A Matter of Principle

 In the age of Rope a Dope Politics

 

 

 

 

Definitions:

"rope a dope" 1. The name Mohammed Ali gave to the boxing technique he used to defeat
                             a less experienced opponent by tricking him.                        

"rope a dope politics" 1. The political version of rope a dope, Ali's role is played by both
                                           political parties and, if you don't know who  the dope is, you
                                          haven't been paying attention.  

 

     One hundred years ago Henry Adams wrote, "The  progress of evolution from President Washington to President Grant was alone evidence enough to upset Darwin"  With Presidents Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and our dysfunctional Congress added to Adams' time line, his wry observation has been stripped of much of its humor.  The decline has become too persistent to be attributed to chance and too threatening to be ignored.  America's political industry, to no ones surprise, dismiss any comparison to President Washington as meaningless with the assertion that, “Different times require different policies.”  It is a "rope a dope" response, a half truth which appears to respond to an issue while avoiding it.  It is true that policies change, but sound principles of governance do not.  There is no better standard to measure leadership than George Washington, who remains the gold standard of principled American leadership.  Washington understood that policies not derived from sound principle lead to that slippery slope of expediency where time and assets are squandered as the policies break their shovels on the bedrock of human nature and human history.  The longer the pseudo principled policies are pursued, the more costly and difficult they become to correct.  It is precisely where the nation finds itself today, adrift in a sea of existential issues, the consequence of policies derived from patriotic sounding slogans and flatteries of exceptionalism, masquerading as sound principles of governance.      

     The Democratic and Republican parties must share the blame for our failure to produce principled leadership.  The cause of their failure lies hidden under the blizzard of rope a dope rhetoric that both parties have heaped upon the political landscape.  We are better served in our search for cause when we view the parties as the businesses they are, with products, expenses, employees and management determined to survive in a competitive marketplace.  Their failure can be traced to the changes both parties made to their business models as they attempted to survive the rising cost of remaining in business.  Their new business model, trading government policy for campaign contributions, takes advantage of the unique position both parties hold in the nation's political process.  No other entity is better positioned to fill the roles of legal conduit for the exchange of funds and guarantor of sufficient legislative support to make their offerings attractive to special interests.  Consider this: If an elected office holder were to solicit a thousand dollar campaign contribution from a special interest to support the special interest's policy wants, it would be viewed as the solicitation of a bribe.  However, when a political party solicits a million dollar campaign contribution from a special interest, the transaction is viewed as a legal campaign contribution by a special interest, exercising its freedom of speech.  The arcane legislation which legitimized the exchange was written entirely by the Democratic and Republican parties.  How perfect: Other parties were de facto excluded from this major source of campaign funding by the fact that they lacked the office holders required to make their solicitations attractive to special interests.  Their campaign finance legislation has effectively established the Democratic and Republican parties as a duopoly, the only two legal vendors of government policy in a growing market fueled by the ever increasing involvement of government in the nation's economy and its social fabric.   

     Their new business model has been a financial bonanza for both parties but it has been a disaster for the nation.  Its most egregious fault has been the effect it has on political leadership.  It makes no difference which party wins election, effective policy change, the hallmark of political leadership, is doomed by special interest commitments the parties dare not break.  Special interests, by definition, are not congruent with general interests and special interest policies cannot be congruent with general interest policies.  The inability of the electorate to distinguish between them has burdened the nation with decades of special interest policies purchased with campaign contributions and justified with "rope a dope" rhetoric.         

     The modern media driven merchandising campaigns, which our elections have become, are extremely expensive.  The 2010 mid-term election saw campaign costs soar to a record four billion dollars and the 2012 presidential election is expected to exceed six billion dollars.  When one considers that the media and the press, the constitutional watchdogs of our political process, are the major recipients of those campaign expenditures, is it any wonder the nation finds itself on the cusp of the worst disaster of its history?  Large campaign contributions purchase far more than access to elected office holders, they purchase veto authority over who will fill the highest appointed positions of government where policy is developed and administered.  The duopoly engendered by our campaign finance legislation has morphed into a "'fourth" branch of the Federal government, undefined by the Constitution and distrusted by the citizens.  Its insatiable appetite for financial support exerts a gravitational influence on policy that is so profound, it has changed President Lincoln’s description of our government to "Government of the people, for the special interests, by the parties."

