No more Jabba Falwell jokes

[Zomboy]

I just heard that Jerry "Jabba" Falwell is no more!

[JW Nugent]

Is no more what? I met the son of one of his senior people some years ago. Scarry. This kid once stated that with his blond hair, blue eyes, and classical Germantic features he could probably considered a perfect Ayrian. When I asked him if he realized what the last group of people that followed that thinking did and how many people they murdered in their quest for a perfect Ayrian world; he appeared puzzled by the question. First he told me that a lot of the supposed history was incorrect. Apparently there was a great deal of exaggeration and misrepresentation. Then as a change of subject he went back to his personal sense of perfection and talked about a new wave of thinking that would correct the misunderstanding that occured in the past.

He was somewhat of an equal opportunity chap; he also at one point stated that all Palastinian men and boys should be executed to reduce the violence in the Middle East. To clarify he told me every male, regardless of age, needed to die to ensure a peaceful solution. We didn't get into the rest of the Muslim world. I imagine there would have been additional illumination on this aspect of diplomacy. He felt that the women were obedient by habit and would be properly submissive when required.

The most interesting part of all was that he was in college finishing a degree in political science and already had asperations and introductions for a career in the State Department. Basically it didn't take a great deal of interpretation to realize where the influence originated. There was a lot of reference to the great men guiding his destiny. Interesting retrospect when one considers the quality of diplomacy used in the Middle East.

Jabba was a slug compared to the generations of JerryJugund now slithering about the halls of power. The joke may be on us; more and more again.

[Charlie P.]

The Joke really isn't very funny. When Jerry Falwell, Bill Donahue, and others referred to the Talpiot Tomb project as the invention of liberal Hollywood Jews, aiming to disgrace Jesus before Easter - I could not believe how many of their talking points could be traced back to Hoffman's and David Duke's pre-publication editorials passed off as "reviews."

What really galls me is that when Falwell and Donahue kept repeating the party line that if we had written about Islam (and I have), we'd have seen house burnings and death threats. This seemed a tacit nod for our home-grown religious extremists to begin making death threats.

Here's the scary part: The threats have been made exclusively against the Jewish members of our team, including Falwell's "burning down the house" threat. None of us Christian, atheist, agnostic, or Buddhist members of the research team have received a single threat - except for a brief, mumbling and and indecipherable message left on my cell phone, evidently by Falwell himself, in which he sounded either drunk, or ill, or both - right after the debate on Geraldo at Large.

There is no question that Falwell gave a nod to the death threats. Confirmation, this was (forgive the Yoda-speak), that the pro-lifer, Jerry Falwell, believed that every fetus was sacred - but should it grow up to be a scientist or a film-maker, he may have to ask people to kill it.

If I were carving the late Reverend's tomb stone, it would read, "NOT A NICE GUY."

- - Charlie P.

[Zomboy]

"NOT A NICE GUY" indeed! Very diplomatic of you Charlie! As a child of the Cold War, I watched Falwell's growing influence on the Reagan presidency with equal growing aprehension. I could scarcely believe that this throwback to the Inquisition could have an audience with apparently intelligent people running your country.

One news commentator stated that Falwell's legacy would be that he facilitated the entry of preachers into U.S. federal politics. If we need a contemporary example of why priests SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN POLITICS we need only to look at Iran.

Come to think of it, a domestic example is the state of stem cell research. I saw an interview with an American stem cell researcher who packed up and moved to the U.K., where there were fewer restrictions.

In retrospect, I think you should be "honoured" that Falwell targeted you, Charlie. It means that your ideas really threatened his comfy, Flat Earth, Creationist, Ptolemaic world view!

Truth be told, I consider all of Jabba Falwell's works "fit for burning", but I wouldn't want to waste my money - better that I donate it towards my local hospital's research foundation!

If Falwell left a legacy, then he left us a warning, that those of us - who value the pursuit of knowlegde, the scientific method, the stand against bigotry and ignorance - we must continue the struggle!

[JW Nugent]

When I think about Falwell and his brethren I can't help but draw comparisons to the Hitler Years. Unfortunately likening given political and social actions to Nazism is a bit cliché. The Hitler phenomenon was a perversion of a process gone wrong, but a perversion that was all too probable when one considers the players who brought Hitler to power. The same forces that held the world in darkness for so many centuries was regaining strength prior to World War II. The social, religious, and economic conservatism of the time (not greatly different from present day fundamentalism) was struggling to re-assert control of the masses. Those that rose to power could only do so through the support of the conservative groups hoping to be the last group standing. Each power group felt it could use Hitler to eliminate competition then push him out of the way. The quest for power spun out of control in the 1930's; in the aftermath the remaining world order activists lowered their profiles and rhetoric. As memory of the global holocaust faded the shadows of absolutism began to deepen once again.

The darkness surrounding Falwell is a direct heritage of those earlier times. Do the industrialists, bankers, religious leaders, and secular fundamentalists really differ in the 21st century. The rhetoric is the same, “a strong man is necessary for proper governance,” “political pluralism is a dangerous game of anti social elements of the left,” and anyone who disagrees is an evil traitor destroying all that is decent.” Everyone appears to have forgotten Oklahoma City; there is no better example of home grown terrorism. Not surprising Jerry always found a way to publicly state such behavior was naughty, but in the same public venue explain that these were most likely good people driven to desperate acts due to the evil of abortion clinics, government, unions, Hollywood, intellectuals, social tolerance, books other than the bible in libraries, and of course Liberals.

Falwell called Fundamentalist Muslims evil. Most ironic when one considers that both groups share the same so called family values; the one where women are chattel and alternate opinions are heretical. Religion doesn't mix well with politics the results are far too toxic. I don't know what is more frightening; the potential of a “Dust” spawn critter or the potential of a Jerry spawn creature. At least the critters aren't malicious, just hungry.

[mccormack44]

JW Nugent said:

Religion doesn't mix well with politics the results are far too toxic.

