From: Hestal, retiree, octogenarian, former teacher of German and mathematics, and golf coach, at a large Texas high school, and one of a rapidly dwindling generation of many thousands of systems engineers who together computerized America and the world (1965-1995). You are welcome, no thanks are necessary—it was exhilarating, and if you offered us the chance to do it all again, we would accept.
Subject: Saving Planet Earth and everything that is in it by replacing our current systems of government and economics—which overwhelmingly work against the common good—with new systems, created by using modern technology to adapt the truly brilliant, truly democratic, ideas found in the systems which served ancient Athens, and which worked for the common good. In other words we will create the first American Democracy—now just a delusion—a politician’s slogan—a reporter’s mantra, by using modern computers to revive ancient Athenian Democracy.
Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen:
I hope you will forgive me for being terse. The subject is too important, and humankind’s remaining time too short, to do anything else. I write to ask you, the natural, recognized leaders of our youth and our nation, who are in close contact with leaders and practitioners of the STEM disciplines, to seize the principal leadership role in saving our planet—with all its natural life-support systems—our civilization—and our species, from our colossal arrogance and galactic ignorance.
Wait, wait. Before you decline, please answer these questions:
If not you, who? If not now, when?
I am an old human being, who, as a young one, was deeply, permanently angered by the cold, contemptuous, contemptible, mistreatment of my immediate and extended family, and many family friends, by America’s failed systems of government and economics during the Great Depression, including the three decades immediately following WWII, which ignited in me a lifelong interest in the identification and correction of the flaws contained in our Madisonian Republic and its intertwined companion system: tyranno-capitalism. In 1956, as a high school student, I vowed to study these systems until I reached age sixty-five, and if by then I had learned anything useful, I would write a book about it.
By the time I reached retirement age the cumulative, deadly effects of those flaws had been revealed for all sentient beings to see—life on Earth was in danger. The situation had changed dramatically. No longer would it be enough merely to describe our flawed systems and hope someone would make the corrections, but it was now necessary to design new systems, and to develop a plan for replacing the old ones. In 2004, I began the task of designing new systems, and an installation plan for them. I finished the job in 2018. During that fourteen-year project, I followed the simple process we systems engineers used as we computerized the world: we answered four eternal questions:
- Where do we stand?
- How did we get here?
- Where do we want to go?
- How do we get there from here?
For a given enterprise, we answered these questions by reading all available documentation of all existing systems and by interviewing people throughout the enterprise who were users, operators, or managers of them. As part of those interviews we would ask for opinions of how well the current systems were doing. Were they meeting their goals? We also asked what new goals should be added, and how those goals should be, could be, realized. This iterative process, known as “studying the enterprise,” was very important—often revealing things that were surprising and useful to management. It involved many people at all levels of the enterprise, and today might be called, “decoding the enterprise.” It would build several work products:
- A comprehensive analysis of the current status of the enterprise’s systems.
- An overview of proposed changes to the current systems including a detailed discussion of how they would work and the benefits they would provide—a “User’s Manual.”
- A presentation to executive management summarizing the results of the study.
- A formal written report, often in the form of a book, which included the history of the study, summaries of the operation of the new system, developmental and operating costs, and an implementation plan, including deliverables and their expected completion dates.
In many situations we found that documentation was scarce. But in the case of America there is a large store of useful documentation to help in answering our four questions.
The Declaration of Independence is by far America’s most important founding document—it succinctly, crisply lays out the goals, standards, and requirements of our systems of government and economics. The Constitution is merely a User’s Guide, and is subject to modification or replacement at any time. America’s goals, standards, and requirements are found in the Declaration’s four self-evident truths; which expand to become seven self-evident truths:
- All men are created equal.
- They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.
- Some, but not all, of these rights are: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
- Governments are instituted among men to secure these rights.
- The powers of the government can come only from the consent of the governed.
