Letters from an Ohio Farmer

The Particular Glory of This Country

To the Members of the 112^th Congress:

Of all the freedoms protected by our Constitution, none is more cherished – and sometimes more difficult to think through – than religious freedom. We have been reminded of this in the Obama administration's recent decision to require church-backed employers to provide employees with insurance coverage for contraception. After religious organizations protested that this rule would force them to act against their conscience, the administration changed its rule and reached what the President called an "accommodation." This may or may not have solved the immediate problem, but it definitely did not answer the bigger (and more important) question: When should religious groups get an exemption from the law for their beliefs and practices?

Constitutional thinking has not been as consistent as it might have been on this question. The Supreme Court, for example, said in 1963 that religious beliefs and practices deserve an exemption from a law if they are burdened by it. But in 1990 it declared by a split vote that no one has the constitutional right to an exemption from a generally-applicable criminal law, no matter how much it interferes with his beliefs or practices – and no matter how important those beliefs or practices are to his religion. Congress tried to respond in 1993 with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which said that states had to exempt religious practices and organizations from burdensome laws unless they had a compelling interest not to do so. But the Court struck down that law in 1997, claiming that Congress did not have the power to expand constitutional freedoms when dealing with the states. In 2006, however, the Court admitted that the Act did still apply to the Federal Government.

The Court should have listened all along to Congress, which was following the lead of the Father of the Constitution himself, James Madison. A concern for religious freedom pushed Madison into his first foray in politics, which came at the Virginia Assembly of May-June 1776. There he successfully moved to amend the Virginia Declaration of Rights to say that "all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience" – language that he cribbed from later, when he wrote the First Amendment in 1789.

One year after penning the First Amendment, Madison's principles got put to the test while he was serving in the House of Representatives. In December 1790, the House was debating who should serve in the federal militia when it received a petition from the Quakers, who asked to be exempt from military service on the ground that "all revenge, animosity, strife, and contention are utterly forbidden by Christ our Lord." Many Congressmen denounced the Quakers' request as unpatriotic and dangerous, but Madison took to the floor to say that they should be granted an exemption.

According to Madison, each of us has a fundamental natural right to our religious beliefs and practices, which can never be taken away or given up. This freedom includes the right to form and communicate our beliefs – and to practice them unless those practices harm "the rights of other citizens" or "the permanent and aggregate interests of the community," as Madison put it in Federalist 10.

Looking at the Quakers' request, Madison admitted that there were arguments on both sides, but he concluded that Congress should grant the exemption because it was necessary to protect the Quakers' religious freedom, and would not harm other citizens' rights nor undermine America's interest in a functioning militia. He knew that even if the Quakers did not serve in the militia, other citizens would do their "honorable duty"; and he understood that "by penalties we may oppress the Quakers, but by no means hitherto discovered, can you make them undertake the defense of this nation." They would go to jail rather than go against their conscience, which would not help anyone. Despite Madison's appeal, the Quakers did not get their exception. Congress voted to leave the matter to the states.

But Madison got the principle right, and we can apply it to our day. Consider the recent contraception controversy. Exempting religious organizations from providing contraception coverage protects their freedom and would not violate anyone's rights:  employees would still be free to buy and use contraceptives, just like people who are free to purchase other health care goods that aren't covered by their particular insurance plans.

Nor would an exemption hurt the "permanent and aggregate interests of the community." The health care system would not be harmed. Hawaii, for example, already permits religious employers to enroll workers in a plan with a reduced premium, and allows employees who want contraception to pay for the coverage out of their own pocket. Health care has not suffered in Hawaii, and those who want insurance coverage for contraceptives can have it.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration did not originally approach this issue with such principles in mind. Even the recent "accommodation" may not be enough. If Congress needs to respond with a law, it should.  The issue is simply too important. As Madison reminded his fellow Congressmen in 1790, religious liberty must have the full protection it deserves, especially in America, because "above all it is the particular glory of this country, to have secured the rights of conscience which in other nations are least understood or most strangely violated." His words are as true today as when he spoke them.

Ohio Farmer

Prosperity and Freedom

To the Members of the 112^th Congress:

In the past few years, America's best minds have said about everything they could conceivably think of saying about the state of the economy.  But they don't seem to have achieved a meeting of the minds, and the economy still has a mind of its own, so maybe a few words can still profitably be said on the subject—in particular, about the relation of the economy to America's national security. What is the relation of our prosperity to our freedom?

