The United States: A Raison d'Etre

I heard several people arguing the other day as to whether the United States was truly exceptional or whether it was simply a matter of perception, that everyone thinks their country is exceptional. Unfortunately, the people involved in the argument missed the fundamental question: what is it that makes every country unique and from that, is that which makes the US unique truly exceptional?

Political theorists says that it takes several things to make a country: a geographic entity (a chunk of land), economic viability and political organization (you need to be able in some sense to support yourself and have an organization that can handle the day-to-day list of tasks that governments handle), and you need to have a raison d’etre – that is, a reason for being or reason to be.

It is this last that is the most important, or arguably the only meaningful differentiator of one country from another. The raison d’etre – the reason to be – tells us why country X exists, why country X split from country A and pushed through all the heartache of the birth of a nation to become what it is today. It is the single most important thing within any nation. Yet it seems to have been forgotten.

It is true that for many nations around the world, the raison d’etre is at best poorly defined. Many nations in the world exist for no other reason that that they have existed – in one form or another - for hundreds, even thousands of years. Perhaps originally formed by the self-centered and arrogant for their own purposes and self-aggrandizement, smaller states slowly merged with other small principalities through wars and marriages of convenience to form larger and wealthier states from which more taxes could be squeezed. Many such states exist today, states that exist simply because they did exist, defined more by their geography then by anything else.

That is not the case with the US. In fact, the United States is one of the relatively few nations in history that was founded based on clear concepts and ideas, concepts and ideas that are embodied in four specific documents from our history. The importance of this is simple, but massive, because this raison d’etre, this reason to be, explains not only why our Founders engaged in this truly wondrous experiment called the United States of America, it also helps to explain why we are different and why we must not only celebrate that difference but also defend it.

When politicians say that they believe in American Exceptionalism just as a Greek believes in Greek exceptionalism, they miss the point of our exceptional nature, they miss (perhaps they never understood?) the real ‘reason to be’ that underpins all that makes us Americans.

The first document that I believe holds a facet of our reason to be is the Mayflower Compact. A simple and brief document, the Mayflower Compact establishes that they were forming a government, and state that is to create equal laws. While it still acknowledged the King of England as their sovereign, they are stating that they, the people, will determine the laws that govern them. This ‘simple’ proposition would later be a central issue that led to our independence, that we would not sit idly by while laws affecting us were passed on the other side of the ocean.

The second document is, of course, the Declaration of Independence. And the spirit of that incredible document is to be found in two distinct places, the opening lines of the second sentence, which are so often – and rightly – spoken:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed -

Two incredible concepts: all people with equal and unalienable rights – that exist from God not from government, central to which is liberty; and that governments are subservient to the people, that the only powers they possess are those given to them by the people. This is unique – exceptional – material. And while other nations have attempted to mimic various elements of our system, few will be found that state this idea so clearly or who have attempted to honor the concept in daily practice.

A second concept is also provided in the Declaration of Independence that is, I believe central to how we as a nation see ourselves and see other nations and that is in the following line:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The key here is the belief that a people have a duty, a responsibility, to stand up and act to overthrow despots and to establish responsible government. This is truly revolutionary stuff, and it’s presence in our founding document made the US unique in history at the time of our creation and, even today, there are few countries that capture this sense of the real power being in the hands of the people.

The third document is the Constitution. Two elements of the Constitution must be considered, first the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

A glaring statement, leading the legal foundation of all of our laws, clearly stating that the people form the government, that the government – the bureaucracy – works for the people as a whole, not the other way around, and that our prime goal is the ‘blessings of liberty.’

Second, the text as a whole provides a strong and explicit message limiting of the powers of the organs of government. While much argument has been made of what this or that line might mean, I would suggest that much of this legalistic splitting of hairs is the obfuscation of disingenuous lawyers. The Constitution as amended, when read as a whole, with the Federalist Papers nearby, makes an incredibly strong statement about limited government, about a government that has defined borders and must stay within those border, that the purpose of government is to provide equality under the law and equal opportunity within society. In no sense does the Constitution, or the discussions about each article found within the Federalist Papers, suggest equality of outcome. We are, after all, a free people, and our successes or failures are matters of individual initiative. It is the government’s responsibility simply to ensure the ‘playing field’ remains level.

