Phil Beaver works to establish opinion when
the-objective-truth has not been discovered. He seeks to refine his opinion by
listening when people share experiences and observations. The comment box below
invites readers to write.
Note 1: I often dash
words in phrases in order to express and preserve an idea. For example, frank-objectivity
represents the idea of candidly expressing the-objective-truth despite possible
error. In other words, a person expresses his “belief,” knowing he or she could
be in error. People may collaboratively approach the-objective-truth. Note 2: It is important to note "civic" refers to citizens who collaborate for the people more than for the city.
A personal paraphrase of the preamble by & for Phil Beaver: Willing people in our state routinely, voluntarily collaborate for comprehensive safety and security: continuity (for self, children, grandchildren & beyond), integrity (both fidelity and wholeness), justice (freedom-from oppression), defense (prevent or constrain harm), prosperity (acquire the liberty-to pursue choices), privacy (responsibly discover & pursue personal goals), lawfulness (obey the law and reform injustices); and to preserve and cultivate the rule of law for the USA’s service to the people in their states.
Composing their own paraphrase, citizens may consider the actual preamble and perceive whether they are willing or dissident toward the preamble.
Our Views (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_0352c05a-6bfe-11e7-8b88-cf66ce4959a7.html)
I think a good
policy is: Live on high ground with essential roads also on high ground.
Today’s thought,
G.E. Dean (Psalms 142:1-5, CJB)
“With my voice I cry to Adonai, with my voice I plead
to Adonai for mercy. Before him I pour out my complaint, before
him I tell my trouble. When my spirit faints within me, you watch over my
path. By the road that I am walking they have hidden a snare for me. Look
to my right, and see that no one recognizes me. I have no way of escape; nobody
cares for me. I cried out to you, Adonai; I said, ‘You are my refuge,
my portion in the land of the living.’”
Dean says “Cast your cares on the Lord. He will give you the
strength you need.”
David seems desperate but Dean seems casual. I don’t trust
either of them.
Letters
President Trump represents We the People of the United
States (Teasley) (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_baac08ee-6bfc-11e7-8654-4755a2e8e703.html)
We the People of the United States
maintain the USA through votes that are counted by our state, for us, Louisiana.
We request, through President Trump, SOS Schedler to preserve the value of the
votes we cast. If Schedler does not respect that request, he is a dissident to
a willing people, as defined in the preamble to the constitution for the USA.
The
people of Louisiana need their money (Almon) (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_445611ea-6caa-11e7-a916-27e21078be00.html)
Philanthropist Taylor started a needs based program,
but the people in power changed it to benefit the privileged at the expense of
the people. It’s not only taxpayers who suffer---it’s all the people of
Louisiana.
Mitch
Landrieu (Sellen) (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_14817132-6ca3-11e7-9733-f7f4874bb01c.html)
Starting next year, I hope to be
relieved of his influence.
Columns. (The fiction/non-fiction
comments gallery for readers)
Democrats (Cal Thomas) baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-op-0729-online-exclusive-20170728-story.html
Let a sleeping
log die.
However, let a
willing people reform so that every American infant is coached to
acquire, by the time of his or her chronological young adulthood, the
understanding and intent to live a full life---independent of imposed theism or
government.
Media polls are still false (Byron York)
washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-why-are-republicans-trouncing-democrats-in-fundraising/article/2629435
Most political contributions to the
two major parties went to the GOP 71% in June, and 66% so far in 2017. That’s
the 2/3 super-majority I hope for: perhaps 2/3 of Americans willing to use the
agreement stated in the preamble to the constitution for the USA plus
the-objective-truth to discover civic morality rather than compete for dominant
opinion.
Media polls say President Trump’s
approval rating is 40%. I do not mind the disconnect as long as the money-flow
holds.
Our republic (E.J. Dionne)
oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/07/ej_dionne_jr_the_twin_threats.html
Dionne abuses the word
“our.” In this column, it appears eight times: our legitimate
expectations of political leaders; our election; our country; our lifetimes;
our economy; our gratitude; our politics; our republican institutions.
