Sunday, April 22, 2007

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'.


Saturday, April 14, 2007

Taming the Turf Wars

The following is an outlook paper by The Jacksonian Party

The text of this message is one sent in response to an e-mail by Bruce Kessler which was the text of a Mark Safransky post at Democracy Project on Fourth Generation Warfare on 12 APR 2007.  I can say that I did the old 'quick read' and probably missed much, but the reading caused some thinking and some basic integration of ideas posted for The Jacksonian Party.

Some spelling changes and much cleaning up of original HTML was done thanks to NVU and HTML Tidy. Final scouring of the resultant text was done in Open Office. Twisted logic, syntax and outlook remain as-is. It is as follows:

Another pet topic of mine, but one that receives less than stellar attention due to the fact that most folks forget what foreign policy is and who sets it. While Agencies within the Federal Government may execute Foreign Policy, the Congressional role is limited to Treaty Approval & Ambassador Approval at the Senate level, and regularizing trade at the Congressional level. That is it.

I go over that concept in Congress Empowering Tyrants. The Constitution and the SCOTUS ruling of US v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. is extremely clear on that.

The topics cited in the Article I cover in Reforming the Intelligence Community, which looks at the massive and internecine 'turf wars' as the main problem for the IC and getting the best cross-specialization INTEL available for multi-level analysis and then synthesis of knowledge. This would require not only a complete overhaul of how work is approached, but remove the Agencies from the 'product ownership' area and put them into a 'skills management' role. By enforcing the idea that certain types of INTEL can stand alone, the entire IC is dysfunctional as there is no lower level cross-agency working system. Thus each Agency gets its own view of the INTEL it *has* but no ability to synthesize across many Agencies and outlooks. Here non-traditional INTs such as economic and agricultural forecasting would also come into play for a full synthesis of necessary knowledge types available. By removing the Agency fiefdoms and making INTEL gathering and analysis a shared Community Level activity, the internecine turf wars are removed and Agencies are judged on how well they manage contributed skills within the Community at large, not how much work product and viewpoint they turn out. This does require moving clandestine ops back to something directly under Presidential control, like the old OSS. They can be sent to gather specific INT needs, but only with full knowledge and approval of the President.

The main and over-riding problem is that The Lack of Foreign Policy. The United States no longer has a Foreign Policy based on a principled stand *for* anything, but, instead, has substituted programmatics in the place of policy. Long standing Federal programs are now the guide point of Foreign Policy, not the follower *of* Foreign Policy. In this realm, as Curtiss-Wright clearly demonstrates, the President is the sole organ of Foreign Policy for the Federal Government and the United States. By not doing a programmatic overhaul nor review, all past technical 'fixes' remain in place, but what they are 'fixing' has been lost. With many programs dating back into the Cold War, the actual utility of them is in doubt. Even worse is the actual organs of the Federal Government, particularly CIA, FBI and NSA, but also State Dept., all promulgate programmatic outlooks and even use such programmatics to undermine Presidential Authority in this realm. What results is Government by program and sinecured bureaucracy that need not adjust *to* any incoming President and feels free to *know better* than the Elected Representative of the American People.

This, somehow, was not what I think this Nation was intended to do as seen in the Constitution and ruled upon by the Supreme Court. By seeing Presidents as 'temporary' bosses, the entire Foreign Policy apparatus cannot easily shift from the focus it had from 20 years ago and moves at a glacial pace to change that would threaten the inherited fiefdoms of outlook. Institutionalization of programs and making jobs dependent upon them, now is the main source of inactivity by the actual organs of the Federal Government. As seen in Iraq and the Turf War, the main stumbling block to getting the Federal Government in Foreign Policy projects is that each part immediately looks to carve out its own, new niches. Basic and vital help and outlooks, along with contracting and programmatic oversight of projects that would help the Dept. of Defense are not made high priorities within the bureaucratic structure, side-tracked and the very first thing that these organs of government look to do is ensure a steady, new funding supply so as to justify increased staff. That is *before* they actually step in to help. Thus you have the Dept. of Agriculture looking to open a Baghdad office to help in *marketing* farm goods, not in helping find better and new crops and methods to farm. The Dept. of Transportation has under its view an entire gamut of capabilities, engineering outlook, program oversight, design work, and so on that could be used for the entire transportation network of Iraq, and yet sees little need to pitch in or do much of anything. Rather to defend one's current turf than to help the Nation.

