Governments don’t belong in religion, arts, or the sciences.

 

Dr. Anthony Fauci, highest paid person in government

Governments don’t belong in religion, arts, or the sciences. The Constitution only gives the government a referee role with patents, outright orders the government to stay away from religion, and doesn’t even mention the arts. Unfortunately, politicians with an authoritarian bent can’t leave these realms alone because they compete for power and messaging. Typically, autocrats repress religion, co-opt art, and decree science. Sound familiar?

What’s the worst that can happen? Let’s look at how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) manages science. The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) is a galactic-class arbiter of research, collaborations, and communication about all things scientific. CAS funds pure and applied scientific research throughout China … and the rest of the world. It comprises over one hundred institutions that directly employ over sixty thousand researchers. With royal benevolence, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has given CAS permission to build independent sources of income. CAS owns or holds shares in more than thirty enterprises. For example, CAS is the largest Lenovo shareholder, one of the three major personal computer companies in the world

Externally, CAS presents itself as wealthy enough to thumb its nose at CCP apparatchiks. Only the gullible believe this. No organization important to the Chinese state is allowed an iota of independence. Several members of the executive board are CCP members, and one even is a member of the Presidium. He carries the title, Head of the Discipline Inspection Team. (Wonder what that could be.) CAS muckamucks have twice been subjected to harsh re-education, so with watchdogs underfoot, the Academy dutifully adheres to CCP wishes.

Nature wrote a glowing editorial titled “The ChineseAcademy of Sciences at 70.”  More interesting, the journal published a letter-to-the-editor from Qingquan Zhang, the CAS Chief Public Information Officer.  He found several things in the article “quite misleading.”

CAS is not run independently of government, as you imply.  The establishment and development of CAS have been entirely based on the wisdom and support of the central government.

Contrary to your headline, CAS has never sought or achieved financial autonomy.  Over the past 40 years, half of its income has come directly from central-government investment; the rest has been from competitive funding or technology transfer.  CAS could not develop without the funding and support of the central government.

In carrying out its scientific and technical mission, CAS stands firmly with the central government and with the people.  We reject any such false allegations with disruptive intentions and are strongly opposed to biased judgments of China’s internal affairs, and to any unnatural linking of political or ideological positions with our mission.

Most Americans would consider the editorial a puff piece. However, Nature did state that during the Cultural Revolution:

Torture was commonplace and, according to CAS’s own records, 229 scientists were either killed or took their own lives in this time.

The Chinese Communist Party does not accept criticism, even when embedded in an otherwise positive portrayal. 

What does this portend for us? Is science in the United States unduly influenced by government?  We don’t bundle our scientific institutions under a single umbrella organization; however, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is our best-known government funded medical institution.  It offers guidelines that other government agencies seem to treat as if they have the force of law. That makes the CDC a powerful and unchecked arbiter of American life.

Could CDC “science” be biased by politics? CDC communications have often shown more loyalty to the Democratic Party narrative than to the underlying science. This is especially obvious in report summaries which frequently promote a theme not found in the detail findings. Since 2015, all but 5 of 8,000 political donations made by CDC employees went to Democrats or left-leaning organizations. China could send home their political officers if they could achieve this level of groupthink.

Science is the opposite of politics. Science is rational, objective, orderly. Everything that politics is not.  In science you not only have to prove your hypothesis, but others must replicate your experiment and achieve the same results. In politics, not so much. Yet, politicians love to meddle in this space.

Make no mistake, politicians want to control science so they can use the discipline as a public relations tool.

Vilify our Founders? To what purpose?

Most of us watched aghast as hoodlums ripped down Confederate flags and statues. Democrats seamlessly progressed beyond heroes on horseback to our revolutionary Founders and Constitutional Framers. After a couple years, the absence of a statue will hardly be noticed, so these acts had little consequence. Wanton destruction may have seemed mindless, but there’s a bigger goal in mind.  Their end game is the obliteration of our Constitution.

