State of the Union, Corleone Style

Written by A. Alexander Stella

Price precedes progress. Ya’know, whyz.ache.err, I do take pride in that very sentence. No doubt in mind, it’s philosophy. And I do believe I shall, reasonably soon, adduce evidence to manifest its truth. Along the way, I shall infuse this country’s political discourse with a dollop of enlightenment, by means of a word I so graciously minted. No doubt about it, it’ll be quite a ride for a simple reason.

We must rely on our fanciful wit that we may listen to a fictitious American president perform a duty that’s mandated by our Constitution, id est, deliver to Congress the state of the union. Of course, in this instance, this state of the union is imaginary, nonetheless, potentially imperative. Oh, alright (!) already, I’ll admit it. I refuse to let four years of high school Latin, as taught by the Immaculate Heart of Mary nuns, go completely to waste. Ah, yes, my little chick-a-dees, it’ll be quite a ride. Prologue done, let’s proceed.

I should like to begin by thanking members of Congress for such a warm reception. In the past, this is what customarily happens as presidents deliver their state of the union. Members of their party interrupt with cheers. Members of the other party sit on their hands, stony faced. On this occasion, I should like to expect somewhat different behaviour. That I may sway members of Congress assembled here to oblige me, I should like to pluck an allusion from popular entertainment.

Every so often, we watch a movie that contains a scene that takes place in a physician’s office. We know this is so, because we saw a dozen, or so, clues. Somewhere off to the side of an imposing desk, a wall is covered with framed diplomas and commendations from various prestigious medical institutions and societies. In front of that desk, someone is seated, and looking apprehensive. The door opens, and someone, who’s obviously accustomed to being taken serious, enters, rather grim faced. Apprehension intensifies. At best, there might be hope for a silver lining of good news.

Ah, I didn’t hear any cheers. That’s good. That cheers me. That allows me to believe that every word I utter will be properly received. People familiar with religious services expect certain procedures. Usually, some member of the clergy quotes from some sort of holy writ, and then goes on to deliver some sort of homily. By the way, it’s considered uncouth to interrupt a homily with applause. It’s also considered uncouth to snub same.

On this occasion, I should like to refer to our Constitution’s Bill of Rights. There’s no doubt our Founding Fathers are eminently worthy of praise and admiration for appending to the Constitution, the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights. On the face of it, so one must admit, the single sentence of the tenth amendment sounds reasonable enough. And I quote, "The powers not delegated to the United States, prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Here we are, some ten score years since, the heirs of those Founding Fathers. There are among us, today, historians, both worthy of their sheepskin and possessed of noteworthy fanciful wit. Such people may well avouch that the Founding Fathers never, in their wildest nightmares, speculated that the tenth amendment would have a checkered past. And, indeed, it does.

What’s more, we don’t need "no stinking" history baccalaureates to be aware of this rather embarrassing happenstance. The tenth amendment has, albeit scandalously so to our contemporary sensibilities, served to justify various offenses against both humanity and good sense ... for example, the denial of civil rights, child labor, even lynching.

According to some noteworthy historians with philosophical proclivities, the tenth amendment legitimated the debate of large government versus small government. Consequently, some sages contend that sovereign small governments were due loyalty, superior to that due some paramount large government. Of course, other sages disputed that contention.

Perhaps, some scholar will adduce evidence that the tenth amendment also served, again scandalously so, as justification for Confederate secession. Staunch in their faith that heaven was on their side, the Union and the Confederacy went about sacrificing blood and treasure to decide which loyalty was, indeed, loyalty.

One side averred that the United States is; the other, the United States are. Today, however our school children pledge their allegiance, whether to our Stars and Stripes or to the Constitution and democracy, one fact is indisputable. These United States is one nation, and our country, our inheritance, our estate, our monument.

We are told by some commentators that price precedes progress. If we consider as progress the elevation of the copulative "is" above that copulative "are", then must surely we must accept it entailed a horrific price. Perhaps, so the more hopeful among us claim, some divine providence ensures that consequences balance causes.

