Down through history nations and the military have developed battle strategies and developed weapons based on the last war. The generals and admirals fought in that war, won and are convinced that the strategies and weapons from the last war only needed to be improved to win in the next one. It's usually the losers who learn from their mistakes and devise new tactics around new weapons.
In general, it is the tactics that have not caught up to the weapons that are brought to the battlefield. During the American Civil War both sides, under West Point trained officers, adopted the Napoleonic method of fighting. That was what was taught at the academy. That method assumed that the enemy was close when you let go the first round of shot and would not have time to load more than one more round if you quickly rushed them with bayonets. It was based on the round ball being shot through a smooth bore musket. The smooth bore musket was not very accurate, so the idea was to point the gun in the general direction of the enemy and let go. That is why you see masses of soldiers lined up in tight formations and fairly close together when they dressed the battle line. The idea is, if you put enough lead out in front, you are likely to hit somebody. The smooth bore musket didn't even have sights. The command was Ready---Fire. Aim was added after the rifled musket came on the scene.
Rifles were in use before the Civil War but, because of their slow fire rate and smaller bullet they were generally confined to select units, such as snipers or sharpshooters, not to the infantry.
Then along came the rifled musket and the minni-ball. Suddenly the range of the gun was extended up to and over 700 yards with greatly improved accuracy. The minni ball solved the problem of slow and difficult loading of the rifled musket, so it came in to general use by both armies. The massed formations of troops were now just sitting ducks to be mowed down at a long distance. But, the generals had a hard time figuring out another way to do battle. So the slaughter just escalated. Picket's charge is good example of how not to charge a fortified defense across an open field.
The French built the Maginot line, a series of fortifications along the German-French border, based on their experience with trench warfare in WWI. History showed how effective that was. The French built the wrong weapon. They ignored the writings by such strategists as Rommel and De gaulle, who were talking about a different kind of war, fought with fast moving armor, with tanks as a spearhead.The French planning had the tank in support of infantry. That resulted in a slow moving heavily armed vehicle. After all the tank only had to move as fast as the infantry.
The machine gun in WWI changed the battlefield forever, but the French and British generals were too set in their ways to change their tactics. They just kept sending thousands of men out of the trenches into a hail of machine gun fire, where they died by the thousands.
The Navy, embedded with a large number of battleship admirals, built some of the greatest battleships ever designed going into WWII. The Iowa class battleship (ordered in 1939 as the first of a class of 4) had no real rivals, except perhaps the two big Japanese battleships. So, the Americans and Japanese had spent huge sums of money, material and manpower building the dreadnoughts of the seas----none of which ever fired a single shot at another ship during the entire war. Their primary job was the provide an escort for the carriers, a job that could probably be accomplished just as well, if not better, by cruisers. They were the only Battleships in the American Navy that had sufficient speed to keep up with the fast fleet carriers. All the battleships in the Pacific did get used in shore bombardment, but that seems to be something that was asked of them because they needed something for the big, expensive, ships to do. As it turned out, the shore bombardment was largely ineffective against the Japanese dug in positions on Peleliu, Guam, Saipan, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The primary engagements for any battleship during the war was a couple of obsolete Japanese ships during the Battle of Guadalcanal and the Battle at Leyte Gulf. In fact, the battleship had little to do with the outcome of the war in the Pacific. I don't know of any battleship in the American or Japanese Navy that was sunk by surface action.
Today we are spending billions of dollars on weapons based on the experiences in WWII. We are trying to build better planes, missiles and bombs with greater accuracy and building stealth into everything. We now have the B2 bomber and the now cancelled F117 stealth fighter. Not satisfied with that, billions of dollars have been invested in the very expensive F22 and F35 stealth fighter/attack aircraft.
The B2 cost 929 million dollars per aircraft resulting in only 21 aircraft being delivered due to high cost. ( The total program cost for the plane ended up at 2.1 billion dollars per airplane). The B2, with the end of the cold war, has lost it's reason for existing; if it ever had one to begin with. It was used several times in the Mideast wars, but that was just for it to have something to do. Everything the B2 accomplished could have done with guided missiles from a Navy cruiser or missile destroyer. In fact the B2 has little reason to be in the American arsenal except for flyovers at parades and football games. Everything it can do can be done better by guided missiles.
