Today, as President Obama takes the oath thingy about upholding the U.S. Constitution— his hand resting not on the Constitution itself, but instead on a book bursting at the seams with befuddling contradictions, cruel prejudices, self-destructive rationales, and death-defying wish-fulfillment fantasies— pundits aplenty will trot out the vapid cliche, “the peaceful transfer of power,” to congratulate the country and its political elites on not resorting to bloody insurrection to install a new president. “America,” cliche-peddlers will propound, “is the envy of the world,” because of this peaceful power transfer business.
Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against peaceful transfers. I was a half-back when I played football in my youth and always appreciated a decent hand-off at the beginning of a play. However, gushing over a peaceful transfer… of power… strikes me as jumping the gun in light of the obvious and pertinent question, the peaceful transfer of power to do what exactly?
Many people argue that a democratically elected president has earned the consent of the people, such consent being the prerequisite for the just exercise of political power. President Obama won the election fair and square, therefore he has the moral right to use his power to pursue the agenda that ostensibly got him elected. That’s an intuition-friendly notion, but it’s deeply flawed.
The process by which politicians are elected is separate and distinct from the source of an elected official’s moral legitimacy. The democratic means by which an American politician gains power do not justify the ends to which he purposes that power, just as the technical processes by which a bill becomes a law do not magically confer on that law the quality of being just. Tragically, we live in a time when the Constitution is treated primarily as an instructions manual for electing officials and passing laws. But it is fraudulent to assert that laws passed in a “constitutionally” adequate manner are necessarily constitutional. Substance matters, people!
How should elected officials morally justify their use of power?
In America, which is a republic not a democracy, each citizen’s freedom to act and our government’s latitude for passing and enforcing laws should be substantively limited (1) by the inherent value of individual human life and (2) by the concept that no one is above the law (ie, the rule of law). Doesn’t get more basic than this. Every person must be treated as the sole owner of his/her life; no person can be used against his/her will as a means to the ends of others; all laws apply equally to all people.
Another way of saying this is that in a free society, an individual’s actions and a legislature’s laws are justified by their consistent respect for private property rights, that is, each individual’s inviolable right to the use of his/her body, mind, labor, land, and belongings.
The most profound stimulus program that our government could possibly undertake would be based on (1) repealing all laws that regulate, tax, or punish nonviolent behavior, entrepreneurial activity, and voluntary trades and (2) repealing all laws that confer advantages and/or wealth on some at the involuntary expense of others. Respecting individual liberty and the rule of law would result in government we can afford and a sustainable, dynamic, wealth and innovation producing economy. And here’s the thing: President Obama has the power to advance this approach to our country’s dismal economic situation, which is itself a product of disrespecting individual liberty and undermining the rule of law. Alas, don’t hold your breath. President Obama is launching his first term with politics-as-usual, nearly a trillion dollars worth of “stimulus” spending, using money he’ll borrow from ours and future generations’ earnings. Moreover, Obama promises more trillions in deficit spending to come. Audaciously, I hope that he’ll change his mind, give me something I can believe in, like real change, for example. Otherwise, I hope he’ll be thwarted by sensible opponents, though the ranks of the sensible are thin.
A peaceful transfer of power is a good start, but President Obama will be judged on what he did with the ball after the hand-off. Here’s some of what I’ll be paying attention to over the next four years.
***
• To what extent will President Obama use his power to repeal/weaken/affirm/strengthen laws that interfere with my freedom to make decisions about the use and treatment of my body? In medical, recreational, reproductive, and sexual contexts, will President Obama leave me free to make choices and pursue options on my own, or intervene in ways that criminalize peaceful options or increase the costs of legal ones? Will he interfere with the market processes that generate more and less costly health care options, or will he wedge more bureaucracy between me and health care professionals? Will he set free people who are wasting away in jail for simple drug possession/drug use/or selling to adults?
• To what extent will President Obama interfere with my freedom and ability to make money, invest capital, hire employees, grow my business. Will he restrict nonviolent career options? Will he reject the bullying techniques of unions? Will he support or reject price floors on labor, tariffs, wealth transfers to groups of people or industries? Will he eliminate/decrease/increase taxes on capital gains? Will he use the tax code to discriminate against levels of success? Will he abolish the Department of Agriculture, or at the very least eliminate the sinful practice of paying farmers not to grow (or even to destroy) crops? Will he downsize or upsize the federal government? Will he get the government out of the retirement insurance business or raise taxes to meet shortfalls?
* To what extent will President Obama expand or reduce the global U.S. military presence? Will he repeal the Patriot Act? Will he engage in preemptive interventions? Will he only engage in foreign military actions after a proper declaration of war by Congress?
My libertylovin’ fingers are crossed on both hands.
{ 0 comments }