The fourteenth amendment to our Constitution came about as consequence. According to well respected scholars of Constitutional history, this amendment is among the most illustrious, if not the most illustrious. legality and aspiration of our national popular will. It extends to all citizens "equal protection of the laws".

If I may, I should like to add this postscript. Those successors to the Founding Fathers are likewise worthy of praise and admiration by reason of that amendment.

On the other hand, there is another consequence few of us today consider illustrious. I mean the income tax. Were we to consult those not-so-dumbed-down as well as not-so-gutted history texts, to which scholars are abandoned, we would discover a rather disconcerting fact. The exigencies of its struggle with the Confederacy compelled the Union to adopt just such a tax. Oh, such a dandy birthright! What a dolorous albeit indispensable particular to bequeath!

Sometimes, the failure of a consequence to emerge can be also disconcerting. There exists one such particular failure that absolutely exasperates certain well respected historians, who are manifestly worthy of their sheepskin. Those worthy people are bewildered by their colleague citizens, who persist in vociferously debating the relative merits of large government versus small government, or small government versus large government.

Perhaps, so the the more courteous and diplomatic scholars would concede, such a debate once had merit. At times, when our Founding Fathers were drafting the Constitution, such a debate was taken seriously. Back then, either side would listen respectfully to the other, before due confutation.

It would be only right for me to declare here and now my take on the subject. In fact, I feel I am obligated to do so. So far as I’m concerned, such a debate has outlived its usefulness. Well, within living memory, there exists the evidence. I mean that "date which will live in infamy". On that day, our federal government began marshaling the armies and the air and sea armadas that eventually crushed fascism. Such a victory would’ve been far beyond the capacity of any collection of small governments, however dedicated to their common goal.

Does the foregoing mean that I am an advocate for big government? The answer is no. Rather, I try to approach the topic in a rational manner. First, I say, we determine what task a government should undertake. In general, small tasks are better left to small governments, and larger task to larger governments. In summary and in truth, we should concern ourselves with "appropriate government".

Going up the ladder of abstraction, we may just as well concern ourselves with appropriate "governance". Here’s a short definition. By governance, we mean the art and technique of governing. By the way, I am certain all reasonable people agree that crushing fascism required appropriate governance.

In pursuing that goal, the people then charged with governance relied heavily upon a legacy, left them by their Union predecessors. I mean the income tax. Some of us love watching documentaries about military victory over fascism. Some of us thrill to watch Hellcat fighters take off the flight deck of some splendorous aircraft carrier. Others may thrill to see Liberty ships plow their way through a U-boat infested North Atlantic, delivering the necessities for victory.

Isn’t it funny? Rarely if ever, is there mentioned in those documentaries the financial outlays that made all that possible. Oh, sure, every so often, this or that bond drive gets mentioned. In that instance, we’re dealing with voluntary monetary transfer with promise and expectation of full return with reasonable yield.

In addition, we’re treated to indulgence in nostalgia, as we watch the performance of now deceased nationally popular entertainers in their prime, some of whom are now immortalized as "pin-up girls". In any documentary of that genre, is there any mention of that "enforced exaction" known as the income tax! Oh, well, for our purposes, here and now, let’s skip going there.

Take my word for it. A Hellcat fighter cost way more than a pint of fudge ripple. And the money to build and fly it had to come somehow and from somewhere. And those bond drives, so enthusiastically and patriotically undertaken by certain pin-up girls, provided only a small fraction of the total money needed to achieve victory. In short, victory did not come cheap.

Ah, yes, my good partisans of so many political stripes, it did take a while. But we have just now arrived at the confluence of governance and finance. Thanks to verbal spillage from these or those financial sages, we all harbor a vague presentiment of national economic calamity.

