balance

Issue #44

Last Update March 2, 2006

National Balance of Power by Gerry Krownstein The framers of our Constitution understood that power has to be present and effective in our national life, but also that it has to be limited. A strong central government was needed for effective administration and defense, but at every juncture a counterweight was provided to ensure that government did not become dictatorial, and that the people retained control. The states and the federal government are in creative tension; the House and Senate offset each other and the Executive branch; the Judiciary is independent of both the legislature and the executive and is protector of the Constitution; the Bill of Rights checks the powers of the federal government, and later amendments limit State powers. In the 19^th and early 20^th centuries, state and federal governments were given legal responsibility to act as counterweights to overwhelming corporate power. The basic concept was that unchecked power becomes tyranny – political, economic or religious. We are in danger of forgetting this important lesson; the counterbalances are being dismantled.

Conservatives, Liberals and Libertarians alike are guilty of ignoring the need for power-balancing, although currently Conservatives and Libertarians are leading the fight to dismantle the checks and balances that are in place. The Bush Administration seems to feel that Presidential power is unlimited in “wartime”, and that detention without charge, torture, and secret trials are all legitimate uses of this power. Even Supreme Court decisions that go against them have little impact. The President and the Republican Congress, who in the past have pretended to champion state's rights as a balance to federal power, have abandoned that stance over issues like gay marriage, the right of the people to sue and collect damages for medical malpractice, educational policy and practice, and the issuance of drivers' licenses, all traditional areas of state concern; a strong push is being made to preempt state action on these issues by interposing a national standard. In the economic arena, a strong attempt to gut regulatory agencies and roll back the economic safety net is being made in the name of efficiency, but in actuality, “privatization” is a code word for siphoning health and pension dollars away from beneficiaries and into corporate coffers. They have to destroy those villages to save them, in the language of our Viet Nam debacle. Since the Roosevelt era, the Federal Government has been the counterbalance against excessive accumulation of economic power; it is this, above all else, that Conservatives and Libertarians want to remove.

Liberals don't help matters much when they sue to remove traditional but meaningless references to God from public ritual. This merely annoys and alarms people, provides no particular benefit for the atheist or agnostic, and appears to threaten freedom of religion to those people to whom removal of references to God seems like an attack. Similarly, imposing national gun control regulations, while sensible to urban Americans, is indeed an infringement on the Sixth Amendment to those living in areas of low population density. The paradox of America is that many of those with a strong reverence for authority also harbor a strong anarchist streak, a “just leave me alone” mentality. In the minds of these people, their guns function as a security blanket against governmental tyranny.

We still have a strong capitalist economy and a strong political democracy. What politicians, business executives and the general public must remember is that economic prosperity depends on effective regulation and fair distribution to remain successful – leaving the public defenseless against corporate power and promoting a society of the struggling and the very wealthy has been tried in Latin America and under Communism and failed dismally in both areas. Maintaining political democracy and basic freedoms depends on balancing power as well. If the federal Executive becomes too strong, the legislature, judiciary and states must be strengthened to oppose it. If the states act against their citizens, the federal power must be used to protect the people. If concentrations of wealth and economic power lead to harm or stagnation, government and unions must be the counterweight, either through laws and regulations or through government financing of alternatives. If the weight of governmental imposition or union restrictions leads to harm or stagnation, the private sector, states or judiciary must roll back these impositions.

The key thing to realize, however, is that there can be no final victory. Our system is martial arts on a tightrope; constant readjustments are necessary to prevent a fall. Conditions change, balances change, but the balancing act must continue.