The entire problem is government-wide systemic, not point bottlenecks by this or that advisor or 'Czar' or Director. The temporary positions are stymied by the entrenched bureaucracy, and the entrenched bureaucracy sees no need to adjust itself to changing National Outlook, even in time of War. Luckily, the entire Civilian Senior Executive Service serves not as bureaucrats, but as high-paid individuals that can be *fired* by the President. That highest echelon over the immediate Civil Service, and often having worked its way up through its ranks, and that shows allegiance to the Agencies it serves need to be heavily reminded that they serve the President and NOT their Agencies and Departments. Further, as Treaties are entered in by the President and the Senate, either may remove such Treaty obligations, and the President can do *that* without any further consultation or advisement. That said a actual, real Foreign Policy that has goals and objectives for the US needs to be stated and clearly, by the President. This is patently *not* this or that agreement or treaty, but the entire outlook of the US in a broad sense towards the rest of the world. It can and indeed should be discriminatory in outlook, so as to reward those Nations that have shown good will and fealty towards us over years or decades, and require those that do not have such to actually pay for the privilege of such things as market access. And Enemies need also be clearly stated so that the US can identify who they are and work with others to marginalize them and cut off their supplies. A simple but not *simplistic* Foreign Policy that the Average American can understand and comprehend.

A clearly stated outlook with the back-up of removing Treaties that do not serve the good of the People and firing Senior Executive echelons at entire Agencies that do *not* follow through becomes a wake-up call to the Government, itself. Congress cannot back programs that do not have Treaty standing and cannot over-rule the President on those actions. Similar outlook towards the entire INTEL Community to remind them that they are a 'service group' for the President is necessary. And as multiple stake-holders are involved, a first action to inform them that the entire Community needs to begin *acting* like a Community with comity and friendliness and start working across-agency lines to design necessary service documents on activities required by the Executive and then by the Cabinet and then by other needful groups, such as Congress, is a priority and that giving a soda straw view and then combining soda straws does *not* give a total and comprehensive picture of *anything*. The entire IC lacks competence in that combination and weighting of evidence, while their distributed analysts have that necessary competence. Here, again, programmatics need to be tied to Policy and Outlook, not to sinecured programs. This is one of those cases of 'fire until competence is found' is a useful standard, and during those interims directives are handed directly to the *staff* of those Agencies with hard and set deadlines to get cross-agency work done. Agencies with entrenched outlooks will find their budgets hit and their authority moved to Agencies that *can* show nimbleness. Doing that requires stepping on toes, feet, ankles, legs and often giving blind-sided hip checks to entire Agency staff. Petty and entrenched partisan outlook that hinders getting good analysis *done* is de-funded and completely with such funds and responsibilities moved to other Agencies that have proven ability to actually *do what they are told to do*.

We do not see this in politics today as it is harsh, results-oriented, extremely basic and makes good sense. Plus it endangers pet projects by Congress, who are loathe to give up same. Until such time as that can be done, trying to reform the system from the *inside* is a non-starter and any added 'oversight' organization immediately looks to create its own, sinecured fiefdom, put in further blocks to actually producing work products, and increase the overall overhead of the entire affair in time, money and wasted man hours. Process reform from bureaucracies and those empowering them do not work, as the Federal Government has demonstrated for decades. If it did then the Dept. of Education could tout 100% reading for all Citizens and that overall reading comprehension rate is above that of the 5th grade. Unfortunately those exact same problems remain just where they were in 1958 when Johnny couldn't read. Putting in a Director of National Intelligence hasn't seemed to have made the flow of INTEL any faster and, in point of fact, is allowing Agencies to further propagate their *own* outlook on things contrary to that of the President. More oversight is leading to less accountability. The Dept. of Agriculture, originally set up to research better ways to actually manage crops and to have a goodly sized fund to support farmers in case of emergency, now has that portion of its budget as the smallest part of it and over 20 times that amount going to crop subsidies and paying farmers not to farm. Somehow I can imagine better uses for those funds and skills in Afghanistan than in paying for crop subsidies here.

