A look at conservatism and where it isn't

This is a personal outlook paper of The Jacksonian Party.

Read at your own risk.

Power Line blog has recently pointed to thsi article at The Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal "The Conservative Mind" by Peter Berkowitz (29 MAY 2007) which gives overview of major themes in conservative thought and how modern conservatism is typified by multiple strands of thought while modern liberalism has removed such from that portion of the political sphere.

This is reflected by The Corner on National Review Online with an original post by Jonah Goldberg (with previous posts by him here and here), then follow-ups by Jonathan Adler, Goldberg looking more at the "Big Three" with a review towards a correspondant via e-mail, Stanley Kurtz kibbitzing, Adler chiming in with more, Iaian Murray questioning why no analysis of Hayek is being given, John J. Miller looking at Russell Kirk (and pointing to this site on Kirk) and by Peter Lawler at No Left Turns which questions the premise of a "Big Three" in conservative thought. And that is it as of this writing without doing further link reviews outwards from there as this is stirring the realm of thought inside conservatism, even if it is not apparent to the everyday conservative working at their job. Truly this open-ness to examining underpinnings of conservatism is a blessing to that part of the political sphere and it is absent from the Left or even liberal side of the political spectrum.

Conservatism, in its modern sense, looks towards a plurality of outlooks to come to common conclusion and agreement on some basics and vital topics for humanity. By trying to look at what that *is* requires a deep review of multiple philosophers going all the way back to Plato and Aristotle. That is because conservatives like to know where their arguments are coming from and *why* they are supportable. What that means, however, is that there must be interplay between differing conservative views and a working towards some understanding and using of actual thought to work through ideas and to *not* trust emotions and gut reactions right off the bat. Conservatism does not rely on emotions as a first order premise for reasoning although it is the driving force behind reasoning and wishing to sustain what exists and understand how it works.

Leftists have moved away from that and the commonality of 19th century liberal thought which *also* had this interplay of ideas. The trends away from this were driven by a few things: the move from agricultural basis for economy to an industrial one, the rise of the corporate entity as separate from government, monetary theory which posited the amount of remuneration for given work, and, finally, Marxist class theories and their economic outlooks. Early Socialist movements tried to incorporate classical liberal outlooks on the natural rights of man, liberty and freedom, but the ethos of tying *those* to labor and then making labor paramount to understanding social order shifted the original base away from individual freedom to one of class based freedom and struggle. I have previously reviewed Socialist underpinnings for society with The Limits of Socialism and The Theory and Practice Conundrum. By putting forth mid-19th century basis for examining social order in regards to industrialization, those views became locked in even when the industrial basis was rapidly changing and morphing as it adapted itself to National cultures and further spurred on ways to adapt products to society. The 1930's, perhaps, represent the culmination of all that Marx saw on the technical side, but did not address the changing types and role of technology and society nor the adaptability of social structures to those roles. After that classical Marxist theory runs out of gas as the underpinnings for its class-based view eroded as society changed to move from a means of production basis to a means of ownership and self-sustaining via work concept.

On the other side of things, the conservatives also had to deal with industrialization and the impact of human created legal structures in the form of corporations and the fact that being a 'corporate citizen' meant being something different from the old fashioned 'human citizen'. These things culminated in late 19th century struggles to come to a common understanding that the monopoly corporation was an outgrowth of that structure and one that was inimical to changes within industrialization itself. Marx fully expected a standardization of needs and means of production while, contrarily, conservatism hewed towards freedom of interplay between forces in the industrial sphere as having a societal good. That did require actually enforcing that via anti-monopoly laws which were broadly supported: monopolies not only stifled the marketplace of ideas and creativity, but they also stifled those working for them and raised cost to society for their goods.

From those comes these emergent conservative views, and here I will use the broad summary of the Berkowitz article on them:

Kirk identified six elements that make the conservative mind: belief in a transcendent order that "rules society as well as conscience"; attachment to "the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence" as against the routinizing and leveling forces of modern society; the assumption that "civilized society requires orders and classes"; the conviction that "freedom and property are closely linked"; faith in custom and convention and consequently a "distrust of the 'sophisters, calculators, and economists' who would reconstruct society upon abstract designs"; and a wariness of innovation coupled with a recognition that "prudent innovation is the means of social preservation." The leading role in this mix that Kirk attaches to religion marks him as a social conservative; his insistence that religion provides the indispensable ground for individual liberty marks him as a modern conservative.

Famously, at least in libertarian circles, Hayek, an Austrian-born economist who became a British citizen and then immigrated to the U.S. in 1950, wrote a postscript to "The Constitution of Liberty" (1960), explaining why he was not a conservative. For him, "true conservatism"--which he confused with European reaction--was characterized by "opposition to drastic change" and a complacent embrace of established authority. Because his overriding goal was to preserve liberty, Hayek considered himself a liberal, but he recognized that in the face of the challenges presented mid-century by socialism, he would often find himself in alliance with conservatives. As a staunch member of the party of liberty, Hayek was keen to identify the political arrangements that would allow for "free growth" and "spontaneous change," which, he argued, brought economic prosperity and created the conditions for individual development. This meant preserving the tradition of classical liberalism, and defending limited, constitutional government against encroachments by the welfare state and paternalistic legislation.

For Strauss, what was most urgently in need in preservation was an idea, the idea of natural right. Like Kirk, Strauss believed that modern doctrines of natural right derived support from biblical faith. Like Hayek, Strauss taught that limited, constitutional government was indispensable to our freedom. But Strauss also saw that modern doctrines of natural right contained debilitating tendencies, which, increasingly, provided support for stupefying and intolerant dogmas. To arrest the decay, he turned to the classical natural right teachings of Plato and Aristotle, who were neither liberals nor democrats, but whose reflections on knowledge, politics and virtue, Strauss concluded, provided liberal democracy sturdier foundations.

Each of these has differing views and outlook on what, exactly, the shift should be within conservative thought to adjust to a highly adaptable technical sphere and social sphere that is supported by that technology. Each of these saw the 19th century concept of Progress in different lights and looked to see what they meant to society as a whole. Property rights from classical liberal viewpoints were upheld by each of them: for Kirk it was an indispensable entanglement of property rights and freedom, Hayek for the utilization of property to bring about betterment via change and protecting that from government, Strauss looked to older solution basis for property and freedom and then moved to tie those in with outlooks on politics and what is 'right' for individuals. Together they posit the individual as best suited to understand their own conditions and then to utilize the tools that society provides to work towards their own betterment as individuals.

Some of these do play important roles in Jacksonian outlook, but, by trying to ascribe social view above and beyond the personal, what is missed is the Jacksonian reliance on 'emergent behavior'. This is a more modern term for something that is pretty well understood in the fields of engineering and mechanics, along with many trades and skills: many parts doing simple things come to complex and yet understandable conclusions. This is not deconstructionism, of taking a complex system apart to try and find its irreducible components, but it is a view of the components as working parts and then seeing how the parts fit together. Each part, for a Jacksonian, has known ways to operate and may, in and of itself, be reducible to further components, but the operation of that part need not be reduced unless there is a poor reaction due to not understanding the nature of the part involved.

As an example Andrew Jackson did not trust having a centralized banking system for the United States. In that Bank Veto message of 10 JUL 1832 is the very basis for the Jacksonian message of protecting the Union, ensuring that liberty and freedom are not usurped and by proposing for multiple ways to find a solution are all present:

The present corporate body, denominated the president, directors, and company of the Bank of the United States, will have existed at the time this act is intended to take effect twenty years. It enjoys an exclusive privilege of banking under the authority of the General Government, a monopoly of its favor and support, and, as a necessary consequence, almost a monopoly of the foreign and domestic exchange. The powers, privileges, and favors bestowed upon it in the original charter, by increasing the value of the stock far above its par value, operated as a gratuity of many millions to the stockholders....

The act before me proposes another gratuity to the holders of the same stock, and in many cases to the same men, of at least seven millions more....It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our Government. More than eight millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners. By this act the American Republic proposes virtually to make them a present of some millions of dollars.

Every monopoly and all exclusive privileges are granted at the expense of the public, which ought to receive a fair equivalent. The many millions which this act proposes to bestow on the stockholders of the existing bank must come directly or indirectly out of the earnings of the American people....

It appears that more than a fourth part of the stock is held by foreigners and the residue is held by a few hundred of our own citizens, chiefly of the richest class.

Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? The president of the bank has told us that most of the State banks exist by its forbearance. Should its influence become concentered, as it may under the operation of such an act as this, in the hands of a self-elected directory whose interests are identified with those of the foreign stockholders, will there not be cause to tremble for the purity of our elections in peace and for the independence of our country in war? Their power would be great whenever they might choose to exert it; but if this monopoly were regularly renewed every fifteen or twenty years on terms proposed by themselves, they might seldom in peace put forth their strength to influence elections or control the affairs of the nation. But if any private citizen or public functionary should interpose to curtail its powers or prevent a renewal of its privileges, it can not be doubted that he would be made to feel its influence.

It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society the farmers, mechanics, and laborers who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles.

Nor is our Government to be maintained or our Union preserved by invasions of the rights and powers of the several States. In thus attempting to make our General Government strong we make it weak. Its true strength consists in leaving individuals and States as much as possible to themselves in making itself felt, not in its power, but in its beneficence; not in its control, but in its protection; not in binding the States more closely to the center, but leaving each to move unobstructed in its proper orbit.

Experience should teach us wisdom. Most of the difficulties our Government now encounters and most of the dangers which impend over our Union have sprung from an abandonment of the legitimate objects of Government by our national legislation, and the adoption of such principles as are embodied in this act. Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress. By attempting to gratify their desires we have in the results of our legislation arrayed section against section, interest against interest, and man against man, in a fearful commotion which threatens to shake the foundations of our Union. It is time to pause in our career to review our principles, and if possible revive that devoted patriotism and spirit of compromise which distinguished the sages of the Revolution and the fathers of our Union. If we can not at once, in justice to interests vested under improvident legislation, make our Government what it ought to be, we can at least take a stand against all new grants of monopolies and exclusive privileges, against any prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many, and in favor of compromise and gradual reform in our code of laws and system of political economy....

That is something based on an understanding that the freedoms provided by the Nation should not be put at risk nor danger by government monopolies. Good government is seen as a strong interaction between multiple levels of the Nation: Federal, States and the People. The strength of General Government is *not* in its centrality but in its diversity and abundance of having smaller and accountable units spread out to hold each other in balance. From those things Government must be safeguarded against favoring the rich and powerful over the poor and weak so that just and equal governance can be had for all of the People. Therefore government may not legislate in favor of this or that rich individual or group, but must adhere to making a good life for all of the Citizens.

To put it bluntly: the business of America is industrious Citizens making as good a life for themselves as can be had by the fruits of their labor.

And yet we get a very strange thing coming from modern conservatives: 'free trade frees people'. It is the ability to own goods and have them safeguarded *against* government that frees people. Selling to people who may have their rights revoked or goods confiscated by a dictatorial regime is not 'freeing' those individuals unless some structure goes with it. Government is the safeguard of property rights not the SOURCE of them. Too often trade with dictatorial or tyrannical regimes is seen as 'good' to modern conservatives as they can use free trade dogma to shield themselves from the fact that profit is being made from tyrannical regimes and that nothing is being done to *end them* by such trade.

When Government makes trade policy that puts forward trade with Nations that seek to endanger the United States, the primary safeguard of trade and foreign policy is being put under the dictates of corporations to get profit from suffering and tyranny. Even worse is that when the United States does so, those suffering under such regimes see that freedom is not being used in a constructive fashion to help others. By putting no conditions on such trade or reciprocity of outlook towards freedom and personal liberty to have individuals enriched by the fruits of their labors, modern conservatism is stuck in a really quite nasty rut of 'realism'. Somehow that economic 'realism' of stable trade does lots of good for corporations and their shareholders, but not much for the ideals of freedom and liberty for all of mankind. From that America gets hated because the Nation is seen as empowering tyrants that enforce repression and authoritarian rule. By not addressing this conservatives have fallen into the larger, polyglot category of the Right: putting commercial entities above physical ones and empowering those entities due to their long existence above those that are merely mortal.

As Jackson looked at the Central Bank so this modern era must look at Transnational Capitalism and elitism, along with the flux of Transnational Progressivism to dissolve Nations as meaningful units amongst mankind. President Jackson's veto lasted until 1913, and that awful decade that changed America for the worse. The trust put on the behavior of the States and the People to find a good way and *create* a common and good society without oversight and guidance from the Federal level has been eroded by those in the Right realm that puts large, transnational capitalist and corporate affairs ahead of those of the People and the Nation which the People hold in common between them. A Central Bank with a private profit motive puts the Nation at risk as the fruits of labor of the People are open for exploit by those that have pure financial gain as their motive. By putting corporations and freer trade ahead of the values of the Nation for freedom and liberty, the Right also erodes at those very freedoms at home and the liberty that sustains them.

Jacksonians have few problems with corporations so long as they are: non-monopolistic, competitive in the realm of markets, and do not try to influence, guide nor dictate the foreign policy or trade policy of the Nation.

Those Nations that wish to do trade with us and are tyrannical and repressive regimes are somehow equated as 'lost markets' to US Companies if we do not trade with them. They are *not* as they are not free people. Supporting the rights of individuals by refusing to trade or endorse tyrannical regimes gains benefit once those people are FREE as they will have seen us abiding by what it takes to ensure that tyranny gets no help from the United States. To do that today would cause a massive upheaval in the United States and the world because of the number of corrupt, repressive and tyrannical regimes that we allow *any* trade with from the United States. That would be a *good thing* to suddenly put a price on being tyrannical and repressive towards one's own people. The effects would be enormous because of the amount of time and depth of trade the United States has had NOT supporting freedom and liberty and, instead, expanding corporate profit.

Because modern conservatism does not put this forward as a necessary good of the People, they get shifted under the umbrella of the Right and National capitalism. That talking for viable ideas is very well and good, but the elite of the political and economic class adhere to a different ethos based on Transnational corporatism, thus losing the ability to have the National espoused and getting stuck with the anti-democratic Transnational. And as conservatives see no value in limiting those corporations that have become scofflaws, who have had multiple individuals commit crimes, by not enforcing the penalties that such crimes accrue, by not putting forth that a corporation must have a societal good beyond mere profit, and by allowing such to influence taxation, trade and foreign policies to their benefit, that diversity of voices is LOST as it finds no means to actually speak on these issues and propose changes to benefit the People. At least discussions are still *happening* , unlike the Left and liberalism which has succumbed to group think and the echo chamber effect of hearing the same thing so often that no other thoughts can work their way in edge-wise. Yet the reinforcing of the idea that the activity of trade trumps freedom and liberty is one that is slowly marginalizing conservatives on the National scale. They put forth NOTHING to restrain corporations and remove their influence from public policy.

One of the very strangest ideas I've had is to take this idea of a 'Corporate Citizen' and fully utilize it. Give them rights, responsibilities and the franchise in the way of one, single, solitary vote. Then a 'Three Strikes and You're Our' Law for any corporation that has officers found to commit felonies for the corporation. At the full upholding of the third felony the corporation is fully liquidated and brought to an end. That means that a corporation actually has a vested interest in operating within the law and ensuring that it does not violate the law: it is lethal in the long run not to do so. As corporations are not mandated by heaven and are purely the constructs of mere mortals, they are amenable to the tools of mere mortals and the laws of mere mortals. And if society wants to give them quasi-rights, then lets back that up with the full panoply of rights and restrictions put upon REAL individuals. Which means they pay PERSONAL INCOME TAX, not corporate. That means they have limits on campaign contributions exactly equal to that of one Citizen. Yes, fully and highly extreme! It gives long life to those entities that adhere to the law, act as good citizens and otherwise make sure that the Nation is supported. Those that do not do so find themselves at an end and that 'market segment' opened up for new and law abiding corporations.

You will not get that from the Right these days. Corporations are supposed to be sacrosanct in their privileges and immunities and able to influence government and society by those things. That doesn't sound right to me, nor is it all that 'conservative' this letting unaccountable corporations change society to meet their needs instead of them changing to support society.

And start eliminating this 'prostitution of Government to the advancement of the few'.

I see a LOT of that going on with 'earmarks' and illegal alien amnesty these days, and saying there are 'jobs that American's won't do'. They have obviously never watched Dirty Jobs. And I don't see a lot of illegals in many of those jobs, either... you know, real jobs that real Americans work at to make a better life for themselves. And perhaps it is time for conservatives to break with the Right and actually call those pushing corporatism as a *good* for America and ask if it is any good FOR Americans when such are able to denigrate the blue collar workers and undermine them via Federal subsidies and not getting Federal law enforced. That looks to be undermining the Nation.

But then, I am no conservative.

I am a Jacksonian and I stand for the United States and its proposal that all men are created equal because that is 'self evident' beyond any single religion.

