The Kyklos – Cycle of Government

For those that are unfamiliar with this term, “The Kyklos” is the phrase used by some classical Greek authors to describe what they saw as the political cycle of governments in a society. It was roughly based on the history of Greek city-states in the same period. The concept of "The Kyklos" is first described in Plato's Republic.

In its simplest form it is the transition from monarchy to aristocracy, to a classical republic, to a democracy, which inevitably evolves into a tyranny. There are several cases of this throughout history with some variation; the most common example is post World War I Germany. Germany went from the monarchy of Bismarck to Wiemar Republic, which evolved into a Democracy to the tyranny of the Nazi Third Reich. Another example and in fact the classic one that Socrates based his concept was Athens itself. Athens started out as a monarchy, moved to republican reform of government, then moved to pure democracy and than tyranny. Socrates saw this cycle in his own lifetime as it move back and forth from tyranny to democracy and back again.

Why is this so important a topic for me? Simply because we are seeing a repeat of this cycle here in our own country. Obviously the cycle is not absolute and can be changed as it was for Athens and even Germany. So being aware of the tendency to move in this pattern is necessary to keep it from happening in the manner of other great cultures, including that of Rome, another example of “The Kyklos”.

Here is the problem though, most people when asked today what form of government we have they will tell you quite proudly “a democracy”, when in fact that is NOT what the founding fathers had in mind for our system of government. The 13 original colonies, which each became independent states, were joined in union as one nation each with its own representation within a SMALL federal government, controlled by a strict set of rules designated in the constitution as a REPUBLIC.

As with the Athenian and Roman models above, the United States of America started out under a monarchy, from there we became a republic, and as of the early part of the twentieth century we moved toward being a democracy and moving ever so steadily toward tyranny.

Time has changed some of the physical conditions of the nation, such as the addition of thirty-seven more states as well as transportation and communication technologies making distances, societal interaction and commerce more available. And the argument for those that have promoted the evolution of our Constitutional Republic to a Democracy has been that these changes have “required” like changes in government.

Under the guise of “for the public good” the federal government has grown not just in bureaucracy but also in power. Few people recognize that until 1913 we had no Federal Income tax, we were not tied to a pseudo private banking conglomerate that has the same economic result as being under the control of a banking oligarchy. We have so many “investigative” branches that when uttered in full they are reminiscent of alphabet soup, CIA, FBI, NSA, NCIS, DEA, and on and on. Now all of these are supposedly under the control of one agency, Home Land Security. Just yesterday our new president put a cap on the wages of corporate CEO’s ushering in the age of New Socialist America. Some politicians, including Obama, have already told us that the constitution is effectively out of date and needs revamping. In other words they want to erase the limitations of federal government that our forefathers expressly put in there to keep us from being a democracy and eventually a tyranny.

I have often used the quote from George Santayana and I will once again remind everyone because it rings so true, “Those that cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” God help us if we as a society refuse to see the warning signals and keep in the direction we are going, for if we do, your children and grandchildren will be living in a despotic government, with little or no concern for individual rights, but only that of the state.

Historic Day in America

November 4th 2008 was a historic day in United States for several reasons. The first of which and tremendously important to all the citizens of this country was the choice that was made for president of the most powerful country in the world. Barrack Obama, being a man of color represents a turning point in race relations and make up of the country. Through his election the onus of America being a racist nation, more so for people of color within it, than how it was perceived by the rest of the country, is over.

For years the old guard liberal hew and cry was that America was a white man controlled, racist nation incapable of understanding the plight of the Black man. It was a doctrine that the “Man” was forever holding them down, and that most Whites had a grievance with all people of color. This was used to initiate, affirmative action, and other racist programs supposedly designed to “level the playing field”. No longer does this argument hold water. Without the support and votes of a strong majority of white voters Obama would not have been elected.

This event is historic in another way. This is America’s first Marxist president.

Obama’s statements past and present reflect such ideals as, “redistribution of wealth”, and that there are, “too many restrictions in the constitution”, his words not mine. The redistribution of wealth is right from the foundation of Marxist ideology and the statement that there are too many restrictions in the constitution shows me that Obama has little understanding of the intent of our forefathers.