This will not change until an Executive is elected that is willing to take huge amounts of political heat on these matters, gather the bi-partisan ire of Congress and, generally, act to give the Nation outlook in its affairs. I have 50 questions for those running for that office, and I doubt that any of them can even reasonably answer 5 of those... although one coming in and seeing this role as an Executive would need to have good outlook and outline on *all* of them. Because the President does not *create* laws, but executes them, and similarly with budgets, in which Congress routinely throws away the Presidential one and makes their own. A President needs to find the Federal Government's RESET button and hit that poor thing until it gets a government that can be recognized. Until then we shall forevermore remain stuck with all sorts of oversight and almost no accountability in the Federal Government.

And that does the Nation no good at all...

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

The 10 years that changed the path of America

The following is a Position Paper of The Jacksonian Party.

This is not the decade you are thinking of, unless you have been paying very careful attention, and even then the full scope and impact of it have not been felt. A decade where America was involved in War but would not fully fight it, when the President would alter course for future generations, when Congress would accumulate power to itself and remove some from the People. A decade of vibrancy and change, after which the Nation would step into a new world order and try to expunge the thought of war from its mind. This was the decade that would forever change what it meant to be an American and start to alienate the People from its Government.

That decade is the one from 1909-1919.

In 1909 the US had called for an International Opium Conference to start to limit the opium trade. This had been spurred on by American missionaries in the Far East that had seen the social havoc of opium in China and the social decay of it there along with disrupting the counter-insurgency work of the Philippines by the US. The Hague Convention of 1912 would lead to international agreements on limiting or eliminating the opium trade. This Conference would lead to the very first legislation in the US to curb drugs: Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914. This law was the very first in US history in which Congress tried to decide what an individual could or could not ingest in the way of drugs. This was done due to that missionary zeal and the feeling that such drugs were ruining the Nation as a whole. And it is hard to see where opium in cough syrup was a great help to much of anyone, since it hid tuberculosis. The use of it by mothers on children was a problem and should have been restricted by the States. This feeling by the prohibitionists to outlaw such was one that ran strongly religious communities, which saw the overseas use of such drugs and worked to marginalize or eliminate them for use in the US. Still, it was under Treaty obligations that the Harrison Act was promulgated, to uphold the US signing on to the 1912 Hague Convention. The far reaching effects of this are felt to this day with organized crime and Narco-terrorism rife in those areas that grow plants that lead to making narcotics and makes it such a profitable business in the criminal realm to this day. For the first time a social movement to limit the rights of Citizens had gained a foothold in America after the Civil War.

Also started in 1909 was Amendment XVI to the US Constitution that would allow Congress to collect income tax. Prior to that the US used a system of property taxes and tariffs to generate income, but the first was seen as being unwieldy and the movement to income tax was pushed by a view that the wealthy were not paying their share of the burden in the Nation. While it has done that, it has also been broadened to include such things as tips, wagers on bets, and even finding something of value and selling it. All of that now falls within the power first given to Congress once this Amendment was ratified in 1913. Until that point in time taxes were levied via apportionment to the States via the census so that it would fall equally upon all in the Union. Also in this era was the Clayton Antitrust Act that would further limit monopoly power and cover problems with business sales and mergers that would unduly concentrate market power as an extension of the Sherman Antitrust Act. These were aimed at reducing the power of wealthy individuals, but also put power in the hands of Congress to apportion taxation as it saw fit upon income and put limitations on how much market power a business can accumulate. While this may have made collecting taxes 'easier' the question of if such would actually lead to a 'fairer' assessment of taxes is still debated. With the ability of wealthy individuals to get loopholes and tax havens and other means to gain income outside of the income routes, the burden of this has fallen to the working class, by and large, although the wealthiest still do pay the largest amount in taxes. In the modern era the movement back to a more 'flat tax' which removes all loopholes is one that continues to be seen as more fair, even if graduated by income, as it removes the power of lobbyists to unduly influence legislation on behalf of the wealthy.

In 1911 the movement for the direct election of Senators by the public was put into what would become Amendment XVII which would also be ratified in 1913. Here the ill was seen as bribery and corruption at the State level to gain Senate seats, and these problems continued on for decades. Some States ran referenda to elect Senators and the election date was also regularized to that of the General Election. Still, the ability to 'wheel and deal' at the State level to gain Senate seats was seen as a major problem by the majority, and this Amendment was made to allow for direct selection by popular vote. This also changed the balance of power so that both Houses of Congress were now in hands of direct election instead of by dispersing power to the States and the People for the Senate and House respectively. The concentration of power in Washington via those that could win and continue to win these elections changed the turnover rate in the Senate and removed a major role for the States to play in the Federal system of governance. Previously that had been a check on Federal power via the States and a limit to the People so that more moderate voices could be heard in the Senate.