The Modern Jacksonian - Chapter 5 - Progress not just change

We live forever in a changing world, and that is something that everyone must get used to. The weather changes, constantly, as do seasons, day follows night, and so forth. The natural world is full of process and change, as everything does as it needs to do to survive, thrive, prosper and keep going. Change is generally neutral in the natural world, save if one is on the receiving end of a shark attack or attack by a carnivorous predator. Or if an amoeba gets in your system! Pound for pound the deadliest creature on the planet is the amoeba. That said, that is process change - change as part of an ongoing process to lead to continuation of the balance of things. It has been going on for quite some time and, so long as we don't do some Terraforming, should remain going on for quite some time yet. What change usually isn't is directional via intention. While elephants may deforest large sections of Africa to turn them into savanna and then deserts, that is part of the life cyclical change which has direction only via non-conscious decisions. When consciousness gets added, then change can have a direction to it.

The move over the past few decades has been one of greater communications and integration of idea space as seen in the Internet and the idea of a Global Village. This has been enhanced by modern transportation via jet aircraft, which has reduced the time to go from one part of the globe to a point on the other side of it in less than a day. These are two radical and profound changes to the world and requires a re-examination of what Nation means in an era in which vast oceans are no longer moats and problems to overcome, but mere crossing points to individuals on the move. This modern era of interconnection first arose on the older systems of National companies and then moved to International companies with long and far reach as the means and methods for communication and transportation allowed such to be established. With good and reliable communications and timely transport of goods, entire industries that had been purely localized became global in scope. Today both of those things are faster and more reliable than ever before and offer means to ensure communications on a global scale for low or even trivial cost. Likewise the regularity of shipping has reduced the overhead on such and actually sped it up so that distribution of goods with minimal overhead is now possible.

Together these have ended the idea-space of American Isolationism. The pre-modern Jacksonian, all the way up to the 1960's, could utilize Isolationism in the 'go along, get along' attitude by putting forth that such vast distances meant that there was little in the way of repercussions when the Nation did not act in ways and means to secure itself overseas. From Washington the idea of not being in 'entangling alliances' was and is a good one, as the Nation should be free to chart its own course in the ways of freedom. Stepping into the post-WWII era, Jacksonians acknowledged that the post-war work needs be done and that Communism had gained reach to harm the US, although not *grasp* to take it. Early years of that bipolar world meant that steadfast preparedness, which Jacksonians had always put forth as means to secure the Nation, was continued. That said the means, via conscription, was NOT the favored way by Jacksonians as this is a Nation of Free Individuals and each should determine their course for themselves without having to do work for the Nation unless it is *voluntary*. Even though the idea of global reach for warfare was eroding isolationism, the concept of global *grasp* had not been fully shown. Isolationism was still a bulwark of Jacksonian thought, even if it meant a lesser sort of diplomatic distance from the world.

What did and does disgust the Jacksonians of that and this era, is that the Nation, once putting forth to defend a Friend and Ally, did not do so. That is pure dishonor upon the Nation that cannot stand by its word and would feed those we ally with to the wolves. For Jacksonians that is pure and utter deceit and dishonor and any political party that took part in that was something that Jacksonians found distasteful and anathema to them. The message of 'acceptable defeat' is one not in the Jacksonian space of ideas nor ideals, for themselves or the Nation. Further the amount of pure change in the world was slowly eroding the last bastion of Isolationism, thus leading to the quite repugnant conclusion that the Nation could no longer sit at home and just deal with threats as they arrived. And those threats were becoming more and more pointed and with the pace of global technological change increasing, the sudden diminishing of time for travel and communications was increasing the severity of what could once be seen as purely trivial threats into something far, far more deadly.

That is the consequences of unbridled change without directivity to it: increasing chaos.

Chaos itself can give rise to form and capability, as the uncertainty of effects have shown be it from the actual nature of light or to the far reaching consequences of ideas in the public sphere. Investigation into the former led to expansion of the realm of the latter, so that even with better understanding of chaos, comes an increase of its reach even as we understand it just barely a bit better. That being said the larger scales that form activities and works amongst mankind can utilize those very chaotic concepts so as to put a framework of understanding around them and learn the limitations of such chaos. With Einstein having decried the idea that 'God would not play dice with the universe' the other side put forth that this was not only the basis of it, but the dice, at least, were not 'loaded'. Chaos on the small scale is delimited in the physical sciences, although they can have unknown large scale impacts when not accounted for. That is something known as 'uncertainty' of knowledge, and is something that must be lived with by everyone from the simplest of animals to Nation States.

By being able to understand chaos and find out what its implications actually are, some idea of how those interactions play out can be had. Chaotic action, in far off lands, that were seen as suppressing liberty and freedom were no threat to the United States as the great Oceans on either side served as dampers and lessened the effects of those things by lengthening time and distance between this Nation and others. As the time to ship and communicate dropped, the effect of the dampening was lessened, year on year, until the chaotic actions abroad could have short term ramifications at home. The Global Village started to tighten up and Jacksonians found that the new 'neighbors' were not the best sort of folks one would like to have in the neighborhood. Jacksonians, by and large, love tinkering and all things mechanical and honest work to make things, so that a better life can be constructed. From Yankee tinkerer to Southern distiller to Texan rangeman to Alaskans preparing for the winter, Jacksonians acclimate and adapt to the world, even if some of the places we end up are not the best around, they can be made 'liveable'.

Having to deal with the neighbors, on the other hand...

Somehow the grand idea that bringing people closer together will actually make them palatable for society is something that just doesn't seem to be the way of things. Better to 'live and let live' and, so long as things are kept to a dull roar and none harmed, then there is no reason to go being a busybody trying to make everyone get along. If you can't do it in your parish or neighborhood, then how, pray tell, can you do it on a global scale? A world of 'peace and harmony' will only come about when the sun engulfs the planet: then being in harmony with fusion reactions is very, very easy to accomplish. So long as the neighbors are 'civil' and not being overactive busybodies, then let them do as they like. The entire Nation State arrangement is set up on JUST those terms. And as the Global Village started to come into being in the 1980's and 1990's, Jacksonians realized that this view of neighborhood for oneself is perfectly applicable. Works just fine as an idea and concept and one can work with neighbors or ignore them as you please...

The second thing is that some of the neighbors were thugs, gangsters, thieves, miscreants and outright barbarians that did not understand the term of 'civility'. Even worse is that they had means to get around the Village which was getting tighter together and so while they might be from the other side of town, the town itself was smaller. And the outcome that was first tried by the 'Progressivists' at the beginning of the 20th century, to use some sort of larger body OVER all these Sovereign Nations, just wasn't worth a damn. Actually made things worse with the police castigating the law abiding folks for minor things and letting murder, robbery, mayhem and slavery go unaddressed in any meaningful way. When the civil folks are castigated for tossing their gum on the sidewalks and the folks with weapons are mugging, killing, raping and extorting others and given a blind eye, you *know* that there is just something damned wrong with the system itself. That ideal of a League of Nations or UN or other super-duper Transnational body to make and enforce laws is a failure before it even starts as it will not put forth that tyranny must be *ended* and that Free People must choose their own course in life with the barest minimum of interference.

Now, about some of those neighborhoods... the ones with little in the way of actually being nice to folks, they are also neighbors, but not so good ones. They are stuck under systems that do not afford them personal freedom as all Power comes down from the State and not up from the People. In the days of Isolationism, that wouldn't matter too much, even when those in control would rant, rave and carry on about those of us living in the good neighborhoods. Distance, however, has brought them to more than just earshot and they have gotten into the roving gangs of the terrorist concept, to cause murder, mayhem and generally intimidate the other neighborhoods. By not affording say to their own People and using the power they have to intimidate them, there is not much they can do. Outside of those areas we can demonstrate to have better governments there, but, unless the government actually goes to *attack* us, those folks are left up to their own devices. A stark choice is presented between those neighborhoods that have agreeable law and have governments that are accountable, and those that impose law and have unaccountable governments. The rights of their People to be heard are suppressed and there is very little that can be done about it.

Unless, that is, one places any stock in the idea of the Universality of the Rights of Man as Individual. Here and again, the idea of Nations adhering to the things their People adhere to is a prime mover for this Nation called America. Growing up in 'The Land of the Free' makes us forget what it means to be under the boot of a tyrant or suppressed for one's religious outlook or mere ethnicity. We do hear much about that, in this day and age, but the difference between things like racism of the US *today* and that of places like Serbia, Rwanda, Darfur and India *today* are stark: the US has practical freedom and the discrimination is social with only long lasting endemic problems due to lagging acculturation while in these other places you end up dead. That is the difference between being Civilized and handling things as a society and being Barbarian and killing those unlike you because they ARE unlike you. The 'repression' of the US is that of cultures unwilling to break with dependence upon Nation to support them in poverty while that of these other places are people in fear of their lives. Truly this 'repression' of the US is quite minor compared to 'ethnic cleansing' in other parts of the world, that goes by the name of Genocide.