Last December, online at ohio.com/editorial/e-j-dionne-jr-be-direct-about-our-democracy-1.736009,
Dionne wrote: our presidents (twice); our disagreement; our country; and our evolution toward democracy.
First, he wrote
against the Electoral College: “We should complete
our evolution toward democracy and elect our presidents directly.” Now, he
writes, “The decline of our . . . republican institutions can be stopped only if
the [GOP] starts living up to the obligations . . .” Thus, he wants democracy
but pretends to defend republicanism. He represents himself as having no
integrity within eight months of writing.
Two points: like a
typical liberal-democrat, Dionne 1) cannot decide what “our” means to him and thus
excludes himself and 2) respecting the purpose and goals stated in the preamble
to the constitution for the USA, expresses dissidence. Willing people do not
lie, and thereby dissenters identify themselves.
New police chief (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/crime_police/article_93bffade-72cc-11e7-9d49-a715ee0be997.html)
I appreciate such a wide-ranging
report by Grace Toohey and The Advocate so soon after Lt. Dunnam’s appointment.
Baton Rouge is fortunate to have
such a qualified person for the role, and I am grateful that Mayor Broome
appointed him.
Unexpected future could bring his
long term future service to the people in our hometown: welcome as the flowers
in May, youtube.com/watch?v=PeseECvvvCA. Cheesy, I know, but
what a voice and nice person.
Other forums:
College professor drops out of
Southern Baptist Convention
nytimes.com/2017/07/17/opinion/why-im-leaving-the-southern-baptist-convention.html
Mr. Ware is right to follow his own goals in withdrawing
from the Southern Baptist Convention.
However, he represents himself as just another product of
the nanny-state: I demand my demands and I demand them now! Through
collaboration, the controversial convention had reached an agreement on a
policy against alt-right or white-supremacy influence.
However, LGBTQ practices threaten both followers’
psychological maturity and potential to harm people they influence, such as
children. To condone LGBTQ practices, a person who relies on
the-objective-truth is asked to compromise reality for controversial dreams.
Ware may think it is a good bargain, but he cannot force that compromise on the
Southern Baptist Convention.
The Southern Baptist Convention is better off with 15
million less one and may be grateful that Ware made his dissidence known.
A civic people hope Ware reforms.
libertylawsite.org/liberty-forum/can-the-american-people-be-trusted-to-govern-themselves/#comment-1569478
Professor Postel asks a profound question. I think the
answer is maybe, depending upon willing American citizens.
Scholarship sometimes seems to unintentionally conserve
error: promote tradition more than utilize experience and observation.
Humankind’s leading edge of fidelity is more informative than history. Human
beings are so psychologically powerful that each decade of their lives may be
lived on the edge of moral progress more than on the past. Each human may be
free to perfect his or her person. Each parent, while perfecting his or her
person, may coach their child to work for his or her unique, personal
perfection. The preamble to the constitution for the USA may be viewed as a
civic agreement for human perfection; alas, the preamble is neglected.
America may reform: Most people may become willing to
iteratively collaborate for freedom from oppression with the opportunity to
acquire the liberty to pursue personal perfection. Freedom from oppression with
the opportunity to acquire liberty may be the undreamt American dream. Fidelity
seems the neglected power for success.
It’s doubtful that anything but personal experience could
impress willing people to rally for reform to civic morality more than to
preserve both theism and conflict for dominant political opinion. However,
reviewing the timeline of prior events, then reading George Washington’s first
inaugural address, could stimulate interest in reform more than anarchy.
America can reach its ineluctable greatness, yet may not. It depends upon We
the People of the United States.
In 1789, Washington, intentionally or not, did not, as
explicitly as he could have, promote the civic agreement that is stated in the
preamble to the constitution for the USA. The preamble is a civic agreement
that is neutral to theism; it is not a secular agreement. Whereas the
preamble’s agreement divides the people as the willing vs dissidents,
Washington, in the conditional “reverence for the characteristic rights of
freemen” perhaps implied churchmen vs the rest, much as James Madison had erroneously
done in “Memorial & Remonstrance,” 1785. These 228 years later, willing
people may need and want comprehensive safety and security more than piety.
