The Three-Fifths President

I’ll bet our Founding Fathers never expected this. A black man, a man they counted as three-fifths of a person in the Constitution, is on the verge of becoming President. It’s been 232 years since the Constitution was written, and it has taken that long for an African-American to come this close to leading our country. Barack Obama is a longtime advocate for equal opportunities for blacks in America, as shown in a recently surfaced NPR interview! from 2001. The interview took place with Chicago Public Radio when Obama was at the University of Chicago law school as a part-time professor of Constitutional Law. During the interview, he talked about his view of the Constitution as a “charter of negative liberties,” stressing the fact that blacks were not counted as full citizens and slavery was not outlawed in the famous document. Barack went on to say that, although great strides have been made in the civil rights movement since 1789, blacks are still at a disadvantage in this country. “If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement….” he said, “I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.” He goes on to say, however, that blacks still have a long way to go. The Constitution, in his view, never went as far as to address “political and economic justice in society,” which seems to mean the poverty so many blacks still face today. Because of that, Obama described the Constitution as ”…a charter of negative liberties. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted….”

The interesting thing is, this Obama interview has set off a firestorm among critics like Rush Limbaugh. He accuses Obama, when he talks about “a charter of negative liberties” of wanting to undo the limits the Constitution places on the federal government so he can create a socialistic society where government is all-powerful, and wealth is evenly spread among everyone.

But I’ve been thinking, as we talked about the Constitution in class this week: is that what Obama---one of those three-fifth’s guys who had to earn his rights the hard way--really meant? If you listen to Limbaugh, Obama wants our society to become like the world Kurt Vonnegut described in “Harrison Bergeron:” a socialist country where free enterprise is obsolete and everyone is forced to be equal in every way.

But is this really what Obama wants? I think you have to look at his words from the viewpoint of someone whose race has struggled with limitations and constraints the rest of us can only imagine. You really have to go back to the Founding Fathers to remember how tenuous the black population’s rights were—and what a struggle lay ahead of them. As Cullen, in The American Dream, explains, “…our founders were willing to use democratic means, like elections, to realize their republican ends—but only among people they felt confident were capable of exercising such morality and wisdom…it was clear to them that many of the people who lived in the United States—slaves, women, Indians—lacked this virtue, and that is why they were excluded from what became a democratic republic…Whether or not others, like slaves, were also created equal…was a matter of some uncertainty (and less debate.) It was the obvious common ground, in any case, not the ambiguity of those on the boundaries, that was their focus.”

Maybe guys like Limbaugh need to think about the struggle of people “on the boundaries” like Obama who have tried to make the ambiguities of the Constitution more clear. Maybe it’s his job as the potential President of the United States to remember the struggles his race has gone through since the Constitution was written. Maybe that’s the legacy of a three-fifths guy.

Patrick Henry, meet Joe the Plumber

Joe Wurzelbacher, a.k.a. Joe the Plumber, went from zero to hero in his hometown of Toledo, Ohio, last week when Barack Obama crossed his path. Joe, an average plumber about to buy a local plumbing business, confronted Obama when the Presidential candidate was campaigning on Joe’s street. Wurzelbacher asked Obama if his policies would raise taxes, saying, “Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” according to the New York Times article, “Real Deal On Plumber Reveals New Slant.”

Joe the Plumber is lashing out at the possibility of Obama raising his taxes. More than two centuries ago, Patrick Henry gave a speech opposing the taxes England was forcing upon the American colonies, stating that the taxes inhibited the liberty of the colonists. Both men felt that higher taxes conflicted with their natural rights as Americans: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As Joe stated, “I’m being taxed more and more for fulfilling the American dream.”

But America’s economic situation has changed since the late 1700’s. The United States is in deep debt because of the Iraq War and the failing economy. Prior to the American Revolution, England was also in debt following the Seven Year War with France. England imposed taxes upon the colonies to help pay these debts, but the Americans refused to pay them. The colonies claimed that they could not be taxed because they did not have a place in Britain’s government, Parliament.

But today, when it is our own American government raising taxes in order to get out of debt, citizens like Joe Wurzelbacher are still fighting these tax increases. The American people need to understand the fine line between their liberties as Americans and the realities of a country in debt. Ironically, the U.S. government is following the lead of Britain’s bailout plan, which is using tax revenues to invest billions of dollars into the nation’s banks instead of buying their faulty mortgages. For the first time in over two centuries, England is setting an economic example for the United States, not the other way around. Patrick Henry was fighting for an America that may not exist anymore for Joe the Plumber.