I would have no quarrel with this statement if it were qualified: "Some religion—", but it is unfair to persons of any belief (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist—to name a few) who are moderate to liberal in their outlooks on life and their interpretation of their religious beliefs to call a stand like Falwell's "religion" as if his stand represented all belief.

(I have a self-appointed mission to request that members of this Forum avoid this trap. Once I fell into it myself—and was called on it by at least two Forum members; I am grateful to them for that.) The "motto" of this "movement" is:

REPEAT AFTER ME: No person and no human institution is monolithic; there is more than one attitude involved.

End of repeated complaint.

Sue

[voralfred]

JW Nugent said:

Religion doesn't mix well with politics the results are far too toxic.

I would have no quarrel with this statement if it were qualified: "Some religion—", but it is unfair to persons of any belief (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist—to name a few) who are moderate to liberal in their outlooks on life and their interpretation of their religious beliefs....

Sue, I totally agree with you.

The present Dalai-Lama, the late Mahatma Gandhi, are perfect example of people whose deep religious feelings led them to do politics in the most ethical and "untoxic" possible way.

Because he was facing the decent, humanist, Lord Mountbatten, Gandhi even got results.
It would seem that the Dalai-Lama's prospects, at least in the short term, look less promising. The reason for that is, he is facing a totalitarian regime which has no lessons to learn from grand masters as Hitler and Stalin or small fry like Ahmadinejad or even very, very smaller fry as Falwell.
Still I have noticed that very few texts, (whether posts on this forum or publications, articles, whatnot, elsewhere), indulge in Hu Jintao-bashing. On the contrary, he seems to be very often highly praised, in the media, for allowing China's economics to grow at a fast rate (just as Germany's economics took a turn for the better after Hitler's takeover) without anyone noticing that the regime has not conceded the smallest political freedom, and oppression is as bad as under Mao or the "Gang of Four", except that one is now allowed or even encouraged to make money, provided one shuts up. (To say nothing of accelerating production of glasshouse-effect gases, which China is free to do under the Kyoto Protocol that China did ratify, precisely because it did not put any restrictions on it!)
But because Marxism is a godless ideology, it is not included in the "Religion doesn't mix well with politics the results are far too toxic" motto. Considering that quite a lot of deeply religious people do not involve themselves in politics at all, and thus cannot be called "toxic" in that respect, while Marxism is only about politics, should one conclude that Marxism is toxic per se? Or, at least, to be consistent for your "non-monolithic" approach, extreme forms of Marxism are toxic? (though I have trouble finding a Marxist equivalent of, say, Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, Pope John XXIII, ... Gorbatchev, maybe, but the entire system crashed as soon as some amount of non-extremism was allowed to seep into it - if one looks back, the day the Hungarians decided to remove the barbed wire from a few kilometers of the border with Austria in the spring of 1989 was the death knoll of Sovietism: East Germany emptied through this pinhole, remember the Great Traban Exodus of the summer of 89?, and that ultimately led to the collpase of the Berlin Wall in November of the same year, and the fall of the Sovient Union two year later- so, no, I do not think that there is such a notion as "a moderate Marxist")

So to got back to topic: I am certainly not defending the memory of the unlamented late Falwell. But I am always very very surprised by the amount of aggressivity against small fry like him, when dictators that oppress litterally billions, like Hu, or just tens of millions, like Ahmadinejad, or Castro, or Ghaddafi and his "power game" with the Bulgarian nurses, or.... are ever discussed at all.

And don't give me the argument that you discuss Falwell because he is American, while the others are foreigners and thus outside your first circle of preoccupation. This is a globalized world. And Chinese oppression can be felt even in France. I was extremely shocked by the way our government bowed under Chinese pressure about even a very limited matter. I have noticed that noone, on this forum, cared to remark about that, when I first posted it. To me, this is worse that whatever Falwell could have said throughout his carrier. Because I have never felt, in my actual life, any effect from his preaching. Not being able to meet Gao Xingjian at "Salon du Livre" in Paris, yes, that did affect me personally.

[JW Nugent]

This may clarify my comments on toxic religion. Pious individuals sticking to their core beliefs generally do not enter politics except as a matter of conscience and normally to the extent of protesting issues of social concern. This in itself is a broad statement, but my belief is that religion is a personal preference and not a cultural mandate. Religion is about the individual's, any one of us, relationship with a higher deity and the relationships with like minded individuals; all this in a sense of community. Politics is about the governance of the larger or all inclusive community. This larger community may have a number of individuals with varying beliefs; no one belief should have the authority to dictate what should be personal beliefs to other groups.

Within a belief group an individual attempting to rule or control the other members has stepped beyond the premise of personal belief and into the path of power and control. This is an obvious political quest since the individual is acting to force personal preference on others. Politics is about governance and works in the world of secular needs; belief is an internal process and is best ruled within the individual. While some of our ideas and philosophies may coincide many will not. If you were to correct my perceived weakness by forcing my compliance with your views you would be following a political course of assuming power over me and negating my natural rights to believe as I choose. Tell me this is not a toxic process. Explain to me how this doesn't poison my very being by substituting what is personal and private for me by concepts dictated by someone else.

The politics of consensus, or compromise where views are too polar, is the most beneficial of the political processes. With a wide public voice progress is inevitable; albeit at times slow. The politics of the strong man or strong group is invariably about the maintenance of power to include the inheritance of power to ensure the longevity of the rulers and decedents. While this may provide a moment or two with progress the inevitable result is the protection of status quo; regression is the inevitable conclusion. History is replete with the failure of societies internalizing their efforts to the politics of absolute rule.

Religion, since it is internal, structured within our personalities and individual psychologies, is a fairly emotional process; it resides within our emotional being. Take this emotion into a political arena and you have just amped up the senses and overstimulated inner physiology. If warping the inner person is not a toxic process I'm not sure what is. If my immune system can't defeat a virus invading my body I become sick and the condition moves to a possibly septic (toxic) state. Hostile beliefs, those fueled by political and power based agendas, affect the immature, ignorant, and insecure. If religion is used as the fuel the result can be terribly septic.