Democrats have always hated the Constitution. Our system of government hinders ruling in a manner they deem appropriate. They’ve whittled at the edges for over two hundred years, but the Framers were so clever that even a stripped-down version remains a forceful restraint against them exercising their full ambitions. To a committed progressive, the Constitution must be brushed aside so real progress can be made.

Here’s their problem.  The Constitution has become so entrenched in our American culture that it’s more than words on parchment. The Constitution is as American as baseball and apple pie. To rid the nation of something that ingrained, the first task is to discredit the authors.

The Founders feared centralized power so they designed an instrument to thwart the ambitions of despots and crackpots. For perspective, let’s look at the intent of the Framers and some of the erosion of their vision.

Most Americans are familiar with the term checks and balances.  It is often spoken as if it were a single word, but in the eighteenth century, the phrase represented distinctly different concepts.  John Adams may have been the first to put the words together in his 1787 publication, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States, but balances and checks is the phrase used in The Federalist, and that is the sequence James Madison would have thought appropriate.  First balance powers between the branches of government, then place checks on those powers so they may not be abused.

The Framers first line of defense was enumerated powers, later reaffirmed by the states and Congress with the 10th amendment.  Unfortunately, few in Washington consider the enumerated powers a present-day constraint.  Many find it amusing that someone might claim there are limits on national power.

Another bulwark erected by the Framers against concentrated power was a limited national taxing authority. Squeeze the purse, throttle the power. However, progressives under Woodrow Wilson passed the 16th Amendment, which allows the government to “collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived.” That pretty much took care of any money restraint.

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention intended the states to provide a potent check on the national government.  They included five provisions for this purpose: enumerated national powers, equal state representation in the Senate, senators elected by state legislatures, limited national taxing authority, and the Electoral College.  The 17^th Amendment, also passed under Wilson, provided for the popular election of senators, so three of the five provisions have been negated while the other two are under assault.

Despite these and other erosions the Constitution remains a potent restraining order against overly ambitious politicians. Healthy tension exists between the three branches and most of their respective powers remain intact. Something must be done. The rebellion has already progressed from flags and statues to condemnation of the Founders and Framers. In recent years, learned articles have periodically appeared that impugn our Constitution as too restrictive, woefully out of date, and written by white males who owned slaves. (The first is a feature, not a flaw; the second untrue; and the third partially true but irrelevant.) In the coming months, expect to see many more think-pieces along these lines.  On cue, criticism will expand to the popular culture. The topic will crest when late-night talk show hosts tell disparaging jokes about the Framers and our Constitution.

We cannot allow this to happen.  Fifty-five highly educated and talented men debated daily for four months to define a government that would work for the people while shielding them from the power crazed. Their work was ratified by the people who argued at home, at church, in taverns, and in print until every facet had been examined and reexamined. New states, wars, depressions, state succession, GDP growth, longevity, twenty-seven amendments, and the constant striving to live up to our founding principles proves that the Framers’ foresight remains invaluable.

Human frailties are no reason to throw away the Framers’ brilliance. 

Rapacious politicians are reason enough to heed their counsel. 

Socialism is for Losers

Why has socialism become trendy? Why would a presidential candidate laud a government system that carries a heartbreaking record of failure? Millions have died under socialism and its more virulent permutations. Hundreds of millions have suffer deprivation and bondage under this egregious form of authoritarianism. Venezuela is crumbing with people fleeing in every direction. Misery and despotism entrap North Koreans while their brethren to the south live in the eleventh richest nation on Earth. There are no boats of refugees risking life and limb to get to Cuba. Despite a mass inflow of Muslim immigrants into Sweden, the supposed Shangri la of socialism has a net emigration rate of 5.3 per thousand. Not a ringing endorsement for the Left’s utopia.

(Technically, Sweden is not socialist. They’re a welfare state adept at allowing enough free enterprise to bankroll government services. Sweden recognizes that only capitalism builds wealth. Despite slow growth and skattetrat, this model has previously worked relatively well because of a small population and homogeneous culture. This will be tested in coming years with the influx of cultures eager to seize the benefits of Swedish welfare.)

