When the founding fathers penned our Constitution, they began simply but profoundly with “We the people.” This statement feels remarkably progressive. No one had seen anything like “we” associated with “the people.” Their aspiration seems clear.
While prior generations squabbled between us and them, this founding one would navigate a different path. But as soon as General Washington’s terms were completed, even the founding fathers back-slid a bit.
By 1910 we’d experienced a succession of presidents who might be described as representing either us or them. Any attempt to include anyone formerly disenfranchised always prompted a plea for a return to traditional values.
The Progressives were a poorly-focused lot. Up against the might and treasury of a tightly-collusive gentry, most of what the Progressives proposed, such as equal pay for equal work, was summarily struck down as illegal by our (or was it their?) Supreme Court.
Then, the ‘ruling class’ used their considerable wealth to swamp the media with dire predictions, sounding every bit like brimstone-familiar New England preachers, and scaring the stained and patched pants off workers who thought maybe fifteen hour days, if they really were an expression of God’s will, might not be so bad.
After the Panics of 1893 and 1901, regular working people were literally hungry for more than social justice and President Wilson promoted a progressive agenda, strongly supported by the emerging college-educated class. The Great War stifled most of these initiatives and they, the people, put their stomachs on hold for the duration.
During the war, the media blitz started equating progressivism with Communism, and the gentry won. Not that you’d know they won by their hang-dog faces. They’re still clamoring for a return to ‘traditional values,’ the oldest scam in the book.
Mary Parker Follett, a writer at the time, suggested, “Whenever anyone offers you a choice between this and that, choose a third way.” Her advice might serve us well today. Our opposition only serves the forces of opposition, either us or them, while We The People might seek the more enduring values found in we—just as if we actually are the US we claim to be.
Once behind Federal desks, these captains found little to do, for most had inherited their privileged position and maintained it by limiting wages and promoting equities. They knew little about production, considering fabrication to be work suitable only for common people.
Consequently, industry, which they had always managed to maximize profits, was minimally productive. One economist calculated that the typical enterprise was at best 15% efficient, though wildly profitable.
Over the emphatic protests of these Dollar Men, a small group of progressives “socialized” American industry for the war effort: dictating wages (which rose), fixing prices (which stabilized) and production levels (which nearly doubled, to almost 25% productivity), creating effective co-ops and combines (illegal under the Sherman Acts), and boosting the overall standard of living while dramatically increasing industrial output.
One progressive explained this unprecedented intrusion into the free market this way: Industry must be of service to the community. If an industry’s pursuit of profits threatens society, society holds the responsibility to put it back into service again.
The Dollar Men protested, but under these regulations, their stock market nearly doubled in value. Following the war, anyone championing continued regulation was labeled a socialist or a communist. The Dollar Men re-took the reins, and by 1929 had successfully captained their economy into The Great Depression. Progressives, many veterans of the old War Production Board, picked up the few remaining reins and eventually got the battered horse pulling the cart again.
What does this history lesson have to do with our current health care crisis?
Those who label as evil socialism anything intruding on the free market’s invisible hand might consider that the market exists to serve our community, and not merely the much narrower profit expectations of shareholders and speculators. If an industry provides real service, it has nothing to fear from any competitor. Occasionally, some seem to need a more visible thumb to goose them into proper focus.
Of course, the Dollar Men getting goosed into service honk loudest, but it’s no walk in the park for those doing the goosing, either. Just sometimes necessary.
I hear lots of rumbling about how we, the people, should impeach President Bush. Now that he’s admitted to initiating this wiretap scheme, claiming that Congress granted him a right which it explicitly denied him and that he’s simply fulfilling a duty of his office, the Internet is filled with virtual pitchforks and burning torches. Voices clamoring for his head.
But over the past year, Mr. Bush has accomplished what none of his detractors suspected him capable of achieving. If we believe the national polls, which carry more political clout than either truth or virtue, the country was polarized a year ago. Half believed he was at least the best of two evils, while the other half was much less generous. Today, only about 30% of the people stand on his side of most issues. I think this shows a remarkable performance. From a tottering, divided country to one standing much more united in a single year. He’s clearly a Uniter, just like he said!
How has he achieved this result? He got out of touch. Looking back over the past year, I see a string of presidential proposals, not one of which found traction with the American public. Heck, even the Congress, which was lock-step behind him through the prior three years, has moved out ahead of him on several issues. They now continually question his judgment.
Hooray! It’s too easy to blame the leader. True, our constitution provides for the removal of any misbehaving President, but it provides no such remedy for removing a population guilty of failing to fulfill its own responsibilities for challenging its leaders.
If we merely follow the leader, we won’t find any balance of power. We’ve given our President a lot of power, but not at the expense of our authority to question him. When our system gets out of balance, it has the capability of righting itself. Only with our help. We seem to be waking up to that responsibility.
Impeachment would just get us polarized again. I wouldn’t choose that over the progress we have achieved over the last year. Being President is a tough job. So is being a citizen. We have no obligation to make the president’s job any easier than ours is.
And his leadership has empowered us all.