Also in 1911 came Public Law 62-5 which would permanently set the size of the House at 435 members and allow voting portion to float while keeping a set House size. With the enactment of this law in 1913, the modern Congress type would be set and the difficulties of it would take time to manifest. The first and most important of these is that as the population increased, the amount of diversity in the House remained the same. Seats would shift from State to State, instead of having States grow in their number of seats over time. Although gerrymandering or 'non-compact districts' had always been a problem, they were seen as amenable to the fact that more would be created over time. Re-draw the districts every decade and you get a different mix of communities. In a set system, the redraws come at a much lower rate and only happen due to internal shifts in proportion of population, not absolute size. With that comes House seats that become 'safe' election after election and often for decades at a time with a single member for that seat.

Finally, in 1919 would come Amendment XVIII for the Prohibition of Alcohol, and while that would be repealed, it pointed to how far social ills were seen as needing a National remedy instead of via local control. Taken as a whole, these Amendments and Public Law would greatly change the nature of representative democracy within the Republic of the United States and start a major power shift towards Washington. With that would also come the money of wealthy individuals to start influencing this new form of Government and change the outlook of the Federal system itself in that doing. Lobbying this more constant government set-up would entrench power and money over time and give affluence access to the National Government.

Changes were not only happening due to Amendments and in Congress, however, as a major change in the Executive would be brought about in this same era by Woodrow Wilson. And with President Wilson the source of the strain of American political thought that would come to bear his name was started: Wilsonianism. President Wilson would approach the world in an attempt to promulgate American commerce and ideals, in that order. He would also search to bring a re-ordering of Nations so as to avoid the scourge of war, but then have troubles addressing the problems of tyranny.

Staunchly anti-imperialist in outlook and pro-business, Woodrow Wilson would look to try and safeguard both of those during the looming war in the Europe, while trying to keep America out of the war. Running on a Neutrality platform that was isolationist in conception, Wilson won a second term in office as the War dragged on, and increased hitting more neutral shipping and Wilson then turned his decision to supporting the War which his opponent had run on during the campaign. In the previous campaign of 1912, President Wilson had supported the idea of a Jewish homeland in the Middle East, which was a continuation of American evangelical tradition that had been in-place for more than a century. What had changed during that time, however, was the idea of a Christian homeland where the Jews would naturally convert via evangelism to one that would be Zionist in outlook. This too, gained support, although Jews in America, at 1912 were not so much convinced of this. The people who were convinced of it, however, were the British and their outlook and secret treaty to carve up the Ottoman Empire once the war was over to give a homeland, but not Nation to the Jews in the Middle East was presented to President Wilson in 1917.

The plan had been seen by others in the Administration who thought no good could come of it, and President Wilson, himself, when talking to Arthur Balfour, the designer of the Sykes-Picot treaty was that it would be difficult to support something that sounded like a 'brand of tea' . Wilson would characterize this as the 'old diplomacy' of the imperial powers and was aimed at selfish gain for France and Britain. While he would give tacit support of it, and Balfour announce a broadly supportive outline of the British view of a homeland for the Jews in Palestine, the actual treaty was something not accepted 'as-is' by President Wilson. The reason for that is the United States would not declare war on a key German ally: The Ottoman Empire.

This set many aghast in Congress, including ex-President Teddy Roosevelt who decried *not* going to war against an ally of the Kaiser and supporting the Alliance fully. He had experienced the problems of the Ottoman Turks right after their massacre of Armenians and as word filtered out that even worse genocide was taking place Roosevelt and others in Congress were pushing hard for the entirety of those that opposed the United States should be attacked. On the political front it was beyond belief that the US would *not* attack an ally of an enemy that was seen as the 'weak link' . President Wilson put forward that as Turkey had shown no outright hostility towards the US and that the US had much in the way of trade with the Ottoman's, that putting that in danger would be very harmful to the United States. He also worried that US missionaries would then be targeted by the Ottomans in their view of clearing Europeans out of Turkey and the Empire. Also he put forward that the US could not sustain a war in Europe and the Middle East and that the Nation could not expand its military forces fast enough to have an impact in that theater of war. Finally, the start of the US oil industry in the Middle East was demonstrating the ability to generate income from the region and Wilson had hard problems going to war and seeing those resources fall into the hands of the Ottomans completely.