For me the situation is almost mathematical. Individuals attempting to control the hearts and minds of others are following a political course. Individuals who follow their beliefs in a private and personal manner (this does not preclude sharing : mandated by-the-sword is not sharing) are following a religious course. A simplification yes, but also an easy base line metric. A forcing of belief is a viral attack and therefore a toxic attack.

[voralfred]

I mostly agree with your latest post.

But I'd like to point out that what you say of religion is also true for any ideology, even a godless ideology such as marxism. Trying to force your system of belief, whether religious or godless-ideological, on someone else is a toxic attack, yes.

However, one can be a person that has an inner belief (religious, or even, maybe, marxism, though I fail to see a single marxist behaving the way I'll describe, while Gandhi, the Dalai Lama and many others did - if you can name one such marxist, I'll welcome the information) and go into the political arena, not to impose that belief, but to propose a vision of society, and try to convince their compatriots to follow them in their vision, just like any other politician.

Of course the world vision of such a person would be influenced by his (or her) faith (or ideology)! The contrary would be absurd. But they don't want to impose their faith, just share their world vision. This I would certainly not call "toxic". And that means that there is nothing wrong, for a man of faith, to go into politics, in that sense.
Again, this is the case of Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, and quite a few of the US Founding Fathers who, I am sure, were deeply religious people.
Pious people, definitely, whose worldview was shaped by their faith, that went into the political arena to forward their (religion inspired) worldview without any attmept to force their belief.
Would you agree such people are not "toxic"?
And that Hu Jintao, who still wants to force Marxist ideology on the Chinese (even a watered-down form of Marxism that encourage yo uto get rich if you can) is toxic?

[mccormack44]

JW Nugent states that religion is (in my words) right-brained; I agree with this.

In my opinion, politics is also right brained most of the time; using the left brain functions to justify a grasp for power.

Sue

[JW Nugent]

I was in the Soviet Union just before the Coup and missed that event by a couple of days. While in (Russia – using the more appropriate terminology at this time) I had the opportunity to travel into both the Ukraine and areas of Siberia. When in Moscow there were meetings with a number of government ministries, industries, universities, research centers, and more. The atmosphere was somber and careful. One of the persons traveling with me did comment that the Russians appeared to treat Lenin as a god. That is the nature of Totalitarianism; the populace must live in unquestioning obedience. Nazism also functioned as a religion and would have moved further into that role had their success continued. To survive power obsessed groups will portray fiction as fact and the people in charge will be clothed in a mythological cloak to cover and shield dysfunction and indiscretion. There are many names for this more secular approach to the management of belief. Ironically as Totalitarianism (by what ever name) with the momentum of authority over hearts and minds control emotions to achieve a religious like stature while religions (by a number of names)use the momentum of emotions to control hearts and minds achieving a totalitarian stature.

Free thought (forget about speech) in a Totalitarian system is treasonable and dangerous to the wellbeing of those in charge. Free thought( again, forget about speech in all but the most liberal of organizations) in a Religious system is heretical and includes a history of burnings and torture. A failure to acknowledge factual misuse of religious authority in the past is equivalent to condoning these abuses as a necessary function to assure goodness in mankind. Such convoluted thinking is all too apparent in the documented record. The stultifying of human progress over the last 1500 years provides a measure of this type of power and verifies the regressive tendencies of total power. Falwellian trends feed these tendencies.

Falwell and his ilk built the foundation on which my cynicism stands. There are those that speak about there being no atheists in foxholes, but I've seen few of these people in the foxholes I've held. While not lessening the emotional need for salvation or rescuing from a moment of mortal peril such statements distort the truth. I've experienced many nights where morning and the light of day seemed an improbable out come. This makes religion a very personal issue for me. The foundation of belief or finding of peace is a very private subject and not one for political interference or for religious demi-gods subverting the truth. When walking in absolute darkness night by night; the veneer of sacred cows gets torn away and when back in the light what seemed to be true now is measured more harshly. All individuals are entitled to their beliefs; however, no individual is entitled to or allowed dictate my beliefs.

Sometimes what I believe can conflict with what I consider to be logical. This leads to a quest for knowledge and a reappraisal of my thinking. Generally most of what I've experienced has run afoul of this occurrence. My evolution is based on a continuous journey of fact finding and information dissemination. Answers are never easy and are seldom fixed. Solutions are always a work in progress.

As for China; another day and another matter altogether, not to minimize the issue. China is a far more complex and far less understood phenomenon than your comments portray.

[JW Nugent]

voralfred “to propose a vision of society, and try to convince their compatriots to follow them in their vision, just like any other politician”.

Though I understand your intent the difference between proposing or sharing, and convincing to follow exceeds semantical relationships. Gandhi proposed and shared a vision and did so through civil disobedience. He never sought political status or power; Gandhi demonstrated his beliefs by living them and sought only a larger universal conscience of social need. Gandhi led by example, not by fiat.

In a Democracy politicians do not lead; they serve the will of the people. This is a misunderstood process and is often misinterpreted. In a democracy, albeit a complex one, the politicians job is to represent the vision of a given constituency of the community and through consensus balance that vision within the vision of all constituencies of the community. If a politician substitutes their vision for that of their constituency they are subverting the process of Democracy and in effect have usurped power.

The root of the word politician is policy; and policy leads you to a description of public and citizens. Though there are many and varied definitions for politics most of them refer to the negative or subverted use of the word and few discuss the purer meaning which is 'of the people.' The Falwells of this world are just one aspect of power subversion. This aspect, however, can exact a great toll. Proper vision, even when flawed is a consensus of the many. Vision of the individual or the exclusive few when substituted for the requirements of a broad and varied community is a perversion of public process.

Falwell did not share vision; he mandated vision and usurped or attempted to usurp what where rightly the prerogatives of the larger community.