The F22 fighter/attack plane is very expensive, which limited the numbers that could be acquired. In total 187 planes were delivered at a cost 412 million dollars per aircraft for the whole program. The deliverable cost was 62 million dollars each. Originally there was talk of a Navy version, but that fell through the cracks as not being practical.
The F35 is supposed to be the end all in fighter/attack design. Three versions are being built, the F35A for the Air Force, the F35B for the Marines and the F35C for the Navy. It is supposed to be a multipurpose plane replacing the F15, the F16, the F/A18, the F/A18A and the Marines Harrier. It is expected to do all those jobs. But, as experience has shown, if you design a plane to do multiple jobs, it won't do any one job really well. The plane is built on stealth and the ability to cruise for a short time above mach one without using after burners. The Air Force awarded the contract to Lockheed, which has shown to be a little lax when it comes to managing a large undertaking like the F35 program. They are the Air Force's pet these days because their success with the planes turned out by the skunk-works, including the F117. In 2014 the program was 163 billion dollars over budget and seven years behind in development. It was touted to be more efficient per flight hour than the F16, but ended up at 20% more expensive. This is Lockheed's first venture as the lead contractor for the development of a major airframe in the modern jet age. F16, F15, F/A18 and F/A 18A were all developed by General Dynamics, McDonald Douglas and Boeing. Lockheed's entry into the true fighter game was the acquisition of General Dynamics. The F117 is really just a platform for developing stealth technology and is far from a true fighter. The F 22, also built by Lockheed, was just too expensive to field in any large numbers.
The navy is building ships with radar suppression capability. That works great against present threats from RADAR and heat seeking missiles in today's world. Of course that isn't the only defense the ships have against attacks by missiles and aircraft. Attacking a modern Navy ship these days would not be good for your health if you use conventional weapons.
But, another war between the major powers will likely not be fought like an upgrade to WWII. Maybe we are already building obsolete weapons for that kind of war, assuming it doesn't go nuclear on a global scale.
The other guys have spies in the sky just as we do. They know where every surface ship is located. All the stealth technology in the world doesn't hide from visual observation. It is likely that every major surface ship, air base, fixed military station or non-hardened missile site would come under attack within a few hours after the outbreak of a major conflict. The only ships that have a chance of going without being attacked are the submarines. Few of our military installations, outside of the Navy's war ships have the capability to defend against a concentrated attack of non-nuclear guided missiles. The
hardened military installations and surface ships could survive a non-nuclear attack, although with heavy damage possible.
Let's start with stealth. Huge sums of money has been spent to develop stealth capability. Along with RADAR absorbing material for construction, the planes have been designed to deflect the radio wave, such that the return image is very small, to the point of almost being nonexistent. We have one problem. We didn't think of it first, a Russian scientist did. The required shape of the airframe made the aircraft unstable and impossible to fly until a new generation of controls was developed called fly by wire. But, our lead in stealth technology is only temporary. Other nations, notably Russia and China, are well aware of the theory behind stealth and will not be long developing similar capability---if they haven't already.
And, there has never been a weapon system of any kind that hasn't been countered by some development to defeat it. Stealth is no exception. A F117 was shot down by a SAM already. How long will it be before stealth is nullified by some advance in technology. When that happens we will have multimillion dollar planes that really aren't any better at their jobs than the F16, F15, or the carrier based F/A18A Super Hornet. Perhaps, not as good. And, because they are so expensive, we may be loath to commit them to danger.
The Navy's F/A18 Hornet and F/A 18A Super Hornet and the Air Forces' F16 and F15 can do everything that is required on the battlefield at this time, or in the foreseeable future. But, lack of funding is seriously compromising the availability of the planes. The last I heard, only half of the F/A 18's, F16's and F15's are airworthy due to budget cuts. We spend money on planes we really have no foreseeable need for and sacrifice the maintenance on planes where we do have an immediate need.
What we should be spending that money on for future planning is unmanned aircraft and space warfare. That is the future. It certainly isn't popular with the Air Force. They have all those pilots who need new toys to play with, but the presence of humans limits the maneuverability of a plane while wasting significant resources to keeping the pilot alive and to supply them with information for maximum effectiveness. What the fighter of the future might require is not a qualified pilot, but a teenager with an X-Box controller in his hands.