In summary, our national government as well as several constituent state governments are expending much more money than they’re taking in. And they’re doing so in the pursuit of legitimate objectives. For the sake of well mannered discussion, let’s grant that previous assertion. Nonetheless, we must concede this reality. All the governments involved are borrowing heavily through the sale of bonds.

In general, we are told that this state of affairs must soon be brought to an end. If not, baleful consequences are certain to ensue.

At the moment, we are told that our governments must either enlarge their enforced exactions such as the income tax or shrink expenditures, no matter how legitimate the objectives. Some of our economic sages, in an attempt to come across as reasonable as in "main stream", are advocating a combination of the two approaches. In my considered opinion, it takes only cursory observation to discover what all the approaches, offered thus far, have in common. They all answer to the description "simple but hard".

True enough, we are in the soup, if vernacular is permitted in a state of the union. However, we are lucky. Certain talk radio whizzes blithely and blissfully assure us that we can, with slight cerebral strain, avoid those baleful consequences. We need only adopt some "hard but simple" plan. Ah, yes, no doubt about it, those talk radio whizzes can spurt verbosity that can poured over pancakes. It’s a shame about the fly in the syrup.

Well, were we to consult those historians, who are worth their sheepskin, we would discover a disconcerting fact. More often than not, when it comes to governance, simple but hard failed our predecessors. Time and time again, they learned to their sorrow this simple of prudence. The answer that passes for "simple but hard" may well prove to be "simple-minded and treacherous". Isn’t it funny? More often than not, that’s how it goes quite often for panaceas, especially in the realm of politics.

Right here and now, we may as well get the bad news. There’s every indication that "simple but hard" will also fail us.

I say this for a simple reason. Whatever we now attempt in the manner of simple but hard, we are certain to fail. And it’s for a simple reason. So far, no solution that appeals to the majority of our citizens takes into account the existence of transnational corporations.

Were I of a mind to do so, I could point out corporations that were once considered thoroughly American and true blue. Today, however, a significant fraction of such corporations, if not the overwhelming majority, have become transnational. In simple terms, here’s how it came about. Transnationality emerges from capital’s pursuit of profit. It’s sort of ironical. After all, what can be more American (?) than turning a profit!

Here’s even deeper irony. In one way or another, such as company pension plans or four-ought-one kays, more than half of American households are involved with capital, and are dependent on same. It may disconcert some of us to discover the reality of capital’s pursuit of profit. Capital is blithely and blissfully oblivious to nationality.

That fact goes a long way towards explaining why those corporations, having recently become transnational, are taking jobs away from their American employees, only to offer the same to foreign employees. These latter employees perform for far less pay than the former. Less pay means less expenditure, and less expenditure, more profit. What can be more American (?) than turning a profit!

At bottom, profit is the end all and be all for transnationals. At bottom, their essence is profit, and nothing else but profit. And this is so, whatever the hype this or that "gunga din" rectally discharges.

Now, if that happenstance does not bring home the fact that capital is blithely and blissfully oblivious to nationality, then nothing can. At this point, I suppose I can afford a little flippancy. In my salad days, I was charmed by Marxism. And I still am. The difference being, I’ve switched from Karl to Groucho.

Being only human, we are intensely aware of and involved with nationality. As I look over the members of our Congers, I see only Americans.

Clearly, something must be done to bring these transnationals to heel. In truth, we must follow to its logical conclusion the implication of a remark, uttered some two thousand years ago. "The sabbath was made for Man, not Man for the sabbath".

At this point, I should like to make a philosophical point with a joke. For no other reason than sheer whimsy, somebody scrawled in some public place, dedicated to hygienic convenience, this bit of graffiti:

. . . . . . . . . . . . To do is to be

. . . . . . . . . . . . . —Socrates

Underneath that, somebody else scrawled this bit of erudition:

. . . . . . . . . . . . To be is to do

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — Sartre Evidently, somebody with a twisted sense of humor later appended this:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . oobe doobie do

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —Sinatra

For our purposes, let’s focus on the Sartre quote. Suppose we decide to those transnationals another essence. This is just off the top of my head, understand. How about (?) something like, say, profit compatible with the best of human aspiration. —to be is to do— As this new essence begins becoming reality as our new transnationals, our world begins changing, we hope, for the better. Quite frankly, our world as to change, lest we lose our souls to a sinistrous future.