[mayavision2012]

In a Democracy politicians do not lead; they serve the will of the people. This is a misunderstood process and is often misinterpreted. In a democracy, albeit a complex one, the politicians job is to represent the vision of a given constituency of the community and through consensus balance that vision within the vision of all constituencies of the community. If a politician substitutes their vision for that of their constituency they are subverting the process of Democracy and in effect have usurped power.

Very insightful and well said! I could not have stated it better myself. Bravo, JW Nugent.

[violetblue]

The Joke really isn't very funny. When Jerry Falwell, Bill Donahue, and others referred to the Talpiot Tomb project as the invention of liberal Hollywood Jews, aiming to disgrace Jesus before Easter - I could not believe how many of their talking points could be traced back to Hoffman's and David Duke's pre-publication editorials passed off as "reviews."

And having such a mainstream, well-known person such as Jerry Falwell and his ilk publicly make statements such as 9/11 being our punishment for the acceptance of gays and lesbians helps give power to groups such as Westboro Baptist Church. This is the group that protests soldiers' funerals saying they died from God's will because God hates fags--the convoluted logic being that we have accepted this behavior in our society and thusly deserve punishment. WBC is an extreme microcosm of the damage hate-filled statements that can be created by someone in a powerful position.

This is along the same lines as Matthew Hale, the high-profile leader of the white supremacist group The World Church of the Creator, denying any link to Benjamin Smith. Smith, you might remember was the white supremacist who went on a killing spree a few years ago. We remember him well, as he killed a young Korean student in my hometown. Smith was a member of Hale's "church."

I believe I also remember Falwell making a statement once--which I think he either tried to retract or modify, I can't remember--that the Anti-Christ would be a male Jew. His type of religion did more to alienate, divide, and turn people off of religion than any of the so-called "enemies" "they" were fighting. Perhaps the Anti-Christ, instead, will be a bloated television evangelist.

[voralfred]

(....)In a Democracy politicians do not lead; they serve the will of the people. This is a misunderstood process and is often misinterpreted. In a democracy, albeit a complex one, the politicians job is to represent the vision of a given constituency of the community and through consensus balance that vision within the vision of all constituencies of the community. If a politician substitutes their vision for that of their constituency they are subverting the process of Democracy and in effect have usurped power. (...)

I would formulate it in a rather different way.

An elected politician has campaigned on a given program, and when elected for some mandate, the term of this mandate is fixed by the Constitution.
If he is elected, it is because he has convinced a majority of his constituency to vote for the ideas he is promoting.
Once elected he is honor-bound to follow the program he was elected for. Even if, at some point during his mandate, a different election (for instance, legislative elections if we are speaking of a President) shows that the majority of the very same constituents who elected him in the first place changed their mind, he is still honor-bound, and expected, to pursue the program he was elected for, that is, his ideas, shared by a majority when he was elected, even in the very same people changed their mind.
Now of course this is limited by the constitutional balance of powers, which differ from one democracy th the next.
In France, the House cannot overthrow the President but it can and does overthrow a government. Therefore the President has no choice but choose a Prime Minister and a government that the House accepts. Still, the french Constitution does grant him some amount of power and he can, in a rather limited, but by no means negligible way, influence the government's action. And he is expected to. That the House was elected more recently does in no way force the President to change his opinions and act according to the "latest will" of the people. He is honor-bound to act, inasmuch as his limited constutional powers are, to promote his opinions, those for which he was elected.
That happened three times, for a total of 9 years, in the 25 last years in France.

I understand that in the US, the President has more power than in France and that he goes on governing even if mid-term elections bring a House and a Senate with a majority against him. He does not have to bow to the "latest will" of the people. Of course, the fact that House and Senate are against him severely limit his freedom of action, and he has to negociate with them. But certainly he is honor-bound and expected to keep promoting his ideas, those for which he was elected for his full mandate. And if he can run again, he can campaign to try and convince his compatriots to change their mind once more and re-elect him. If he fails, he fails, but if he is re-elected, good for him. And conversely, those Representants and Senators who oppose him, but whose mandate goes on, do not have to bow to the "latest will" even if it clear that, in their own constituency, a majority of the very electors that elected them is the first place a few years before, just changed their mind and re-elected the President they oppose. (Of course, only a small fraction of the people changed their mind, but it was the crucial fraction that changed the majority from one side to the other; but that's the game in a representative democracy.) They are still honour-bound and expected to keep opposing him!

So though a politician, in a sense, does serve the will of the people, he does so by promoting his ideas, the ones he was elected for. He does not serve the "instantaneous will" of the people but the "previous will" of the people at the time he was elected. And that means, precisely, to follow his own ideas.

Far from me to defend Falwell, but he was never in a position of power. He propagated his opinions. Noone was forced to share them. I agree that his opinions, or at least some of them, were toxic, but he was never in a position to impose them on anyone. Just don't listen to him if you disagree!

There are a lot of people whose opinions are considerably more toxic than Falwell's and who have power in this world, and impose their opinions to lots and lots of people who never elected them.

So again, I am surprised at the amount of aggressivity against Falwell and not against tyrants with a lot of blood on their hands.

[violetblue]

Far from me to defend Falwell, but he was never in a position of power. He propagated his opinions. Noone was forced to share them. I agree that his opinions, or at least some of them, were toxic, but he was never in a position to impose them on anyone. Just don't listen to him if you disagree!

There are a lot of people whose opinions are considerably more toxic than Falwell's and who have power in this world, and impose their opinions to lots and lots of people who never elected them.

So again, I am surprised at the amount of aggressivity against Falwell and not against tyrants with a lot of blood on their hands.

I don't think having ill feelings toward Falwell excludes anyone from hating tyranny on a larger scale. Omar al-Bashir, for example, is on a whole different level than Falwell. You're right, Falwell did not have a whole country under his control, to force his will upon. Taking that idea out of the equation, Falwell caused a lot of harm in his own way. Falwell "preyed" on the weak, the easily led, by offering them easy answers to their problems. If you've lost your job, then of course it must be the Jews or the fags that caused that to happen--somehow. He gives a unifiying theme to those who feel they have a natural supremecy for whatever reason. As Nugent said, it harkens back to the Nazi years. Tyranny, whether over countries or minds, should not be tolerated. America is the land of free speech, however, so we do tolerate it, but we don't have to be happy about it.