Without a human to worry about, planes could be designed with much greater maneuverability and cost a lot less. With the advances in artificial intelligence and modern sensing capability, the situation awareness and reaction time of an unmanned plane engaged in combat would be greatly increased over what a human can do. A computer controlled plane can react in microseconds to any threat, can pull huge G forces in maneuvering and target an enemy with far greater accuracy than any human. The current planes are designed to take up to about 9 G's, because the human sitting in the cockpit can't take anymore anyway. Think about something else. The pilot is being supplied so much information it is impossible to keep track of all of it. So a great deal of time, effort and money has been spent to design displays and other means to aid in simplifying the display for the pilot, so that they have situation awareness without being overwhelmed. Guess how that is done? AI does it. All that effort is just to create an environment for the pilot to act quickly. The pilot sees what the AI wants him to see. In one sense, even with a human aboard, the plane is being flown and fought by the AI already aboard. It wouldn't take much more just to leave the pilot on the ground.
If a non nuclear conflict breaks out between two nations with advanced technology, almost the first thing that will have to go is the spy satellites that look down and map everything on earth. You can not allow an enemy to have that kind of visibility into the movement of troops, the deployment of ships and other useful knowledge gained from spy satellites.
We will have a scenario that is much like what happened in WWI. The first fighters were developed to shoot down the flimsy observation planes used by both sides. Fighters were then developed to protect the observation planes. It became evident to each side that they had to gain air superiority, spurring the rapid development of better and better aircraft.
The modern fighter is just an extension of that scenario. Such a scenario is likely to be repeated if another major conflict breaks out, except it will be moved up a level into lower orbits in space where the observation satellites are stationed. Satellite destroyers, for want of a better name, likely unmanned, will have to be developed to shoot down observation satellites. The enemy will counter with destroyers to attack your Satellite destroyers and the war in space will then escalate. It is easy to see where this could be headed. Space based weapons emulating the WWII bomber will be next. How ready are we to repel an attack from space?
The Chinese have already demonstrated the ability to destroy a satellite. If we lose eyes over a potential battlefield and the enemy has such eyes, the outcome would become very chancy indeed.
If, however, the
conflict goes nuclear, then you might as well bend over and kiss your
butt goodbye. There will be another mass extinction event.
Saturday, July 21, 2018
Wednesday, July 11, 2018
Can This Democratic Republic Long Endure?
If history has taught us one thing, it is that no system of government lasts forever. In fact most forms of government only last for a relatively short time before it is changed to something different, or even falls.
Think about it. The United States has a system of government that is arguably the oldest of all the developed countries. Since the adoption of our constitution, the Russians have changed hands many times, from a absolute monarchy Czarist Russia) to a republic (short lived) to a dictatorship (the USSR) under communism. Following the collapse of USSR a new semi-dictatorship was established in Russia. The Germans went from a Monarchy to republic after WWI and then a dictatorship under the Nazis to a Democratic Republic after WWII. The French threw out the monarchy and had a brief fling with a Republican government but then entered another monarchy under Napoleon Bonaparte and then back to a Republican government after his downfall. There was another change in government when the Germans defeated the French in WWII. The English moved from a powerful monarch with a vast empire to a purer form of a Republic, with the Monarch having only a ceremonial position and no say in government at all. A far cry from the days of Mad King George. China went from a monarchy to a dictatorial state under the communist after several iterations. And the story goes on.
The reason for the changes vary from country to country. Some changes were the result of invasion by foreign powers and some, in fact most, were really the result forces acting within the structure that brought it down.Very often the fall of a government to a foreign power is proceeded by a long history of corruption and decadence within, making the fall almost certain. Rome is good example.
The United States form of government, from it's founding, has been under threat a couple of times.
In 1812 the British were on the edge of reconquering American and taking it back into the fold. Only a heroic stand at Fort McKinley in Baltimore stopped that from happening. If we had lost there we might very well be flying the British flag now.