It is those sorts of differences that are played down by a part of American society and made not even equivalent, but EQUAL. Lagging culture is equal to individuals killed en mass because they are different. That juxtaposition is in no way helping build a 'more perfect Union' inside the Nation nor in how to deal with such situations outside the Nation. When two things that are patently unequal are made out to BE equal, the rest of Civilization slides away from building up and finds itself sliding into decay and destruction. That is exactly what is seen in those regions of the world with that other sort of 'repression': many dead bodies piled up in mass killings. And yet, even with that, this Neighborhood idea is still in place because although they have attacked the Rights of those in their own place they have left Ours alone. In truth the job of those with Freedom is to safeguard their own, first and foremost.

That goes far back into US history and is a prime foundation for it: leaving other noxious places alone if they do not bother us. They do bother our conscience, but we recognize that the place of America is *not* to right the wrongs of the world but to show that path to a better world than what we have by those things we DO. Thusly those that seek to show America as absolutely imperfect because it strives for perfection that cannot be reached then should turn around and apply that exact, same scale and say how little others even get as far as America. But there is no seriousness in that outlook and it immediately turns and, instead, cites that 'you have looked for perfect tyranny and gotten it so we may not criticize you for your low standards of repression and death'.

That is not helping to build 'a more perfect Union' and looks to some fantasy world where perfection of liberty can be achieved, when we are told time and again that it is a process to be sustained. There is no 'cultural equivalence' between those cultures asserting perfect tyranny and those asserting imperfect liberty. Not once nor ever. If there was than any of the 'repressed' here, in America, would gladly switch places with one of the 'repressed' in those areas that have more finality of outcome. If they ARE equal, then there would be no difference as death due to bigotry and hatred of the other would be just the same. Somehow those mass killings don't show up in America all that often. Hard to find mass graves with 300,000 dead in them due to a tyrant on a rampage, and the bodies left unmarked and just buried. With some few buried alive, no doubt.

It is that difference between these 'repressions', these cultural outlooks, that marks the difference between mere change and progress. Both look to change the status of individuals, but on the one hand it is up to a better life through self-achievement within society and on the other a change of life state from living to dead. Both are change. One is progress.

There are those changes which open up freedom and liberty in this nasty neighborhood of Nations on this Earth. And there are changes which also close them down with finality to those involved. Directionless change, without goal nor without looking towards long term sustainment of human freedom is chaos itself. Change for changes sake.

Change can be given direction for good and ill. We see the outcomes of that every day with those wishing to remove freedom and liberty fighting those wishing to maintain and sustain it. Americans would much rather stick to their knitting, have amicable relations with everyone and live and let live. We are forced to admit, as Americans, that the rest of the world isn't up to that standard yet. Still, that is not cause for the Nation to take action, save when it is attacked. Then such attackers must be held accountable and if they break down on agreements they must be seen as unworthy of being trusted and brought down. That is the Sovereign Accountability which is the Right of any Nation to have, when other Nations break their word.

Where America is different from other Nations is that the People of the Nation have great leeway to do things to alleviate the suffering of others even when the Nation, as a whole, cannot. The greatest amount given in time, energy and sheer cash via donation in this world is from Americans as Individuals, supporting diverse needs and charity across the world to help others in making it a better place. That is not only the view of America it is the Right of Americans, as Individuals to do that. As Individuals we do not trust Our Government to do more than a very few things to safeguard liberty and freedom at home. Mostly because governments are incompetent and unable to adapt faster to needs than the People are. Also the People demand direct accountability to ensure that their gifts are utilized as those putting forth for such say they will use them. Those that do not find an *end* to funding from Individuals as they become aware of the abuse of their giving. Above and beyond that Americans bestir themselves to go to other lands and help directly in the making of liberty for others.

That is more than building labor movements and such of the famed Red Communist sort. Instead Americans *build* places where commonality may be had to form greater community. In the early century of this Nation that meant churches and schools, and then later helping to expand schooling to include basic civic responsibility to oneself and their neighbors. Many of the first Universities seen in many lands across this Earth were made by Americans offering education to the bright without regard to race or status. That was seen as a good and noble thing to do so as to uplift Peoples as individuals. The beliefs of those Americans were many and varied, and yet their teaching and helping the poor and sick, and gave outlook as to what sort of People these Americans *are*.

Even beyond that Americans have helped others fight for their liberty and freedom, not only through care packages, donations, building of hospitals and schools and places of worship, but directly. Americans who believe that other People should be free and have liberty have gone on their own to fight, and often die on foreign soil. From the Greek Civil War to separate from the Ottoman Empire to this very day in many spots across the globe, Americans in uniform and under private cognizance fight and die to help others to gain liberty and know the dear cost to hold it is in the blood of tyrants and patriots. That tells more about Americans than any labor union or cathedral built: Americans come and place ourselves in the line of fire to protect the innocents even when our Government cannot help. And while the Government may not particularly like that, it does *not* exercise the powers given to it in this realm and so We the People must and reclaim that right for ourselves. And remind our Government that we are damned if we do not support the spark of liberty in freedom in far off lands because that gives light and civilization to this sorry Earth of ours.

That, too, is something Jacksonians understand: helping your neighbors that ask help of you. A battered wife or man fallen from his ladder finds aid and succor and help. And those trying to chase down our friends and neighbors that we come together with had damned well be ready to fight *us* if they wish to fight *them*. We aid liberty and try to find those most worthy, if not most skilled, in bringing that to other lands. Often Americans will pass the artful speaker for the simple man who just says: 'I need help, can you spare a dime?' When the handout is *assumed* it is an affront to kindness and our ability as individuals to judge who is worthy of help. And when it is from overseas none can demand our pity, but those in piteous circumstances we work to help out often with our lives. That makes us something known as a 'good neighbor'.

By showing we are willing to back change for the better, change for the better is given chance to flourish.

By opposing change for the worse, we show that it will be curbed when it threatens us or when it threatens the ideal of liberty and freedom.

For that is progress.

Not mere progressivism, but the real deal of progress.

Because if Americans don't help to make change go for the better, we see many others who are working in the opposite direction.

Those are the enemy of Our Ideals, as a People.

And surrendering to them is tyranny, enslavement or just their version of 'repression'.

Death.

The Passing of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.

My recollections of Mr. Schlesinger are few, but I have always known his heart was in the right place, even when he did some things I have no toleration of.

He gave us insight into Jackson and FDR, two Presidents who did, indeed, change the world in their outlook. He staunchly supported American Exceptionalism and the power of people to use their rights creatively. He fought to ensure that the Communist Party in America would not be seen as acceptable, and was purely partisan of his old-line fealty to the Democratic Party. He embraced the values that America had to create a new world because we could work together as a People, and he rejected multiculturalism and a host of ills that go with it. In his latter years he staunchly supported the positions he had held and those that he had admired, even when evidence of their lacks came to the forefront. He walked well and firmly as an 'old school' defender of the Nation and his Party and those beliefs.

What he forgot in his views from Jackson was that one never, ever hands permanent power to government to cure temporary ills. Nor is government a means to enforce the public good, but to ensure that the public can be good and cause no ill to the common weal. By supporting those things he helped to lay the foundation of the ever increasing government we see today, and its encroachment upon the Rights and Liberties of the Citizenry. He had sought to help those poor oppressed by circumstances, and forgot that the Republic offers a hand up to those so beleaguered, but never a hand-out to make individuals beholden to the government. In that forgetting he undid much good that he did in life and lost grasp of the world that changed around him in ways he did not like, because of that.

He was a good man, all told, even with the problems caused by his fierce partisanship to his party... even when his party stepped from the Nation as a whole. A true 'Cold Warrior' who supported his Country, even when the commonality was disappearing because of those things he advocated. And a man who held to his beliefs even when they had turned on the Nation itself so that it now finds it difficult to even defend the Republic. For all the good that he did for many, we now pay for the drawbacks of those outlooks upon us to this day.

For the simple problem that We the People are the Government.

Not the Government over We the People.

The first of the 20th century liberals who would forget that the 19th century liberals warned and hard against many things, and that government needed to be checked so that People could be Free.

I honor his life even in disagreeing with what has come of it.