In a speech he gave at West Point a couple of springs ago, the President said, "[A]t no time in human history has a nation of diminished economic vitality maintained its military and political primacy." There is an immediate surface plausibility in the President's words. It is clear, we say to ourselves, that economic prosperity is essential to the military strength that secures our freedom as a country. Whatever enhances America's commercial, financial, and industrial power increases its military potential.  

And the converse seems true, as well. We are pleased to hear the President's eagerness to maintain America's "political primacy," and to hear the realism with which he recognizes that this will depend on our military primacy. Military strength, we say to ourselves, is as essential to economic prosperity as it is to political primacy.  There can be no production without security; prosperity is the gift of freedom. Ninety-five percent of America's foreign trade, for example, comes and goes across the seas. We depend on the United States Navy to ensure the freedom of the seas that enables our maritime commerce and reciprocal trade to flourish. Because of this, the fact that we now have the smallest navy America has deployed in almost a century is a matter of concern, as is the President's apparent determination—shared with leaders in both parties—to continue to reduce American military power in general.

Many reasons are given for this bipartisan determination to reduce military expenditures. One of them has particularly to do with our theme of economics and military power. It is that America's security commitments have outstripped available economic resources—a mismatch between capabilities and commitments we understand some of the experts call "imperial overstretch." Some even suggest that this is what ails the American economy: that its fiscal problems arise from excessive spending on defense. Nonsense—if you will forgive our candor.

Cutting the entire budget for the Department of Defense would have little impact on the budget deficit and ultimately the national debt. We currently spend about 4.6 percent of America's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defense. Operational war costs are less than one percent of GDP. By 1945, at the end of World War II, America was spending almost 40 percent of GDP on defense. In peacetime over the past 60 years Americans spent on average 5.7 percent of GDP on defense. On the other side of the ledger, for all our economic woes, in 2007, America's GDP was $14.061 trillion; in 2010 it had increased to $14.870 trillion (not adjusted for inflation).

To give you some perspective on economic woes, in 1929, GDP was $103 billion; in 1933, it was $55 billion—a decline of 46 percent. The country's economy continued in the doldrums throughout the '30s, averaging a GDP of $77.5 billion, which is why the plausibility of the President's West Point remarks remains on the surface only. A nation whose "economic vitality" had been "diminished" more profoundly than at any time in its history immediately went on to fight and win the greatest war in history, preparing the way for the longest, most widely spread era of prosperity the country or the world has ever known. So there are some mysteries in the relationship between prosperity and freedom.

There is another way in which such reasoning is nonsense. The national debt that we are used to talking about is incommensurate with another much more important national debt. This is a debt by which we are ennobled and which we can never adequately repay. It is the debt each of us, enjoying the blessings of freedom each day, owes to those whose names we do not even know, who, from Valley Forge, to the beaches of Normandy, to the streets of Baghdad, offered and gave—and continue to offer and to give—the last full measure of devotion so that we can enjoy these blessings.

We can see how these two different national debts are incommensurate when we reflect that what we spend on national defense is in some ways entirely independent of economic considerations. The cost of providing for a successful defense of the country, no matter how high, will always pale in comparison with the loss of freedom, and all that comes with it, that is the cost of defeat. By the end of WWII, Americans were spending 86 percent of the federal budget on defense—perfectly sensibly.

Of course, we quite reasonably have never wanted to throw money at the military. But today, and in the days to come, we hope our elected representatives will not hesitate to say in public that Americans will be ashamed not to spend every cent necessary to equip their soldiers with ample—and even redundant—means to achieve victory with the least possible loss. If these expenditures should ever require us to be more self reliant at home and less dependent on this or that government assistance, remind us in cheerful tones that we should be grateful.  We should be grateful for the benefit to our characters and proud to share in our small way in the sacrifices of prosperity that may sometimes be necessary to preserve our freedom. And, who knows? In the mystery of human events, those very sacrifices, reminding us as they do that we are free people able to stand on our own two feet as Americans always have, may be one of the most important conditions for increasing both our prosperity and our freedom, down the road.

Ohio Farmer

Constitutional Lines

To the Members of the 112^th Congress:

We have observed in these letters that the recent debt ceiling debate reflected deep divisions in Washington, D.C., but that those divisions, in turn, reflected the citizenry’s ambivalence about how big government should be, how much it should do, and how much it should tax, borrow, and regulate.  The first phase of the debt ceiling debate ended with legislation to raise the nation's legal borrowing authority by $900 billion and to cut planned federal spending over the next decade by a little more than that amount.  Thus, Congress and the president achieved Speaker of the House John Boehner's goal to match any debt ceiling increase, at least dollar-for-dollar, by deficit reductions.