With any luck and in accordance with the better angels of our nature, we anthropolicate our world. Aha, I see that this word has just now elicited puzzled looks. Oh, alright (!) already, I’ll admit it. It’s a word I just now minted. The "anthro" comes from ancient Greek, and it refers to "human". The "poli" also comes from ancient Greek, and it refers to some sort of political entity. As we change our economic institutions, we must necessarily also change our political institutions. Just as the sabbath was made for Man, so should our political institutions also be made for Man. This is what should be meant by "anthropolicate".

At this point, I call upon the spirit of corleone. One aspect of corleone I find especially charming the respect for truth, no matter who or what relates it. Whether truth comes down to us in the bill of a dove or up from below on the tine of a pitchfork, truth is truth is truth.

In that vein, I bring to your attention a certain quote from Mr Henry Kissinger, our erstwhile Secretary of State. During this country’s misadventure in Vietnam, he was the object of fiery controversy. Again, dove or pitchfork, we had better be mindful of truth.

I found Mr Kissinger’s quote in a recent issue of the newspaper of record for the Greater (NY) Binghamton region. Ya’know, I think it’s only right that I mention this. After all, this website www.BCVoice.com is supposed to be oriented towards the interests of people, who live in Broome County, hence the "B" and "C" in the name.

Anyway, the quote goes like so, "People revolutionizing the world have NOT had to present a working model". Yes, so we must concede, the man does have a point. In that regard, we are still in the soup. Nowhere on this earth as well as nowhere in history, can we find a working model.

By way of comparison, we are like the Wright Brothers. They knew Man could fly. To prove it, they had to invent the airplane. According to aviation historians, the brothers did NOT begin their labour with absolutely nothing to guide them. They began by researching the successes and failures of their predecessor.

Now then, how (?) do we begin our task of "anthropolication". I do hope you, my listeners, can recall how I began this state of the union. I did so by plucking an example from popular entertainment. And I intend to repeat that rhetorical device.

This time, however, I’m bringing a specific example to your attention. Through the movie A BEAUTIFUL MIND, which respectively starred and was directed by Messieurs Russell Crowe and Ron Howard, we become acquainted with a new point of view with regard to how the world works.

Please note I’m avoiding the concept of panacea. Even more hazardous than an attractive panacea that fails, so far as I’m concerned, is an irresistibly attractive panacea that succeeds. That said, let’s begin our task of anthropolication by renting the movie’s videocassette or D.V.D.

+ _ + _ + _ + _ +

By rights, the text should continue in the same vein for several more paragraphs. Nonetheless, I decided to truncate this imaginary, albeit potentially imperative, state of the union. So far as I’m concerned, the absolutely necessary gist has been delivered. And I sincerely hope my numerous devoted fans understand.

First-time visitors may want to explore more of my thought. In which case, they’re in luck. They need only click on the above depiction of the nattily dressed gentleman. Doing so will bring up an index of sorts for other pieces. May (?) I recommend clicking on the "barbed wire" hyperlink.

toodles

Bogey

p.s - this has absolutely no relation to the preceding text. Nonetheless, I am so charmed by the thought I’m about to express that the temptation has proven too much. Currently, a certain presidential contender is being challenged. Supposedly, this particular contender claimed that certain foreign leaders would rather see him in the White House than its present occupant. Whatever the truth of the matter, the adversaries of the presidential contender in question are demanding the name of the names of those foreign leaders.

Ya’know, whyz.ache.err, something tells me this presidential contender could have what no Irishman is expected to have, id est, a corleone soul.

http://www.bcvoice.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=205