Representative Mike Pence (R-Ind.) gave a brilliant speech at Hillsdale College on Sept. 20 on the subject of the presidency of the United States. Its brilliance lies not in its creativity or innovation — he offered none — but rather his genius was that it was a humble reaffirmation of past ideas, a reaffirmation of the importance of the constitution.
In a day and age where the word "progress" has been equated with "change", it comes as no surprise that Rep. Pence's speech didn't makes headlines; but the wisdom of Leonardo Da Vinci's words cannot be understated when discussing the present state of the U.S. government: "simplicity is the ultimate form of sophistication."
We are very quick to deify the founding fathers of the United States on an individual level, as the autobiographies of the likes of Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson are seldom absent from bestseller lists. Yet our government is quick to discard the value of the fruit of their collaboration: the Constitution of the United States.
The people of the United States are equally quick to endorse the government's snub of the Constitution by electing to office individuals such as former President George Bush and President Barack Obama and all others who seem to believe that each has the best vision for the future of the United States. What all of these misled men and women seem to omit from their platforms is that the best vision for this nation is on display in the National Archives and Records Administration in Washington, D.C.
The president is not a leader; he is a servant among many other servants in the three branches. Equally important is his role as a steward. His job is not to tell America how he plans to change the country. His duty, rather, is to submit his free will to that of the American public. If we recall the request of Franklin, "keeping a republic" implies limitation through self-restraint. The state of affairs in our governments of recent history reflects the opposite because, over the generations, the three branches have metamorphosed into an oligarchy of mostly self-interested individuals who have turned their office into a career and their campaigns into popularity contests. As Rep. Pence phrased it, "the political class… [is] mistakenly assuming that to exercise power is by default to do good."
A man who embodied the principles of the Constitution and whose presidency ought to be epitomized by all future holders was George Washington. He refused to serve more than two terms, an act of self-restraint that set the precedent for service as the head of the executive in the time leading up to the 22nd Amendment. He refused his salary, thus practicing by his actions (and not merely his words) the notion of servitude.
President Washington's Farewell Address captures in its conciseness the vision of the American republic according to the Constitution. He pointedly — and almost prophetically — warned the nation he presided over to be wary of many evils, two of which included political parties and foreign entanglements. In these respects among many others, the United States of today is the antithesis of what George Washington envisioned upon his departure from the presidency.
Even a cursory glance at the United States' history will offer one affirmation of the previous statement. The accountability of politicians to the people seems to escape the public's consciousness as soon as election seasons end. Why? Political parties have turned elections into a circus of fanfare and statements of impossible promises. For a citizen to ascend to the prominence necessary in order to run for a given office, he needs the financial and political endorsement of a party — unless you happen to be a billionaire like Ross Perot.
While it can successfully be argued that political parties help strengthen government, political ascendancy through a party in contemporary America demands but one virtue: conformity. And, as the Gospel according to St. Matthew states, "No man can serve two masters."
Either one must serve the party or the Constitution, because the interests of the two do not necessarily run parallel. The choice of servitude American politicians have made is evident in the government's great departure from the wisdom of Washington. Hence, the use of the word "oligarchy": Candidates must emerge from the filter of the Republican and Democratic parties prior to their selection by the American people — ultimately, we, the public, are spoon-fed the garbage we must eat while spending four or more years digesting it.
On the subject of foreign policy, it seems clear the governments of past and present have chosen to strive to contradict George Washington's advice as much as possible by engaging in frequent warfare abroad.
If age were a measure of wisdom, then the republic of present is arguably more foolish than the republic of the past, as the United States is sending its troops to die in two different wars it has instigated — by unilaterally declaring war on Iraq and by funding the Afghan Mujahedeen during the Soviet occupation of the country. It is both a shame and hypocrisy that a nation such as the United States that prides itself so greatly on its duty to bequeath the utmost security and liberty to its citizens is so eager to violate its own providence and principles, sending its sons to have their blood shed fighting, oftentimes for reasons that are obscure to the soldiers themselves. Communism? Imperialism?
It ought to be evident to anyone that time is the worst enemy of any form of authoritarianism: Few governments that have discarded their sense of accountability to their people have stood the test of time.
When a state like the United States presents them with an external threat such as invasion, they provide these authoritarian regimes with the legitimacy and unity needed to increase their longevity. Most would agree that terrorism requires a military response, but how many rational people seriously believe that invading, occupying and re-establishing another nation-state is the best way to wage unconventional warfare? Leaving aside the immeasurable human cost to both sides of a war, the United States simply betrays its own code of laws — moral and constitutional — by its alacrity to resort to warfare abroad.
It ought to be clear to anyone who does not suffer from self-imposed delusion that the government of the United States has chosen to ignore both its own constitution and the advice of the contemporaries who authored it or participated in the effort to establish it. Not only has the position of the presidency been transformed from an office of humble public servitude to one of arrogant elitist leadership, but the internal politics and foreign policy of the United States have both degenerated into games which are played by the few; political parties have redirected the loyalty of politicians while the pursuing of "interests" abroad in the guise of aloof ideologies has characterized the conduct of foreign policy. The republic of Turkey recently put forth a referendum to its people on its constitution; when was the last time American politicians were concerned enough about the people's views on major debates — such health care — to put forth a similar referendum?
Submission and obedience to the Constitution ought to be the virtues practiced by all members of government, most prominently in the presidency, and it has been done before — simply emulate the example of George Washington in a 21st-century context. None of the views expressed in this op-ed are new or "progressive." They are merely reaffirmations of the preexisting wisdom of the founders of the American Republic to be found in the Constitution.
--
Stephanos Karavas is a sophomore who has not yet declared a major.