      What would President Washington say about our leaders and their policies?  We need not speculate on his answers because he left a timeless prescription for good governance in his Farewell Address, that was known to every American schoolchild for a hundred years but faded from the nation’s attention toward the end of the nineteenth century.  It is time to revisit that remarkable document, it not only establishes a benchmark for measuring how far we have wandered from the path of principled governance, it defines the only course of action that will return the nation to that path.   

     Before beginning that examination, it should be noted that Washington's Farewell Address was written with the collaboration of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, the authors of 80 of the 85 Federalist Papers.  All three were members of the Constitutional Convention and heard all the argumentation and reasoning which shaped its final form.  That priceless experience was augmented by the positions each held during the perilous first years of the new republic's life, Washington as the first President, Hamilton as the first Secretary of the Treasury and Madison as a leader in the House of Representatives.  Theirs was a pedigree for American political leadership that we have not seen since.   We would be foolish to ignore them.   

     President Washington made his intentions clear with these words,  "a solicitude for your welfare which can not end with my life, and the apprehension of danger natural to that solicitude, urge me on an occasion like the present to offer to your solemn contemplation and to recommend to your frequent review some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all important to permanency of your felicity as a people.”  (Washington's Farewell Address)  Clearly, President Washington was directing his message to the people not the political parties which had come into existence during his presidency.  He had seen enough of them to learn they should not be trusted and that "We the People" are the only constitutional element capable of redressing their excesses. 

    

***********************************************************************

PRESIDENT WASHINGTON ON POLITCAL PARTIES  “One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You can not shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection......

...I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.  This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy....

...It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another....

....There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every  salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume." (Washington's Farewell Address)  

     We have failed to maintain " a uniform vigilance" of our political parties and find ourselves surrounded by the wreckage of our neglect, our colossal public debt, our unaffordable and overgrown military establishment and our fatally flawed foreign policy with its Manichean view of the world and its "special relationship" with another country.  The duopoly's policies pursued in these areas are completely at odds with President Washington's First Principles but they have been bought and paid for with very large campaign contributions from the nation's most powerful special interests.  No laws were broken.  There was no need to break any.  The duopoly has inoculated itself and its benefactors against criminal prosecution with their duopoly serving campaign finance legislation.  Unfortunately, but predictably, their special interest policies have come together with a toxic synergy that has paralyzed the organs of  government and locked it onto a course to disaster.  The toxicity of those policies becomes apparent when they are examined in the light of President Washington's First Principles.    

**********************************************************************

PRESIDENT WASHINGTON ON MILITARY ESTABLISHMENTS.  “avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.” (Washington's Farewell Address)   

      President Washington raises two questions:

         1.Does the United States have an overgrown military establishment?

         2. If we do, what is the necessity that couldn't be avoided that justifies it?   

     Any nation which spends as much on its military as the rest of the world combined, beyond any reasonable doubt, has an overgrown military establishment.  If no other nation on the planet requires such huge expenditures for its defense, why do we?  Our Defense budgets have been politicized.  The problems which flow from that politicization are far too numerous to be detailed here, but let us touch on a few.  

     Our defense budgets have been adopted by both parties as reelection tools which bring manufacturing and service jobs to their constituencies and large campaign contributions from a grateful defense industry eager to ensure the reelection of those who support their revenue stream.  Weapon systems unwanted by the military remain in the budget because discontinuing them would threaten the reelection prospects of incumbents.  Proposals for new weapon systems spread their manufacturing facilities over as many Congressional Districts as possible to maximize Congressional support.   Congressional reviews of proposed weapon systems require data on the number of jobs they would create in each congressional district.  All these practices increase reelection support but inflate costs.  Does anyone believe Congressional pressure on the Pentagon to integrate women into combat roles and accept "outed gays" in the military was driven by the desire to improve military effectiveness or lower costs?   Of course not, they were driven by political considerations which trumped the additional costs.  The ending of the draft in favor of a volunteer military has made personnel costs the fastest growing component of the entire Defense budget.  Signing bonuses alone, in a one year period, during the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan exceeded one billion dollars.  Mundane tasks such as cooking and cleaning, formerly performed by military enlisted personnel have been outsourced to expensive civilian contractors to make life in the military more comfortable for career volunteers.

