July 31, 2017

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

phil beaver says

July 31, 2017 at 9:36 am

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.”

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.