The Truth About Alan

The New York Times recently wrote an article about the legendary Alan Greenspan, aka the Oracle of the economics world. The article, titled “Taking Hard New Look at the Greenspan Legacy,” discusses Greenspan’s contribution to the economic collapse of our country. Greenspan has been the Federal Reserve chairman since 1987; that’s four different presidents and both political parties.

For two decades, he was the most influential man in the economy, and his job at the Federal Reserve made him the voice of Wall Street in the White House. In his twenty years in Washington D.C., Greenspan always fought for an independent financial marketplace that had little government regulation. He guaranteed the market could always balance itself out without intervention, and government oversight would be a waste of time and money.

But Greenspan had one flaw: he thought so much of his own opinion and reasoning about the economy, he didn’t listen to warnings other economists were giving him. In 2000, the economy began to steadily decline, and many people believed the market needed government-enforced rules to end companies’ impulsive, high-risk deals. But government officials who believed in the oversight of the economy were either overruled by Greenspan or were too afraid to argue with him. No one could take away Greenspan’s influence and power in Washington D.C., and he continued to maneuver the government away from regulating the economy. Greenspan could not be removed from his place in the Federal Reserve until 2006, but by that time it was too late for our economy. The quirks in the market Greenspan said would solve themselves plunged our nation into the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.

Greenspan’s theory of a totally independent market contributed to the recession we’re having today. Eighty years ago, another famous political figure took our country down the scary path of economic collapse with his ideals of government withdrawal and free enterprise. His name was Herbert Hoover, and he was the President when the Great Depression hit in 1929. The way Hoover saw it, the crisis would solve itself, and government loans would not bring a solution. As Hoover said, “Prosperity cannot be restored by raids upon the public treasury.” Hoover’s lack of support for funding and government regulation left the American people with no strong leader to turn to in the dark times.

Although Hoover and Greenspan both contributed to economic collapses in our country, Greenspan’s position was almost more dangerous to our country than Hoover’s. This is because Hoover was voted out of his position as President after four years of serving. The people were tired of his passive, ineffective policies and elected a more vigorous President. But Greenspan’s position is not controlled by the voters, but rather by the President himself. Greenspan’s influence on our country couldn’t be monitored because people had no say. So for the first time in over 20 years, our country is beginning to understand the truth about Alan Greenspan and his economic theories. This is one time the structure of our democracy seems flawed.

Palin Strikes Again!!!

I was looking through the Saturday New York Times when an editorial titled “Dick Cheney, Role Model” caught my eye. No way. Who could possibly view Dick Cheney as their role model, after his reign as the most controlling, power-hungry vice president in American history? Sarah Palin, of course! This year’s Republican vice presidential nominee stated at the vice presidential debate that she is “thankful that the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president also, if that vice president so chose to exert it.” Palin said she agreed with Dick Cheney that the vice president should have much more “flexibility” (a.k.a. power) in the Executive branch. But the Constitution does not provide a bit more authority, nor does it allow flexibility in that job. The vice president’s job is to carry out orders given by the president and be the tiebreaking vote in the Senate if one is needed. That’s it. Since Cheney has been vice president, he has worked to bend the rules of his job according to the Constitution, hoping to gain more of a voice and a leadership role in our government. This was a bad move for our nation, especially since Cheney had a large influence on our invasion of Iraq in search of WMDs. Some say Cheney was the cause of the war in Iraq. In any case, there should only be one Commander in Chief, not two. This story made me think about FDR in the 1930’s, bending the rules of the Constitution in order to gain more power for the Executive branch. Roosevelt did this by attempting to “stack” the Supreme Court in his favor by adding six new justices he knew would always vote for his bills. Just as Cheney and Palin attempt to turn around the Constitution in favor of the vice presidential seat, Roosevelt tried to place the judicial branch under the control of the Executive branch, a clear breach of the “checks and balances” system of our government. Although Roosevelt was one of our nation’s greatest presidents, he went against the Constitution by trying to stack the Supreme Court with justices that were all on his side. If Sarah Palin ignores the Constitution as well and over-steps her power as the vice president, we could see a major change in the way our country is run and the decisions the Executive branch makes.