[JW Nugent]

A President is legally bound to protect and defend the Constitution. The US Constitution delineates and partitions rights; the majority of which are held by the people. Congress is also legally bound to the same extent. The Presidents powers are administrative and are to see to the details of day to day government business. Administration of the government process is a President's mandate. A President serves only at the will and pleasure of the public; individual political destiny is only accomplished through duty and the only honor necessary or possible is that from adherence to the principles established in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

All power is invested in and consequently derived from the people; the government is instituted and exercised for the benefit of the people. No individual within government, be it the president, congressman, or bureaucrat has rights greater than or of higher priority than the average or common citizen. As citizens we stand equal; there is no royalty or divine right by fact of birth. The only defensible mandate is the continuous wellbeing of all citizens. There is no hard bound, rigid concept of mandate in fact there is no legal process of mandate within the Constitution or Bill of Rights. The President is not the head of State, but the Executive of State and as necessary the Commander in Chief of the Armed Services.

Since treaties are most often an administrative process the President may enter into treaties, but only with the advice and consent of the Senate. There is no provision for 'mandate in the Constitution. How would one define mandate? Would 35% of public opinion be adequate, 51% of public opinion, or 67% of public opinion to define a mandate. How could an elected official hold to a mandate or be 'honor bound' to a mandate when it does not exist as a process. In good conscience how would a President adhere to a course of action(realizing of course there is a Constitutional limit to Presidential course) if the will of the public has shifted. Congress drafts the laws and therefore representing the public will lays the course. If there is a shift in public sentiment congress is legally bound to recognize that shift and respond accordingly. There is no political course that can abrogate the public will if the tenets of the Constitution are to be maintained. For a President to set a course of governance is a usurpation of Congressional power and may be contrary to the contemporary will of the public and none the less is a violation of law and an impeachable offense.

Didn't mean to come across as overbearing or inflexible in my wording. I'll rethink this for better clarity, but what I'm attempting to say is that a President's Executive powers should be by constitutional law less than currently tolerated. The dysfunctional nature of the current (and probably for several decades) government should not be construed as Constitutionally correct. My comments may also miss the mark by too severe an interpretation or just by my own mis-step in language. For me the Constitution is fairly straightforward and the derivation and construction of both it and the Bill of Rights clear in intent and purpose. I've carried a personal copy (copies ) of the constitution for several decades and refer to it frequently. It's a hobby of sorts. I also read topics of international law, treaties, and occupational law; but only on occasion and solely for amusement.

[voralfred]

A President is legally bound to protect and defend the Constitution. The US Constitution delineates and partitions rights; the majority of which are held by the people. Congress is also legally bound to the same extent. The Presidents powers are administrative and are to see to the details of day to day government business. Administration of the government process is a President's mandate. A President serves only at the will and pleasure of the public; individual political destiny is only accomplished through duty and the only honor necessary or possible is that from adherence to the principles established in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

You are perfectly right: the President is bound to protect the Constitution. The latter does give him some definite responsibilities which he cannot exceed. Exceeding them would be

a violation of law and an impeachable offense.

this is certainly true. That was not at all my point. I'm referring to actions within this range of responsibilites.

As for "mandate" I am afraid there was a misunderstanding coming from my inaccurate use of a french word in english, where it apparently does not carry the same meaning. What I meant by "mandate" was a specified duration, four years for a President, I believe four years for a Representant and six for a Senator. I just meant the precise duration that the Consitution has fixed for each of these office. This is this specific duration, and nothing else, which I called "mandate" in my previous post, because in french we call this a "mandat". Sorry if that introduced any misunderstanding. I now realise the correct word is "term".

So to come back to my point, taking account of the diverse responsibilities, each defined by the Constitution, and while taking great care of not abusing of respective powers of President and Legislature (House and Senate) I still stand by my point: once elected for a given duration (a Senator has an even longer duration than a President, so it is all the more so for him) a politician who was elected (for a constitutionally defined duration) on a clear platform should keep to his platform for the entire duration that the Constitution fixed for his office. Even though a different intervening election (to replace some other elected officer) has shown that the majority of the very constituents that elected him a few years before have changed, the responsibility to express this change falls on the newly elected officer (be it a new President, a Representant that will be of the opposite party than the previously elected Senator, whatever).
The previously elected officer should still hold on to the platform he was elected for, which (if he is honest) represents his own ideas. Of course if the Legislature changes sides, the President will have much less freedom of action. Congress will force him to take the new situation into account (by refusing to vote a budget it does not approve, for instance). But in the domains where the Constitution gives him the higher hand over the Congress, I still say that the President should keep along the platform he was elected for, and not renounce his opinions in accordance with the "new will" of the people. Then it would be meaningless to elect a President for four years! If the Constitution is amended (for which there is a well defined procedure within the Constitution itself) so that the President will be elected for two years rather than four, than I would agree the situation would change. But as long as the President is elected for four years, in the specific responsibilites which are his, and where he constitutionally has the higher hand over Congress (you certainly know which these are better than I do, but even in France where the Legislature is stronger, and the President weaker than in the US, there are such domains of responsibilities) he should keep on his platform and not follow the "new will" of the people. That's the role of the newly elected Representants and Senators to push for this "new will". Just like a Senator who was elected two or even four years before, until all the six years of his term ("mandat") are up (if I am wrong about the six years, well, four years at least), should keep on his platform, his opinions, even if the constituency that elected him has experienced a change of majority. This is exactly what the Constitution says. Until it is amended to reduce the duration to two years for every office.

