THE NATION'S FORGOTTEN PURPOSE
AND LOST DIRECTION

Preamble to the United States Constitution:

"We the people of the United States, in order to
form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure
domestic Tranquility, provide for the common de-
fence, 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."

For the folks who worship our Constitution, and I
value it as highly as anyone, it might be time to re-
affirm our devotion to it, and reconsider it's high
purpose and basic meaning. These are not at all
complicated, but are easily neglected or forgotten.

The purpose of our government is laid out clearly
and succinctly in the opening words of this magni-
ficent document: "We the people of the United
States, in order to form a more perfect union (em-
phasis mine) . . ." Let me stop right there: we the
people are set on achieving (and are still supposed
to be working at) forming a more perfect union!

Is that what our politics are about, and what they
are doing? Hardly: a perfect union would be one
that combines communitarian ism with individualism
perfectly. (Communitarian ism is dedication to the
common good. It suffers when subordinated to
individual advantage as we see happening a lot as
we speak.) Power corrupts, we know. Sen. Mc-
Cain says greed is creating havoc in our markets.
Well, that's certainly part of it! It takes more than
greed to get us where we are now. Lots of greedy
people are dumb, and get nowhere!

Okay: the over-riding purpose of the Constitution
is to form a more perfect union. It goes on to list
necessary areas to accomplish this: "establish jus-
tice" is one of them. Here we are failing badly, both
in our criminal justice, and even more so in the
areas of distributive justice. As John Rawls showed
in his monumental A Theory of Justice, justice is
simply fairness. (Google him, if you are interested
in his reasoning.) As to its import, Rawls wrote:
"Justice is the first value of social institutions, as
truth is of systems of thought." Actually, without
justice, nothing else in the Preamble will work well
or for long. In fact, without justice, everything in
the Constitution becomes meaningless, if not im-
possible!

Please do not try to tell me that justice is just too
complex to be understood. That's nonsense!
About the third thing a child says after "no" and
"mama," is "that's not fair." Everybody knows
what that is. Studies at UCLA in 2008 have indi-
cated that reactions to fairness are "wired" into
the brain and that "Fairness is activating the same
part of the brain that responds to food in rats . . .
This is consistent with the notion that being trea-
ted fairly satisfies a basic need." (From Wikipedia
on Justice.) So justice is first in the program of
forming a more perfect union.

"Insure domestic Tranquility" comes next. This
requires good government. Good government is
fair and competent. It is free of secrecy, favori-
tism, bias or cronyism. That in turn requires
vigilant, vigorous examination of public policies
and actions by an unbiased press. For that rea-
son the First Amendment protects free speech
and press. These are absolutely vital to form
(and keep) a more perfect union.

Of course, we don't really have a vigorous, vigi-
lent, unfettered media anymore. That's part of
why we have a government run amok and out of
control. 80% of us think we are on the wrong
track, and 65% of us want us out of Iraq now.
But we the people are powerless to change any-
thing important. Gore Vidal (in an interview
with the Progressive) said of our current oligar-
chy: "The people don't matter to this gang. They
pay no attention. They think in totalitarian terms.
They've got the troops. They've got the army.
They've got congress. They've got the judiciary.
Why should they worry? Let the chattering class
chatter. Bush is a thug. I think there is something
really the matter with him."

Whether there is anything wrong with Mr. Bush
I don't know. He may just be a spoiled rich boy
who never grew up. Everything was always given
to him (including an election!) I do know there
is something very wrong with us! "Fool me once . . ."

How did this happen? How and why did the self-
congratulatory free press keep us distracted with
senseless trivia while our national store was being
robbed, looted, and gutted (like a moose) without
a peep from the watch dogs? They didn't even
watch! Gore Vidal again, in the same interview:
"When you've got a press like we have, you no
longer have an informed citizenry." He's right, of
course. And that means trouble, lots of trouble,
right here in River City. We can't have a more
perfect union without much fuller and fairer in-
formation. Rush rules!