The Constitution was intentionally set up as being restrictive. It was made to limit the power of a central government from making a one-size fits all decision for the whole country. It was designed to give each state and community the CHOICE to decide for them selves what is best for them. It was restrictive in that it gives the power to the people, power to speak freely without repercussion, power to seek out that which makes them happy or to worship in whichever manner they want without interference from government.

With the Congress being controlled by Democrat representatives Obama will have a virtual open door to appoint judges that will in turn rule on constitutional issues with a bias toward “wealth re-distribution”. This is not conjecture on my part but in fact based on an interview with Obama in which he openly stated that one of his frustrations was the courts did not do enough to rule on the redistribution of wealth.

Again he has espoused a very negative view of our constitution and the role of the judicial branch of the government. If we are to survive this onslaught and attack on our basic freedoms and rights as listed in the constitution we must make our representatives aware that we see what the potential dangers in making the judicial branch of government a tool to undo the meaning and significance of that constitution.

This election IS historic, not to say all in a positive way, but could be a wake up call to all of us that cherish or freedoms and rights. Let’s not allow the positive aspect of this election to be tarnished with the possible erasure of our constitutional rights.

Although I am not a supporter of President elect Obama’s voting record or his campaign rhetoric I have a hope that he will not be as far left as he has appeared to many of us that are conservative and/or libertarian and pray that his vision is clear and his choices for our future are imbued with wisdom.

God Bless and good luck Mr. President.

Jefferson On Religion

For some reason last week while in deep contemplation the thought of Jeffersonian religious thought invaded my meditation, which led me to reflect on what is meant by freedom of religion, and the separation of church and state, maybe due to the fact that some of the most celebrated Christian Holidays are coming up soon.

Although Jefferson was a Christian, in that he thought that Christ’s teachings were, "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man." he was often accused of being a libertine, or an atheist, because of his rather unorthodox approach to “religion”. He is often times referred to as a Deist, in other words, Jefferson believed in the existence of a Supreme Being who was the creator, and sustainer of the universe and the ultimate ground of being, but this was not the triune deity of orthodox Christianity, he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, even though as stated above he held that Jesus was the greatest of moral teachers.

The reason I bring up his personal belief is that I feel it is reflected in his statements regarding putting up a “wall between church and state”. He rightfully accused religions of the past of using their “power” for tyrannical control over a populous, and that government that established a “state” religion where guilty of the same tyrannical despotism.

What I have argued in the past, as have others who consider themselves Christians, is that our country was founded on Christian principles, and therefore the exclusion of the mention of Christian holidays, celebrations, and moral imperatives, such as the case against abortion, is contrary to the original intent of the founding fathers.

The argument on the other side of the debate states that the founding fathers and in particular Jefferson wanted no mention of ANY religion in the schools, or in any public institution. That religion was personal and should be kept separate.

Both are valid interpretations, but taken to the extreme on both sides.

Jefferson’s writings and statements I feel have been taken out of context to forward the thinking of the “no religious mention at all in public” types. For instance one quote (half quote) that is often used is one in which involved the Elementary School Act of 1817. The partial quote they use is: "No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools]…

However the whole quote says something quite different.

"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination."

This is quite different than banning all mention of religion in public schools, but in fact ONLY states that the banning of ANY books or materials regardless of subject (including that of a religious nature) is not acceptable, that any particularly denominational instruction or exercise, such as saying the Our Father, or reciting the Koran as a required function of everyday procedure was not to be allowed. However It did not ban the personal prayer in a school or government edifice.

The anti-religion groups have interpreted the separation of church and state in the severest of terms, to completely remove all mention and public expression of religion, using Jefferson’s criticism of organized church as their foundation. However, Jefferson although not a Christian by orthodox standards also believed that the decision was up to the individual AND COMMUNITY and that in a free society that expression was not to be suppressed in ANY way in particular by Federal Government edict.

Jefferson stated in a letter to Samuel Miller in 1808: "I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from inter-meddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General (Federal) Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority."

On the other side of the argument are the fundamentalist Christians that insist that Christianity, in particular, is the foundation of the country and those things such as prayer in school, the national celebration of Christmas et.al were understood to be a major part of this countries culture.

The truth is that religious Holiday celebration such as Christmas was outlawed in Puritan New England until 1856, so six of the thirteen original colonies didn’t even allow Christmas celebration as we do today. This restriction was based on the RELIGIOUS principles of the Puritan controlled government, and more than likely one of the things that Jefferson so abhorred. However it was the states that chose this restriction and not the Federal Government.