The legislation also sets in motion a second phase, where a "super committee" of six members of the House of Representatives (three from each party) and six senators (also three from each party) will endeavor to reduce the nation's deficit spending over the next ten years by a further $1.5 trillion.  If the committee agrees on a plan by November 23, 2011, Congress approves it in an up-or-down vote without the possibility of offering amendments by December 23, 2011, and the president signs it, the debt ceiling will be increased by $1.5 trillion.  If the committee can't agree on a plan, or submits one the Congress votes down or the president vetoes, the debt ceiling will be increased by $1.2 trillion, and automatic reductions of federal spending by the same amount over the next decade will take effect – spending cuts evenly divided between discretionary domestic programs and national defense spending.

It is remarkable that, three years after the Democrats' across-the-board victories in the 2008 elections, deficit reduction has become the top item on the national political agenda.  The most important cause of this change in the political weather is the emergence of the Tea Party movement, which took shape in 2009 and propelled Republican gains in the elections of 2010.  That movement remains disparate – it has no headquarters, no single leader, and no agreed upon platform.  Yet some core ideas do connect all of the Tea Party's factions and actions. One friendly observer described the Tea Party essence as "populist constitutionalism," since its "divergent groups agree that the federal government has, over the last several decades, stepped further and further outside of the bounds of the Constitution."  Some of the movement's prominent figures describe themselves as "constitutional conservatives."

The endeavor to re-establish limits to the government's sphere of action and authority is highly laudable, and fully consistent with the logic and spirit of the American founding.  That undertaking will, however, be an intellectual challenge.  Reasonable patriots may disagree about the location of the line the authors of the Constitution drew separating what the government may do from what it must not do.  They may disagree, as well, about whether the logic of the Constitution countenances informal adjustments to the location of the government's boundaries over time, or demands formal adjustments only, using one of the procedures for amending the Constitution specified in its fifth article. 

For example, the power of Congress to declare war, specified in Article I, has fallen into disuse.  America hasn't declared war against any nation since 1941, yet has been involved in a number of wars over the past 70 years, some of them large and prolonged.  Does constitutional conservatism, rightly understood, entail retroactively designating all of these wars – including Korea, Vietnam, Operation Desert Storm, Iraq, and Afghanistan – illegitimate for never having been formally declared?  If so, then either Congress must declare war to authorize future martial actions, or the nation must amend the Constitution to give explicit legitimacy to the kinds of authorizations Congress has come to rely on, such as the Tonkin Gulf resolution that was the legal basis for the war in Vietnam.  If not, then resolutions and authorizations that fall short of formal declarations of war have acquired a de facto constitutionality: They aren’t mentioned in the Constitution, seem not to have been envisioned or favored by the Constitution’s authors, have not been the subject of any constitutional amendment, yet have gained acceptance as the way the federal government arrives at decisions about military actions.

The fact that there are disputes about the location of the line between what the government may and may not do, and about whether that line is bright and tight, or wide with shades of gray, does not invalidate the constitutional conservative argument that erasing any such line renders America a very different kind of republic.  James Q. Wilson, one of the preeminent American political scientists of the last half century, helps us understand this. The ultimate meaning of the triumph of the New Deal, according to him, is the collapse of the "legitimacy barrier."  Since its fall, he argued, "political conflict [has taken] a very different form.  New programs need not await the advent of a crisis or an extraordinary majority, because no program is any longer 'new'—it is seen, rather, as an extension, a modification, or an enlargement of something the government is already doing.  Since there is virtually nothing the government has not tried to do, there is little it cannot be asked to do."

The correct label for the alternative to limited government is not big government, but unlimited government.  The destruction of all legitimacy barriers creates a new constitutional logic in which government grows, not just very big, but limitlessly big.  All the forces – political, economic, and judicial – that might constrain it are rendered ineffectual.

This deformation of our republic has gone on so long, and acquired so much inertial strength, that the Tea Party movement's mission is politically as well as intellectually audacious.  We have had occasion to note in these letters Abraham Lincoln's argument that "public sentiment is everything" in American democracy: "With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed.  Consequently, he who molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions.  He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed."

The ultimate goal of constitutional conservatism is to mold public sentiment into a broad, durable consensus in favor of rebuilding legitimacy barriers in American government.  This is not a task that will be accomplished by one legislative fight over the debt ceiling, or in one or two election cycles.  Conservatives, constitutional and otherwise, sometimes speak as though the establishment and perpetuation of the New Deal is the result of some kind of coup d'état.  The fact is, we have this bloated government because we, the people, have shown our favor to the expansion of government's activities far more reliably than to their contraction.  The success of constitutional conservatism will depend on exercising the statesmanship that carefully leads the people to set aside their acquired tolerance for a government that purports to have a program for every problem, and rediscover their older apprehensions that any government strong enough to give you anything you want is also strong enough to take away anything you have.