Neither government nor theism may constrain even one civic person. By “civic” I
mean citizens who iteratively collaborate for mutual, comprehensive safety and
security during every decade of their lives more than for the municipality,
tradition, or an ideology. Dissidents oppose civic morality.
Consider a couple decades’ key events leading to the 1789
inaugural address. Loyal British Americans realized they were being enslaved,
some as African slave-masters, changed their style to statesmen, negotiated
France’s help in the war for independence, ratified treaty-status as thirteen
free and independent states, observed that the confederation of thirteen states
(with eight slave states) was not working, and specified a constitutional
republic predicated on governance by the people more than the states. General
George Washington had seemed prescient toward the preamble, on June 8, 1783,
urging “Disposition, among the People of the United States, which will induce
them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual
concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity.” When the preamble was
written, it was intended for all inhabitants, as evidenced by provisions to end
African slavery as much as temporally feasible. Today, willing citizens may
either adopt the agreement stated in the preamble, in order to iteratively
collaborate for a better American future, or choose dissidence for reasons they
may understand. We have more freedom, incentives, and awareness today than
citizens had in 1787.
On April 30, 1789, President Washington asserted his
humility before “the voice of my Country” and “appreciation of every
circumstance” that had transpired. Next, he expressed that events had been
directed by higher power without suggesting theism. He did not thank France for
higher power in the key Revolutionary War victory at Yorktown, VA. In other words,
military power had a hand in American independence. Nevertheless, Washington
cited “Almighty Being who rules the Universe, who presides in the Councils of
Nations and whose providential aids can supply every human defect,” and
further, “the Great Author of every public and private good,” and later,
“smiles of Heaven” and “benign parent of the human race.” Perhaps “the
invisible hand,” is a 1776 Adam Smith phrase that refers to willing people
getting along in economic markets. In closing, he appealed for more “divine
favor,” without confirming that he meant more than supremely good outcomes.
Washington sought “providential aid” to “the liberties and happiness of the
People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these
essential purposes,” perhaps implying the preamble but perhaps erroneously
dismissing the people’s agreement and work as the essential provision. It is
alright for people to claim Washington’s words express theism, but my view is
that the text shows he was too humble to do so: He expressed appreciation for
the-objective-truth.
Next, Washington addressed the administration’s duties, with perhaps a personal misdirection in “command the respect of the world.” The goals of the preamble seem intent on liberty; world respect might naturally follow. Washington then turned to public integrity as “virtue and happiness . . . duty and advantage . . . [honesty and rewards] . . . magnanimous policy [and] public prosperity and felicity.” Respecting amendment of the constitution, he asserted confidence in the people for “discernment and pursuit of the public good,” yet called for harmonious “reverence for the characteristic rights of freemen.” It seems “freemen” referred to official church members, a civic error of the times and one inherited from England. Washington declined a salary but committed to reimbursement for expenses for “the public good.”
In summary, Washington, while appealing to the people for
“discernment and pursuit of the public good,” does not apprise them of the
civic agreement offered by the preamble—does not point to the preamble as
dividing the people as the willing vs dissidents. Yet he entrusts “the American
people” with “the destiny of the Republican model of Government,” with the
stipulation of harmonious safety and promotion of churchmen to fortify “an
United and effective Government.” This last point constitutes the need for
reform in the American culture. Being a theist is a prerequisite to neither
national citizenship nor potential, unique human perfection.
Professor Postell tacitly asks if vast ignorance can be
reformed. It is up to the people who may become motivated enough to learn. With
extant scholarship, theism, and governance it seems almost impossible but not
absolutely so. If most people can receive the message that the common good is
comprehensive safety and security rather than dominant political opinion,
willing citizens of the USA may reform. The most stalwart holdouts are the
supremely rich, and the way to a possible better future is preservation for
adult lives and elite education for every newborn.