The nation was literally torn apart in 1860 when 13 southern states decided to destroy this nation by rebelling. They feared that the election of a Republican to the White House would not only stop the spread of slavery, which they desired to do, but might actually put an end to slavery all together. A bloody war was fought to hold the nation together. Thousands of lives were lost in effort to save this nation.
The nation changed as a result of the Civil War. Going into the war we were the united States of America. The population, including those at, and graduates of, West Point, owed more loyalty to their state than to the nation. Robert E Lee, who did not own any slaves, felt that he could not fight against his state and resigned his commission and joined the rebels. Almost all the southern born officers in the U S army resigned and joined the Confederacy.
After the War we became the United States of America. One nation, not a collection of semi-independent states. That was significant change in the form of government. But, through it all we had the corner stone of our contract with the government, the Constitution.
The Civil War was probably the greatest threat to our form of government for a long time. Although one could argue that the Japanese threatened us when they attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941. But, they had no real plans to conquer the United States, just to get us out of the Pacific and let them establish their "Asian Sphere of Influence". They thought that wiping out the the Pacific Fleet would force the Americans to ask for peace and the Japanese could then go on their merry way to control all of Asia. Their evaluation of the American psychology at the time was simply that we did not have the stomach to fight.
Hitler had great plans, but no real way to carry them out. He made the mistake of taking on the Russians with the British still at his back. He opened up a two front war, which anybody who knows anything about this stuff can tell you that is a very bad idea. Of course, he then compounded his problems by declaring war on the greatest industrial power in the world, The United States. Just how dumb can one man get? American industrial power then fueled the war machine that brought victory in the Second World War.
As I noted earlier, a form of government can be changed abruptly by acts of war, rebellion or invasion of a foreign power, but it can also be changed slowly and almost unrecognizably by forces from within.
The United States has been changing since it's inception. Technology has driven vast changes in how the nation operates and sees itself. The railroad, the car, the plane, mass production have had a profound influence on the country. There were many social changes in the United States over the years. The Constitution provided a method for change to reflect changing times by the amendment process. Notable among these were the 13th and 14th amendments which outlawed slavery and made all people born in the United States, regardless of color, as full citizens. Also, the 19th amendment assured women's suffrage throughout the United States. Up until then it was up to each state to decide the matter.
Since then the courts at all levels have been staffed more and more with judges which are prone to stepping outside the limits placed on government by the Constitution and are literarily making new law. The liberals had found a way to get their programs implemented without having to go through the congress.
A good example of the differences between current and past courts is the comparison between women's suffrage and abortion. Neither of these issues are addressed in the Constitution. The older courts would not rule on suffrage. The Constitution didn't address it so the courts felt is an issue left to the states to decide. It was the opinion that the federal government had no right to interfere. It took an amendment to the Constitution to force suffrage on all the states. It should be mentioned that a lot of states already had suffrage. In the case of abortion, the courts (Roe vs Wade) held that it was unconstitutional to deny an abortion to any woman who wants one. Before that each state was free to decide this issue by the citizens of that state. There is no part of the Constitution, nor any law passed by the Congress, that addresses abortion on demand. Then the logic changed. The courts acted outside of the federal Constitution and in reality made a new law allowing abortion through the United States. A new right was discovered.
The downside for the abortion advocates is that Roe vs Wade can be overturned by a subsequent court. Of course suffrage can't because it written into the Constitution.
The courts have been the vehicle for much of the changes that have been made to the social contract between the government and it's people. In fact, more and more the courts have taken the place of the legislative bodies in deciding the course of the nation with regard to many social issues.
It seems that we are undergoing a restructuring of our form of government. This morphing of the government, from a nation based on the idea of freedom of the individual, individual initiative, minimum government and adherent to the Constitution, into that of the government providing a social network attempting to provide for the well being and comfort of all it's citizens and a new interpretation of the Constitution. That it is a fluid document and needs to be interpreted to fit societies desires at the time.