Next is "provide for the common defense." This
one we excel in, because it's so financially re-
warding. We spend almost $600 billion per year
on it. Naturally, since this area is so profitable,
there is little oversight and colossal waste and
corruption instead. I won't go into the many
needs that are shorted in favor of defense, such
as infra-structure, education, health care, clean
energy, the environment, and on and on. We will
see some of this however, in the next item.

After the common defense, which I'm sliding by
because we're doing it, and it's too big to do
justice to here, comes the part that says to form
a more perfect union, we need to "promote the
general Welfare." That's also essential to insure
domestic tranquility and establish (and maintain)
justice. Harry Truman said "it took 150 years for
the Republicans to find "welfare" in the Constitu-
tion." True, and they still don't accept it! Or at
least many don't. To promote the general wel-
fare certainly includes universal health care. How
could it not? All the industrialized countries in
the world have it -- except us. And we're the rich-
est! Even some of the developing countries like
Cuba and China have it.

The Republicans want to "privatize" Social Secu-
rity. The American public says "no way." Aren't
you glad a major chunk of your old age livelihood
isn't riding on red in the stock market roulette?
What a dumb idea that was!

Lastly, to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to our-
selves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of Ameri-
ca." We won't have the last without all the rest.
That is the genius of our Founding Fathers. They
understood the inter-connectedness of all these
features essential to good government. I will plan
to write more later about the "common good"
that is the social glue holding together and pro-
moting a "more perfect union." I will also dis-
cuss the mortal threat that lionized individualism
that celebrates private privilege and advantage
poses both to the common good and the more
perfect union.

LETTER AND RESPONSE

Here is part of a letter that appeared in the
Albany Democrat-Herald on 9/4/08 entitled
"A Doubter in Obama country" It is written
by Larry Crompton. Larry writes: "It is time
to do some deep thinking. I realize that Ore-
gon is an Obama country but for the life of
me I cannot figure out why. Racist ministers
as mentors, terrorists as friends, crooks as
friends. Does this not mean anything? Can
they really be overlooked in a person who is
seeking the highest office in the land?"

"For those of you who are voting for Senator
Obama because he is black and you will be a
part of history making, you are foolish. For
those of you who are voting for him to prove
to yourself and those around you that you
are not racist, you are proving the exact oppo-
site." And Mr. Crompton goes on, predicting
various disasters to be expected if Obama wins.

My Response

(This appeared in the Albany paper on 9/13/08:)
"Explaining Barack Obama"
Larry Crompton (Mailbag, Sept. 4) is baffled by
the popularity of Sen. Obama. Maybe I can help.

Obama has JFK's smarts and charisma, and MLK's
eloquence and idealism. Other than that, he's
pretty much your ordinary honor-student-turned
politician. It's not totally a mystery: the people of
Illinois, who know him well, sent him to their state
legislature for eight years, and then to represent
them in the U. S. Senate.

The folks in Iowa, where he spent a lot of time,
like him too, and want to make him president.
He was well-liked by his fellow professors and
students at the Univ. of Chicago law school,
where he taught constitutional law for ten years.
His fellow students chose him to head the Law
Review at Harvard. That's a big honor. It's hard
to find anyone who knows him that has anything
bad to say about him.

Some of us see similarities between Obama and
Lincoln. Like L., O. writes his own speeches.
That's rare in politicians! (O. writes as well as
Gov. Palin reads, and that is very well indeed.)

Lincoln actually had less national experience
when he was sworn in than Obama has now.
Lincoln was a genius. Obama may be close to
that. It would be a monumental tragedy for
the nation if we miss the opportunity for great-
ness in our leadership at this critical time be-
cause of silly and scurrilous nonsense promo-
ted by Fox Noise and Rush Limbaugh.

If you want the truth about these attacks, go
to Obama's campaign website. William Ayers
held a fundraiser party for Obama. They had
both served on the board of a nonprofit chari-
table organization. So they know each other.
So? This means what? Guilt by association?