Postel interprets Washington’s attention to “immutable
principles of private morality,” without citing the civic agreement stated in
the preamble. Thus, both Postel and Washington seem to neglect the civic
agreement, but perhaps not Washington. With his view, Postel faults Washington
for not stating how Congress would accomplish “the experiment entrusted to the
hands of the American people.” Perhaps Washington made no mistake: He hoped
willing people would, practicing the agreement in the preamble, discover civic
morality for their mutual living and direct Congress as needed.
Most people lamely claim to be of “we, the people,” but
expect the theism-government partnership or their theism to surrogate personal
responsibility for civic morality. Many citizens don’t even bother to
understand that “We the People of the United States” refers to persons in their
states, who may maintain the established USA. As a consequence of an indolent
people, the religion-government partnership has progressively lived high on the
hog for 228 years. The problem has been exacerbated by a Congress weakened by
assigning its constitutional duties to regulatory bodies and allowing the
administration to direct those unconstitutional departments. Presidents are
expected to be policy leaders instead of administrators. So far, President
Trump seems to be an administrator.
Postel introduces “civic virtue” vs “clashing interests
and views” as inherent constitutional tension expected to produce a “good
majority.” He implies that institutions for “deliberation, compromise, and
consensus” existed, but they were only hoped for. James Madison advocated
republicanism in Federalist 39. But in Federalist 10, he cautioned against
factions, yet extoled pitting them in the contest for dominant factional
opinion rather than public need. Federalist 51 supposed that despite states’
interests “the majority . . . seldom [misses] justice and the common good,” yet
did not explain the national mechanism.
However, in practice, legislative factions compromise
goals and organize for power. Thereby, the individual may vote for the
organization that represents his or her interest, defeating republicanism and
civic justice. The winning organization of factions might not represent the
majority of the people. (“Calhoun’s concurrent majority” makes no sense and
therefore deserves no consideration.) Solving this privation seems critical to
restoring “our democratic republic.” Constitutionalists need to attend to this
problem, and have overlooked the importance of Congress.
Willmoore Kendall, d. 1967, worked to understand majority
rule and was controversially confident in the people. “His work consistently
focused on two themes: first, the idea of a virtuous and engaged citizenry, and
second, the institutional arrangements that best promote virtue in citizens and
deliberation in the legislature.” The people would elect a president they
expect to do their will yet submit to the caution and wisdom of Congress.
Congress would perform as “the serious or deliberate” majority providing
“correct reciprocal anticipations” for states’ preferences (the “extended
republic”). “A self-governing people needs to be engaged, and capable of
building real communities, but it also needs to have some respect for politics
and for the political compromise that self-government requires.”
Kendall’s work informs Postel that a virtuous people may self-govern, but only through a Congress that deliberates for civic virtue rather than dominant opinion. Thus, the people must “reward behavior that preserves deliberation even if it detracts from the policy outcomes they seek to achieve.”
Kendall’s work informs Postel that a virtuous people may self-govern, but only through a Congress that deliberates for civic virtue rather than dominant opinion. Thus, the people must “reward behavior that preserves deliberation even if it detracts from the policy outcomes they seek to achieve.”
There seems to be 228 years or 10 generations of evidence
that Congress is ineffective. If today’s generation strives to be on the
leading edge of civic morality, most citizens may collaborate for mutual,
comprehensive safety and security. Their messages will rise to Congress, and
members of Congress will determine their own future, depending upon whether
they are cooperative or dissident toward the willing people. The President may
then be free to exercise his or her assigned role as administrator.
This essay is intended to inspire citizens use the
preamble’s agreement and the-objective-truth to discover civic morality,
keeping theism and other personal pursuits as private affairs. In a civic
culture, politicians who choose dissidence to comprehensive safety and security
might not survive future elections. I hope to apply these principles in
addressing the other posts in this series.
Phil Beaver does not “know”
the-indisputable-facts. He trusts and is committed to the-objective-truth of which
most is undiscovered and some is understood. He is agent for A Civic People of
the United States, a Louisiana, education non-profit corporation. See online at
promotethepreamble.blogspot.com.