- If any government fails in its duty to secure these rights the people can alter or abolish it, and create a new government.
- The people can structure the new government any way they please.
Since the beginning, our systems of government and economics have routinely, shamelessly, brutally, deliberately, relentlessly mistreated seven hated groups. I call them “hated” groups because if we loved them we would not mistreat them as we do. They are the not-white, not-male, not-Christian, not-heterosexual, not-well-to-do, not-native-born, and the disabled. And, even more shocking, our systems have begun to create, mistreat, an eighth hated group: schoolchildren.
Any government that enables the murder of its children by gunfire or by pandemic virus, while they are in school, at their desks, preparing for that wonderful day when they will graduate and finally have the liberty to live their own lives in pursuit of their own happiness, is a government that has forever forfeited its right to rule, and, according to the command of the Declaration of Independence, must be replaced.
Taken together, these eight hated groups represent a substantial majority of our population, which means that if our nation were a real democracy, rather than a fake one, these groups would have had, from the beginning, the power, the votes, to ensure that they were treated fairly—that they were treated as well as any and all other groups. But the facts clearly show that the majority of the American people have no say in the internal affairs of our republic—especially where the welfare, even the very lives, of their families are concerned.
Therefore, in 2004, I started work on the design of new systems of government and economics for America, with the goal of finding groups of American leaders (y’all, for example) who would also be able to see the catastrophic assaults that global warming was about to hurl against civilization and every living thing—and who, being natural leaders, would instinctively, heroically, jointly, forthrightly undertake the large-scale, time-sensitive, expensive, resource-devouring, controversial projects required to implement the new systems.
Where do we stand?
We stand in a world shaped by evolution by natural selection which has two sides—on one it creates new life forms; on the other, it destroys them all. It has ruled our species since the beginning. It is mindless, purposeless, relentless, merciless and amoral—it is a force of nature. It has produced two living varieties of our species—tyranni who are aggressive, selfish, and irrational, and democrati who are timid, unselfish, and rational. Tyranni, such as Donald Trump, naturally, selfishly, irrationally work against the common good. Democrati, such as Jimmy Carter, naturally, unselfishly, rationally work for it. These varieties are locked in a relentless, Darwinian struggle for survival. This struggle is cyclical.
The Cycle of Human History is a Cycle of Human Suffering
- Tyranni naturally, aggressively, selfishly push forward to take power.
- Democrati naturally, timidly, unselfishly step back to let them pass.
- Tyranni naturally use their power to indulge their selfish urges.
- Innocents (tyranni and democrati alike) suffer and die unnecessarily.
- A great commotion occurs—from elections to pandemics, to wars.
- Tyranno-outs seize power from tyranno-ins.
- Innocents continue to suffer, but under new rulers.
- And the cycle renews.
But because Nature has been so bountiful, because democrati greatly outnumber tyranni, and because humans are so resilient and so creative, this brutal process could not stop progress—very costly progress, often needlessly tragic and unfairly distributed, but progress nevertheless—of that there is no doubt. However, we are now dangerously near the end. Nature’s bounty is nearly exhausted. She can no longer heal our self-inflicted wounds, she cannot replenish what we take from her—she cannot forgive our greed, our arrogance, our ignorance.
Without the assistance of Nature, we humans are finally on our own. Our millennia of adolescence are over. It is time to grow up. We can no longer afford to indulge our selfish urges—we cannot afford to just do what comes naturally: act reflexively, act without thinking, play political games instead of doing the hard work of facing and solving the immense problems we have created for ourselves. If we continue to follow the instinctive natures given to us by evolution by natural selection we will go the way of countless other species—we will decline, even become extinct—and it will be sooner rather than later.
