Occupy Political Offices

"Good authors too who once knew better words
Now only use four-letter words
Writing prose.
Anything goes."

When Herman Cain can put his hands upon
Any skirt that he should chance upon
Heaven knows,
Anything goes.

I chanced upon yet another ancient surprise this weekend, the Child Labor Amendment, proposed in 1924. Mostly child labor has since become illegal or highly regulated, but in 1924 children were still working under appalling conditions in a variety of industries. Not only was there not a federal law prohibiting child labor, but the Supreme Court had struck down, over the years, a number of state laws prohibiting or regulating child labor (just as they had struck down other labor laws.). For instance, in 1923 the Supreme Court ruled that even in the federal district of Washington, D.C., a minimum wage law for women and children was unconstitutional, in Adkins v. Children's Hospital.

The Amendment was opposed not just by the crueler members of the business community, but by the Catholic Bishops. In their wisdom they felt the amendment would lead, eventually, to government control of child rearing. In Catholic Countries they took a different attitude. There the Church used the Government to force Catholicism upon all children. That would be a central dogma of fascism in the next two decades, and in Spain until the death of General Franco.

Text of this amendment, worth considering (for style, not content) by those who are moving to amend the U.S. Constitution:

Section 1. The Congress shall have power to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age. Section 2. The power of the several States is unimpaired by this article except that the operation of State laws shall be suspended to the extent necessary to give effect to legislation enacted by the Congress.

28 states passed the amendment before the drive petered out.

At least they needed laborers in the 1920s. The U.S. people had made out like bandits in World War I. In fact, the U.S. people acted exactly like bandits in World War I. We sold our excess products to the warring parties and loaned Britain and France vast sums of money. Then we entered the war at the last minute and helped Britain and France to loot Germany. Holding most of the world's money at the end of the war, and reaping interest and principal on the loans, enough trickled down from the big New York banks to allow the entire nation to have a party that included a real estate boom and a stock market anyone could get rich playing.

Then things fell apart. Capitalism fell apart without any help from government regulations. Don't forget that.

Occupy Wall Street and its spawn continues to evolve and exchange DNA with labor unions and political ideas and trends of all kinds. Can Occupy, or some related organization-like substance, do what the Tea Party did in 2010? Which is to say, convert ideas into practice.
That would take something the Left is very bad at: winning political offices. Winning here meaning elected our own people, and ones with backbone, rather than allowing career politicians to slightly change their election rhetoric and appear to be aligned with us.

We have a big disadvantage compared to the Tea Party: a lack of billionaires willing to fund our campaigns in the way necessary to actually win political elections. But we also have some serious cultural issues of our own holding us back. First, like the Tea Party, we mostly don't really like government. But, like the Tea Party, we should not let that stop us. We should capture the government that is there now and make it smaller. We should cut Pentagon spending and eliminate an entire branch of the armed services, the Marine Corps. We should minimize the DEA. We should abolish the system of farm subsidies. We should kill federal transportation dollars and allow the states to take care of their own highways.

We should also close all tax loopholes used by the rich. All capital gains in liquid assets (stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments) should be taxed at the regular income tax rates, with capital gains taxed the year they accrue (not waiting until an instrument is sold, as is currently the practice). The oil and gas industry should lose its subsidies and tax breaks. Once we start paying down the deficit run up by the Pentagon and oil companies, we can adjust tax rates to optimize happiness for the rest of us.

But to do all that, we need our own people in office. We need the kind of backbone in the state legislatures and Congress that the Tea Party has now. And that means pissing off the Democratic Party establishment. Pissing on them until they go away and we can occupy their old offices. Face up to reality: in the short run we can't occupy many offices held by Republicans. But we could occupy a significant number of offices held by establishment Democrats.

That means taking risks, just like the Tea Party took risks in trying to win offices from the Republican Party. The mainstream and Wall Street Republicans told the Tea Party that if they ran their own candidates in primaries, even if they won the primaries they would just lose the general elections and put more Democrats in office.

For decades I have heard the same argument from establishment Democrats: run your own candidates in the primaries, and even if they win, they would just lose the general elections and put more Republicans into office. We wouldn't want that, would we?

People are mad at incumbents, but they need some outside agitation to make offices actually change hands. This is the opportunity of a lifetime. Now is the time to start organizing campaigns for 2012. It is not easy. The banks have robbed us, and the law allows them to give themselves bonuses. We are not allowed to rob banks to finance our campaigns; that would be against the gruel of law. But ways and means must be found, or America will become increasingly like a capitalist gulag for the vast majority of American citizens.