John Goodwin
Lebanon

Let me add here that Mr. Crumpton is right
in one respect: if anyone is voting for Obama
(or against him) because of race, that would be
a poor reason. But is that really the case in
Oregon? How does Mr. C. know that? I doubt
very much that is the case. Also, Obama's
former pastor was nutty, but he's not a racist
as Mr. C. claims. Racism is a belief that there
are certain differences that can be attributed
to one race or another. Rev. Wright does not
believe that nonsense for a minute! And O.
would not have stayed in that church one day
if Wright believed or preached that. I have
looked into Wright's record and preaching,
and can't find any racism there. Whites are
welcome in that church, and many attend
there and like it. What the Rev. occasionally
fulminates against is actions and behaviours
that are racially based. That's a whole different
can of worms!

FADING MEMORIES

What a pleasant surprise! A political talking doll!
What'll they think of next? She wows the popu-
lace with sage comments inserted by her pro-
grammers and handlers. She may even be wired
to a teleprompter.

There are some problems, though. She lacks de-
pendable memory. She keeps claiming, like a
stuck record, that she rejected the Bridge to No-
where from the git-g0. But according to the Assoc.
Press (9/12/08): "For nearly a week, major news
outlets documented that Palin supported the bridge
when running for governor in 2006, and she turned
against it only after it became an embarrassment."

She has also been forgetful about polar bears. She
wrote in the N. Y. Times that her opposition to
placing them on the endangered species list was
based on sound scientific advice by Alaska's scien-
tists who had thoroughly studied the situation and
found they were doing fine, and needed no help.
The main problem with that is it isn't so! Her
scientists say that they found in their studies the
same thing Canadian and other scientists found:
that the polar bear population is in dire straits due
to rapid melting of their habitat, the ice cap. In
fact, if the ice keeps melting, they are facing ex-
tinction. So the gov. either didn't know what she
was talking about, or misspoke.

Poor memory is a serious limitation when her griz-
zled running-mate has faulty memory as well.
During the primary he said being a mayor (like Rudy)
was not relevant experience when it comes to the
presidency. He said ditto for being governor (like
Mitt). Oops! He must have been joking (as he often
has to explain.) Or is he still joking?

Back to the freshman governor: can she be pro-
grammed adequately for that 3 a. m. phone call?
Enquiring minds want to know! She reminds me
a lot of Aimee Semple McPherson, the galvanizing
preacher back in the thirties. She used to wow the
crowds like Ms. Palin does. Sarah also has the same
religious views as Aimee, as well as similar good
looks and charisma. Aimee made a lot of money
and a lot of converts and founded the Foursquare
Gosped churches, before she ran off with a young
admirer. Sarah has also come far in a short time,
and may yet go much further. The masses are al-
ways hungry for distraction and will pay well to
get it and keep it, when they find it in such an
attractive and talented package.

MORE ON IRAQ

Errata: In yesterday's blog I erroneously
wrote that our costs in Iraq are running at
$10 billion a week. That should have been
a month! Sorry.

Also in yesterday's blog, I referred to retired Gen.
William Odum. That prompted me, after I had
published, to look him up (on google) and refresh
my recollection of his views. There I found his
10-page Testimony For The Senate Foreign Re-
lations Committee, which he presented before the
committee on 1/18/07. This was as the "surge"
was starting. He opposed it, as did the Joint
Chiefs of Staff (firmly and forcefully, we learn in
Bob Woodward's new book on that period.) They
were simply ignored, says Woodward.

Gen. Odum (G.O.) told the senators that "mili-
tary operations must be judged by whether and
how they contribute to accomplishing war aims."
He then explains why the surge wouldn't and
couldn't do this, and therefore was a waste of
time and lives and money. He noted that we
originally had three aims in Iraq: destruction
of their WMDs, removal of Saddam, and crea-
tion of a liberal democratic Iraq. The only one
of these left to do, G. O. said, "has no real pro-
pects of being achieved even in 10 or 20 years."
I would add that explains why Bush/McSame
want to stay on indefinitely.