(Largely from Wikipedia) The changes in attitude about the role of government started during the Great Depression. As a solution to the Great Depression Roosevelt initiated a program called the New Deal. The New Deal was a series of programs, public work projects, financial reforms and regulations enacted in the United States 1933-36. Some of these federal programs included the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the Civil Works Administration (CWA), the Farm Security Administration (FSA), the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA) and the Social Security Administration (SSA). The Grand Cooley Dam was built as part of the jobs program under the Roosevelt regime. Some of these programs had trouble in courts initially. They were declared unconstitutional. But, after an attempt to expand the court by Roosevelt and some public pressure, the court approved most of them. These programs included support for farmers, the unemployed, youth and the elderly. It included new constraints and safeguards on the banking industry and efforts to re-inflate the economy after prices had fallen sharply. New Deal programs included both laws passed by Congress as well as presidential executive orders during the first term of the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The programs focused on what historians refer to as the "3 Rs": relief for the unemployed and poor, recovery of the economy back to normal levels and reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression. The New Deal produced a political realignment, making the Democratic Party the majority (as well as the party that held the White House for seven out of the nine presidential terms from 1933–1969) with its base in liberal ideas, the South, traditional Democrats, big city machines and the newly empowered labor unions and ethnic minorities. The Republicans were split, with conservatives opposing the entire New Deal as hostile to business and economic growth and liberals in support. The realignment crystallized into the New Deal coalition that dominated presidential elections into the 1960s while the opposing conservative coalition largely controlled Congress in domestic affairs from 1937–1964. The Roosevelt New Deal and has been carried on and expanded since.
This was a complete departure from previous government actions in the face of several recessions and an earlier great depression. Whether Roosevelt's programs helped or actually slowed down the recovery is open to debate. Many economists believe that he actually did more harm than good. In any event the general feeling was that Roosevelt was the savior of the country and he set up the Democrats to be viewed as the party of the working man. As a result of the Roosevelt programs, and their perceived success, a new role for government was now stamped into the American mind. That was never more evident than during the last recession where Obama took a page out of Roosevelt's play book and with a Democratic Congress, rammed through all kinds of bailouts for banks, investment houses and big corporations with the to big "To Big To Fail Label". A large infrastructure program was undertaken to provide jobs.
The courts have been the vehicle for much of the changes that have been made to the social contract between the government and it's people. In fact, more and more the courts have taken the place of the legislative bodies in deciding the course of the nation with regard to many social issues.
A current bone of contention is the issue of gun control. The anti-gun faction is doing everything it can to infringe upon the citizens right to bear arms. This is a clear violation of 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, which clearly states that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So a great contest is being waged by the supporters of the right to own a gun and those that want to eliminate guns altogether from society. The problem the anti-gun lobby has is the 2nd Amendment. The courts have gone a long way in supporting restrictions on the sell and possession of guns. However, at this point they have stood firmly against any attempt to outlaw guns completely. You wonder how long that will last until a new interpretation of the Amendment is announced by a liberal court. After all, the Amendment includes the phrase "A well regulated Militia" as being the justification for its existence.
The question is----are the changes we are seeing and experiencing a precursor to a significant change in the nature of the government? Will the changes continue under social pressure from the liberals to the extent we end up completely ignoring the Constitution were we don't like it and embracing a Socialist form of government? I think the answer is---it is a definite possibility.
If you think about it, our government today would not be recognizable by the people who wrote the Constitution.
When one looks at the college campuses and what's going on there, it is easy to see where the nation seems to be heading. After all, these young people who are convinced that Socialism, as taught by their professors, is the right system to bring Truth, Justice and Prosperity to the people. They see problems of poverty, poor medical services and other ills in society and want to fix them. Never mind that every place it's been tried it has been a dreadful failure. They will not listen too, nor allow anyone else to listen too, any contradictory opinion to their own. These are the people who will be the politicians, the lawyers, the judges, and the reporters in a few years. Any student on campus who displays a Trump sign is likely to meet with bodily harm. They may not be the majority on campus, but they are the loudest and are backed overtly by their professors and the school administration.
Even grade schools are in the act. Eleven year old students are marched out of class, led by their teachers, and display signs prepared for them to protest some act of the President or the Congress on some subject; especially immigration. The liberal press eats that kind of thing up. They never bother to ask the students what they are protesting about. The answer wouldn't support the message the media is trying to make.
In a recent poll the question was asked if they were proud to be an American. Only 47% said that they were. If you compare that to a similar poll taken in 2003, 70% said they were proud to be an American. If you asked any of the Great Generation that same question, I would be surprised if that number didn't rise to almost 100%.