The view of Teddy Roosevelt and others was that if the US did *not* take part as a full partner in war, then the US would have a greatly diminished say in the peace agreements. By being a 'junior partner' unwilling to fully commit to support of Allies in war, the US would be unable to help guide the peace. Out of this conflict would come one of the most noxious of ideas held by the United States to this day: that trade is more important than freedom.

While espousing this as a 'War for Democracy' President Wilson was unable to demonstrate that the US would carry through fully on that intention. As the war ground down to a close, the worse fears of many came slowly forward as the war ended and the US was left espousing ''The Fourteen Points plan', but being unable to demonstrate the resolve to carry through on it. Even worse was that the plan, itself, in an attempt to end warfare as a valid right of Sovereign Nations, was not grounded in this world but in some other where everyone actually *does* want to live peacefully with their neighbor. The preceding century alone should have disabused President Wilson of that, but his boyhood memories of the horror and aftermath of the US Civil War drove him on a quest to end warfare.

While some of 'The Fourteen Points' are laudable, like the Abolition of Secret Treaties and Freedom of the Seas, others that saw Disarmament and attempts to decolonize areas of the world ran head-long into the agreements already forming up by the UK and France. The resulting Versailles Treaty and follow-on Treaties to address the Middle East saw little deviation from the existing UK and French outlooks as the Ottoman Empire was carved up and sections put into semi-colonial 'mandates' under the control and protection of Britain and France. The US was left fighting to support an indigenous Turkish State, a homeland for the Jews and then demurred on taking up any mandate to protect the Armenian people as President Wilson did not think that the people of the US would agree to such a foreign activity.

The final piece that would be entered into this would be the League of Nations, which would attempt to forestall future wars. What President Wilson did not see coming was that this was alien to the United States as it involved the encroachment of National Sovereignty by a foreign body that was not held accountable by any direct or democratic means. Taken as a whole, President Wilson by being unable to be considered a full and equal partner in World War I was unable to push lofty goals after that war and fought for some few gains, such as a better alignment of National boundaries to ethnic ones but that was limited, and large areas of the Middle East and borders drawn that had no recognition of indigenous peoples or their ethnic backgrounds. And immediately after signing such Treaties, Turkey, in particular, started to abrogate them and push for some ethnic enclaves, like the Kurds, to be sub-divided into these new Nations.

What comes from this are some of the major problems that would become hallmarks of US Foreign Policy and a main problem for the US in the late 20th century and into the 21st.

First is 'Realism' in Foreign Policy further aided by the 'Arabist' part of the State Department. This co-joining of commercial interests to foreign policy would push that "stability" and primarily economic stability, was more important in pushing human rights than anything else in the Middle East and globally. This was the intent and goal of President Wilson and it has failed utterly and miserably in this region known as the Middle East and has been the cause to support tyrannical regimes and dictatorships in that region and sacrificing freedom and liberty to this idea that trade will gain liberty and freedom. By keeping everything 'stable' during the Cold War, the outlook was to not rock the boat and hope for the wiles of freedom to work their way into the hearts of people there. This, patently, did *not* happen until the US finally landed a real army in the Middle East with intent to take down a tyrant. The very thing that President Wilson could not think of nor sanction as worthy of doing is the *only* thing that has given any chance for freedom in that region outside of Israel. Those that push Free Trade to free people have gotten the order *wrong* and have forgotten that the US was founded on freedom allowing for the People to have a say on trade so that it could empower them. While it may provide more in the way of material goods, such trade has not stimulated a path to freedom and has, contrarily, made it easier and cheaper for the enemies of liberty to arm against it on a global and dispersed basis. When the 'Realists' could see no end to the USSR and predicted it would be around at least until 2030 if not longer, the entire foundation of 'Realism' vaporized along with the USSR when it collapsed. Those that continue to push for this concept have not addressed the global problems that it has caused nor demonstrated how they will ever get any accountability into the trade process to help secure liberty and freedom.