The Modern Jacksonian - Chapter 4 - The Perfection of Imperfection

The United States has a founding upon two things: The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution. The first is a Preceptual Guideline on what man, as individuals, get in life and what their empowerment means for Government. Those Guidelines lead to the understanding that Government is not handed down from on high, but instituted amongst men, by men so as to address the actual world of mankind. To safeguard the Rights of Man, Governments are instituted by the consent of the Governed thus leading to a society that does not seek its rights *from* Government but, instead, grants minimal rights *to* Government to fulfill its responsibilities to the Governed. When such Governments no longer abide by that, it is the just and due Right of the People to change or abolish such Government and formulate new governance.

Between the Declaration and the Constitution came the Articles of Confederation, which only loosely associated the States and provided no centrality of understanding amongst them. Each State had major burdens and very little basis to actually uphold those burdens and the People were impoverished by that formulation. Those five long years between the formal end of the Revolution and the standing up of the New Nation were rife with rebellion, protest and repression via imprisonment and seizures of land. Those same founders that agreed to the Declaration of Independence and then agreed that the time was upon them to form new governance so that a more Just and Equitable system could be established.

To more clearly state these things: the Founders of the United States had tried and *failed* in their first attempt to form a New Nation. They had wanted this loose association to work, so as to let States have wide freedom and leeway and not put a repressive Government in place. Instead they had created something that impoverished the People, concentrated authority to the few in the State seats of power, and the system was giving rise to the possibility of a Second Revolution. Every single signer of the Declaration who then went on to sign the Constitution recognized that they, personally, had failed in outlook and creation and must try to make something that would actually uphold their ideals and yet not repress the People. The United States was formed on a look to perfect goals, but the imperfection of man led to first time failure.

The outlook stated in the Declaration would not allow for long-term failure as, to do that, the very foundation of Liberty and Freedom for Individuals would be *lost*. A Second Revolution would most likely turn reactionary towards the original Revolutionaries and the society to be born out of that would be harsh, authoritarian and repressive. As many of the Founders had worked the land or been huntsmen and woodsmen, trekking through uncharted wilderness, they recognized an ancient axiom of survival: Don't Stop.

When lost in the wilderness, with only the most basic of bearings or even an *idea* of what the right way to go actually is, you follow up on that grimly and with determination. You do not 'stop to think it through' as that leads to doubt and wavering of willpower to survive. A brief respite to continue on is one thing, but to sit and stop and try to think if you are 'doing the right thing' is deadly, as it leads to the idea that one can, in actuality, think their way out of the wilderness. Soon long minutes turn into hours, and then night approaches and you have done *nothing* to find shelter or build a fire or find food. You are starving using your energy to think instead of move onwards. In the modern era, if there is any hope that anyone will remember where you went and you came in a vehicle, it is usually safer to stay with that vehicle than go onwards until all other options run out. When confronted by no outside help and dangerous animals roaming, one moves to stay alive so as to be hard to track while you work slowly, continually towards a *goal*. When you plan for rest, you *plan* for it, and ensure that you have found shelter, succor and sustenance. Then at first light you are up and moving once more.

By having had the Articles of Confederation the Founders recognized that the other axiom of motion for survival also held true: Move in *any* direction, even the *wrong* direction as that will give you perspective and then show you the right way to go. The Articles were the wrong path to Nation for the young United States. It would not give an equitable society nor justice nor ensure Freedom and Liberty. That is when you stop, re-assess and then step out in a different way heading towards the goal of success. The next step may not be perfect or lead to perfection, but it is towards that Goal and much, much better than where you were headed, which was deadly. Thus the Founders had set their Goal, stopped what they were doing and checked their bearings and realized they had not gone in the right direction towards their goal. The Goal, then, was simply to make something that would outlast them and give Freedom and Liberty a chance to take root and let something better come from their work.

Given the long perspective of history, we are divorced from the pain they had surely felt in realizing that they had not crafted well on their first attempt at things. They wanted time to see if things could work out and when it was apparent that they would not only *not* work out but things were headed in the opposite direction of the Goals, they came forth to try again. The Goal was worth the humility of admitting that they were wrong and worth the re-commitment to the Goal that had been set as a firm fixture. So many of their countrymen had died for this, a Nation was still in chaos and ruin needing to be built and the enforced poverty that the States put upon the People were making that goal of having a Nation seem to drift further and further away.

It was not a 'given' that the United States would survive and the track record for democracy had been, until then, quite abysmal. It was assumed the inherent difficulties in democracy would be the undermining of it, and that the People would turn to rabble and vote themselves all sorts of goodies until things went bankrupt. By attempting to address those ills, America was striving to put something a bit different together that just might hold together for awhile. After the problems with the Articles this was no sure thing in 1786 Annapolis Convention that called for a 1787 Philadelphia Convention to straighten things out. The Shaysite Rebellion of that Winter brought out just how near collapse the entire enterprise was and Washington, himself, was moved enough to go to it so as to try and head off a final defeat that would have destroyed all he had worked for during the years of fighting in the Revolution.

Coming together in 1787 was a profound happening in America as those that had fought the Revolution for 7 long years now had to face the fact that the Government they first made would not meet their dreams after 5 years. They understood that to attempt to remake their work they would need to change their views and themselves so as to create a firmer foundation for lasting Government. After the harsh payment in the lives of those lost, some 10% of their countrymen dead by the Revolution and 15% fled to the Crown, America was destitute of people, of money and increasingly lacking in cohesion. The Revolutionaries had followed their original view and moved from cooperation amongst themselves as States within a Nation to their States alone. The Nation had no basis without commonality and the commonality of loss was still being paid for and dearly on the backs of the land owners, the farmers and the poor. The Goal fought for starting in 1775 and established by the Revolution was coming so undone by 1787 that all the cost was put at peril. There would be no Liberty or Freedom in America because there would be no America.

To those familiar with the great story themes, this is one that sticks out time and again across Peoples and across time: having found a dream and held it, that dream became lost again. Odysseus was the man to turn to for direction until that direction was tempest tossed and yet he won through by re-dedication to come home to hearth and wife and to end his long travels once and for all. Moses sought after the place of homeland for his people to espy it, yet while away the Israelites were called upon for so much work that they had lost the meaning of what it was to be Jewish, and brought his people forth to hard circumstances to recover what they had lost so they would be worthy of a home. Robert the Bruce would see his people lost and need travel far to re-find the will to lead his people to be a people and embrace who they were via their traditions. Jesus of Nazareth learned the meaning of the society and then spent time in the desert once he recognized that it would be lost unless something was done, and then returned with a re-dedication and re-commitment to his people so that their understanding could spread and be sustained by new outlook. To win through for a People, they must lose so that they understand the meaning of what it is they have. And then dedicate themselves to it, anew.

None are so low as those facing that humility of loss, of having failed and of having all they understand brought into question.

And none are so found as those that realize that they stand for their People to be a People, to be different, to be special and to leave a mark that will last longer than their short span on Earth. None so lost as Odysseus from home and wife seeking to regain it; as Moses coming home and finding his People slowly losing what it means to be a People separate from Egypt; from Robert the Bruce returning home to fight the good fight to assert that the old way is the way of his People and could not be denied; and of Jesus coming from the desert and trials and tribulations and learning to speak in a new way to his People so as to give the basis to revitalize society... revitalize the world.

That was America in 1787: it had won its ideals and then was faced with those same things being lost because the idealistic form of Government would not work and would lose all that was fought for and won. Washington left Mount Vernon because his hard work was put in jeopardy because what he had fought for was not working. Others would return with those who had fought and survived in the Revolution and understood the dear price of being a People apart from others. A People not beholden to Crown, to King, to Government and they would damn well not lose the meaning of their lives because of the monetary price attached to the fight they had won. To bring unity they must describe that unity and make a Government that was United in more than word, but in deed. If they could not find a basis for that unity amongst themselves, then all who depended upon them would fail and fall back to chaos and tyranny.

The review of what they had said was important in the Declaration of Independence told them that the Rights of Man to be Individual is only sustained by the Government created in Common to serve All of the People. And those same People must come together to be a Nation so that a Government could be established. Without the Nation, Government would be mere fiction and no longer represent the will of the People, only itself. That is what they had fought *against* and would not allow to happen again. The review of the Declaration had told them the path and that path may end in Government, but the Government, itself was not an end in and of itself. It was a means for the People to come together and give common expression to their will. For Man to have Just Government by the Consent of the People, the society must have a Nation that and that Nation bow to being an artifact of that common will. To have Rights for Individuals needs more than Government: it requires commonality in commitment and understanding via the Society the People create.