To add to the problem, not only do the liberals pretty much control the main stream media, but more importantly for the younger voter, they control the social media. You name it, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Microsoft; all owned and and run by liberals. You can't get a job with one of them if you are a conservative. In fact it was reported that Google marched one of their employees out the door for mouthing a conservative thought during the last election.
Illegal immigration has changed the face of America, especially in the states bordering the Mexican border. California, because of it's liberal policies, has attracted such a huge number of Latinos that they make up a majority of the population in many large cities, and about 47% of the total state. The once dominate Euro-centric white population is now the minority. This is having a profound impact on the Congress in addition to the local elections. Look at how many California Congressmen and women have Spanish surnames. Most of them have a liberal view of the role of government. The face of America has changed and will continue to change. And, the change seems to be toward a socialist approach of government, where all essential services such as medical and higher education is free, welfare is abundant and only the "Rich" have to pay.
The recent Trump revolution has halted some of that momentum, but I fear it's only a temporary pause. But, I guess we'll see.
When we wake up one day and find ourselves being taxed at about 80% of our income to pay for all the social programs so dear to the liberals heart and a stripping of our military to pay for it, we might be sorry we don't have any way to stop China and/or Russia from stepping all over us and our interests anywhere in the world.
Think about it. The United States has a system of government that is arguably the oldest of all the developed countries. Since the adoption of our constitution, the Russians have changed hands many times, from a absolute monarchy Czarist Russia) to a republic (short lived) to a dictatorship (the USSR) under communism. Following the collapse of USSR a new semi-dictatorship was established in Russia. The Germans went from a Monarchy to republic after WWI and then a dictatorship under the Nazis to a Democratic Republic after WWII. The French threw out the monarchy and had a brief fling with a Republican government but then entered another monarchy under Napoleon Bonaparte and then back to a Republican government after his downfall. There was another change in government when the Germans defeated the French in WWII. The English moved from a powerful monarch with a vast empire to a purer form of a Republic, with the Monarch having only a ceremonial position and no say in government at all. A far cry from the days of Mad King George. China went from a monarchy to a dictatorial state under the communist after several iterations. And the story goes on.
The reason for the changes vary from country to country. Some changes were the result of invasion by foreign powers and some, in fact most, were really the result forces acting within the structure that brought it down.Very often the fall of a government to a foreign power is proceeded by a long history of corruption and decadence within, making the fall almost certain. Rome is good example.
The United States form of government, from it's founding, has been under threat a couple of times.
In 1812 the British were on the edge of reconquering American and taking it back into the fold. Only a heroic stand at Fort McKinley in Baltimore stopped that from happening. If we had lost there we might very well be flying the British flag now.
The nation was literally torn apart in 1860 when 13 southern states decided to destroy this nation by rebelling. They feared that the election of a Republican to the White House would not only stop the spread of slavery, which they desired to do, but might actually put an end to slavery all together. A bloody war was fought to hold the nation together. Thousands of lives were lost in effort to save this nation.
The nation changed as a result of the Civil War. Going into the war we were the united States of America. The population, including those at, and graduates of, West Point, owed more loyalty to their state than to the nation. Robert E Lee, who did not own any slaves, felt that he could not fight against his state and resigned his commission and joined the rebels. Almost all the southern born officers in the U S army resigned and joined the Confederacy.
After the War we became the United States of America. One nation, not a collection of semi-independent states. That was significant change in the form of government. But, through it all we had the corner stone of our contract with the government, the Constitution.
The Civil War was probably the greatest threat to our form of government for a long time. Although one could argue that the Japanese threatened us when they attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941. But, they had no real plans to conquer the United States, just to get us out of the Pacific and let them establish their "Asian Sphere of Influence". They thought that wiping out the the Pacific Fleet would force the Americans to ask for peace and the Japanese could then go on their merry way to control all of Asia. Their evaluation of the American psychology at the time was simply that we did not have the stomach to fight.
