The Social Contract of Democracy -- the President, the Senate, and the U.S. Supreme Court

Democracy is a social contract.  It is a tacit agreement between competing interests to abide by the results of a vote, with the majority carrying the decision.  Democracy is the only fair way to achieve peaceful transfers of power and peaceful evolution of society.

There is currently a vacancy on the Supreme Court, due to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia on February 16, 2016.  President Obama has nominated Merrick Garland, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals, D.C. District, to fill that seat.  Confirmation of the President’s nominee by the U.S. Senate is required to complete the appointment to the Court, and return the Court to its full complement of Justices.  Republicans in the Senate have refused to allow hearings for Judge Garland, or for any nomination by President Obama.  Judge Garland has received the highest honors and recommendations throughout his education and career, and is undeniably well-qualified to serve as a Supreme Court Justice.

The Republican Senate is currently in open rebellion against the Constitution which they so fervently and hypocritically invoke.  The Senate has an obligation under the Constitution to advise and consent to the President’s nomination to the Supreme Court.  There is no provision for delaying until the next election.  There is no provision for refusing to consider any candidate nominated by the President.   

John McCain has pledged to block any nomination to the Supreme Court, if Hillary Clinton is elected President.  This is a continuation of the Republican violation of our social contract of democracy under the constitution.

I do not know what Republicans now expect, if the roles are reversed, and a Republican president expects to nominate conservative justices to the Supreme Court.  I can guarantee that there will be no cooperation, because I see no reason for Democrats to ever cooperate with Republicans on filling a Supreme Court vacancy which by all rights belongs to a Democratic president.  The consequence must the destruction of our judicial system, and with it, our society.

Donald Trump has pledged that if he loses, it can only be “because the system is rigged” – a totally baseless claim.  In the third presidential debate, Trump stated that he would only agree to abide by the results of the election if he wins.  This is again a violation of our social contract.  

This is not the way it is supposed to work. 

Republicans have broken the social contract of American democracy for eight years.  We cannot have a democratic form of government with this behavior.  We cannot have a peaceful transfer of power without respectful acceptance of the results of our elections. 

Throughout the presidency of Barrack Obama, Republicans have broken that social contract in word and deed.  From the first day of his presidency, Republicans have denied the legitimacy of his leadership.  They have slandered Obama with outlandish lies circulated on social media.   Prominent Republicans, conservative leaders and media have spoken publicly of their commitment to deny Obama any legislative victory.  They have stalled nominations beyond any precedent, bringing the functions of government to a standstill.  They have blocked funding on critical national issues such as public health.  They have deliberately and grossly misrepresented the status of the country to the credulous Republican voter base with regard to important national issues:  employment, taxes, crime, and immigration.

Republicans have repeatedly proved that they do not believe in democracy, by gerrymandering districts, by spurious and discriminatory voter ID laws, by gathering thugs to intimidate voters at the polls, with intimidation and bullying at every level, as evidenced by Donald Trump’s physical intimidation of Hillary Clinton at the second debate.  That kind of behavior must stop if we are to preserve our form of government.

Republicans have the power to shut down the American government.  Republicans have the power to shut down the Judicial branch of government.  But they do not have the right to do so.  Continued intransigence by Republicans can only be detrimental to the country, and will end the peaceful transfers of power we have enjoyed, which are unique in the world for a period of a century and a half.  

The Arms Race Against the World

Mitt Romeny's foreign policy advisors are from the same group of advisors which led the United States into war in Iraq.  The primary point of neo-conservative foreign policy  is to build military capability beyond challenge, but that level of military spending is unsustainable considering our current budget deficits.  It is an arms race against the world.
-----------------------

Maureen Dowd recently wrote a column about the Republican Presidential campaign and its advisors for foreign policy in the Mid-east.   Dowd received criticism for what some considered an anti-Semitic bias in her comments, and support from others who saw no bias. 

For my part, I think she was on-target.  Foreign policy under a Romney administration would be directed by the same group of Neo-conservatives that guided the Bush administration into Iraq.   I recall the Neoconservative vision that the Iraq war would cost less than $50 billion, and that pro-American democracy would spread from Iraq throughout the Middle-east.    You might say it’s funny how that worked out. 

The total cost of the war in Iraq to Americans is now estimated at over $3 trillion (not including costs to other nations, including Iraq).   As for the spread of pro-American democracy in the Mid-east, you can judge for yourself based upon recent events.

 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/dowd-neocons-slither-back.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/09/maureen-dowd-meets-antisemitism-charge-135700.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/09/the-critics-of-maureen-dowds-critics-135768.html

------

Let’s look at Neo-Conservative thinking with regard to foreign policy. 

Neo-conservative foreign policy is based on the idea that America is the world’s sole superpower, and should remain the world’s sole superpower.   The ideology is expressed as the “Bush Doctrine”, which is considered synonymous with Neo-conservative foreign policy.