In making the Constitution the People drafting it were well aware of the frailty of Representative Democracy and of Republics. Putting those two together was thought to be an invitation to mob rule and destruction of society to that mob. By layering representation into the structure in multiple ways and having it work at cross-check and balance, the Will of the People could find both voice and stability in Government. The drafters were also too well aware of the tendency for Government to move to tyranny and despotism, and did their best to ensure that not only would Rights be upheld but that the entire social compact laid down in the Constitution would be understood so that Rights would not put Liberty at peril. Attempting to use Government to suppress the Rights of People had proven to be awful and led to some of the bloodiest religious wars ever seen heretofore. That had to be negated by creating something that was in Common and would not speak against religion of any type, but for the Rights of Man to *have* religious beliefs not controlled by the State. The other had proven not to work and was negated by the enforcement of that basic right for the People. That said each State within the Union had separate outlook while coming together and those States would need to decide on such things in common with their People so long as the commonality of All of the People was not put in jeopardy. The right to speak out and put forth ideas, both for good and ill, was upheld so that the People may decide freely on the ideas and ideals that would govern them and their society. That held in common could not endanger that, less the road to authoritarian rule be started. The right to keep and bear arms so that the People and their States may protect themselves not only separately but in common with the Union was upheld and could not be infringed by the Government. Time and again basic rights are stated and upheld for Individuals so that they have especial protection against those seeking tyranny.

Even further those that drafted the Constitution put forth that those rights not specifically granted to Government to govern, were the sole realm of the States and the People. The fount and founding of Rights was not gracious Government, but good People who agree to have their rights and respect those of others. In doing all these things the drafters also recognized one other part of their failure: anything they made would need to be reviewed and amended as times changed so that this framework of governance could have continued meaning over time. Thus the right of the People to Amend the Constitution or call together a new Convention is sacrosanct and the ONLY way the Constitution may be changed. No matter how high their ideals, the realization that to make this something for the People was to make it amenable and amendable to them and by them. They had not been handed engraved stone tablets from on high, but only parchment and ink in the hands of man.

And they knew that their work would cause a long-term problem in the form of slavery. The Declaration nearly shattered the Southern Colonies from the rebellion due to its wording on the Rights of Man. That was papered over and that 'fight would be put off to another day'. Coming together with the agricultural South having high trade and the North being in poverty due to taxation, the Constitution again put that fight off so that there might be a chance for a Nation to reconcile this question about Universality of Rights and slavery. The Constitution was flawed because of that and that would be recognized and agonized over for decades until the day of reckoning arrived. The drafters of the Constitution stepped back from that abyss which would shatter the young Nation and send brother against brother, when they had still not recovered from the Revolution. So Amending and Convention were added so that hoped for wiser generations could finally resolve this question.

In that the Society that was built failed and in an awful manner that would see over 600,000 Americans dead and wounded. Casualties to our inability to come to common terms as a Society and a People, until brother was set against brother and the Nation set back once more. That nearly shattered the Nation completely and nearly undid the work of 1787 and of 1776. We did not find perfection then, nor now and we are still reminded of that by the Founders who drafted the language of the Constitution. We are not enjoined as a People to perfection but to make a 'more perfect Union'. To stand by our society, our Nation and strive to make it better in common for all of the People. And our National symbol of Liberty reminds us of the lacks in ourselves: The Liberty Bell is cracked, though its tone is still so sweet.

As a People we come together to bridge those cracks, and find that there are far more of them than we had ever imagined or can imagine. That sustainment of Liberty is vital to the Nation and, over two centuries and more, others have heard the sweet tone from that cracked bell and yearn for Liberty and Freedom to have a free society. America has always safeguarded Her own Liberty and Freedom first, and extended the hand of Friendship for those yearning to be free. Men and women have volunteered from this Nation to teach, work and fight for Liberty in far off lands, far removed from the Shores of the Land of the Free. Missionaries went forth not only to teach their version of the Gospel, and there were a plethora of teachings to be sure, but their very presence spoke of the commitment to Liberty and Freedom and the Land that sustained it. The People who invested themselves so much in their belief of it that they took their lives in their hands to spread their beliefs, and doing that spread the word of Liberty. Be it preacher, teacher, ditch digger or soldier overseas those Free People from America have demonstrated by their presence that not only is Liberty worth having, but worth spreading. Americans, in doing this, lead by example so that others may see what it means to be a Free Individual exercising their Rights to their Responsibilities.

It is this simple exercise of People doing according to their beliefs and recognizing that they have consequences that bespeaks of America. It is not in the words, though they give common form and transmission to ideas and ideals, but the actually placing oneself where they can do as they see fit and damn the consequences because it is the *right thing to do* that spreads Liberty and Freedom. Americans do not place themselves above other Peoples and reach out to them so as to help them from poverty, from disease, from ignorance and from tyranny. And so many that have extended that hand have died from those that wish never to see the dawning of Freedom in their lands. Scholars, doctors, teachers, priests, soldiers and just ordinary folks out to explore the world come what may have all paid a price year in and year out to practice Freedom and make it whole.

When that clarion call to Nation was given in 1776, those who called realized that the price to pay would not end in one war. The Revolution was the start of a very, very long conflict that would go on for generations. Go on for centuries. They gave that call because they saw that the Price in blood was far outweighed by having Liberty and Freedom so that something better could be built by Free Individuals. They paid a far steeper toll than at any time since the Revolution and that has proven to be the smallest of down payments on keeping this dream of Universal Freedom for Mankind alive. That is what America was called to do and harshly reminded by our own bloody faults through time that we are damned imperfect and should not once nor ever take on airs of sainthood or of perfection. Those that have decried the lack of perfection by society are lauded when they are able to reconcile the perfect with the merely human. Those that stick to their perfect beliefs and die for them are admired, but also looked at quizzically for they have not tried to make a more perfect Union between themselves and society, but attempted to remake society into something it can never be: Perfect.

If America falls short of Perfection it is because it strives for that and will never achieve it, but recognizes the struggle is worth the achievement that can be won. The Declaration was not a call to realistic goals but for unrealistic and noble goals of Universality of Rights and People to have Societies that would Govern them in accordance to their wishes. The Constitution was the realistic foundation for common governance and to have that Government be in common and yet never to infringe upon society nor individuals lest it become despotic. That framework limits Government because the People see it as something necessary for survival and to have a common vision. It is not meant to assure a good life, but ensure that a good life can be led. It is not created to protect the outlook of diversity but the diversity of outlook necessary to a vibrant society. Government is safeguard against tyranny not a guarantee against it.

That sole guarantee is held in common by those who call themselves: We the People.

The Upgrade Partnership Plan

The following is a policy position paper of The Jacksonian Party.

America is a Nation on the move and progressing quickly in areas of science, technology and industry. Indeed, being the most productive people on the planet, Americans far outdo any others at their rates of productive work and their creativity and then upgrade the entire infrastructure necessary to create new ways of life and work faster than anyone, save, perhaps, the Japanese with 'Hello, Kitty!'. That said Americans also discard these old devices because they just aren't modern anymore. Entire industries have come and gone in the United States leaving their industrial wastelands behind them. And growing businesses shift from capability to new capability and the old equipment hits the scrap heap.

The following is the Upgrade Partnership Plan of the United States.

Today two Nations that the United States has helped out from the heel of despotic and tyrannical rule are now hard pressed to become productive societies in all areas of endeavor. On the Academic, Medical and Scientific realms, organizations public and private have found partners for their old equipment from Universities, Colleges, Teaching Schools and Laboratories in Iraq and Afghanistan. These needs to not only be encouraged, but rewarded and expanded. To do this and to help partnerships foster between these new democracies and America, the Federal Government needs to be involved to first offer such rewards and then give capabilities not easily had by even the industries of America to ensure that old equipment is properly moved from the United States to Iraq and Afghanistan, installed and individuals trained in their use.

To do this the United States proposes that the Dept. of Commerce do the following:

1) Solicit lists of all old industrial equipment, agricultural equipment and any other supporting equipment that American businesses and private concerns now find on their books but with no longer term utility as they are 'outmoded'. Further, those in the ongoing private organizations in the Academic, Medical and Scientific communities may add to this list any of those items that they have found to be unplaceable or that they do not have the capability to easily transport due to mass or size. Such things as make, model, serial number, original equipment manufacturer and such are to be included in this along with original purchase value.