The final document that defines our reason to be is Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, and in particular, the final line:

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

In no other nation is found the clarion call to liberty and to true equality. Throughout these documents winds a thread that speaks to the birth not only of a new nation but a new people. Our motto - ‘E Pluribus Unum’ – ‘One Out of Many’ - speaks directly to a concept that has been rejected by many pseudo-sophisticated wags of the last 30 years, who have stressed our diversity and who have called for us all to not only recognize what makes us different but to ‘celebrate’ it. That call is anathema to the very nature – the reason to be – of our nation. We are no longer English, Irish, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Mexican, Portuguese, Egyptian, Japanese, Nigerian, Chinese, Samoan, Vietnamese or any other nationality. We have given up those other countries.

These documents both encapsulated and helped us to define our raison d’etre. And they have made a truly exceptional country, one that is unique in the 6000 year of recorded history. While some will be quick to point out our mistakes, the fact is that no country has ever made such an effort to advance mankind as this nation and no country is today poised to take over that role.

We are an exceptional country, a unique country. (And despite our seemingly endlessly ballyhooed faults by many in the media, I have yet to observe a mass emigration to all the other places that are so much better.) What we must do is act to not only preserve our exceptionalism, but we must stress it to the next generation. Our exceptionalism not only must be taught, it must be respected, cherished and nourished. It is not something to be haughty about, but something to be treated with the greatest respect and the recognition that each generation is charged with preserving it and preserving this nation, Governor Bradford’s shining ‘city on a hill,’ as a beacon to all who believe in liberty.

Let's Hang Mrs. O'Leary

Hang Her! Hang Mrs. O’Leary! It’s her fault. She should be held accountable – for everything. After all, it was her negligence that caused the Great Chicago Fire (October 8th, 1871), a fire which destroyed some 2000 acres of the city, as well as (per Wikipedia) some 17,500 buildings, and $222 million in property and left 90,000 people homeless, in addition to killing some 200 to 300 people.

The idea is, of course, ludicrous. (Particularly since the story of Mrs. Catherine O’Leary’s cow kicking over a lantern and starting the fire was a fabrication by a reporter.) The point is simply this: people, no matter whether they are negligent or not, cannot be held accountable for everything that happens after a mishap occurs – even if some lawyers insist that they should be. The theory applies whether we are speaking about Mrs. O’Leary or British Petroleum. What is the proper extent of their liability is a matter properly left to courts, and to some extent legislatures. But it is meaningless at this point in the problem before us.

But, there is an issue that needs to be addressed in the near term: what is government’s proper role and responsibility in a crisis or emergency?

The answer lies in recalling the essence of government: societies are formed, governments are created, to provide for common security, secondarily to assist in the development of those functions that are difficult for the individual to provide. Thus, governments provide police and armed forces, currency, the rules under which the society will operate and a means for enforcing those rules, and certain infrastructure, when it is too difficult for private citizens to do so. This explains not only armies and police forces, but also laws and courts, licensing and various business and construction codes, and public roads. (Some infrastructure has been privatized from time to time – toll roads, bridges, ports, etc., but they still must be operated so as to ensure public access, even if done at a fee.)

Governments also provide – since the earliest days of the Pharaohs – social stability. It is government’s responsibility to ensure that the society endures, even in the face of the death of leading citizens or in the case of the destruction of a large segment of a city. Or in the case of an oil spill. Stated differently, governments are responsible – broadly speaking - for crisis response. While there are certain narrowly defined, specific crises that can be handled privately (a ‘Life Flight’ helicopter for example), government is the prime respondent in crises for a number of reasons:

1) Authority. The government has the authority to act. Common understanding of public safety and well-being, concepts that date from English common law, and before that ancient Rome, places primary responsibility for public safety in hands of the government. Executive powers granted to most governors and to the President provide them with the ability to, through executive findings, circumvent standing regulations and the limits of certain laws to provide for rapid responses to the crisis. In the case of the United States, there is the obvious question of jurisdiction; is the crisis to be addressed by local government, state government or federal government? In fact, there is a fairly well developed set of rules that provides guidance to answer that question, which, while not perfect, does provide a workable solution in the overwhelming number of cases.