People who have lived under socialism certainly don’t like it. Eastern Europeans aren’t buying this crap. Cubans who escaped are ardent conservatives and Castro haters. Even people in Russia and Albania prefer a kleptocracy to communism. You don’t see India or China backing away from their shift to a market economy.  The truth is capitalism has lifted scores of millions out of poverty. 

So, again, who in the world likes socialism? To answer this question, we need to examine capitalism. Capitalism is competitive ... and competition is the engine that drives enormous growth in wealth and wellbeing. Businesses and entrepreneurs strive to invent or concoct stuff people will buy. To thrive, they need the public to willingly trade hard-earned money for their products and services. It's rough and messy and stressful. You could be on top this year and find yourself run over by some whippersnapper next year. If you’re an individual contributor, you need a marketable skill or talent. If you want more of the American Dream, you need to continuously hone your skill or talent. This constant tension to invent, innovate, and work drives wealth creation under capitalism. Sometimes the rug gets pulled out from under you, and although you may get a tad of help from safety nets, the ultimate onus is on you to pick yourself up. 

Capitalism is not a laid-back system. Some thrive under it, others not so much.

Capitalism also provides checks and balances as it disperses power between government, business, religions, and non-profits. When capitalism is mentioned, most people think of big corporations, but family businesses account for 64 percent of gross domestic product and 62 percent of employment. Family businesses grow faster, hire faster. New entries that knock Fortune 500 companies off the listing come from up-and-comers that previously resided below the last ranked firm. 

Turmoil and change is endemic to capitalism.

Under socialism, government owns most or all the means of production. (Under fascism, government and large corporations collude to the same result.) Socialism concentrates power and money in the government. Checks no longer exist because no balance exists. Power-crazed politicians hunger for socialism because it makes them and their friends all powerful. Government, enterprise, and doctrinal adherence are consolidated into a single entity. This is the way Europe was ruled during the Dark Ages. Nobility and the Vatican colluded to hold all power in the hands of a few aristocrats. The outcome was slow growth, lackluster societal advancement, and little social mobility. Everyone had a place ... and everyone knew their place. Enforcement of the system led to repression and extreme concentration of wealth.

So, who in the world likes socialism? 

Losers.

Calling someone a loser might sound like a pejorative, but the fact remains that there are losers under capitalism. Some can’t make it in the rough and tumble world of capitalism. Some of those take a government job or run for office. Despite turning their back on free enterprise, many still lust after the rewards of capitalism. They’re jealous of people in the private sector and resent their ability to accumulate wealth. They see it as a wrong. They want—no, need—to get their hands on the largess of a free market system. Socialism provides the answer for these losers. As government employees or officials they reap the rewards of others' industry. The total economy will be smaller, but their share is humongous compared to public servants under capitalism. Never mind the misery of the masses, they have the best food, nice clothes, and all the creature comforts imaginable.

There's a problem: how do they sell socialism to the general populous? They appeal to people without job skills, people without education or training, people with impairments, people with addictions, people with a criminal past, people with debts, people who made poor life choices, people with mental illnesses, people here illegally, and the marginalized who can’t get a fair shake. Are there enough of these people to overthrow the greatest wealth creation engine ever invented? Elections have proved no. So the power-crazed cheat in elections, manufacture more losers, and import the poor from other counties.

Capitalism broke us out of feudalism and brought a decent livelihood to the masses. Socialists want to create a new nobility and make everyone else serfs again. Being a slave to the state is no different than being a slave to a master. Your betters decide how you live, what work you do, and how much you are paid. To keep everyone in their place and maintain discipline, government bureaucrats control what you say and even what you may think. If you don’t believe me, seek out someone who has lived under socialism.

Politicians ought to forthrightly debate the human and financial cost of forcing equality among commoners. Unfortunately, socialism consumes wealth and eventually makes everyone equally impoverished. But that is not the primary reason to avoid socialism.

The real crime of socialism is that it sucks the heart out of a nation and its people.

The Constitution is a restraining order on government.

 

Government and Economics Made Dead Simple

There are only two types of governments. Two. That’s it. Those where the people control the government and those where the government controls the people. Likewise, there are only two types of economic systems. Economies where free markets control commerce and economies where bureaucrats control commerce.