There are four points to the doctrine.

1)  America should keep a military capability beyond challenge in the world.  Neo-conservatives believe that other countries will recognize America’s power as benign.  They believe that weaker countries will choose to align themselves with the United States, rather than opposing America’s military power.

2)  America holds the right to use pre-emptive (first-strike) military force, as considered necessary. 

3)  America will choose to act unilaterally as needed, bypassing the United Nations, bypassing the process of building an international consensus, and ignoring the opinion of the international community with regard to military action.

4)  America should promote democracy globally.   This facet of the policy was considered particularly important in the Islamic world, where democracy was considered a crucial element in combating terrorism.  Neo-conservatives believe that promoting democracy, by force if necessary, will create a safer and more pro-American world.

[Primary Source: The Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War; http://www.aup.edu/pdf/WPSeries/AUP_wp61-WilliamsSchmidt.pdf]

The Neo-Conservative world-view ignores the realities of human psychology, the rights of other nations to self-determination, and the costs of carrying out this vision.

In considering a superpower with a commitment to pre-emptive military force and unilateral action, weaker nations are unlikely to consider America’s power as benign.  The Bush Doctrine creates fear, and provides every motivation to develop or acquire nuclear weapons, which may be the only weapons which could deter an American attack.  Thus every nation which might be potentially in opposition to the United States is motivated to build the greatest military capability as possible.  Further, neo-conservatives never considered the possibility that emergent democracies might be in greater opposition to America than the preceding dictatorships.

America’s military spending amounts to nearly 5% of annual GDP.    Our annual military spending is greater than military spending by China, Russia, Britain, France, Japan, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, Brazil, combined (after adjustments for purchasing power).   In fact, America’s annual military spending exceeds the GDP of all but the top 18 nations on earth, at a time when we are running budget deficits which threaten to bankrupt the country.

Foreign policy under Mitt Romney as president would implement the same principles as foreign policy of the Bush presidency.   It would be directed by some of the same people who were involved in the Bush presidency.  And it would be informed by the same naïve beliefs that caused America to fail to distinguish between the secular, dictatorial government of Saddam Hussein with the theocratic religious fanatics of Al Qaeda. 

The recent events in Libya, and the responses by the presidential candidates provide a clear example of what can be expected from each candidate in the event of international crisis.   President Obama’s slow, careful, measured response produced the most meaningful results: Libyans themselves stormed the headquarters of the Islamist militias who killed the American ambassador.  Which is a more effective foreign policy than another American invasion.

-------
References:

I found criticism of the Neo-conservatives similar to Dowd’s piece in various places.   The Neo-conservative viewpoint is rooted in an arrogant idea of American infallibility, and American global military supremacy that we simply cannot afford.   Specific to the Mid-east, the Neo-conservative view supports the idea of Greater Israel.   Some suggest that we went to war in Iraq, not because Iraq posed a threat to the United States, but because Iraq posed a threat to Israel.

Views similar to Maureen Dowd’s can be found here:

Iraq:  A War for Israel; Mark Weber, Institute for Historical Review,

http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/iraqwar.shtml

The Real Reason for the Iraq War; Lee Whitnum, author & congressional candidate

http://leewhitnum.com/Iraq_the_real_reason.html

The Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War;

http://www.aup.edu/pdf/WPSeries/AUP_wp61-WilliamsSchmidt.pdf

Cost of Iraq War; Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302200.html

Comparison of Obama's and Romney's response in regard to the crisis in Libya is found here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/opinion/sunday/friedman-the-world-were-actually-living-in.html?_r=0

Who are the Middle Class?

Who are the middle class in America?

A cornerstone of both Republican and Democratic presidential campaigns has been a pledge to not raise taxes on the middle class.   It is one of the most common themes of speeches by the candidates. But who are the middle class?   The middle third of household incomes?  One standard deviation, or the middle two-thirds?   Or two standard deviations, meaning the middle 95%?   

Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama agree on the third definition.  Mitt Romney recently stated that “middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less”, and promised to lower taxes for this group.  He stated further that the top 5% would pay the same amount as they pay today.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/09/14/mitt-romney-thinks-250000-a-year-is-middle-class-and-so-does-obama/

 Barrack Obama also drew his line at this point, promising to extend Bush-era tax cuts to the 98% of Americans making less than $250,000, and to increase tax rates on those with higher incomes.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/taxes/tax-cuts

Let’s look at a chart of household income.  The 2% of households making more than $250,000 are vanishingly small on the chart. 

 http://visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2005_income_distribution.gif

It seems to me that both parties have defined the “middle class” pragmatically, including almost everybody.  Both sides are careful to broaden the definition of the protected middle class up to $250,000, to include those with enough discretionary income to make political contributions.   They are heeding the advice of Quintus Cicero to promise everything to everybody.