|
Responsibility #89
To the People of the United States of America:
7th postscript, February 1995. The 1994 Congressional elections have come and gone. With the Republicans taking charge, the 104th Congress has gone into session. The lame-duck 42nd President has given his State of the Union message. With their capture of the House for the first time in forty years, as well as their gain of plurality in the Senate, the Republicans claim a mandate from We the People for their "Contract with America". The President hangs on to his belief that he received a mandate for his "New Covenant" in 1992, and that it is still valid.
In truth, the nation's voters rejected the incumbency of the Republican President in 1992. Thanks to the interference of the White Knight, with the 100 million dollar sword (who flubbed his own candidacy), voters limped to their only alternative, a Democrat, for the Chief Executive post. In the November 1994 elections, the electorate expressed its dissatisfaction with the performance of the 42nd President, and the 103rd Congress. The voters fell back on their only option, under our semi-monopoly, two party system. It ran to what had been the minority party in the Congress.
The fact is that, both the Republican and Democratic parties, have been non-responsive, to the Request for Bids of the citizens of the United States of America, for the last several elections. The politicians select the rah-rah items, that they think will give them and their party the edge, in gaining or retaining power in the immediate, or forthcoming elections. They ignore, or postpone to far out years, solutions to the insecurities of the nation.
Joseph J. Romm, in his 1993 book "Defining National Security--The Nonmilitary Aspects", enumerated "various definitions of national security", put forward by a number of authorities, from 1943 through 1990. He states "Now that the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact have collapsed, the United States is very secure according to the narrower definitions, such as [a 1943 definition based on war, or the avoidance of war] .... Many of the other--broader--definitions, however, would suggest that the United States suffers from extreme insecurity."
In the final chapter of his essay, Romm puts forward the following as "an adequate definition of national security in the post-Cold War era". "A threat to national security is whatever threatens to significantly (1) degrade the quality of life of the people, or (2) narrow the range of policy choices available to their government."
He concludes his treatise with the admonition: "Any comprehensive analysis of security should explain how much money is needed to balance the budget and deal with our newly emerging security problems and what combination of spending cuts and tax increases should be undertaken to accomplish those ends."
It is readily apparent that, neither the Republican Contract with America, nor the Democratic New Covenant, adequately nor rightly nor timely address: (1) the factors that have, and threaten to further, "degrade the quality of life of the people"; and, (2) the actions required to stem the tide of narrowing, and begin the recoupment, of "policy choices" needed to assure, the internal and external security of our nation. Both political parties steer clear of an explanation (much less a commitment to its implementation, during the term of the 104th Congress, and the 42rd President), for any comprehensive treatment of the national security.
The insecurities of the American people have been addressed throughout these RESPONSIBILITY papers. In a somewhat different approach than Romm, the nation's threats can be placed in five categories:
1. Structural Security
2. Moral Security
3. Economic Security
4. Domestic Security
5. International Security
As argued by Romm, most of the problems in each security category are interrelated with those within, and among classifications. Thus all must be resolved together.
The deficiencies of our nation are such, as to place us in as great a jeopardy, as we were with our Articles of Confederation government in 1787. As stated in Responsibility #1: "Now, [207] years later, it again appears that our nation cannot prosper and, indeed, may not survive under the present conditions of our government and its citizens."
A thorough and complete overhaul is required. We cannot nibble around the edges, nor postpone to an indefinite (may not be) future, through acceptance of the mere proposals of the Contract with America nor the New Covenant.
In the following essays, we will discuss items in the above five categories, that have come to the fore, again, since the sixth postscript papers.
Publius IV
|