It’s that simple.  Really.

The Two Types of Governments

Most governments control people. This has been the case throughout history. Proponents of Big Government used different nomenclatures to describe their ideal system, but they all have one overriding characteristic—power centralized in government.

Socialism, fascism, communism, feudalism, monarchies, dictatorships, theocracies, police states, a unitary state, oligarchies, et. al. concentrate power in the state. The underlying political theology is irrelevant. In each and every case, the individual is subject to control by the state. It doesn’t matter who orders you about. It could be a king, emperor, dictator, a party general secretary, or an elected machine politician. The result is the same. You do as you’re told. You’re a serf, plain and simple.

Occasionally, people control government. This is rare. Those fortunate nations believe that people are born with natural rights and inherently possess the liberty to direct their own lives. The term democracy is bandied about, but nations based on sovereign individuals are never pure democracies. Democracies can take whatever they want from groups outside the majority voting bloc. Instead of being sovereign individuals, those outside the mainstream can be victims of the popular vote. As James Madison pointed out, slavery would be a perfect example of this concept.

Countries that respect an individual right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are representative republics or parliamentary systems with safeguards for minority interests.

The United States of America was founded on the principle of sovereign individuals—an idea that flipped the concept of “divine right of kings” on its head. Instead of rulers being ordained by God to rule, each and every person was “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”  

Of course, nothing’s absolute in this world, but the greater the power of the state, the less power held by the people. Our Founders understood this and possessed a healthy fear of an overly powerful government.

Two Types of Economies

Commerce enables our lives. Few can self-provide all of life’s necessities, so the human species has always relied on trade to get some of what they need or want. 

In centrally managed systems, bureaucrats decide what gets produced, in what quantity, and how these goods are distributed. If you believed in the infallibility of man, you might think this is a nifty system. You’d be wrong. It’s been tried countless times and always failed to deliver the goods. State run economies generate shortages that never seem to go away. You see a line; you get in line. It doesn’t matter what they’re selling. You either need it or can trade it on the black market for what you do need. Oh yeah, state run economies always have black markets. The ruling class disparages black markets because the term really denotes the sector of the economy that remains market driven. To see something work without government direction is embarrassing to bureaucrats.

Centrally managed economies generate shortages. On the other hand, market driven economies produce abundance. Why? Because every time you buy something, you’re voting for what you want. Independent producers, with no guidance from above, tally these votes and make more of what you bought. They do this to make a profit.

Profit is the fee producers get for making desirable stuff available to the public.  If you don’t like it, they lose. If you like it a lot, they get rich.  If that’s not clear, ask Steve Jobs, Taylor Swift, or LeBron James. The dollar incentive to get the right stuff to market is what makes a market economy hum. At times profits get exorbitant, but other producers see this and rush to get in on the action. Unless … the current producers are in cahoots with the government. You see, governments can create barriers that other producers can’t overcome, thus ensuring that their chosen suppliers continue to make a killing. The chosen suppliers, of course, provide kickbacks to their political overlords. This is called crony capitalism, or in its extreme variant, fascism.

Which brings up a final point. Nothing in this world is black and white. It’s a gray scale. Different governments wield different levels of power. But once the centralization of power passes the tipping point, governments go totalitarian. All of them. No exceptions. Human beings are flawed creatures. Some have an inborn need to control everyone else. Control obsessed individuals are never satisfied and constantly strive to increase their control over every aspect of society.  They claim that they’ll take care of you, but it’s a bait and switch game. They really want you under their thumb.

Socialism does more than deny you material things, it sucks the soul out of a society. Socialist countries are sad, dreary places.

Final Take-Away

Excessive power in government is bad. Period! Socialism concentrates governmental and commercial power in the state. No checks, no balances. Raw power centralized in one place where the most ruthless can grab it to dominate other human beings. For most of the eight billion people on Earth, this is their way of life. Why would we want to join them?

Our freedom depends on We The People controlling our government … not the other way around. Freedom is a precious commodity.  So rare, few in history have experienced it.  As Ben Franklin put it so succinctly, the real question is can we keep it.