Second in this is the idea of global organizations being able to remove the capability of Nations to defend themselves via disarmament. While being a very lofty goal, the concept that humanity will not look at any tool as having a capability for harm is misguided in the extreme. Further, so long as there are individuals and groups of same that look to espouse and enforce doctrine and their own oversight on others, the need to be armed for self-defense alone is necessary and right. And as even a shield may bash, so it is difficult to find any defense that cannot be used in an offensive and provocative manner. By trying to entrust this to a larger organization of States, each with their own self-interest, what is developed is the least capable system for assuring liberty and freedom and a system that allows tyrants to befuddle those trusting such systems while they continue to expand their influence via force of arms. A misguided notion is that the League of Nations failed because the US did not join it. The League of Nations had no means or methodology to succeed, and in every case where the US had *no* stake in the goings-on, which was almost all of them, the actual influence of the US would have been, effectively, nil.

The moment a Nation has a stake in anything, then their position changes, and if they have *no* stake then they have no guide for justice nor for ensuring freedom as such a decision would be seen as imposed without input from those involved. And as those involved are the ones usually under the gun, they are the ones to suffer no matter *what* the decision would be. By relying solely on international good will, without any capability to demonstrate reciprocity and assurance that agreements would be adhered to, the League of Nations like the United Nations, fails constantly in its outlook. Such organizations become stumbling blocks to finding solutions and delay solutions so that they are seen as unjust no matter what is decided. This would, ultimately, lead to Transnationalism and the concept that the Nation State has outlived its usefulness

Third, and finally, is the thorough misjudging the character of the American People in wartime. President Wilson, wishing to avoid visiting the horrors of the Civil War on a new generation, did not take into account how the US was already reacting to the massacre and holocaust of the Armenian People in the closing decades of the 19th century. And while a number of religious schools opened in the Middle East, they promulgated a form of Nationalism that would turn into Pan-Arabism. Many of the very same kings and dictators that the US would have to oppose in the middle 20th century were taught at US backed religious schools in the Middle East. That flow of information, while still having a great rose colored tint to it due to religion, was bringing home the fact that the oppression of peoples in that region was ongoing and deep. The lack of freedom and liberty was highly apparent throughout the Ottoman Empire and some of its break-away components. The disgust that the American People had for the Kaiser was also reflected upon the Ottoman Empire which was seen as a key ally to Germany. Even after seeing the horrific cost paid by Australia and others to try and invade, Congress *still* pushed for going to war against Turkey, but bowed in this Foreign Policy arena to the President. By not showing the full will to fight *for* liberty and democracy, President Wilson was asking for a half-loaf from America when America was learning that the time to set things right that it had seen as wrong was arriving. The US Armed Forces increased eightfold in under one year and proved to be an aggressive fighting force in the trenches of France and prepared to die in thousands there to help remove the grasp of a tyrant. To do so in the Middle East would have required more resources, but at the end of the war the US was left with an Army with 1 million men in it which pretty much stood the Nation alone in the world at that point in time. The fast and poor demobilization of that Army would lead to more unrest at home in following decades, but to have that sort of capability left demonstrated that America had the will and fighting power to take on much more than just the European theater of war.

By 1919 the United States would see more personal rights removed than had previously been the case all the way up to 1909, a burgeoning economy which was growing larger than any of the remaining world powers, a Congress slowly sliding into an arthritic grasp that would not change much year on year, see the groundwork for the Second World War be built upon, and after that see the slow removal of Nation State legitimacy via those that pushed that no war is worth fighting, that no tyranny is worth opposing and that free trade will free people. When combined, these things have given us a tyrannical brew that is slowly grinding down liberty and freedom at home and abroad and disenfranchising the American People from their Government as that Government drifts more into the hands of permanent power that does not care about party affiliations, just the continuance of those people and families in power.

World War I was, indeed a bad war. It was poorly fought and when the US entered into fighting it did not stand by her ideals. America fought to not lose the war, not win it and the peace thereafter. And that un-lost war remains at the root of much of our modern problems as they stem from there and get nourishment from that vile mass that marks the first genocide of the 20th century. Leaving it un-lost would encourage many more and worse ones to follow. That can either be stopped by discontinuing the things that allow this, or continue on the path we are on which will end in global genocide bought cheaply by the enemies of human liberty.