Tyranni have done much harm to our society over the centuries. They naturally seek power and wealth. Large institutions have power and power leads to wealth. It is usually beyond the ability of a single tyrannus to gain control of a large institution. He must have allies. Recognizing this fact, tyranni are prone to form groups in pursuit of power and wealth. They work together to dominate those who do not belong to their alliance, while they intrigue against each other as each seeks to become the ultimate ruler, the supreme tyrannus. Such groups of power-seeking tyranni are factions, and they have been commonplace throughout world history. Once they gain power, once they control a large institution—from state legislatures to Wall Street banks to national governments—they irrationally push their power as far as it can take them—even if it leads to the destruction of themselves and the institutions they control.
Our history cannot be denied. It is replete with examples of how tyranni, once they gain power, mistreat their fellow citizens. Historically, our systems of government and economics have mistreated seven hated groups. I call them “hated” groups, because if we loved them we would not treat them as we do. They are: the not-white, not-male, not-Christian, not-heterosexual, not-well-to-do, not-native-born, and the disabled.
America’s system of government is not, nor has it ever been, a democracy—it is a republic.
All republics are flawed—they naturally self-destruct. The specific mechanism for this inherent flaw is the delegation of the power of the people to a small group of citizens elected by the rest.
Conventional knowledge of the late 18th century erroneously taught that democracies lived short lives, died violent deaths, and did not respect private property. Therefore the Framers had only one choice: a republic.
But, all republics are fatally flawed—they all eventually self-destruct.
After college, I became a teacher of mathematics and German, and golf coach, at a large Fort Worth high school (1962-1965), and then became one of a generation of thousands of systems engineers who computerized America and the world (1965-1995). I retired in 1995, hoping to play golf and bird until the end of time, but I soon realized that our constantly failing systems of government and economics were badly designed, particularly in the way they delegate the power of the people, and had been taken over by men who naturally, irrationally, selfishly, aggressively, deceptively work against the common good—which they have done, and are doing, by exacerbating the forces that create the deadly effects of global warming. Something had to be done, but what? The answer was easy: replace the offending systems.
Therefore, in 2004, I started work on the design of new systems of government and economics for America, with the goal of finding groups of American leaders (y’all, for example) who would also be able to see the catastrophic assaults that global warming was about to hurl against civilization and every living thing—and who, being natural leaders, would instinctively, heroically, jointly, forthrightly undertake the mammoth task of saving our natural life support systems, thereby saving our civilization and our species from our colossal arrogance and galactic ignorance by replacing our failed, destructive, undemocratic systems with new, rational ones modeled on the democratic systems of ancient Athens—the first, and still the only, systems that work for the common good.
In 2018 my design of the new systems was complete and a book was published which describes them—major subsystem by major subsystem—and also provides a step-by-step plan for their implementation. Despite my earnest, neophytic, promotional efforts, the book was ridiculed by some, and ignored by most.
There are at least three possible explanations: (1) I could have designed bad systems and written a bad book, or (2) the leaders of America, as well as the people, are simply not interested—they are simply not aware of the dangers we face, or (3) and this is more likely, our public and private schools, our colleges and universities, our historians, our political scientists, our economists, our politicians, our political parties, and our media have been teaching, too often preaching, false “facts,” (America is a democracy) omitting real, essential facts, (America is a republic) and crediting certain academic fields (the social sciences) with having knowledge and powers that they, in fact, do not have, and therefore do not deserve the confidence and support of the people. Or, to put it another way:
We live in a world shaped by evolution by natural selection. It has two sides—on one it creates new life forms; on the other, it destroys them all. It has ruled our species since the beginning. It is mindless, purposeless, relentless, merciless and amoral—it is a force of nature. It has produced two living varieties of our species—tyranni who are aggressive, deceptive, and selfish, and democrati who are timid, open, and unselfish. Tyranni, such as Donald Trump, naturally, irrationally, aggressively, deceptively work against the common good. Democrati, such as Jimmy Carter, naturally, rationally, timidly, openly work for it. These varieties are locked in a relentless, Darwinian struggle for survival. This struggle is cyclical.
