The Constitutional Presidency

The nation has spent the better part of this week mourning the death of Gerald Ford and reflecting on his presidency. I was only two years old when President Ford assumed the presidential office upon the resignation of Richard Nixon in August of 1974, so I do not have the benefit of first-hand experience. In listening to all the reflections and memories of his time in the Oval Office, I was most moved by Ford's first speech to Congress as President (replayed by CSPAN this Wednesday past).

"Our national nightmare is over."

Inheriting a nation torn apart by the Vietnam War and scandalized by the imperial presidency of Nixon, Ford governed with the good of the country foremost on his mind. Pardoning President Nixon and negotiating the withdrawal of U.S. forces out of Southeast Asia were controversial and divisive at the time, but history has proven the wisdom of President Ford's actions in working to bind the wounds of the nation.

If Richard Nixon's was the imperial presidency, Gerald Ford's was the constitutional presidency.

The humility and openness with which President Ford governed in many ways epitomized good governance, as envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. Ford understood the limits of the presidency, respected the co-equal role which the Congress is meant to play in our constitutional scheme, and worked tirelessly to secure the constitutional rights of all Americans.

Presidents are in large measure fashioned by their times. While President Ford made his share of mistakes, he transcended his times to govern in grace and wisdom.

Re: The Emporer's New Clothes

"What the hell happened to Christianity?"

I have an answer to the question asked by the article to which Kelly linked. But I am afraid most people won't like the answer - either because it will offend their secular sensibilities or because it will offend their religious ones.

George Mason, the Senior Pastor of Wilshire Baptist Church in Dallas, has said that the problem with Fundamentalists is that they know too much too soon. They presume to know the mind of God and then act on that presumption to force the rest of the world to comply with that presumption. And while Christianity is not plagued by extremists that blow people up and saw heads off, it is challenged with Fundamentalists who have hijacked the gospel of Christ and twisted it into a message about themselves. American Christianity is more American than it is Christian and more interested in the power of the Establishment than in the powerless who Jesus says will inherit the Earth.

In the end, Christianity has been beset by a crisis of faith.

The Emperor's New Clothes

While the article in question does not mention government per se, it does do a good job of speaking out against a small minority acting as if they are the "Guardians of Truth". The Cold War hawks seem all cute and cuddly as compared to the current set of neo-Cons who have made an art of rushing to war but not to judgment, wouldn't want to be hurried into doing something rash. Ok, enough of that. Mr. Bakker from the article, not the be confused with the ex-Chief of State James Baker, points out that there are a group of people who are using their religion as a weapon. We chide the Islamic world for their treatment of women but look the other way when someone in our own country calls for the bombing of abortion clinics and the murder of the doctors who work there. Is there any other word for this besides hipocrasy?

One man with a vision.

In our discussions of the use of the power of the State vs liberty of the individual, I often make reference to a sordid affair in America's history brought about by one man's pursuit of vice in a vain attempt to control the country's morals. Who is this purveyor of piety? None other than Anthony Comstock. He is as good an example of one person misusing the power of the State as you can find. Right up there with Hoover and McCarthy. Can there be any better cautionary tale for allowing the States authority to be too easily be misappropriated by those with a personal agenda?

Government and the trade deficit

Craig and I once discussed the importance of the trade deficit to the economy. My theory was that we as a country could afford such a substantial trade deficit because we must be creating value, otherwise we'd be sending capital overseas - 'capital flight'. After further thinking on this, I wonder what would happen if all those goods being imported were no longer being desired by the American consumer. Yes, our trade deficit would go away but what would become of our economy? With trillions of dollars available to spend and only the domestic industry to provide goods, I would imagine we'd be in for a serious bout of inflation. Too much money, not enough goods - classic.

Let's not take such a simple view. What if the money had somewhere else to go? What if Americans started saving all that dough? There would be lots of funds available for investment. If there was a shortage of capital, these new funds would not cause a problem but instead would spark business expansion or startups. But what if our lack of business startups was not caused by a lack of capital? What then? When too much money chases too few investments, wouldn't we start to see speculation which leads us down the trail to a 'bubble'.

So, is the trade deficit a symptom of how successful we are are creating value? If we tried to reduce it through less consumption, would cause ourselves more problems through inflation or speculative bubbles?

Maybe the deficit is the least of our worries.