2) Resources. Governments simply have more resources on hand then do private citizens. This is particularly true of the federal government, which can raise literally billions of dollars at very short notice.

3) Assets. The Federal government has access to special assets which simply are not available anywhere else; from heavy lift aircraft and ships, to supplies to and equipment to support displaced people, to mobile command and control platforms to a wide range of surveillance and monitoring assets, the US government has assets that can be used to address a crisis unlike any other government or organization on the planet. The US government also has substantial strategic stockpiles of supplies to provide for extended support to any community.

4) Manpower. Governments have access to a wide range of manpower, both as a work force and as sources of expertise in most fields of study. Thus the Federal government can not only direct personnel from various departments and agencies to provide support, it can tap into virtually the entire nation’s array of corporations and universities both by appealing to them for support and by contracting for that support.

5) Moral Authority. The federal government, in the person of the President, represents the voice of the people. Use of that moral authority is a powerful tool in mobilizing and directing the citizenry to respond to nearly any situation.

Unfortunately, virtually none of this has taken place yet in response to the sinking of Deepwater Horizon. We have had some posturing and some childish behavior about kicking someone’s butt, and most recently the attempt to use the crisis to push a policy agenda. Beyond the work done by the Coast Guard, and the decision to send the Secretary of the Navy to the Gulf, little definitive has been done by the federal government to solve the problem. It is long past the time that this could have been addressed with a small ‘footprint.’ The American people, and particularly the citizens of the Gulf States, have a right to see some major ‘muscle movements.’ So, herewith some thoughts:

A) The President should immediately convene an emergency meeting of the following in New Orleans:

- The President, the Vice President, the Secretaries or Deputy Secretaries of Treasury, Energy, Interior, Homeland Security, Defense, Transportation, Commerce and Labor; the Directors of FEMA, MMS and the NTSB; the Commandant of the Coast Guard and the Commander of the Army Corps of Engineers; the Governors and the Commanders of the National Guard from Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida; the Director of the National Science Foundation; the CEOs of BP, Exxon-Mobile, Chevron, Texaco, Haliburton, TransOcean, McDermott, Schlumberger and representatives from other key oil and energy industry leaders as well as industry related institutes. Representatives from universities with leading geologists and petroleum studies should also be included. Use government funds to facilitate travel and housing of these people while in New Orleans.

- The purpose of the meeting would be to spend a day listening to BP and the Coast Guard describe the current situation in detail. If necessary, have a representative from the Attorney General’s office available to grant immunity so that the complete facts can be presented. Then spend two days discussing emergency response options to close the ‘leak’ and contain the spread of oil. At the end of the third day select which options will be pursued and put money against it.

- Designate the Vice President as the lead and leave him in New Orleans to run the operation. If that means he moves to New Orleans for the next six months, OK, it’s a crisis. He can fly back to Washington in four hours if he is needed to break a deadlock in the Senate. Then he needs to immediately return to New Orleans. Each government department Secretary or agency Director should designate their Deputy Secretary or an Assistant Secretary to remain in New Orleans with the VP to help in orchestrating the solution.

B) From each of the ‘team members’ listed in A, identify supporting team members. Using a strategic planning team from the Pentagon’s Joint Staff (the military are the only people formally trained in the full breadth and depth of strategic planning, everyone else just pretends) establish a Consequence Management Planning Cell that would draw on the expertise of the support team provided by the ‘team members’ from paragraph A. Develop a Consequence Management Plan that provides a roadmap to return the Gulf to a ‘pre-crisis’ condition. The team has two weeks for the initial rough plan, and 90 days to develop a long-term plan.

C) Direct the NTSB to conduct an ‘aircraft mishap’ like review of operation on Deepwater Horizon and of the sinking of Deepwater Horizon. Expertise should be drawn from the American Bureau of Shipping, Lloyds of London and others to provide insight into the latest technology, techniques and practices from around the world. Identify what mistakes were made, what material and design failures occurred and provide recommendations to prevent such occurrences.