Andrew Jackson, The Fundamentalist Constitution, and the Balanced Budget Amendment

The idea of the Fundamentalist Constitution predates the Tea Party. In fact, it was one of the streams that swelled into the Tea Party a few years back. The basic idea is that the U.S. Constitution was written by God, is a continuation of the Hebrew Ten Commandments, and should be interpreted in a manner consistent with 18th century American religious thought. Those who subscribe to this view are also related to or known as "originalists" for the Original Constitution, or "tenthers" because they love the 10th Amendment, which of course was not even part of the original Constitution.

That view is easy to critique, yet is becoming increasingly popular because it fits well with the latter day fundamentalist Christian, free-market Money worshipping, God pits every woman against all approach to society beloved by Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and other patriarchs of the anti-federal movement.

I already wrote in The Fundamentalist Constitution, The Tea Party, and Federalist 62, that documentation from that era provides no support for the fundamentalist viewpoint. If anything, originalism in its current state makes a mockery of strict construction of the Constitution, which has always had its advocates and is supported, somewhat, in both the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers.

Reading President Andrew Jackson's first State of the Union address to Congress of December 1829, I found some compelling commentary. I am not a fan of Andrew Jackson.

I am writing my Internet Biography of Andrew Jackson mainly to show how unethical the man was, and how that lack of basic human decency has always been at the core of the Democratic Party. Yet politics makes strange bedfellows. Given enough political issues, I am sure to agree with almost everyone on a thing or two. Jackson told Congress:

"I consider it one of the most urgent of my duties to bring to your attention the propriety of amending that part of the Constitution which relates to the election of President and Vice-President. Our system of government was by its framers deemed an experiment, and they therefore consistently provided a mode of remedying its defects."

God, we are told by Creationists, always gets things right the first time. One creation, no experimenting with evolution. If President Jackson was correct that the framers deemed the Constitution, the blueprint for our system of government, an experiment, then the Fundamentalists have two choices. They can say that God foresaw the need for Amendments, as that would give politicians something wholesome to do. Or they could back off the God Wrote It stuff and argue from the traditional, conservative Strict Construction viewpoint, and so not reveal themselves to be lunatics.

Or they could argue that Jackson was wrong. But then they would have to explain why God let Jackson win the Battle of New Orleans and go on to become President.

While I frequently argue that Jackson was wrong on many issues (and a murderer, adulterer, thief, and yes, a man who made money pitting dogs in fights against one another), I would like to point out that, as a child soldier, Jackson fought in the American Revolution. It is what bent him so out of shape as a youth. When the Constitution was ratified in September 1788, young Andrew Jackson was twenty-one years old. He heard the controversy about whether or not to replace the Articles of Confederation with the new Constitution. He became a lawyer, and he came to know several of the Founding Fathers. Unless he had some reason for lying about it, he genuinely believed that Our system of government was by its framers deemed an experiment.

The experimental method has led to some improvements over time. I certainly don't agree with everything the federal government has done or is doing, but I think that abolishing slavery and giving women the vote were experiments that have gone well. As Jackson wished, after President for Life Franklin D. Roosevelt made a mockery of precedent, now Presidents are limited in how long they can hold office.

So I'm not against amendments. I am against a Balanced Budget amendment. Strangely, the originalists in the Tea Party, and most Republican politicians in the House of Representatives, don't like the fact that the Original Constitution does not call for a balanced budget. I guess God forgot to send a Hebrew accountant to the Constitutional Convention to explain the issue.

Instead, Alexander Hamilton got his foot in the door. The man understood high finance the way Ms. Palin understands sled dogs. The way the Bachmann family understands how to shake down the government for money to house orphans. He actually studied how the British banking system and government finance worked. Imagine that. He engineered a starting off national debt by getting the Revolutionary War debts of the States assumed by the Federal Government. They (the States, or at least their politicians) were happy not to have to pay those debts. They were happy to let the Federal Government impose customs duties and taxes on alcohol and tobacco to pay off those debts.

Nevertheless, Andrew Jackson wanted to pay off the national debt that existed when he assumed the Presidency, which was largely a legacy of the War of 1812 and the intervening recession. Fortunately, an earlier Congress had passed a tariff or duty on imports, providing plenty of tax revenue. The debt was under $50 million (that's right, not billion or trillion) at the time, and about $12 million was paid off in 1829.

When the economy is strong, the federal government should spend less than it takes in and pay down the national debt. During recessions the government should spend more than it collects in taxes. That helps balance the business cycles that result from free market capitalism, and yes, it provides pensions for old people and aid to the sick and disabled. Make that into an amendment, and you can have my support.