The Cycle of Human History
- Tyranni naturally, aggressively, deceptively, selfishly push forward to take power.
- Democrati naturally, timidly, openly, unselfishly step back to let them pass.
- Tyranni naturally use their power to indulge their selfish urges.
- Innocents (tyranni and democrati alike) suffer and die unnecessarily.
- A great commotion occurs—from elections to wars.
- Tyranni-outs seize power from tyranni-ins.
- Innocents continue to suffer, but under new rulers.
- And the cycle renews.
But because Nature has been so bountiful, because democrati greatly outnumber tyranni, and because humans are so resilient and so creative, this brutal process could not stop progress—very costly progress, often needlessly tragic and unevenly distributed, but progress nevertheless—of that there is no doubt. However, we are now dangerously near the end. Nature’s bounty is nearly exhausted. She can no longer heal our self-inflicted wounds, she cannot replenish what we take from her—she cannot forgive our greed, our colossal arrogance, our galactic ignorance.
Without the assistance of Nature, we humans are finally on our own. Our millennia of adolescence are over. It is time to grow up. We can no longer afford to indulge our selfish urges—we cannot afford to just do what comes naturally: act reflexively, act without thinking, play political games instead of doing the hard work of facing and solving the immense problems we have created for ourselves. If we continue to follow the instinctive natures given to us by evolution by natural selection we will go the way of countless other species—we will decline, even become extinct—and it will be sooner rather than later.
Fortunately, the cycle of human history is not a natural, unchanging, unchangeable, system—it is not a law of the universe. It was created by a flawed system of government that delegates too much power, to too few people, for far too long a time. Most systems of government and economics in use today follow this method of delegating power: they use elections. Elections lead to the formation of political parties, which degrade—rot—into factions. Our election system, like all large election systems, rewards money, aggression and deception. Tyranni naturally thrive on all three—they win elections and get government power in proportions far greater than their presence in our population—and they use that power to indulge their selfish, destructive urges. Our national history, indeed the whole irrational history of humankind, is unmistakable and undeniable.
The Framers knew all about factions and they warned us about them. In Federalist 10, James Madison said they were our greatest internal danger, and he defined them thusly:
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
The Framers understood the danger but they believed they had no alternative. They hoped that future generations, you, the students at your universities, me, and all other Americans, would be able to devise a way to correct this failing—this system flaw. I have devised such a correction, but, as I say above, my ideas have been flatly rejected. It is amazing, bewildering, frightening, and heartbreaking to see that the people of the 21st century keep on betting their lives, their fortunes, and the lives and fortunes of their children, on the irrational belief that the two-party system will miraculously put the right combination of people in office with enough of the right kind of power, at the right time, in the right way, to make the changes we need. But after more than two centuries this has never happened—it has never even come close to happening. As soon as our original constitutional system was finished and sent to the states for their consideration, the Framers warned us that it contained flaws.
For example, as the states were considering the proposed, new Constitution, George Washington wrote a letter to his nephew and heir, Bushrod Washington, who later became a member of the Supreme Court. Here is part of what the elder Washington said (emphasis in the original):
The warmest friends to, and the best supporters of, the Constitution, do not contend that it is free from imperfections; but these were not to be avoided, and they are convinced if evils are likely to flow from them, that the remedy must come thereafter; because, in the present moment it is not to be obtained. And as there is a Constitutional door open for it, I think the people (for it is with them to judge) can, as they will have the aid of experience on their side, decide with as much propriety on the alterations and amendments which shall be found necessary, as ourselves; for I do not conceive that we are more inspired—have more wisdom—or possess more virtue than those who will come after us. The power under the Constitution will always be with the People. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes, and for a certain limited period, to representatives of their own choosing; and whenever it is executed contrary to their Interest, or not agreeable to their wishes, their Servants can, and undoubtedly will be, recalled.[i]
Washington was passing the ball to us, and we have fumbled it, constantly, daily, and for more than two centuries. Ask yourselves, as masters of your curricula, why haven’t economists, historians, and political scientists already acknowledged Washington’s warning, and other similar warnings I list below, and devised solutions to the problems they identify? Why haven’t you leaders of our highest educational institutions already ordered all your freshmen to take a year-long course in the design and implementation of new systems of government and economics for our nation? I will wait for your answer. Not ready? Why not? If not you, who? If not now, when?