Ohio Farmer

In Search of Monsters

To the Members of the 112^th Congress:

"Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States." This is the first sentence in President Obama's recently issued Presidential Study Directive on Mass Atrocities.  Is it true?

It seems that there have always been, and until human nature changes there will always be, monstrous tyrants in the world doing monstrous things to anyone they can get in the grip of their claws. Whole nations seem capable of becoming bloodthirsty mobs.  Some rather nasty tyrants have been in the headlines lately.  Presumably Americans, who don’t like tyranny of any degree and who began our progress in the world proclaiming the natural right to overthrow tyrants, are especially opposed to tyranny that is atrocious and genocidal.  We could probably get 100% of sane Americans to agree that it is desirable to prevent it. But does this make preventing it a "core national security interest" and a "core moral responsibility" of the country?  

If men were angels there would be no atrocities to trouble us, but until men become angels, to implement this Directive will require endless American intervention across the sinful and suffering world.  America would have to become the "universal landlord," to use a colorful Shakespearean phrase, and this would be neither morally desirable nor strategically feasible, even assuming we were determined to exert all our means to this end.  If—unmindful of these moral and strategic truths—we actually meant what we say in the Directive, we would need urgently and radically to increase American spending on our armed forces.  We are certainly not going to do that. To the contrary, the President and his entire administration have taken pains to make clear that they intend to reduce American military power.  The President issued the Directive at the very time when he was emphatically making known his willingness to cut American defense spending drastically as part of his domestic negotiations over the debt ceiling. So, we do not mean what we say in this Directive, and everyone can see that. America is announcing its obligation to intervene to prevent evil in the world at the very same time that it is diminishing its ability to do anything about it. This is not "moral responsibility" but the height of moral irresponsibility.  It is moralistic boastfulness.

Given America's deteriorating defense posture, the President's Directive seems perfectly calculated to achieve moral bankruptcy in the eyes of the world to complement our actual bankruptcy at home.  From the victims of tyrants and their sympathizers it will bring resentment as they see us giving mere lip service to our moralistic commitment. From the tyrants—who are not in the habit of paying heed to weakness—it will bring increasing contempt for our boastful limp-wristed moralizing that speaks loudly and carries no stick.  

The President’s Directive also represents a further subordination of American foreign policy to the dictates of international institutions, especially the United Nations.  There is nothing morally responsible about submitting America's actions in the world to the judgment of this body.  Many of its influential members are the very tyrannies committing the atrocities the President wants to make pronouncements about.

There is an old saying about the world of nations. In that world, "the strong do what they will; the weak suffer what they must." This is not a cynical principle, but a candid observation of the facts. It is an expression of moral and strategic modesty. When you are weak, you are in no position to prevent injustices in the world, even injustices to yourself. If America wants to do any good in the world, for itself or anyone else, it is paramount that we be strong. Thus in its infancy, when the United States was weak, George Washington in his famous Farewell Address looked forward to a time when America would be strong enough to have "command of its own fortunes," and when  "we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel."

Within the memory of the older generation in America, the United States became the most powerful nation on earth, and it remains so.  But this is no cause for such boastful and empty pronouncements as the President's Directive. Especially as we recklessly fritter away the strength we have acquired with such effort and good fortune.

If we might more modestly suggest what is "our core moral responsibility," to ourselves and to mankind, we would say as we did in an earlier letter: It is to succeed in our own experiment in freedom. If we can show by the enduring success of our experiment that free government can be good government, this will be the greatest benefit Americans can bestow on their fellow human beings—our own political well being will be a constant act of philanthropy. 

Americans should intervene in the world when intervening enhances the prospects of the American experiment. To commit to more than that betrays America's national security interest and our core moral responsibility to ourselves and our fellow human beings. Much better than the boastful posturing of the President's Directive are the modest words of John Quincy Adams: America "goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all [but]…the champion and vindicator only of her own."  If we vindicate our own freedom by securing it and using it well, it will be, as it has been from the beginning, a blessing and an inspiration to the world. It is as true today as it was when newly elected President Thomas Jefferson said it in his first inaugural: we are "the world's best hope."