Hitler had great plans, but no real way to carry them out. He made the mistake of taking on the Russians with the British still at his back. He opened up a two front war, which anybody who knows anything about this stuff can tell you that is a very bad idea. Of course, he then compounded his problems by declaring war on the greatest industrial power in the world, The United States. Just how dumb can one man get? American industrial power then fueled the war machine that brought victory in the Second World War.
As I noted earlier, a form of government can be changed abruptly by acts of war, rebellion or invasion of a foreign power, but it can also be changed slowly and almost unrecognizably by forces from within.
The United States has been changing since it's inception. Technology has driven vast changes in how the nation operates and sees itself. The railroad, the car, the plane, mass production have had a profound influence on the country. There were many social changes in the United States over the years. The Constitution provided a method for change to reflect changing times by the amendment process. Notable among these were the 13th and 14th amendments which outlawed slavery and made all people born in the United States, regardless of color, as full citizens. Also, the 19th amendment assured women's suffrage throughout the United States. Up until then it was up to each state to decide the matter.
Since then the courts at all levels have been staffed more and more with judges which are prone to stepping outside the limits placed on government by the Constitution and are literarily making new law. The liberals had found a way to get their programs implemented without having to go through the congress.
A good example of the differences between current and past courts is the comparison between women's suffrage and abortion. Neither of these issues are addressed in the Constitution. The older courts would not rule on suffrage. The Constitution didn't address it so the courts felt is an issue left to the states to decide. It was the opinion that the federal government had no right to interfere. It took an amendment to the Constitution to force suffrage on all the states. It should be mentioned that a lot of states already had suffrage. In the case of abortion, the courts (Roe vs Wade) held that it was unconstitutional to deny an abortion to any woman who wants one. Before that each state was free to decide this issue by the citizens of that state. There is no part of the Constitution, nor any law passed by the Congress, that addresses abortion on demand. Then the logic changed. The courts acted outside of the federal Constitution and in reality made a new law allowing abortion through the United States. A new right was discovered.
The downside for the abortion advocates is that Roe vs Wade can be overturned by a subsequent court. Of course suffrage can't because it written into the Constitution.
The courts have been the vehicle for much of the changes that have been made to the social contract between the government and it's people. In fact, more and more the courts have taken the place of the legislative bodies in deciding the course of the nation with regard to many social issues.
It seems that we are undergoing a restructuring of our form of government. This morphing of the government, from a nation based on the idea of freedom of the individual, individual initiative, minimum government and adherent to the Constitution, into that of the government providing a social network attempting to provide for the well being and comfort of all it's citizens and a new interpretation of the Constitution. That it is a fluid document and needs to be interpreted to fit societies desires at the time.
(Largely from Wikipedia) The changes in attitude about the role of government started during the Great Depression. As a solution to the Great Depression Roosevelt initiated a program called the New Deal. The New Deal was a series of programs, public work projects, financial reforms and regulations enacted in the United States 1933-36. Some of these federal programs included the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the Civil Works Administration (CWA), the Farm Security Administration (FSA), the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA) and the Social Security Administration (SSA). The Grand Cooley Dam was built as part of the jobs program under the Roosevelt regime. Some of these programs had trouble in courts initially. They were declared unconstitutional. But, after an attempt to expand the court by Roosevelt and some public pressure, the court approved most of them. These programs included support for farmers, the unemployed, youth and the elderly. It included new constraints and safeguards on the banking industry and efforts to re-inflate the economy after prices had fallen sharply. New Deal programs included both laws passed by Congress as well as presidential executive orders during the first term of the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The programs focused on what historians refer to as the "3 Rs": relief for the unemployed and poor, recovery of the economy back to normal levels and reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression. The New Deal produced a political realignment, making the Democratic Party the majority (as well as the party that held the White House for seven out of the nine presidential terms from 1933–1969) with its base in liberal ideas, the South, traditional Democrats, big city machines and the newly empowered labor unions and ethnic minorities. The Republicans were split, with conservatives opposing the entire New Deal as hostile to business and economic growth and liberals in support. The realignment crystallized into the New Deal coalition that dominated presidential elections into the 1960s while the opposing conservative coalition largely controlled Congress in domestic affairs from 1937–1964. The Roosevelt New Deal and has been carried on and expanded since.