You are perhaps right when you say that
"President's Executive powers are by law less than currently tolerated. The dysfunctional nature of the current (and probably for several decades) government should not be construed as Constitutionally correct".
I am surprised that, if it were really the case, noone in Congress has appealed to the Supreme Court to have this corrected yet. But even if the President's Executive powers are less than currently tolerated, such powers do exist. Otherwise you would not need a President, just Congress, and civil servants appointed by Congress to exercise Executive powers directly under Congress control. Or have the British system where the Queen has no power at all and the Prime Minister is not elected in a separate election, but a direct emenation of the Parliament. As I said, the rules vary from one democracy to the other.

In France these powers, as I said several times, are definitely much weaker than in the US since the President cannot even have a Cabinet of his own choosing, he has to take a Cabinet accepted by the House. Still, these powers are far from negligible under the French Constitution. This has been seen quite clearly for the 9 years (twice two years of right-wing House under Mitterand, and 5 years of left-wing House in the first, seven-years, Chirac term) where the government's freedom of action, backed by the House, was definitely, if only very partially, limited by the President's opposition. And everybody, in France, each in turn (the right-wing, under Mitterand, the left-wing in the first Chirac's term) accepted the fact that the President, as long as he kept to his constitutional responsibiliteis and did not try to exceed them, was entitled to keep his own platform, his own ideas, on which he had been elected quite a kew years before, to limit the freedom of action of the government, even though the latter expressed a more recent expression of the will of the people. A term ("mandat" in french) is a term. When elected for some duration, you keep exercising (though of course not exceeding) your constitutional prerogatives for the entire duration of your term, with your platform and therefore your ideas, even if the majority has changed sides.
This has resulted in France eventually changing its Constitution to reduce the President's term to five years, same as that of a Representant, so that won't happen in the future anymore. But as long as the old, seven-years term, was the one that the Constitution implied, well, so it was and the President was in a posittion to limit the government's freedom of action despite the support of the House.
I think that not following the platform you were elected for is "violation of law and an impeachable offense", either by going beyond that platform (being more "extremist" than what you promised you'll be) or by renouncing it because an intervening election, that does not affect your term, has shown a shift in public opinion. And that applies to Representants, Senators and President alike.
What would you think if a Senator elected on a very liberal platform would turn very conservative two years later because of a conservative shift in public opinion demonstrated by a majority of voters for a conservative President even in this Senator's own constituency?

[JW Nugent]

I actually meant that the President is currently using more power than allowed by the constitution and not less. My error. My intention was to say should be less than is currently tolerated.

Though I knew you were writing from France I did not fully consider the differences in the mechanism of government. Your interpretation of limitations of function are not quite as laid out in the US Constitution nor in the the various notes and documents from the Constitutional Convention of the time.

A better understanding of my interpretation is possible if you use the New England model for Democracy. The practice of Town Democracy is probably the best example of a well functioning Republican form of government. Yes the debates and move towards consensus takes time, but I can concieve of no reason to race into legislation. Law should be well reasoned, balanced, mature, and a good fit for the citizens. Hurried decisions (without using a political bias I'll cite Iraq - it is a fresh example) are often ill conceived, ill managed, and difficult to undo.

One other point. You keep mentioning the ideas of the President; the President is not there to alter the course of government only to assure a smooth administrative process. A president is neither heart, soul, or mind of the Republic; our President is the Chief Executive - the senior supervising bureaucrat. A President chooses his own cabinet and congress approves his choices as part of a necessary balance of power. This is an important safeguard; other wise the process could be manipulated to give us a dictator. This is how democracies fail; balance is lost and one or another power group take control. The rule of law is eliminated and the rule of power supercedes all else. Hense Ceasar, Hitler, Stalin, and many others.

Look at the New England Town Government model. If the will of the people change so goes the government and the republic; any other course is not a government of we the people. While the people can be tyranical; true tyrants are usually power seeking individuals. A multitude of opinions may become noisy, but it is usually a safe and moderate form of noisy. By our Constitution it is the will of the people that is the heart, soul, and mind of the Republic.

[voralfred]

I actually meant that the President is currently using more power than allowed by the constitution and not less. My error. My intention was to say should be less than is currently tolerated.

Though I knew you were writing from France I did not fully consider the differences in the mechanism of government. Your interpretation of limitations of function are not quite as laid out in the US Constitution nor in the the various notes and documents from the Constitutional Convention of the time.

I understood that you meant that the President uses more power than allowed by the Constitution. I do not claim that you are wrong. I am just surprised that, if that was obviously the case, the Supreme Court was not seized of this unconstitutional actions and did not rule on them. Anyway, your statement implies that, even though the US Constitution my not lay out the limitations of function in avery precise way, there are still some indication of what the relative responsibilities of the President and the Congress are. There are certainly some decisions that are left to the President, otherwise, again, you would not need presidential elections at all. Just let Congress appoint the Executive, as is done in the UK.
So to come back on my main point; within this sphere which is definitely his responsibility don't you agree that a President should act along the platform he was elected for, even though two years later a legislative election gave the opposite party the majority in Congress?

Look at the New England Town Government model. If the will of the people change so goes the government and the republic; any other course is not a government of we the people. While the people can be tyranical; true tyrants are usually power seeking individuals. A multitude of opinions may become noisy, but it is usually a safe and moderate form of noisy. By our Constitution it is the will of the people that is the heart, soul, and mind of the Republic.