     The level of defense spending is so high it has created a military far too costly to deploy on invasions like those of Afghanistan and Iraq.  Those invasions, we were told, were undertaken to kill or capture the Al Qaeda terrorists responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.  Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes in their book, The Trillion Dollar War, have developed the true costs of those invasions.  Stiglitz is a 2001 Nobel Prize winner in Economics and a former Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers and Bilmes is a former Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Commerce.  The book was published in 2008 when the invasions had no known termination dates, which required their cost estimates to be stated as a range which varied based upon when hostilities might end.  Their estimates ranged from a "Best Case" cost of $2.016 trillion to a "Realistic - Moderate Case" of $3.095 trillion.  Neither case included the cost of interest on the borrowing required to finance both invasions.     

     Donald Rumsfeld, the former Secretary of Defense, once lamented "there are no metrics" to measure the effectiveness of military actions in "asymmetrical warfare" like the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions.  Rumsfeld, an honest man, was telling us in Pentagonese that he had no way of knowing whether we were winning.   Stiglitz and Bilmes have provided a metric which makes Rumsfeld's question moot.  Using the "$3.095 trillion , Best - Moderate Case" and assuming there were between 200 and 10,000 Al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq when the invasions began, we can assess the prohibitive costs of both campaigns.  Surely, the number of Al Qaeda terrorists was closer to 200 than it was to 10,000 but it makes little difference.  If there were 10,000 Al Qaeda terrorists and all were killed or captured, it would have cost $309,500,000 to kill or capture each terrorist.   If there were 200 terrorists, the cost would have been $15.048 billion to kill or capture each terrorist.  Neither case includes the cost of interest on the borrowing required to finance both invasions.  It is clear from Rumsfeld's lament, he failed to see the forest for the trees.   

     The costs developed by Stiglitz and Bilmes make it clear, the attempt to bring justice to the 9/11 perpetrators by invading Afghanistan and Iraq were contrary to reason and common sense.  In a word, they were preposterous.  All the perpetrators would never be brought to justice and the invasions had the unintended consequence of increasing their numbers while trashing the international standing of the United States, especially among the Muslin population of over one billion.  It should be clear to all, a cooperative Muslin population is an absolute requirement for any effective and affordable program to deal with Muslin terrorists.  When Muslins cannot publicly support United States policies, the United States is the loser.        

     The rope a dope assertion that "Our defense spending is affordable because it is only about 4% of the our GDP" ( Gross Domestic Product), has been so widely repeated it has taken on a faux aura of truth.  Even Lawrence Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and former President of Harvard University offered it as proof of the affordability of our defense spending.  When examined more closely, it's just another rope a dope assertion, analogous to a salesman at Cartier's telling a customer that a $10,000 tie pin is affordable because $10,000 is only about 4% of Cartier's GDS", (Gross Domestic Sales).  A more meaningful test of affordability would be the comparison of cost to available revenue.  Since our leaders have chosen not to make that comparison, we will do it for them using the Federal revenue in FY2007.  Before making that comparison, we need a more inclusive total for the cost of defense.  That is defense spelled with a lower case "d,"  not just the costs of the Defense Department budget with a capital "D." 

     We have spent $6.242 trillion on Department of Defense budgets in the last decade and an additional $3.095 trillion on the Iraq/Afghanistan invasions plus another trillion dollars on the Department of Homeland Security.  That total of $10.337 trillion doesn't include interest on borrowing for defense spending or the definse spending hidden in other areas of the budget like the budgets of the CIA, the Department of State, the Department of Justice, the National Security Agency, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Veterans Affairs, etc.  When they are included, the average annual defense expenditure for the last ten years is well over one trillion dollars per year.  

The total revenue from Federal tax collections for FY 2007 were approximately  2.692 trillion dollars.  (The table below is stated in thousands of dollars.)