Things such as the Pledge of Allegiance didn’t have the statement One Nation under God until 1954 or in God we trust on our money until 1957, both initiated due to the Cold War fear of Godless communism.

In summation both sides have valid points, and both appear to be using Jefferson as their Champion, however if Jefferson’s writings are taken as a whole and not expurgated or take out of context the separation of religious practice and government went BOTH ways. Neither group should hold judgment or control over the other. To ban the FREE expression of a religious event of ANY denomination or belief system was in his mind as repugnant as civil law being decided on by any religious group or Church.

Can We Drill Our Way Out of the Oil Crisis

The simple answer is no we can’t, however here is a better question. Can we, as a nation, afford to not drill for more oil here while we transition to alternative energy platforms?

The answer to that is the same, no we can’t, on several levels. The first and foremost is plain and simple economic reasons. While some politicians claim that we should focus strictly on finding, and implementing alternative energy sources, and just “bite the bullet” putting up with a “little inconvenience” for a while, they are neglecting to mention that what they consider a “little inconvenience”, to some is the choice between having heat in their home vs. having food on the table.

Americas productivity, and economic strength has been, and is still dependent on “cheap energy”. Up until the mid 70’s that was the case, and the U.S. economy was its strongest when we had cheap energy, and as we have seen, manufacturing, especially, was hurt when escalating costs, and limited supply became a factor since then. A number of factors played into the loss of this “cheap energy”, starting with the divestiture of Oil Company owned wells in the Mid East, and then the subsequent rules, and regulations imposed on U.S. oil companies domestically added to the problem. This would not have been too important an issue as technology came up with an alternative that “could save the day”, nuclear power.

So what happened to that new technology? Congress is what happened, scare tactics from many sources, especially groups like Greenpeace, pushed to have the technology buried. I can go into all the reasons they claimed, but suffice it to say the cost/emissions/waste arguments are all specious, but they prevailed anyway, because the media picked up their banner, and ran with it without any true research into the facts, and the general public bought into the scare tactics, and summarily Congress reflected this in bills that would essentially stop all future production of nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuel sources.

Add to the erroneous treatment of nuclear as an alternative, that same group of Greenies, where well on the way to stopping the construction of refineries in the United States, further hindering our ability to produce cheap energy. In fact due to aging facilities we actually have 20% fewer oil refineries today than we did in the 70’s.

So what was/is the fallout? Well there are numerous repercussions many not felt right away, but over time, as we see now they are devastating. Over the past thirty years it has cost us our once unmatched manufacturing industry, which in turn cost American’s jobs, and subsequently forcing U.S. businesses into foreign lands in order to be able to maintain their profits. Some of those jobs were absorbed into the “services” industry, but now with oil reaching far over the $100.00 a barrel cost, we are now seeing even the services industries like trucking, and other forms of transportation being adversely affected, and in turn the cost of goods including food are also increasing. Add to this the cost of business, heating and cooling offices, stores, warehouses etc. And the consumer with rising fuel costs, for travel, work commute, heating, food, and a myriad of other expenses can no longer afford to spend as we once did. Once again we see more loss of income, and jobs for the average middle class American. It is a cascading effect that will eventually destroy not only our quality of life, but if not stopped the country itself, along with all our freedoms. Which is the second reason for more domestic drilling - security. By our continued use of foreign sources for oil we are at risk of being shut off, which can have devastating effects, i.e. the gas crunch in the 70’s, and also impact our national security.

Now some of our elected leaders are telling us we need to deal with a “little inconvenience” while we transition to new technologies for energy. How much more will we as a country be able to sustain before we loose what little manufacturing and service industry we have left?

Can we drill our way out of the problem - no emphatically NO, but we need to maintain our ability to sustain our current businesses as well as the quality of life for middle, and lower class working families. Allowing American oil companies to drill for more domestic petroleum, and by lifting restrictions on refineries, and nuclear power, while we develop new technologies to get away from the use of petroleum energy is necessary. Providing tax incentives to oil companies, and other domestic energy producing companies instead of taxing them more, which will only trickle back down to those that are most affected, the lower, and middle class, would be the intelligent, practical, and safe way to proceed.