D) Establish a strategic planning team that is charged with: reviewing the findings of the NTSB, and then working with the Governors of the states that border the Gulf as well as the Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA, the oil companies and the Department of the Interior (and others as appropriate) to develop long range plans that both sustains oil production in the Gulf and provides increased protection to fisheries, wildlife habitat and the interests of the citizens of the Gulf States over the long term. The plan should address handling future crisis caused by weather, material failure and mishaps, and hostile – terrorist – actions. The plan should be comprehensive and address improvements to systems to protect both oil production facilities and the coastline in the event of hurricanes of varying force.

- Charge the planning team with providing a comprehensive strategic plan within six months of the completion of the NTSB review.

As with all planning teams, the intention is to develop several options – each of which will satisfy the overall guidance and achieve the desired outcome. As each different planning team finishes its tasking the various options will be presented to the Governors, the President, and to the American people for their review and, eventually consent. In fact, within limits (because some information would be classified), each of the planning teams should provide regular and frequent briefs to the American people as to progress made and the options being developed by the planning teams.

This is a huge tasking. But it is precisely the kind of task that the federal government is capable of handling if properly led. What is certain is that no other organization has the means or the span of authority to handle this size of an effort. What is lacking is leadership. There has been enough talk about assigning blame and about advancing this or that agenda. It is time to find answers and move out. It is time for some leadership.

Baseball, Ethics, and Megan Fox

Two things happened over the past several weeks that allow me to believe that things in our society aren’t necessarily as bad as everyone says they are. As usual, the events in question are found where we least expect them: one on the sports page and the other in the movie industry.

From the sports page comes a story that reads as a morality tale straight from the ancient Greeks. I suspect you all know the details, but I’ll briefly recount them here: Armando Gallaraga pitching for Detroit had pitched 8 2/3rds perfect innings against Cleveland when Jason Donald hit a grounder and headed for first. Veteran umpire Jim Joyce (one of the best, and most experienced, umps in baseball) called him safe. Perfect game, and no hitter, ended. However, the replay showed Donald was clearly out. But the call had been made and that was that. Gallaraga had missed pitching just the 21st perfect game in the 110-year history of modern baseball. (He did get the next batter out and won the game – you might call it a 30 out perfect game.)

Joyce knew what he had done and apologized - profusely. Gallaraga also realized what was what and not only accepted the apology, acknowledged that simply ‘no one is perfect,’ and then in a display of true sportsmanship, delivered the starting line-up for the next game to the home-plate umpire – Jim Joyce, and shook his hand.

A similar tale appears to have come out of Hollywood, though it is worth noting that the reporting is less clear. The young and rising star Megan Fox was reported to have walked off the set for the movie Transformers 3. Hollywood wags noted that Miss Fox was going to shoot her professional career in the foot, that she was a rising star because of the first two movies in the series and that she was likely to fade as quickly as she rose. The story from the Fox camp, thought muted, was simply that the director was tyrannical and professionally too demanding and controlling. The workers on the movie set then posted a letter on a blog stating that Fox was difficult to work with. The industry wags then raised the issue of how much money Fox was likely to lose, implying that she would never make that kind of money if she walked out on top directors.

Which leads me to ask a simply question: Is it possible that Miss Fox thinks there are more important things in the world then money? I don’t know Megan Fox from the Man in the Moon, nor do I know her real motivations, but it is worth considering that her motivations just happen to be different then some of those who have sold their souls in Tinsel Town, and that staying on a movie set where you are getting yelled at all the time simply wasn’t worth the money they were paying her. Perhaps she has realized that real success isn’t measured in the size of your bank account or in the number of awards you receive, particularly from a self-absorbed crowd like that often found in Hollywood. I hope that that is so, and if so, I salute her.

The fact is that both of these stories provide an opportunity to ask ourselves some questions about what is really important. I don’t know the motivations of either of the two people involved, but their recent actions speak well of them; many of our so-called leading figures would do well to emulate such behavior.