The answer is at once tragic and simple: the social sciences (anthropology, sociology, economics, and political science) have failed to live up to the high standards demanded by scientific principles and practices. They do not deserve to be called “sciences.” They have not earned, and therefore do not deserve, the resources and prestige that society showers upon them. They promise much and deliver little. They contribute a net loss to American society. I am virtually alone in this assessment. But…
E. O. Wilson, one of the world’s leading scientists, perhaps the Benjamin Franklin of our time, published Consilience, the Unity of Knowledge, in 1998 which, shortly thereafter, seemed to drop from sight—a pity, considering the ideas it puts forward. Reading today the reviews that were published back then is to trek through a dismal landscape of poor scientific knowledge and cocksure certainty that knowledge and the truth are best taken in different flavors.
In any case, Wilson’s survey of our long-standing divisions of knowledge contains much for us to take seriously. For example, he devotes Chapter 9 to “The Social Sciences.” Here is the introductory paragraph from that chapter (emphasis added):
People expect from the social sciences—anthropology, sociology, economics, and political science—the knowledge to understand their lives and control their future. They want the power to predict, not the preordained unfolding of events, which does not exist, but what will happen if society selects one course of action over another. Political life and the economy are already pivoted upon the presumed existence of such a predictive capacity. The social sciences are striving to achieve it, and to do so largely without linkage to the natural sciences. How well are they doing on their own? Not very well, considering their track record in comparison with the resources placed at their command.
He goes on to tell us the current difficulties with all of the social sciences, but I will focus here on political science and economics. In order for them to contribute to the progress of our species, their transport vehicles must be pulled out of the ditch, placed upright, facing forward, along the right path, with a new steering system and clean windshields.
The “predictive capacity” of economics is literally a joke as demonstrated by the comedian’s line:
Professor ISLM is well-known for his prediction of eight of the last three recessions.
It is puzzling, and scary, to see that some recognized leaders of the field of economics acknowledge and expound on the field’s failings only to be ignored by its practitioners in academia and the popular media, with the frightening result that all attempts to correct or avoid these flaws are met with ridicule and contempt resulting in the destruction of the lives of individuals, entire economic classes, and, ultimately, our species.
For example, let’s listen to the words of Friedrich Hayek, 1974 Nobel Prize winner in Economic Science. I must begin with a reminder that a Nobel Prize in Economic Science is not the same as a Nobel Prize in Science. It is a phony award created by men who wanted to ride on the prestigious coattails of the original, genuine Nobel awards. In fact. Hayek, a straight shooter, acknowledges the misleading character of the prize he has received—notice the title he gave his speech:
THE PRETENCE OF KNOWLEDGE
The particular occasion of this lecture, combined with the chief practical problem which economists have to face today, have made the choice of its topic almost inevitable. On the one hand the still recent establishment of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science (1969) marks a significant step in the process by which, in the opinion of the general public, economics has been conceded some of the dignity and prestige of the physical sciences. On the other hand, the economists are at this moment called upon to say how to extricate the free world from the serious threat of accelerating inflation which, it must be admitted, has been brought about by policies which the majority of economists recommended and even urged governments to pursue.
We have indeed at the moment little cause for pride: as a profession we have made a mess of things.
(See? A straight shooter…)
I have tried to understand economics. I have taken a class, I have read a few books, including Paul Krugman’s 940-page textbook, (a clear case of attention-seeking or a cry for help). Either way it just does not make sense to me. Max Tegmark is from Denmark, and like many of us he made a stab at picking a career when he graduated from high school. Here is what he wrote (emphasis added):[ii]
When the time came to apply for college, I decided against physics and other technical fields, and ended up at the Stockholm School of Economics, focusing on environmental issues. I wanted to do my small part to make our planet a better place, and felt that the main problem wasn’t that we lacked technical solutions, but that we didn’t properly use the technology we had. I figured that the best way to affect people’s behavior was through their wallets, and was intrigued by the idea of creating economic incentives that aligned individual egoism with the common good.
Alas, I soon grew disillusioned, concluding that economics was largely a form of intellectual prostitution where you got rewarded for saying what the powers that be wanted to hear. Whatever a politician wanted to do, he or she could find an economist as advisor who had argued for doing precisely that. Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted to increase government spending, so he listened to John Maynard Keynes, whereas Ronald Reagan wanted to decrease government spending, so he listened to Milton Friedman.
Tegmark decided to become a physicist and is author or coauthor of more than two hundred technical papers, twelve of which have been cited more than five hundred times. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, and was, for a while, physics professor at MIT. I applaud Tegmark’s wish to make “our planet a better place,” and I agree with his description of economics as being “a form of intellectual prostitution.” I wish I had thought of it.
Another scientist, more famous than Tegmark, was Albert Einstein. He shared Tegmark’s wish to make the world a better place, and he believed that the economic scourge of capitalism produced more evil than good. He was inclined toward socialism which is a dirty word in America today, but based on my reading of his views I think he was more inclined toward any system that worked for the common good. In any case, he wondered if the field of economics would be useful in designing a government of the future. In 1949 he wrote:[iii]
Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. Economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.
There is nothing more to say—economics is not a science.
Hayek concludes his speech with this sobering paragraph:
If man is not to do more harm than good in his efforts to improve the social order, he will have to learn that in this (the field of economics), as in all other fields where essential complexity of an organized kind prevails, he cannot acquire the full knowledge which would make mastery of the events possible. He will therefore have to use what knowledge he can achieve, not to shape the results as the craftsman shapes his handiwork, but rather to cultivate a growth by providing the appropriate environment, in the manner in which the gardener does this for his plants. There is danger in the exuberant feeling of ever growing power which the advance of the physical sciences has engendered and which tempts man to try, “dizzy with success”, to use a characteristic phrase of early communism, to subject not only our natural but also our human environment to the control of a human will. The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men’s fatal striving to control society – a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals.
I could not agree more. The present approach to economics fails because economic activity in our society is triggered by highly unrelated economic events which wax and wane due to unpredictable circumstances that are changed, redirected, amplified, reduced, or thwarted by the unpredictable whims of interlocking, highly variable, and rapidly varying, examples of human nature. Hayek puts his finger on the problem when he says that all economists strive to control society by introducing some action: incentive or deterrent, into society in a vain attempt to produce a result desired by the economists. Hayek concludes by telling the members of his profession that the economy is governed by millions of free brains which will follow their own dreams. Unfortunately for economists, and for society at large, the individual members of society cannot be fine-tuned by twiddling dials in ivory towers, but they can be abused.
In fact, the new systems of government and economics which I have designed are based on the system design efforts by the brains, the brilliant brains, of several generations of ancient Athenians which easily approach millions of brain-years in number.
When a tooth hurts, we go to the dentist. When our car makes strange noises under the hood, or has unusual vibrations in the steering wheel, or when the headlights won’t come on, we take it to a mechanic. We take legal problems to lawyers, medical problems to doctors, so why in the pluperfect hell don’t we take system problems to systems engineers? LBJ took Medicare and Medicaid to systems engineers, and both systems are still hard at work. Likewise with Barack Obama’s ACA approach.
Historians surely have long been aware of Washington’s warning but they must have interpreted it incorrectly. They must have thought there was nothing to worry about. And today historians watch our failed governments work their evils and merely take note—well, some do more: they write “learned,” lucrative books that lead nowhere. They feel no obligation to respond to the warnings of Washington, Madison, Franklin, John Adams, and others. Political scientists and economists are no better.
Shortly after the proposed Constitution was sent to the states, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay began to write a series of essays designed to persuade the people of New York to approve the radical new government. In these essays the authors were telling us what they did and why they did it. The essays are called the Federalist, and one of the most important is Federalist 10, written by James Madison, who explains why the Framers chose a republic rather than a democracy as our form of government. Madison explained that the most important thing our new government should do is control the baneful effects of “faction.” He wrote:
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.[iv]
He says that factions are comprised of, or at least controlled by, men who work against the common good. Others shared this idea. Here are a few examples:
In Federalist 1, Alexander Hamilton said (emphasis added):
Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.[v]
In Federalist 10, Madison said (emphasis added):
Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people.[vi]
Later, near the end of his second term as President, George Washington published his Farewell Address, and said this about men who form and control factions (emphasis added):
They [factions] are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people.[vii]
I made a list of the definitions of the words I emphasized in the preceding quotations and found that the Framers had identified the characteristics of very dangerous men: [viii]
- factious—“addicted to form parties or factions and raise dissensions”
- prejudice—“an unreasonable predilection, inclination, or objection”
- sinister—“evil or productive of evil”
- intrigue—“to cheat or trick”
- corruption—“impairment of integrity, virtue or moral principle”
- betray—“to prove faithless or treacherous to”
- obsequious—“exhibiting a servile and sycophantic complaisance”
- demagogue—“a politician who seeks to gain personal or partisan advantage by specious or extravagant claims, promises or charges,”
- tyrant—“an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution”
- cunning—“marked by wiles, craftiness, artfulness, or trickery in attaining ends, ability to mislead or trap,”
- ambitious—“eager for rank, fame or power—pretentious, showy,”
- unprincipled—“a lack of moral principles—conscienceless,”
- subvert—“to bring to nothing, destroy, or greatly impair the existence, sovereignty, influence, wholeness of, especially by insidious undermining”
The Framers were describing men who were troublemakers, who were inclined to do evil, who were not trustworthy. They would lie to get what they wanted, and they were without personal integrity. They were cunning, they would lay traps for the unwary, and they had no conscience.
These men have controlled our systems of government and economics almost from the beginning, and therefore our systems have usually worked against the common good. Some presidents: George Washington, John Adams, Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, and a few others have worked for the common good. Lyndon Johnson’s success with civil rights and voting rights legislation, Medicare, Medicaid, did work greatly for the common good, but his Vietnam tragedy will forever stain his record.
But even great presidents can have little impact on our economic system. FDR did implement the New Deal which helped many people, but at a survival level. The people were left bereft of equal access to the rights, resources, opportunities, and protections they needed to build long lives worth living for themselves and their loved ones.
In general, our systems mistreat the majority of our citizens, and it is long past time for a change. By implementing our Faction-Free Democracy, modeled on the democracy of ancient Athens, the people will take charge and will be able to reform our system of economics so that it gives each citizen equal access to the rights, resources, opportunities, and protections they need to have a fair and honest chance to go as far in life as their efforts and talents can take them, thereby giving them a fair and honest chance to build long lives worth living for themselves and their loved ones, including a secure, comfortable retirement.
[i] George Washington, writing about the Constitution in a letter to his nephew and heir, Bushrod Washington, November 9, 1787. The words, “present moment” are emphasized in the original. An internet copy of the letter can be found at: http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/constitution/1787/washington.html
[ii] Tegmark, Max (2014-01-07). Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality (Kindle Locations 220-228). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
[iv] James Madison, Federalist 10
[v] Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 1
[vi] James Madison, Federalist 10
[vii] George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
[viii] The following definitions are taken from Webster’s Third International Dictionary