2) The Dept. of State will be handed this list and will then work between the US Government and the Governments in Afghanistan and Iraq to partner organizations based on need. The Iraqi and Afghani Governments shall ensure that companies, hospitals, businesses and any other group or organization is a valid one to receive and utilize such equipment. Points of Contact from the original list will then be contacted and the Dept. of State shall facilitate meetings between the donor and receiving organizations to ensure that the entire scope of equipment type, maintenance, training and other sustainment information is passed on and that any pre-delivery training or inspections are facilitated so as to allow the receivers to ensure that they are getting what they are looking for. All such recipients shall demonstrate plans, backing and ability to utilize such equipment and are to be the end-recipients, not intermediaries or re-sellers.

These two Nations get first priority and right to look over such lists. Then this list shall be provided to every Nation that has helped the United States in its endeavors in Afghanistan and Iraq since the start, or has shown unwavering support in these efforts, and have not withdrawn from them in reverse order of their per capita income or other indicator so that the poorest of Nations has the greatest opportunity to benefit from their work in support of the United States. If no such receiving organization can be found, then the donor shall be informed and given a full tax write-off of said equipment and its disposal in accordance with all Local, State and Federal laws covering such if necessary.

3) Once this is done the USAID or other trade and commerce arms of the US Government shall ensure that the equipment is dismantled and properly shipped. On those projects that are too large for commercial industry to handle, the US Army Corps of Engineers will be given the task of designing the most cost efficient method of dismantling, transporting and reconstructing such equipment in cooperation with both the donor and receiver organizations. Private construction and transport capability is to be used whenever possible and it is cost effective to do so. When that cannot be done, US Transport Command will be given the task of transporting such equipment and the US Army Corps of Engineers shall be used as the organization of last resort for installing such equipment. Such transport by the US Transport Command or other military organization is done free of charge to this program and the cost carried by the People of the United States. Some creation of new facilities will be necessary and the receiving organization must work that out prior to delivery and ensure that such facilities are fully ready for the equipment.

4) All such equipment shall have a full write-off of original equipment value from all donor organizations so as to reduce their tax burden. All time and materials expended shall also be written off so as to reduce the tax burden of those organizations. Anything above and beyond that is considered to be a Charitable Donation and its cash amount is also written off on taxes in full and without restriction for the entire project. Any amounts that cannot be written off in one year by bringing taxes due to zero, shall then be applied the next year and following years until the full sum is expended.

5) The organization(s) in charge of transfer shall perform annual inspections and reports on such donations and identify any long-term help needed in the way of supplies or maintenance and work with American industry to ensure that such can be done on a sustainable basis both for the recipient and for the companies involved. At the end of 5 years the last inspection shall be performed and Medals of Industrial Citation struck so and given to the donor(s) and recipient(s) involved in each transaction. A historical marker will also be placed at the donor site to establish that this site once housed the equipment listed and that it was given to the recipient(s) so as to help them build a free society.

6) All donations are subject to standard security caveats for 'dual use' equipment and other safety provisos for long term security initiatives and standard industrial safety. Any such equipment that is duly transported with such security concerns shall be tracked until its end-of-lifecycle and final destruction by the recipient.

As part of the need for American Academia, Industry, Business, Medicine and Science to show its willingness to extend a helping hand towards those Nations coming into the light of democracy and freedom, and sustaining the valuable Friends and Allies of the Nation is this done. The United States recognizes that while older equipment may have less value to the Nation, it may still have high and great value to those that have NONE.

In any case where old industrial property was purchased so as to allow private individuals and companies to remove old industrial sites that are not in working condition, such individuals and companies must show a plan for rehabilitation of such sites, especially those that have hazardous waste at them. States may certify any waivers or plans that vary from this if the State is satisfied that the good of removing the equipment outweighs the need for site remediation. Any long term uses are acceptable, save abandonment of such sites.

Let us not see the building of new societies to become free as one that need expend cash and cash only. Let the Nation come to see that doing the equivalent of 'cleaning out the attics and closets' of America at older and unused sites is an opportunity to re-invigorate those areas and return them to their communities as a better place for their goods having gone to Peoples in need.

Who gets the 50 Questions?

Yes, now that there are 50 Questions to hand out, they get to go to the major campaigns, first.

So this week is the major party candidates as listed at Ron Gunzberger's Politics1 Site. My thanks to him for compiling and updating this list and as new candidates arrive they will also get a copy of the questions. I will just be taking the HTML from my post, making a letter and sending it to every campaign. They will get the text of the post, plus minimal introductory sentence with link-back to the post. If they do not have html capability then they get the plain text of the post plus a plain text html link in the introduction. And there are going to be some categories of response that will be given:

1) No response. Typical expectation of Party Elites who do not need to respond to Citizens. Call this the 'Aristocratic Response'. Automatic email replies will be considered this after 1 week from that reply if nothing further is sent.

2) A staffer will 'flack' the response. This is pretty much standard for all the Congresscritters and is representative of their not wanting to be in contact with real, live voters that are mere Citizens of the Union. Hard to categorize this as it is the 'run of the mill' way campaigns have to deal with anyone so as to not bother their poor Candidate with actually having to think. So it can be called the 'Plastic Bubble Response' as any communicating with real people might cause an infection that would be instantly fatal to the Candidate's thought processes. Candidates in this are so highly protected that they have no way to actually think about alternative ways of doing things nor address them.

3) The 'Technowonk Response'. This category is reserved for any campaign that puts forth their 'programs' and does not wish to deal with their outlook on various subjects that matter to the Union. In this category is also such responses as: 'just read this/that book the candidate endorses' and 'we have all the programs we support up on a website.' These are not addressing issues, but addressing details. Can't know if they are the right details unless the issues are addressed.

4) The 'BTDT Response'. Very few Candidates can actually do this as very few have actually laid out their views on America and philosophy of governing. If they have actually written a book on same and then still *require* payment, then one must begin to wonder exactly *why* they should be paid for something that should be freely available to all Citizens if that is their true viewpoint. Those unable or unwilling to put out their text into the Public Domain will gain the 'Extortion Response' as they do not look for the Nation as a whole, but to line their own pockets and let people hope they will govern by what they have stated.

5) The above items 1-4 should cover 99.99% of all Candidates given past views on how others have acted once they have gotten into High Office. Anything else will get a 'Singular Response' and demonstrates some minimal level of open-ness, fairness and willingness to engage in even minimal dialogue with the Citizenry. In truth, I do not expect to get ANY of these.

Now time to get the list going and I will follow the ordering on the Politics1 site and only those OFFICIALLY announced for anything get this:

1) Sam Brownback - website - Now, his website uses the ever lovely 'webform', so that will now get a filling out. And the webform is NOT html enabled. So be it, they get a hardcode plain text of it at the start and they can find it at their leisure. Sent, no confirmation page. [24 JAN 2007]

2) Jim Gilmore does NOT have an official contact site as yet. And I do not trust anyone at a Drafting committee to be able to actually get information through to their espoused candidate. So nothing sent his way until he gets his act together.

3) Rudy Giuliani - Has an exploratory website, no contact info. Will wait for developments.

4) Duncan Hunter - Has a website under construction. Will wait for developments.

5) John McCain - website - Webform. Sent, no confirmation page. [24 JAN 2007]

6) Ron Paul - website - Has email contact at the site. Mail sent. [24 JAN 2007]

7) Mitt Romney - website - Oh, my, a 'Policy Contact'! Well, that gets an email. Mail sent. [24 JAN 2007]

8) Tom Tancredo - Has exploratory website, no contact info. Will wait for developments.

9) Tommy Thompson - website - General info email at site, and I do want general info! Handy, that. Mail sent. [24 JAN 2007]

Fun so far, isn't it?

Now for the Democrats:

1) Joe Biden - website - General info email at site, still handy! Mail sent. [24 JAN 2007]

2) Hillary Clinton - website - Yes, the good General Info is there too! Mail sent. [24 JAN 2007]

3) Chris Dodd - website - Now, what sort of politician first puts up a recruitment interstitial page? Luckily one can skip it. A webform! Sent, no confirmation page. [24 JAN 2007]

4) John Edwards - website - What is it with these 'join up' interstitial splash pages? Yes you can skip them... but it is a bit off-putting if you are trying to find OUT about a Candidate and you get the recruitment poster. A webform! Sent but they have a Confirmation Page! Amazing! [24 JAN 2007]

5) Mike Gravel - Dear Senator, you webpage currently gets a 403 Forbidden. Suggest you get someone to put up a nice little photo page and a 'coming soon' on it.