Total Tax Collections --------------------------------------------------- $2,691,537,557
 Less refunds ---------------------------------------------------------------  295,246,560
 

     1st Net ----------------------------------------------------------------- $2,396,290,99


Less trust fund collections for
Social Security, Railroad,
and other retirement plans. -------------------------------------------------838,042,066

     2nd Net ---------------------------------------------------------------- $1,558,248,931

             

Less debt service, the interest
on the public debt from
"Treasury Direct" at     ------------------------------------------------------429,977,998

     3rd Net----------------------------------------------------------------- $1,128.270,933

Less average annual defense
expenditures over the past ten

years ----------------------------------------------------------------------$1,000,000,000+ 

       4th Net ----------------------------------------------------------------   $128,270,933-

 

     The nation's average annual defense expenditures for the past ten years may have been 4% of the GDP but they consumed over 90% of available Federal revenue from tax collections.  It is an unsustainable financial plan which has added trillions of dollars to the national debt.  If continued, it would fulfill Osama bin Laden's wildest dream of bankrupting the United States.  Even Admiral Mullen, shortly before retiring as Chairman of­­­ the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2011 said, "The biggest threat to the United States is financial default by the  Government."  Too bad he didn't speak up sooner.

     President Washington's second implied question on overgrown military establishments remains to be answered.  What is the "necessity" that couldn't be avoided which justifies our overgrown military establishment?  It could only be a foreign threat, which brings us to our equally preposterous  foreign policy with its "Axis of Evil" and its "Special Relationship" with Israel.   

********************************************************************       

WASHINGTON'S FIRST PRINCIPLE FOR FOREIGN POLICY  "Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct. And can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?" (Washington's Farewell Address)

THE FOREIGN POLICIES OF THE DUOPOLY   Our duopoly would have us believe President Washington's foreign policy principles are no longer relevant in our high technology era with its weapons of mass destruction.  It's another rope a dope assertion which two major foreign policy initiatives of this high technology era bear out.  One was completely consistent with President Washington's principles and was, arguably, the most successful foreign policy initiative in the nation's history.  It was the Marshal Plan.  For those unfamiliar with  the Plan, it was undertaken to halt the spread of Communism and Soviet influence in Europe by assisting in the restoration of Europe's economies which had been devastated by the Second World War.  The Plan began in 1947, lasted four years and cost about $12 billion dollars.  It offered financial assistance to every nation in Europe that had participated in the second World War including our former enemies, the real Axis Powers, and the USSR which had become the worst threat we have ever faced with the largest army in Europe, soon to be armed with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of delivering them to any part of the United States in minutes. The USSR declined to participate in the Plan, calling it a capitalist plot to take control of Europe's economies and prohibited their European satellites from participating.  The results were spectacular.  The economies of all the countries that participated were soon restored to above pre war levels, including West Germany.  The USSR and their satellites, who didn't participate in the plan, became examples for the world of the failure of Communism.  The spread of Soviet influence in Europe was checked and we all know the rest of the story.  

     The second foreign policy initiative, our "Special Relationship" with Israel, is completely at odds with President Washington's principles and has been an abject failure.  It has brought no peace to the Israelis, no peace or justice to the Palestinians and no end to its costs to the United States.  In its sixty four years of failure, the costs of the "Special Relationship" have surpassed the costs of the entire Marshall Plan which was continental in scope as opposed to "Special Relationship" funds which were lavished on one very small nation with a population of about eight million.

 

WASHINGTON ON FOREIGN POLIICY WHICH MUST BE AVOIDED  (as exemplified by the "Axis of Evil") ".......In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur." (Washington's Farewell Address)

THE POLICIES OF OUR DUOPOLY  The labeling of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the "Axis Of Evil" was an attempt to brand them the 21st Century version of the Axis Powers of the second World War.  The label was too inappropriate to be taken seriously and too bellicose to be the basis for sound foreign policy.  One can imagine what President Eisenhower's reaction would have been had his Secretary of State advanced such an idea as the basis for foreign policy.  The label did exactly what it was intended to do, it gave unwarranted justification to any proactive military action which might be taken against the three "Axis of Evil" nations as attempts to avoid another World War.  It also gave unwarranted justification to defense hawks to increase our already extravagant defense spending and to "Special Relationship" believers to increase our already extravagant support to Israel.  The toxic synergy of those two special interests, which had been relatively dormant were now nourished by an official, but unwarranted, elevation of an unrealistic military threat to the United States.  Our leaders must have been struck with collective amnesia to have forgotten how proactive military interventions have, too often, proven to be a remedy worse than the problem, as our self inflicted disasters in Viet Nam, Afghanistan and Iraq have now demonstrated.               

MORE ON FOREIGN POLICY WHICH MUST BE AVOIDED  (as exemplified by our "Special Relationship" with Israel)   " ........So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification." (Washington's Farewell Address)

THE POLICY PURSUED BY THE DUOPOLY   What precisely is this "Special Relationship"  with Israel?  No written agreement exists which defines its objectives, limits, obligations and responsibilities.  It's no a way to run a railroad and, surely, no way to run a bilateral foreign policy initiative in which all the funds and benefits flow in one direction, out of the United States.  The Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the Library of Congress and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) shed some light on the answer.
     The CRS is charged with responding to Congressional requests for factual information on issues of concern to Congress,   There are several Issue Briefs on Israel/U.S. relations which are available to the public on the internet or through the mail, at no charge.  One Issue Brief, CRS Report 96-92; titled, Israel : US Foreign Assistance lays out a half a century of money, weapons transfers and other costly gifts given to Israel between 1949 and 2002, the year the report was written.  It identifies over $87 billion transferred  to Israel during that period.  There were additional transfers which the CRS could not quantify, such as loans and loan guarantees which Israel never repaid because the loans were either forgiven or Israel's loan payments were reimbursed to Israel each year.  Incredible as it sounds, while the United States was borrowing money to pay our obligations, we were making payments to Israel to cover the loan repayments Israel was supposed to be making to the U.S.   Funds received by Israel after 2002 were not included in the $87 billion.  Sadly, the role the United States plays in this "Special Relationship" is that of the Great Piñata.  When our Congress is struck with a stick wielded by AIPAC (the American Israel Political Action Committee) or any other large campaign contributor, our duopoly showers Israel with favors not given to any other nation.

     The General Accountability Office (GAO)  publication GAO/ID-83-51, titled  U.S. Assistance to the State of Israel, in the section titled U.S. Commitment to Israel, describes the "Special Relationship" with these words:  "It is rooted in shared cultural, religious, moral and political values.  The commitment is not couched in terms of any specific agreement such as a mutual security pact.                                                                                                                                                               Are we to believe "shared cultural values" explain the transfer of well over $100 billion to Israel, or that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is consistent with American "moral and political values?"  Does anyone possibly believe the duopoly's insatiable appetite for campaign contributions plays no part in this "Special Relationship?"  Of course not, the "Special Relationship" is all about campaign contributions.  The unwavering and unnatural support by our Congress for Israel's desires is a tribute to AIPAC's ability to game our corrupted election process.  The rules of AIPAC's game are simple,  AIPAC rewards Congressmen who support the 'Special Relationship" with campaign contributions.  If they don't support the "Special Relationship," AIPAC contributes to their opponents.  No one is breaking any laws, there is no need to break any. 
     Large campaign contributions have become the very best investment a special interest can make.  The Return on Investment (ROI) beats anything Wall Street can offer.  The investors can even hedge their investments by contributing to both parties.  Isn't America a great country?  It all depends on your point of view.  It certainly is for Sheldon Adelson, a Las Vegas casino owner who, according to the Wall Street Journal, "has publicly criticized the President's support for Israel as too weak .......Mr. Adelson and his family, kept Newt Gingrich's campaign alive with $21 million in donations.  But they turned off the spigot after he lost several primaries. .....Mr. Adelson has told friends he intends to give $100 million to conservative causes and candidates this election cycle."  Now there's a man who knows a good investment when he sees it.  The ROI on large campaign contributions by "Special Relationship" believers is better than the yields of Mr. Adelson's casinos in Las Vegas and Macao because they also yield a United States' veto in the United Nations on any U.N. attempt to censure Israel and a veto on any U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East which Israel dislikes.   

     During his last campaign swing through the United States., Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, found it necessary to scold the President of the United States on national television over their disagreement on the wisdom of Israel making a preemptive military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.  Prime Minster Netanyahu reminded President Obama that it was his (Netanyahu's) duty to protect Israel's security and sovereignty.  Netanyahu was absolutely correct and President Obama said nothing.  He looked like a deer frozen in the headlights, unable to make the obvious response any principled President would instinctively make, "You are correct Mr. Prime Minster, and may I remind you, it is my duty to protect the security and sovereignty of the United States."  President Obama's silence spoke volumes.  Why the sudden silence from an otherwise extremely articulate young man?  It had to be fear of displeasing AIPAC in an election year by stating an obvious truth in public. 

     President Washington's warning, on the dangers of  "special relationships" made more than two hundred years ago, said it all, "a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils.  Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition," corruption, or infatuation..."

"...Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests..."