This was a complete departure from previous government actions in the face of several recessions and an earlier great depression. Whether Roosevelt's programs helped or actually slowed down the recovery is open to debate. Many economists believe that he actually did more harm than good. In any event the general feeling was that Roosevelt was the savior of the country and he set up the Democrats to be viewed as the party of the working man. As a result of the Roosevelt programs, and their perceived success, a new role for government was now stamped into the American mind. That was never more evident than during the last recession where Obama took a page out of Roosevelt's play book and with a Democratic Congress, rammed through all kinds of bailouts for banks, investment houses and big corporations with the to big "To Big To Fail Label". A large infrastructure program was undertaken to provide jobs.
The courts have been the vehicle for much of the changes that have been made to the social contract between the government and it's people. In fact, more and more the courts have taken the place of the legislative bodies in deciding the course of the nation with regard to many social issues.
A current bone of contention is the issue of gun control. The anti-gun faction is doing everything it can to infringe upon the citizens right to bear arms. This is a clear violation of 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, which clearly states that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So a great contest is being waged by the supporters of the right to own a gun and those that want to eliminate guns altogether from society. The problem the anti-gun lobby has is the 2nd Amendment. The courts have gone a long way in supporting restrictions on the sell and possession of guns. However, at this point they have stood firmly against any attempt to outlaw guns completely. You wonder how long that will last until a new interpretation of the Amendment is announced by a liberal court. After all, the Amendment includes the phrase "A well regulated Militia" as being the justification for its existence.
The question is----are the changes we are seeing and experiencing a precursor to a significant change in the nature of the government? Will the changes continue under social pressure from the liberals to the extent we end up completely ignoring the Constitution were we don't like it and embracing a Socialist form of government? I think the answer is---it is a definite possibility.
If you think about it, our government today would not be recognizable by the people who wrote the Constitution.
When one looks at the college campuses and what's going on there, it is easy to see where the nation seems to be heading. After all, these young people who are convinced that Socialism, as taught by their professors, is the right system to bring Truth, Justice and Prosperity to the people. They see problems of poverty, poor medical services and other ills in society and want to fix them. Never mind that every place it's been tried it has been a dreadful failure. They will not listen too, nor allow anyone else to listen too, any contradictory opinion to their own. These are the people who will be the politicians, the lawyers, the judges, and the reporters in a few years. Any student on campus who displays a Trump sign is likely to meet with bodily harm. They may not be the majority on campus, but they are the loudest and are backed overtly by their professors and the school administration.
Even grade schools are in the act. Eleven year old students are marched out of class, led by their teachers, and display signs prepared for them to protest some act of the President or the Congress on some subject; especially immigration. The liberal press eats that kind of thing up. They never bother to ask the students what they are protesting about. The answer wouldn't support the message the media is trying to make.
In a recent poll the question was asked if they were proud to be an American. Only 47% said that they were. If you compare that to a similar poll taken in 2003, 70% said they were proud to be an American. If you asked any of the Great Generation that same question, I would be surprised if that number didn't rise to almost 100%.
To add to the problem, not only do the liberals pretty much control the main stream media, but more importantly for the younger voter, they control the social media. You name it, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Microsoft; all owned and and run by liberals. You can't get a job with one of them if you are a conservative. In fact it was reported that Google marched one of their employees out the door for mouthing a conservative thought during the last election.
Illegal immigration has changed the face of America, especially in the states bordering the Mexican border. California, because of it's liberal policies, has attracted such a huge number of Latinos that they make up a majority of the population in many large cities, and about 47% of the total state. The once dominate Euro-centric white population is now the minority. This is having a profound impact on the Congress in addition to the local elections. Look at how many California Congressmen and women have Spanish surnames. Most of them have a liberal view of the role of government. The face of America has changed and will continue to change. And, the change seems to be toward a socialist approach of government, where all essential services such as medical and higher education is free, welfare is abundant and only the "Rich" have to pay.
The recent Trump revolution has halted some of that momentum, but I fear it's only a temporary pause. But, I guess we'll see.
When we wake up one day and find ourselves being taxed at about 80% of our income to pay for all the social programs so dear to the liberals heart and a stripping of our military to pay for it, we might be sorry we don't have any way to stop China and/or Russia from stepping all over us and our interests anywhere in the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)