The point is that a Town can be ruled the way you say. It might be the most democratic one. However, for a country it is not practical (unless you think of Andorra, or maybe, at most Luxembourg. Even Belgium is too large for that). That is whay representative democracies were invented: for practical reasons.
Now one can choose the UK system: the Prime Minister is the emanation of the Parliament. Or the new french one: same term for President and House, which was not the case before. Even that does not guarantee that the President and the House agree: it is conceivable that a President will win, maybe by a slight majority, elected by all of France as a single constituency, and that because of the exact geographical disposition of the House consituencies, a majority of Represetants would oppose him (if, for instance just a few Representants that agree with the President are elected with a huge majority, thus "wasting" the Presidents supporters, while a majority of Representants opposing him are elected with a very slim, "economic" , margin).
But as long as yo uelect the President for a four year term, with legisltative elections at mid-term, should the President renounce his ideas, in hte precise sphere of his responsibilities (while of course keepign the Constitution and not interfering in the domains where Congress has the upper hand)?
That is not tyranny, there. Tyranny would be abusing of his responsibiliteis, and in particular exceeding the duration of the term he was elected for. I am not considering such a situation.
I still maintain that, for the duration of the term he was elected for (which is four years until the US changes its constitution the way France changed its own) and within the responsibilites which are his, and not interfere[\b] in the sphere of responsibilities of Congress (which I believe would have caused the Supreme Court to be called in, if that were the case), the President should act along the platform he was elected on, even in the second half of his term and even if the legislative elections showed that the will of the people has changed.
Don't you agree with this? Maybe you think it is a bad idea, and that the Constitution should be changed. Well, in France we did just that. While the presidential term was seven years, noone denied the fact that the President had the right to use whatever (small) consitutional prerogatives were his to limit the action of the government along his opinions, his original platform, event though he had been elected more than 5 years before and the government was supported by a newly elected House. Then a consensus emerged that it was not such a great idea and we changed the Constitution. But as long as that was the Constitution, everyone agreed that the President was not just entitled, but expected, to act according to his opinions.

[mccormack44]

I think there are points that should be covered about (1) how the mechanics of the Supreme Court work; and (2) the "value" of campaign platforms in the U. S., but I am so allergy-sleepy that I do not think I can contribute in a coherent fashion.

If no one else discusses these points, I will try to make a sensible post tomorrow.

Sue

[JW Nugent]

Yes I agree that governing a town is not the same as governing a country. My intension was to highlight the process of governing by the people. In the larger community (states and nations) representative government is used to keep the process manageable. At each level the representatives act out the will of the citizens that elected them; or should I say are supposed to act in accordance with the will of the citizens. The most critical job of an elected official is to stay attuned to what their constituents are thinking. The proper course for an elected official to take is to meet frequently with citizens in open forums and keep well grounded in the reality of every day life for the average citizen. My cynical view of the current state of politics is that it is rotten with corruption. Many of the perks afforded representatives are inappropriate. No elected official should ever recieve a penny more than their pay. Retainers granted for acting in an advisory capacity in my opinion are a direct form of graft. Stipends for speaking engagements should be eliminated. Elected officials already recieve a pay check the should not recieve money for doing something they are already paid to do. Their only business is that of the people; if they accepted a position of representation then they must subordinate their egos and outside ambitions to the job at hand.

I've not served as an elected official except as a director on the board of a metropolitan fire department. I have served as the managing executive of a division of government. My practice in either of these positions did not sway one iota from what I am descibing as proper conduct for a government official. I had the law as guidance and knew my duty was to the law and the implementation and regulation of that law to the best interests of the citizens. If there was a vagarity in wording I wrote a policy to clarify the interpretation. If there were sections of law that were antiquated or not in the best interest of the community I worked to have them modified to better serve their purpose. There are many pit falls to straight forward conduct. I was very unpopular with lobbyists and folks with political addictions. Oddly most legislators treated me with respect and relied on me for the truthfulness of my answers. If I made a bad decision it got fixed. If I was wrong I admitted so. If no was the correct answer the answer given was no. My role was not to lord over the folks I regulated nor was it to rule; my job was to administer the laws within my stewardship in a manner as balanced and just as was possible.

Adhering to integrity is a difficult and dangerous course at times. This might be because of the impetus that so many follow to subvert processes to a personal advantage. What king would willingly give up power, what prince or duke, senator or congressman. On the contrary instinctual dysfunction causes a quest for power well beyond logic. I've watched executives destroy companies as a means of taking them over or wreck them out of spite because a decision wasn't in their favor. History is replete with politicians destroying societies because there were no checks or balances to stop them.

My earlier explanations are of course my own interpretation of Constitutional text. There is no process of mandate within Constitutional Law. Political mandates are a manefestation of political egos. Platforms are used by parties to demonstrate their vision. Early on platforms were used to demonstrate a correct interpretation of public will; that approach has been subverted to become the underpinnings of party philosophy. My view of parties are harsh. Parties that assume or surplant the will of the people with the parties beliefs or agendas are moving into darkness. Once again we can cite the Nazi party and theCommunist Party as fairly contemporary examples. In a constitutional democracy any opinion or vision replacing the consensus of the many is a retreat into darkness.

I take great comfort in a goverment of the people. There are surely enough voices and opinions that a reliable outcome will have a reasonable probability. Who best to know whats good for them but the many individuals struggling with day to day life. Politicians living far removed from normal life and associating with a very narrow priveleged few are indifferent to the needs of the average citizen. Politicians are generally blinded by their own ambitions and deluded by even more ambitious followers. These are the people that build platforms from which to scream MANDATE!

[mccormack44]

As JW Nugent said, integrity in government is not easy. The lack of integrity isn't always due to dishonesty; it is VERY hard to separate personal bias from your deeds and actions.

I happen to be a fairly a-politcal person, but I do understand the processes of politics, the need for political action, and the existence of politicians. In fact, my inability to act in the political arena (when multiplied by all the others who are unable or unwilling to act there) is probably one of the best reasons for the existence of politicians.

Even when a given elected official (from the lowest office to the President of the United States) has given a personal statement of belief (as opposed to a Party statement) during a campaign, the official is not necessarily breaking faith with the electorate if during the term of office, that stand is put on hold or even abandoned. In the U. S. we often must choose between two candidates (sometimes only one, rarely as many as four or five). I may vote for candidate A ONLY because I believe that candidate B will do worse in office. I may hope that candidate A DOES NOT keep to this issue. There are various ways to get this message across to candidate A after the election. A responsible official may find that too much time is being spent on this particular issue, and postpone it or abandon it in order to attend to other matters.