6) Dennis Kucinich - Now here is something special on this day, 24 JAN 2007: Mr. Kucinich has TWO web sites. The first one is non-functional and the website has declined to show the page. The second is all snazzy, save for the broken center section in my web browser... but, by looking around you can get in contact with Chad at the website! Poor Chad. One hopes he is not hanging. Time to send him a lovely little email, just as formulaic as all the rest without one peep on the non-functioning of the sites in question. They might want to hire Gen. Info in the future... Mail sent. [24 JAN 2007]

7) Barack Obama - website - Gen. Info on duty there! Mail sent. [24 JAN 2007]

8) Bill Richardson - website - Webform. Sent and a Confirmation Page! [24 JAN 2007]

9) Tom Vilsack - website - Webform. Sent and a Confirmation Page! [24 JAN 2007]

Well, that is it for the 'big name' folks. A long morning, but worth it.

This post will be updated as necessary over time and most likely broken out a bit more.

The 50 Questions For Those Running For President

As Senator Frist has put up his questions to ask Hillary, or any Democrat running for office, and asked for more, I do feel that there needs be some pointed questions asked, also.

Of the entire field of ALL Candidates as the problems are not those due solely to party alignment. So, let me start off with some of the important questions that have come up time and again in my writings.

1) As President what is your Foreign Policy Goals and Objectives? Not your *programs*. Your Goals and Objectives for the Nation in Foreign Policy.

2) As President what is the role the UN will play, if any, in your view of the National Foreign Policy Objectives of the United States?

3) As President do you support the diplomatic concept of Jus ad bellum in protecting the United States?

4) As President would you use the concept known as Casus Belli to actually name activities and organizations, State based and non-State based, so as to let the world know what the interests of the United States actually are when they are put in danger?

5) As President would you ask Congress for the full and complete exercising of their War Powers so as to involve the American People in their traditional role of war making that is not via conscription?

6) As President would you please define the use and utility of Social Security that had as its main goal is to remove older workers from active working life to combat the 1930's Depression?

7) As President would you explain why it is important that drug companies make 16% or higher profits off of the US taxpayer when Federal Limits for research and development for Federal contracts places a maximum of 12% on same?

8) As President would you favor the complete withdrawal from the quagmire policy due to medical payments that threatens to eat a larger portion of the Federal Budget second only to Social Security?

9) As President would you please cite the reasoning for having the Dept. of Education when reading and cognition statistics have not changed from 1958, when Johnny couldn't read?

10) As President what is your attitude towards the Congressional infringement of the Constitutional Powers of the President in the areas of War Execution and Foreign Policy?

11) As President would you enforce all the Laws of the Land set forth by Congress and ask them to budget for such so that all Laws may be enforced?

12) As President what would be your attitude to towns, cities, counties and States that break with the Constitution in all Six Articles via their giving sanction and immunity to those breaking the Laws of the Land to come to the United States?

13) As President how would you describe illegal labor, exploited at a price set below market price with background threats to keep such labor docile?

14) As President what are your Industrial Policy Goals and Objectives?

15) As President what are your Energy Policy Goals and Objectives?

16) As President how would you describe US Federal Armed Forces put at risk via open attacks from 'neutral' countries and what the response of the United States should *be* to such attacks without reservation of *which* Nation attacks the United States?

17) As President how would you counter the moves of Hezbollah to set up in South America to recruit locals that are ethnically Hispanic or Native Americans, but aligned to Hezbollah?

18) As President what are your Taxation Policy Goals and Objectives?

19) As President what are your Armed Forces Goals and Objectives for Force size, equipment, capability, pay, and outlook?

20) As President would you view illegitimate Acts of War as merely criminal circumstances or as destructive Acts of War upon the United States?

21) As President what is your view upon the legality of the House of Representatives setting its own size in 1911?

22) As President would you favor a 'Sunset Law' for all Federal Laws, Regulations, and Programs so that each would need separate addressing for renewal after a 10 year period? 15 year period? 20 year period?

23) As President would you favor that ALL Branches of the Federal Government be put under the Freedom of Information Act?

24) As President will you sign Bills into Law in which Congress has categorically exempted themselves from such Laws?

25) As President do you favor a Dept. of Agriculture that spends most of its money on subsidies to go to farmers who cannot work crops economically or at market cost?

26) As President do you favor subsidies to large industry, large agriculture or big business? All of these being organizations that employ above the minimal set Federal Standard for a small business.

27) As President what are your Business Policy Goals and Objectives?

28) As President you will need to address Armed Forces attacking from the South. Will you allow NORTHCOM to address such attacks so as to end them?

29) As President how do you view the Congressional expansion of Powers in the areas of interstate trade and commerce?

30) As the War on Drugs has been going on since the 1970's and has been continually escalated with minimal Congressional Oversight, as President would you be willing to declare the Nation defeated in this War?

31) As President would you offer legislation to bring all Patents and Copyrights back to the original terms set by the First Congress?

32) As President would you move the State Department to a pure merit pay, merit promotion and one year review of all Personnel in the Civil Service?

33) As President and witnessing any 20 year period of NASA against the general aviation industry, what would be your Space Policy for the Union?

34) As President would you favor opening the non-discriminatory Federal Employee Health System and Thrift Savings Plan System to the General Public?

35) As President what is your general policy for Tariffs?

36) As President what is your view on the concept of Free Trade as it is applied to Nations that have acted in a hostile manner towards the United States?

37) As President what is your Free Trade policy that will ensure that such trade does not empower State based and non-State based terrorist activities?

38) As President what is you Monetary Policy Goals and Objectives?

39) As President would you support 'The Monroe Doctrine'?

40) As President would you allow the spending of Federal Funds that have *not* been put on your desk for signatory approval for spending via the budget?

41) As President how would you address the long-term disaster needs of the United States for infrastructure and survival given such things as: Yellowstone Caldera events, Mid-Continental Earthquakes along the Mississippi basin, Atlantic tsunami threats from the Canary Islands or other volcanic islands, Cascadia large scale and magnitude earthquake and tsunami running from Northern California to Southern Alaska, large magnitude earthquakes in the Los Angeles to San Francisco regions.

42) As President would you support moving the Combat Air Support mission back to the Army and give the Air Force capability for construction of manned, permanent space based systems for continuous C4I?

43) As President would you support pushing new, modular ships so that the Navy may quickly refit such ships for ever changing roles in the future?

44) As President, if Congress does *not* give money for the full and complete enforcement of all the Laws that they have passed and Presidents have signed, would you then ask for the Congressional ordering of which Laws should be enforced?

45) As President you will find a backlog of letters and documents in the State Department from various organizations that have Declared War upon the United States, and other Departments may also have similar. Given 9/11 are you prepared to accept that these may no longer be idle threats?

46) As President what are your Goals and Objectives for the Intelligence Communities across the entire Federal Government?

47) As President you are to defend the Union against attacks which also includes that of infectious diseases. Would you support moving that role to the Department of Defense?

48) As President do you support the slow increase of the US Federal Armed Forces so as to address Nations that have hostile designs against the United States?

49) As President do you support the drafting of War Powers from Congress so as to involve the Citizenry via Warrants and Commissions to carry out missions to halt all commerce with enemies of the United States and give reprisals unto them?

50) As President would you be willing to read the Constitution out to the Public once per year so that it may be heard and the People reminded of it?


Well, now, that should be entertaining if even 5 of those ever get asked!

On the side column you can find links to the following from The Jacksonian Party:

1) Party Agenda Platform. A more thorough regularizing of the Domestic Agenda and hitting the Federal RESET button.

2) Foreign Policy - Simple enough to understand and stand by. Which means ending NAFTA and leaving the UN. This is so that the Nation can make up for the lack of actually HAVING a Foreign Policy.

3) Goals on the Global War on Terror - Something no other Party is willing to state.

4) Tired of politics as usual? Then why not ask politicians to run and behave ethically during campaigns?

5) And if you can't make head nor tails of the above, then reading on what it means to be a Jacksonian might be of some help.

Unlike the Two Parties, The Jacksonian Party admits it does not exist save for those that abide to it. The 21st century is looking less and less amenable to those things made in the 20th for Nations, but as our enemies go back to earlier times, so can we do so to address them. The Jacksonian Party is neither Liberal nor Conservative, Left or Right nor has any positional stance on the carbonated beverage of choice for individuals. To have a Nation, however, requires that a Nation stand up and be for itself *first* and foremost, above and beyond all other things. When the Nation embraces Friends and Allies it should actually do things to *help* solidify such Friendships and Alliances so that Nations may grow stronger together. And when the Nation fights, it fights to victory. And as no party is willing to stand up FOR the Nation, it is then incumbent upon Individuals to do so by forming such notional Parties as this one so that the obligations placed upon us as a Common Citizenry may be carried out as that is Our responsibility set to Us under the Constitution.

This is the party of One.

Each and every One of Us.

"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson