Volume 4, Issue 4
"Donald Trump addresses the real issues of their concern without being restrained by the sensitivity of political correctness."
Volume 4, Issue 4"Donald Trump addresses the real issues of their concern without being restrained by the sensitivity of political correctness."
1 Comment
Volume 4, Issue 3As we enter the countdown to the first Presidential primary in Iowa on February 1st, a new level of behind-the-scenes activity is engaging. These activities, largely unknown and unobserved by the public, play a critical role. Not only will they impact who the eventual nominee will be, but also how he or she will govern.
Donald Trump continues to defy the prognostications of seasoned pundits that his campaign will falter... Volume 4, Issue 2Tonight the President of the United States will deliver the traditional State of the Union address. Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution sets the purpose and parameters of the address: “He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient…” Prior to electronic communications, the message to Congress was delivered in writing. It was reviewed in due course. Beginning with President Truman, the address was broadcast to the nation. The speech is now as much the property of the citizens as it is their Representatives in Congress. Mass communications have allowed our Chief Executive to use this State of the Union speech as a tool for guiding Americans in unity of purpose. At times, Presidents have used this occasion to speak directly to the general electorate for them to encourage Congress to act on certain initiatives deemed critical by that President. The age of social media has now taken mass communications to another level. At the time of PresidentTruman, the communication was one way to the masses. Today the communication is from a central source to the masses and then from the masses to the masses.
Any success in guiding cultural change for unity depends upon the relevant nature of hope. Hope is based on eternal principles, structure of sound character, and the belief that there is a greater society in which all participate equally in the individual pursuit of happiness. Defining the character of a nation requires a faith that recognizes truth. Truth, properly defined, generates hope. Hope renders peace in unity of purpose. President Obama will be tasked with projecting hope for the future while at the same time demonstrating that accomplishments have been achieved. He’ll be walking a tightrope. The state of the union is not sound. Past achievements and the efforts of government have not let confidence in the future. He will undoubtedly proclaim or exhort that the United States is still the greatest power on the face of the earth economically and politically. He will further boast that we are the light of the world in our commitment to freedom. He is right in these claims. We are strong, however we are not strengthening. Hope for the future cannot be based on past claims or current status. Upon what then should this hope be placed? It is that the United States of America, in its founding, declared rights of individuals as independent from government, that families have the right to determine their own values, and that the Christian faith, as well as all faiths, are to be protected in society and never questioned or relegated to second tier status in reference to an elitist government’s order. The citizens of the United States are distressed in the great divide of our cultural identity and purpose. In one context, the Bernie Sanders movement of the Democratic Party and the Donald Trump movement of the Republican Party are similar in that they represent the frustration of the American electorate with their government. On the other hand, they are different in that Senator Sanders represents the ideology that has been trying to change the relationship of society with its government first manifested by Karl Marx. Its premise is that there is inequality in economic outcomes which must be rectified by total government control and redistribution of wealth by the government. Donald Trump represents a movement of people who believe that at one time the United States was a great nation, and should be restored to those principles upon which thesuccess was realized. It is a philosophy that government should be limited and efficiency is eclipsed at a point of largesse. In other words, government is incapable of solving all problems, authority and power should be managed between the federal government and states, and individuals should have rights over the government. The establishment wings of both parties are vexed over the fact that the status quo and “business as usual,” which they represent in concept, is now an anathema to activists of both the right and left. Minorities see the situation somewhat differently. They see themselves as always having had problems in being afforded equal opportunity in their pursuit of happiness. In this conclusion, they are right, and their emotion should be respected. However, they have an obligation to advance a future hope in which we all participate equally. The electoral process for electing the next President of the United States is precariously close to producing a result that will further divide the country. The Republican Party is on the road to a brokered convention. The problem is, there’s no one left with the moral authority to conduct the brokerage. Many of the delegates attending the national convention are typically party establishment members. Being a delegate to a convention in many states is a perk for supporting the local party. They may or may not reflect the will of the electorate as dictated in the primaries. The Democratic Party is on course to nominate former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Her personal negatives in public opinion polls are at 67%. These are not what are called mild negatives. They are not based on political philosophy. The words used to describe the negative by the public are “liar” and “untrustworthy.” These are deep, hard negatives, yet 50% of those polled say they are likely to vote for her. In a possible general election between Secretary Clinton and Donald Trump, the emergence of a third party candidate is likely. Whether or not he or she is successful depends on their vision for hope. If in fact Donald Trump or a third party candidate won one blue state, like New York, Secretary Clinton could not garner 51% of the Electoral College. If this were to occur, pursuant to the Constitution, the U.S. House of Representatives would then be responsible for electing the next President. It is the current House that would convene to do this, not the newly elected Congress. What then is the message for hope? It is that there is a purpose in life greater than ourselves, defined by our faith and respect for each other. Economic opportunity, security, and individual values are to be advanced in freedom. An unrestrained pursuit of happiness, based upon our individual desires, is the goal of the civic exercise. The current fear and frustration of the American public will be relieved once a leader emerges who exudes character based upon principles that bind us, and one who reflects commitment to freedom, yielding the threads of confidence for the social fabric. Hope is synonymous with freedom. Every American has a moral obligation to decide what they believe and on what foundation they base that belief. In walking the tightrope tonight, it is my hope that the President will not base our country’s future on a world view of more government control of our lives, rather than stressing individual liberty and faith as critical and essential elements of the relationship between government and its citizens. My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe and hope. What do you believe and what are your hopes? Volume 4, Issue 1We begin 2016 right where we left off in 2015. There is division in the republic and opposition to the government ruling class. A recent national poll out today finds that 85% of the American public disapproves of Congress and another 65% believe the federal government is leading the country down the wrong track, the same as in 2015. The American electorate continues to be consternated by government actions that they deem are not in their best interest, but only in the interest of the ruling elite. Americans know that they need government, but they expect government that meets their needs. The dilemma is realized in a catch 22 decision of living with self-serving inefficient government or seeking independence from government overreach. Thomas Paine asked this very question in 1775 in his book Common Sense: “To examine that connection and dependence on the principles of nature and common sense; to see what we have to trust to, if separated, and what we are to expect, if dependent.”