Also, the political situation is fluid and platforms are many pronged; things change too rapidly for it to be valid to cling relentlessly to statements made and attitudes taken two to six years ago. Many of us hope that our elected officials will grow in office.

As JW Nugent has said, responsible elected officials do keep in touch with the electorate and do try to represent the current desires of that electorate.

Most of the voters I know do not feel that they have given a "mandate" to any candidate for whom they have voted, and most of them resent being told that they have done so after the election. (Remember, I'm somewhat a-political, so the extent of my knowledge here may be limited.)

Yesterday I suggested that I might discuss the legal processes of trying laws in our courts and setting up a Trial for Impeachment for a president; unfortunately, I am still to fuzzy-headed to get into this with any clarity. If no one else comes up with these answers, I'll try again tomorrow.

Sue

[voralfred]

(...) At each level the representatives act out the will of the citizens that elected them; or should I say are supposed to act in accordance with the will of the citizens. The most critical job of an elected official is to stay attuned to what their constituents are thinking. The proper course for an elected official to take is to meet frequently with citizens in open forums and keep well grounded in the reality of every day life for the average citizen.
(....)
Adhering to integrity is a difficult and dangerous course at times.
(...)
Platforms are used by parties to demonstrate their vision. Early on platforms were used to demonstrate a correct interpretation of public will; that approach has been subverted to become the underpinnings of party philosophy. My view of parties are harsh. Parties that assume or surplant the will of the people with the parties beliefs or agendas are moving into darkness. Once again we can cite the Nazi party and theCommunist Party as fairly contemporary examples. In a constitutional democracy any opinion or vision replacing the consensus of the many is a retreat into darkness.
(....)
These are the people that build platforms from which to scream MANDATE!

Well, you say that representatives should "stay attuned to what their constituents are thinking".
You criticize platforms and parties.

But you also consider that "integrity" is fundamental.

So let me give a fictitious situation, and you tell me where is "integrity" in that case.

Let us consider a state which is, roughly, neither very conservative nor very liberal but rather evenly split.
Let us suppose that in 2010, in a Senatorial election is this state, maybe because of a general trend, or because the conservative candidate was particualrly inept, the candidate that is elected as Senator is elected on a very liberal platforM;
In 2012, a conservative Presisent is elected, and not only nation-wide, but also, it is clear that he got a majority among the very constituents that elected our liberal Senator. Not only that, but in 2014, there were elections for the House and also, not just nation-wide, but in the very state of our Senator, the was a clear conservative majority.
Let us suppose, further, that this conservative-wards evolution affected the state of our Senator much more than the rest of the country, so there was not a real landslide: so even though President and House are conservative, the Senate is just on the borderline. Every vote counts. Now our Senator's term extend until 2016.

So where is integrity?
Our liberal Senator, whose vote is crucial because the Senate is on the bordeline, what should he do. Being "attuned to what their constituents are thinking", if the very constitunents that elected him in 2010 on a liberal platform, have shown in 2012 and 2014 that a majority of them are now conservative, would mean support conservative policies.
Now the constitutional term of the Senaotr is six years. What should he do for the next two years?

I say that "integrity" dictates that this particular Senator stays true to his opinions, to the platform he was elected for in 2010. (Well, if he, sincerely, changed his mind, this becomes a more complicated problem; let us assume that this is not the case and that he still believes sincerely on the principles of the platform he was elected on). Note that since I am assuming that his vote is pivotal in an evenly split Senate, our Senator might be the last line of defense of the liberals against a conservative President and a conservative House. And don't tell me this is a ridiculous situation. Sure, I built it in a rather articicial way. But in a democratic country where many elections are won by just a few percents, and where public opinion does vary over 2 or 4 years, it is not at all absurd to believe that a constituency that voted for a liberal Senator in 2010 cannot exhibit a visible (even though moderate, 52 or 53%, say) conservative majority in both 2012 and 2014. And a 50/50 split Senate is not so absurd either.

What do you say, JM Nugnet, and what do you say, Sue?

Where is integrity?
Acting as you personally think, along the lines of the platform you were elected for in 2010 (assuming our Senator's own opinions have not changed) for a six years term, or "stay attuned" to your constituents and support the President they voted for in 2012, following the policies supported by the Representatives they voted for in 2014?

Asserting that "integrity" is just that, going against your own ideas to follow the majority of your constituents is a consistent view, that puts elected officials as obedient servants of "will of the people". Note, however, that here I am speaking of a Senator, not a President. If you hold this view, fine, but please say it clearly, in the very situation that I describe.

My personal view of integrity is to be true to one's opinion and one's promises, for the whole duration of one's term. Then if in 2016 the people of his constituency, angry at him for steadfastedly opposing the policies of the President they voted for, and the House they voted for (and having success in opposing them, in all the situations where a majority of the Senate could block them, majority for which he was pivotal), do not re-elect him, well, that may be the price of integrity.

[mccormack44]

Voralfred wrote:

Where is integrity?
Acting as you personally think, …

In your fictional case, where you have assumed that the Senator's stand was personal conviction, then the Senator should stand by the personal conviction.

However, to continue the fictional case: At the time of the campaign, our Senator stated that wetlands reform would be a very good thing for the state. HERE AND NOW in the Senate, a "wetlands reform" bill is coming up for vote. The Senator has discovered that the bill is really a political scam; that while it claims to offer wetlands management that will improve conditions, it is really a management plan that will help a few moneyed interests while increasing the destruction of life forms that border the waterways of this state (which has a large income from tourism). The bill is cleverly worded and only careful research has uncovered the scam.

Integrity here would be for the Senator to cast the pivotal vote AGAINST the bill, even though this action appears to contradict the campaign platform. The Senator must act in the Senate TODAY and then, later, explain to/convince the electorate why the vote appeared to contradict the personal stand when in fact it did not.

To add to this problem: most voters in the state understand that tourism is a good source of state and personal income; they DO NOT understand what wetlands management has to do with this nor do they understand what good wetlands management is.

As JW Nugent and I have said earlier—integrity isn't easy.

Sue