerve instead?  Was the boy really Bret Kavanaugh?  Did she latch on to his name in her revised memory because he had become famous and powerful?  Has she unknowingly changed her memory to make herself less guilty in her own mind? 

While Feinstein and Blumenthal may have been the only two Jews on the Democratic side, they were joined in their cries of “Crucify him!” by their other Democratic collogues.  I guess the American public is crying “Give us Barabbas!” a different, worse nominee to the Court. 

The Democrats may win, but they have soured much of the nation on Washington.  The hatred, the emphasis on sex and filth, that the Senate displayed was disgusting, and much of the public will be disgusted.  Certainly some of it rubbed off on Kavanaugh, who will never be the same.  It will be difficult to find any decent lawyer who will be willing to risk the personal attacks that now are part of any hearing on a Supreme Court nominee.  As a result, we will get much worse candidates, men and women who are willing to face the possibility of all kinds of shame in order to get a prestigious seat on the Supreme Court.  It will lower the caliber of the Court forever.