G. O. observed further: "Overthrowing the Iraqi
regime in 2003 insured that the country would
fragment into at least three groups, Sunnis, Shiites,
and Kurds. In other words, the invasion made it
inevitable that a civil war would be required to
create a new central government able to control
all of Iraq. Yet a civil war does not insure it. No
faction may win the struggle. A lengthy stalemate
or a permanent breakup of the country is possible.
The invasion also insured that outside countries
and groups would become involved. Al Qaeda
and Iran are the most conspicuous participants so
far, Turkey and Syria less so. If some of the weal-
thy oil-producing countries on the Arabian Penin-
sula are not already involved, they are most likely
to support with resources any force in Iraq that
opposes Iranian influence."

So it was a bad idea. Horribly bad. Even if we had
sent in three times as many troops originally, as
Gen. Sensiki said we would need, and we had sealed
off the borders, as taught in "Occupation 101," we
could not have prevented the civil war. We might
have delayed it. The surge has created a pause in
that showdown. That's all it has done. All sides are
waiting and preparing to resume when we leave, as
I wrote yesterday.

G. O. again: "It is a strategic error of monumental
proportions to view the war as confined to Iraq. Yet
this is the implicit assumption on which the presi-
dent's new strategy (the surge) is based. We have
turned it into two wars that vastly exceed the borders
of Iraq. First, there is the war against the U. S. occu-
pation that draws both sympathy and material support
from other Arab countries. Second, there is the Shia-
Sunni war, sectarian conflict heretofore sublimated
within the Arab world but that now has opened the
door to Iranian influence in Iraq. In turn, it foreor-
daines an expanding Iranian-Arab regional conflict."

So it's a mess. Still. The surge has been a tactical
success without strategic significance or value.
What a colossal waste!

More on this later.

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

DIFFERING "SURGE" PERSPECTIVES

The surge was partially successful, and
mainly a failure. How so? Well, what was
its purpose? We aren't there just to keep a
lid on violence. It partially succeeded in
that. But that wasn't its main purpose.
And it cost us over 500 additional dead
G. I.s to just do that.

Was it worth it? Again, for what purpose?
Isn't our object in being there at all a peace-
ful, united and democratic Iraq? Wasn't
the surge supposed to provide sufficient
stability for reconciliation and reunion to
take place? That hasn't happened, and
isn't likely to. The Sunnis that worked
with us to whip al Qaida in Anbar are still
being shut out of real power in Baghdad,
and are becoming increasingly restive. The
Kurds, who helped the Shia government take
charge, are now threatening succession over
Kirkuk.

Pres. al Maliki, whom we helped come to pow-
er has been strengthened by the surge, and
wants us to set a time for our departure. In
fact 70% of the Shia and Sunni want us gone.
Only the Kurds like us and want us to stay.
They understand that once we are gone, Iran
is ready to step in and fill the vacuum we
leave. Iran will help al Maliki put down
the various factions opposing him. Iraq
will then become an Islamic state like Iran,
and allied with it. McCain understands
this, and wants to stay indefinitely to pre-
vent it. This is also why Gen. Petraeus
will refuse substantial troop reductions
as long as he can. The situation there is
"fragile and reversible" in his words. And
expensive, I might add, at $10 billion per
week.

How long will the U. S. public pay these
costs? And for what purpose? If the surge
had really succeeded, we would be gradu-
ally phasing down our troop numbers and
recomitting them to the other pending
failure, in Afghanistan. And all would be
well. (In Iraq. If you harbor any illusions
about our ability to beat and control the
warlords in Afghanistan, read up on the
country's history, and the repeated de-
feats of both the Brits and the Russians
there.) Anyway, since all is not, and will
not be well in Iraq, the modest gains of
the surge will turn out to be temporary,
as Gen. Odum and others foresaw, and its
permanent benefits negligible if not non-
existent. The Pres. went "all in," and we
lost.

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net