"....The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop." (Washington's Farewell Address)

 

***************************************************************

WASHINGTON ON PUBLIC DEBT POLICY   “As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear..”  (Washington's Farewell Address)

THE POLICIES PURSUED BY OUR DUOPOLY     The duopoly has no policy for managing the public debt, other than continually raising the debt limit.  Even as our ballooning debt brings the nation to its knees, neither party has made any serious effort to manage the debt because managing it would necessitate spending cuts and spending cuts would jeopardize the duopoly's ability to offer guaranteed policies which must be paid for with the duopoly's unlimited credit card.  Managing the public debt would throw a monkey wrench into the smooth, quiet and out of sight workings of the duopoly's exclusive Policy Trading Market where special interests execute a variation of the Wall Street "leveraged buy out."  For a relatively small investment, campaign contributions, special interests acquire something of much greater value, the guaranteed policy support of the U.S. Government.  Our duopoly engage in "leveraged sell outs" where they exchange something of little intrinsic value to them, government policy, for something they require to remain in business, large campaign contributions.  

                                                        CONCLUSION    

     Most Americans know little about President Washington's Farewell Address, which many historians consider one of the nation's founding documents.  It is over four thousand words long and his announcement that he would not run again is contained in the very first sentence.  The words, "avoid foreign entanglements," do not appear anywhere in the document. Washington wrote it to identify First Principles of governance, principles required for the derivation of sound policies which would have avoided the existential threats gathered before us today.  He warns us that political parties pose the greatest threat to our republic because they, "open the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself though the channels of party passion."   He knew political parties they could not be abolished and he warned us to keep a uniform vigilance of all them because they will place their party's interests ahead of the nation's interests.  
     We have ignored his warning and, as he predicted, the parties pursued policies which are completely contrary to Washington's First Principles, but are consistent with his warning that the parties would place party interests ahead of the nation's interests.  Their policies have yielded large contributions for the duopoly but they have saddled the nation with ineffective, counterproductive, and unaffordable special interest policies, justified with rope a dope rhetoric.  Our defense spending is usually justified with some version of, "No cost is too high to bear to ensure our freedom and our security."  After spending trillions of dollars, which we did not possess, we find ourselves with less freedom and less security.  The "Special Relationship" with Israel is justified with rope a dope assertions like, "We must support Israel because it's the only democracy in that part of the world."  Even if that were true, which it is not, democracy does not ensure justice, it only ensures that the will of the majority will prevail.  Are we to conlcude that justice is no longer an objective of our foreign policy?

     Public opinion surveys show the majority of Americans believe the nation "is headed in the wrong direction" and major policy change is long overdue, but our reigning duopoly have made no significant changes to their policies because they fear the consequence of breaking the commitments they made to special interests when they accepted their campaign contributions.   The duopoly's unprincipled behavior is not limited to their fund raising practices.  The two parties have joined together in an arrogant, unprincipled, but successful effort to wrest control of the nation's only televised Presidential debates away from the independent League of Women Voters and replaced the League's principled and independent board with a duopoly friendly board, half of whose members are appointed by the Democratic Party and half appointed by the Republican Party.  

     Washington had no knowledge of modern media driven merchandising campaigns or how expensive they have become with their focus groups, issue surveys and micro targeted messaging.  He could not have known how successful they would become  at sowing fear and anger among the electorate to counteract their reason and common sense.  He could not have imagined our think tank world of professional rope a dope gun slingers and professional political commentators who would be pleased to do your thinking for you.  The whole package, our political industry, would be completely alien to him but it doesn't matter.  He knew the parties would find ways to corrupt the system for their own gain and they have done just that.  The Democratic and Republican parties are different sides of the same coin.  Don't drink their Kool Aide, which would have you believe the other side of the coin is responsible for the nation's problems and if we turn the coin over, the problems will go away.  We've tried that and it doesn't work.  The problems are systemic and the hour is late.  The next presidential election is weeks away and the question before us is: What can we do to affect the necessary policy change to move the nation closer to the path of principled governance?

     Most of us have three ballot options.     

               Option 1: Vote for the Republican Candidate.

               Option 2: Vote for the Democratic Candidate.

               Option 3: Vote for a third Party Candidate.