What the colonies faced in the mid 1770s was a government that was abusing them, but also, in a sense, was sustaining them. It’s like receiving three square meals a day in prison, but you don’t want to live there. They sought a better way of life under self-government rule. But it was not clear what independence would provide or how to achieve independence. We find ourselves at this very same moment of decision. Today the President announced further Executive Orders to regulate and restrict the purchase of firearms. A majority of the public does not support this action. Yet Congress seems incapable of stopping the overreach. The public is confused about their own democracy and how such government action can become law, restricting their lives without their permission. The process of overturning an Executive Order in one sense is complicated, and in another sense, very simple. However, the result is that American citizens feel powerless to protect their Constitutional rights and their individual liberty from the intellectual arrogance of government elites. The presidential primary season is upon us. The policy positions of the candidates are as divisive as in the time of the Revolutionary era. For the first time since the turn of the 19th century, political scientists measure sectors of society by anger rather than by principled policy positions. There is anger over immigration, anger over race relations, anger over economic government programs, anger over regulation, and anger over health care reform. There is no projection of a vision for America that unifies the segments of society. Without vision, the people have only their natural instincts upon which to rely. Without leadership, the people despair. At the time of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the great debate in our country was whether or not to endure business as usual. At least it provided some order. The alternative was to seek an entire new life based upon a restructuring and reform of government that was more responsive to the grassroots of society. Thomas Paine argued eloquently that business as usual would ultimately end badly. And that future generations would be relegated into servitude for the benefit of the ruling classes. It was clear to the patriots that the definition of ‘pursuit of happiness’ was different for those in power than for the masses. But further that the ruling government’s power required the masses to adhere to their concept of ‘pursuit of happiness’, rather than let there be different definitions of said pursuit. In other words, the ruling elite required servitude. Today the ruling elite require standardization of all lifestyles to meet the protocol of their egalitarian view of how the order of society should work. The result of today’s dictates of an overreaching federal government, incapable of exercising checks and balances against itself, is a disruption of American society beyond their ability to understand. A small family-owned business attempting to provide a service for their community is over regulated, overlooked, and under-served by a federal government. Government today is willing to sacrifice a family’s idea of ‘pursuit of happiness’ for the elites’ overall objective of egalitarianism as they deem appropriate. Now what’s to be done about it? What is necessary at this moment of decision is for those who care about a unified republic to participate and support an idea of reform in government and its representations as dramatic as the Declaration of Independence. The most prevalent argument advanced against independence in 1776 was that no view had been proffered as to how a new Continental government would be established and by what structure and means it would provide services. The argument that carried the day was that a true representative government, generated from the states, would provide clear and cogent direction to the federal government for actions, orders, and laws for the common good. The colonists ultimately decided that they could better direct government to facilitate the idea of ‘pursuit of happiness’ than the King could determine for them. They did have one advantage – there weren’t that many government services being provided at the time. Today we must decide together how to prioritize government services, reform federal-state relations, and restructure how government services are provided in order to be able to afford them. The colonists met in the setting of a Continental Congress to flesh out the ideas of a new and independent government, of and by the people. It wasn’t easy. It took eight years of experiment until the passage of a Constitution established a rhythm of government protocol in which the people had confidence. But the point is this. They believed in principle based policy and the individual right to the ‘pursuit of happiness.’ Yes, compromise was necessary. Sacrifices were made. Power was given up. But always in the debate was the consideration for individual liberty and individual ‘pursuit of happiness’. No one’s flame was extinguished by the wind of government dictates of intellectual elitism. The world continues to deteriorate into political and economic dysfunctionality. The economic problems in China and the political and religious turmoil in the Middle East have no near term solutions. Only the United States can lead the world to stability. Our system of government is proven when the Constitution is properly respected. Our free enterprise system is unparalleled in history in producing jobs, stability, and prosperity. Our rule of law and due process is based upon individual liberty, not the interest of elites. The path forward is to recommit to the idea of principle based policy based upon the protection of an individual’s right to ‘pursuit of happiness.’ The course may not be easy, but it is navigable. The destination of the journey may be beyond the horizon, but the direction is clear when principles are protected as the basis for each step. Thomas Paine incited his fellow countrymen to take action with these words, “O! ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose not only the tyranny but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the Globe. Asia and Africa have long expelled her. Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind.” The catch 22 decision of whether to accept business as usual or demand change for liberty is at hand. Americans must stand forth and tell the federal government, and all the candidates running for President, what we demand in these times from all governments in their rule over us as we exercise our moral right in our ‘pursuit of happiness.’ My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe. What do you believe? |
Marc NuttleMarc Nuttle is a lawyer, economist, author, consultant, and businessman. He has represented and advised leaders of foreign countries, state officials, and corporations. Marc has advised governments on the budget process, trade, economic development, currency management, domestic and foreign policy. He was part of President Ronald Reagan’s international trade team in the 1980s. Archives
September 2023
Categories
All
|
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 2023. Any use of materials on this website, including reproduction, modification, distribution or republication, without the prior written consent of Marc Nuttle, is strictly prohibited.
|