Ohio Farmer

The Just Powers of Government

To the Members of the 112^th Congress:

In the last letter, I considered why and how it is that in the American logic of freedom, the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed. In this letter, I am concerned with a current development in our politics that threatens dangerously to remove our government from our consent. If the letter seems painfully burdened with acronyms, please forgive the fact as a vice inseparable from the subject.

Several lawsuits have been filed against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA or "Obamacare") since it was enacted in March 2010.  The ones that have worked their way into the federal court system so far contest the law's "individual mandate," which subjects people to monetary fines if they fail or refuse to enroll in a health insurance policy.  The lawsuits' question, which the court and the people must consider, is whether the legitimate powers of the federal government respect or traduce the inalienable rights of the people by requiring them to buy a financial product from a private vendor.

One lawsuit against PPACA raises a different and equally important question: Does the law violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers?  The Goldwater Institute challenges, specifically, the constitutionality of PPACA's "Independent Payment Advisory Board" (IPAB). The Board is the law's chief mechanism for bending the medical cost curve downward by reducing the growth rate of Medicare outlays to the rate at which the Gross Domestic Product increases, plus one percent.  IPAB's 15 members will be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.  Since it won’t adjust the premiums or deductibles paid by Americans enrolled in Medicare, IPAB's power derives from its mandate to set the rates at which Medicare reimburses doctors for the various services or procedures they perform.

IPAB's power is buttressed by PPACA's extraordinary protections for it, whose constitutionality is at issue.  Even though IPAB is an executive branch agency, its "legislative proposals" – the PPACA uses the term repeatedly – become law unless Congress passes a bill that cuts medical spending by an amount equal to the IPAB proposal. They become law, that is, if Congress does nothing.  If Congress tries to do something, its alternative can prevail over the IPAB proposal only if the former garners a three-fifths majority in the Senate.  The law makes no provision for citizens, such as doctors, to challenge IPAB's determinations administratively or judicially.  Furthermore, PPACA asserts the right to dictate what future Congresses may do, and when: IPAB can only be abolished, according to its provisions, by legislation introduced and enacted between February 1, 2017 and August 15, 2017.  Even if enacted in that small window, the abolition cannot take effect until 2020.

Peter Orszag, President Obama's director of the Office of Management and Budget at the time PPACA was enacted, said, "I believe [IPAB] is the largest yielding of sovereignty from the Congress since the creation of the Federal Reserve."  He was speaking approvingly.  Democratic congressman Pete Stark, who got a 90% rating from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action in 2010, made the same point about IPAB far less fondly, calling it "an unprecedented abrogation of Congressional authority to an unelected, unaccountable body of so-called experts."

In a nation founded upon the principle that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, the decision by Congress to yield so much of its sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable body is really a decision to yield the people's sovereignty for them.  Thus, if PPACA withstands all its challenges in federal courts, an outraged public could elect a ferociously anti-IPAB Congress in 2012 and 2014 – to no avail whatsoever.  The Board remains beyond the voters' reach until after the 2016 elections – and then only for a 6½-month period, after which the door slams shut again, bolted against meddling by mere citizens for the duration of the republic.  

Like most bad ideas, IPAB is the elaboration of a less bad idea.  Its predecessors include such bodies as the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, which drew up lists of military bases for the Pentagon to close, lists that Congress could accept or reject in their entirety, but could not add to or subtract from.  If Congress did nothing, the BRAC proposal was enacted. 

"Stop us before we pander again," seems to be the legislative principle embedded in these commissions.   Or do you think that is an unfair assessment?  It seems to me that when Congress voluntarily surrenders some of its legislative power to a commission, it is admitting that rendering good government as good politics is too daunting and risky.  Wise and judicious policies, you seem to be saying, might prove to be too hard to explain to the voters; or they might be criticized by a political opponent in a 30-second television ad.  Better, then, to leave the tough calls to commissioners who derive their powers from the consent of the governed in arcane, impenetrable ways.  

Once entrenched, it is doubtful that government of the people by the commissions will ever be dislodged.  The threat comes not only from the prospect that the commissioners' power will tend to corrupt them, but from the citizenry's passive acquiescence in the attenuation of their own sovereignty.  At the heart of the American experiment is the belief that democratic government can also be good government.  If it turns out that only philosopher-kings, benevolent dictators, or unaccountable experts can provide good government, the experiment will have failed. 

IPAB, then, is not just outrageous, it is contemptible.  By out-sourcing its legislative power Congress is saying that it doesn't trust the people to make wise decisions, and doesn't trust itself to explain such decisions to them.  If IPAB stands unchallenged, the American polity will have suffered a grievous blow.

Ohio Farmer