If you choose either the Democratic or the Republican option, your candidate will enjoy the financial advantages of the duopoly's special interest fundraising practices, which include the services of the political industry and sufficient financial resources to purchase media time and print space for a first class, billion dollar merchandising campaign which will blanket the nation with targeted rope a dope messages.  No question about it, a duopoly candidate will probably win the next election.  Congratulations may be in order, but you have just sentenced the nation to four more years of government for the special interests, by the same two parties that brought the nation our colossal public debt, our unaffordable military establishment and our bellicose and preposterous foreign policy.  You may even receive a bonus this time, another unaffordable and unnecessary military adventure in the Middle East, this time with Iran.  If you have any doubts about it, just listen to the duopoly's candidates and observe their behavior.  No one is talking about ending the deadly embrace between their corrupting fund raising practices and their special interest benefactors.  The Presidential candidate who wants us to flip the coin over, has taken time away from his campaign in the United States to fly to Israel where he attended a $50,000 a plate fund raising dinner, hosted by none other than Sheldon Adelson.  Make no mistake, the duopoly and their hirelings have no intention of abandoning the practices which brought them to power.  They will only abandon them when they fail and they will fail only when voters stop voting for them.  Like it or not, your vote will be counted as a vote of approval for the duopoly's unprincipled practices and unprincipled policies.  It's the only way it can be counted.  There is no line on the ballot for conditional approval.

     If you choose Option 3, you have decided to vote for the third party candidates who best meet Washington's principled standards.  The key to solving our duopoly dilemma is in the hands of the tens of millions of voters who are dissatisfied with the duopoly and their candidates, but haven't voted for third party candidates because they believe it would be casting a non significant vote.  If you are one of those voters, consider this: Voting for a duopoly candidate makes your vote "significant" only if you define significant as being included in a winning candidates total.  That's a very low bar for the definition of significant, especially when one considers the very significant issue which confronts us: What is the purpose of any election in the United States today?  Is it to select the lesser of two evils or the least undesirable of two bad alternatives?  If it is, we have wandered a long way from the path of principled governance, perhaps too far to find our way back.  That fear alone should be jstification enough for voting against the duopoly.

     The number of dissatisfied voters who decide to vote for third party candidates will not be known until the ballots are counted.  If there are none, nothing will change.  The duopoly will breath a sigh of relief and return to busness as usual.  If all the dissatisfied voters were to vote for third party candidates, the duopoly's strangle hold on the election process would be broken.  Somewhere between those two extremes lies the probable outcome.  The higher the total, the weaker the duopoly becomes and the quicker they will change their ways or be gone.

          The corruption of our political system would not have surprised the Founding Fathers, who understood that all political systems degenerate over time and eventually are abandoned or replaced.  Perhaps that time has come for our republic, we cannot know with certainty.  We do know with certainty, that if the rampant corruption of our political system is to be stopped, it will require an electorate that values principle and demands it of our leaders.  The necessary reforms will not happen serendipitously.  Principled leadership is our only protection from the frailties of human nature in public office.  President Washington understood it and feared it might not be understood or remembered by future generations.  It is precisely why he wrote his remarkable Farewell Address, remarkable for its simplicity, its timeless wisdom and its prescience, rooted in its understanding of human nature.  Washington and the Founding Fathers have done everything they could, now it's entirely up to us.  We are the only ones who can take that necessary first steps toward the path of principled governance.  It won't be done by the Supreme Court or a duopoly controlled Congress or White House.  It can only be accomplished through the ballot box. 

     The good news is, the abysmal approval ratings of the duopoly are its Achilles heel.  Their extremely low approval ratings can now be translated into votes which will make it difficult, perhaps too difficult, for the duopoly to continue their business as usual.  The third party threat to the duopoly's control is greater today than it has been since Ross Perot ran for the presidency.  There is the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, the Constitution Party, the Tea Party crowd, the Occupy Wall Street crowd, the Ron Paul & Son crowd, etc, which offer ballot box alternatives or support for manifesting the disapproval of tens of millions of disgusted citizens who are mad as hell and aren't going to take it any longer.  Option 3 is the only significant choice for returning the nation to the path of principled governance because it sends an unambiguous message to the duopoly.  
     If we are to survive the tests which lie before us, sacrifice by everyone will be necessary and that will require leadership we trust.  We don't have that leadership and we will never get it by choosing Options 1 or 2.  It's really a matter of Principle.  John Quincy Adams said it well, "A vote for principle is never lost"