The above picture accompanied an opinion column that appeared in the San Jose Mercury News on Sunday, February 2, 2025. The column was authored by Jeff Smith, who is described as "a lawyer and medical doctor." We are also informed that Smith retired in 2023, after serving for fourteen years as County Executive of Santa Clara County.
The title on Smith's column was this: "Empire In Decline: Americans Have Lost Faith In United System Of Governance." That is a serious assertion. I have reproduced the entirety of the column at the bottom of this blog post, so those reading this blog posting can truly appreciate the implications of what Smith is claiming.
Do let me say that Smith makes no assertion that the picture above should be seen as a group portrait of people who are gathered together in some governmental building to assert their loss of faith in our government. In fact, while the photo is not identified, it appears to me to be a picture of the United States House of Representatives - and maybe Senators are present, too.
I was, I must say, stunned by Smith's column in The Mercury News. It was Smith's use of the "past tense" that got me! While Smith holds out a "riduculously small" amount of "hope" for our nation, that smidgen of hope that Smith says we have is absolutely inconsistent with his use of the past tense.
If we have "lost" faith (past tense) and if our system of government has truly "failed" (past tense), then our opportunity to have the kind of government that Smith wants us to have (and that we all want to have) is no longer an option.
Smith either (1) doesn't really believe that the past tense is being correctly applied in his column (and is using the past tense, presumably, for rhetorical purposes); or (2) Smith is simply unable or unwilling to face the implications of his own analysis. If our system of government has truly "failed," as he asserts, then the efforts that began in 1776 are now complete. The final report is in, and we have definitively "failed" to establish and sustain a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people," which is how President Abraham Lincoln described what our government was all about. Indeed, Smith claims that our nation "failed" a long time ago.
Looking at the news reported in the same edition of the newspaper in which Smith's column ran, it is pretty clear to me that those who have taken control of the Executive Branch of our government, thanks to the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, are acting like the "we failed" analysis is the correct one. As I say, this is really a serious issue - and stipulating to the "we failed" analysis means it's "Game Over" for self-government in the United States of America.
Before saying more about our alleged "failure," let me move on to the "lost faith" assertion. Smith asserts that it is a "fact" that the American people, collectively, no longer have any faith that we have a government that is, to repeat Lincoln's wonderful phrasing, "of the people, by the people, and for the people." In fact, Smith claims that no one believes that such a government is even possible.
You can check back to my recent blog posting featuring the music of Leonard Cohen, in which his lyrics proclaim that "everybody knows that the fight is fixed; the poor stay poor and the rich get rich." Smith absolutely agrees with these lyrics, and he doesn't suggest that we could ever sing a different song. "Everybody knows. That just how it goes."
Smith uses a strange phrase in making his argument that our government experiment has "failed," and that we have "lost faith" in the idea that democratic self-government is even possible. Smith claims that this "failure" and "loss of faith" diagnosis is correct because we do not have a "united system of governance." That's the strange phrase I am talking about. What does Smith mean by a "united system of governance"? As I read his column, he seems to mean that we don't have a situation in which everyone agrees that rich White males and other wealthy people should relinquish some of their wealth, power and privilege to benefit society as a whole. "That is not going to happen," Smith states.
Well, to use a technical term: DUH!
Since when have we ever thought that our system of government was based on consensus, on the idea that everyone will be "united" in agreement? In fact, our politics and government is based on the opposite idea, and on the recognition that people profoundly disagree on just about everything. Our system is supposed to get those who disagree to make decisions that a majority can "accept." That happens only when those who are dissatisfied with the current situation build their political power. (Hint: you have to get personally engaged if you want that to happen). Given that Smith appears to think that we must have a "united" government, in which people would agree on what he says they will never agree on, it is hard to understand where Smith thinks that "ridiculously small" window of opportunity might come from. If Smith is right about needing a "united" system of governance, you can board over that window of opportunity right now.
Let's think about how radical Smith's claims actually are. Smith is basically saying that what most people call "democracy" has "failed" in the United States (not that it is "imperiled," or "in danger," but that it has "failed," and that we have, moreover, "lost faith" that it can ever be restored (although Smith does note that "revolution" may be an available option, which doesn't sound too attractive to me, if he means that I should find a gun and start killing those rich people with whom I am in disagreement).
When impossibilty is the premise - which is exactly the case with Smith - nothing can be done. If Smith is speaking as a "spectator," then his predictions of failure may be correct, but when he opines that all of our possibilities are in "the past," and when he talks like "it's all over," then we know that he has missed the truth of our real situation.
In reality, we are facing real, and dangerous, and daunting obstacles to creating the kind of society and government we'd like to make work for "we, the people." That's true. That's the "present tense." As for the future, our actions now will determine how the future turns out.
Would you like to sit around and feel defeated? Read Jeff Smith!
Would you like to do something about what you don't like, and what needs to be changed? That requires action - and there isn't going to be any action, or any "resistance," if we have truly "lost faith" and stipulate to the fact that we have "failed" in the never-ending challenge of self-government!
Find a small group of friends to support you, people whom you can support, too, and then get to work!
PS: You will have to reallocate how you use your time!
oooOOOooo
Jeff Smith: We have lost faith in our united system of governance
Bay Area leader says the ‘great American experiment in government’ has failed, and we have been in denial for years
We Americans have a huge problem that we do not want to face directly.
We have lost faith in our united system of governance. Only 64% of eligible adults voted in the 2024 presidential election and far fewer vote in gubernatorial elections. A large group of Americans do not believe it matters who is in office or what happens in government.
Even those who vote often make decisions based upon scant or misleading information. In the modern era, “alternative facts” are a shield against reality. Denial is an enormously powerful tool that allows us to avoid any individual responsibility for our situation. The kernel of truth that we do not want to face is that the failure of our nation is our fault.
The “great American experiment in government” failed long ago, and we have been in denial about that for many years.
Why did we fail? Can it be fixed? Should we just start over? I believe the answers to these questions are simple and everyone knows the truth deep down.The answer to the “why” question starts with our founding documents. What the Founding Fathers meant by “all men are created equal” and “endowed … with certain unalienable Rights,” is not what it sounds like today. To them “all men” meant rich, White male property owners — not women, not people of color, not those without property, and certainly not poor people, slaves or Indigenous people.
From the start, our country has struggled to make sense of the inherent conflict between language, practice and intent. Racism, xenophobia, misogyny and unchecked avarice are built into our society and our laws. Indeed, the history of the United States is understood best as a series of conflicts about these very issues. We failed because we have never honestly resolved these conflicts.
Should we burn it down and start a new plutocracy? The answer is also obvious.
We are doing that right now! Many powerful empires/countries have come and gone. Very few lasted more than 350 years. Essentially all failed when the disparity of wealth and opportunity among the citizens became so massive that most felt that revolution was their only practical choice.
The United States is remarkably close to that point now. In fact, we may have already passed it. The nation’s 800 billionaires hold more wealth than half the nation. Those at the bottom have been starved of the opportunity to succeed, and many of them are women, people of color, and stuck in generational poverty created by the wealthy who control government. Remembering Lincoln’s famous quote, “a house divided cannot stand.”? We are there.
Can it be “fixed”? No! Not with the current structure. Fixing the current system would require that rich, White males and others relinquish some of their wealth, power and privilege. That is not going to happen since the system protects them. The only peaceful way to change the entire system requires the participation of all citizens. The privileged class must accept the fact that their behavior is bad for everyone, including themselves.
Is there hope? Yes, but the window of opportunity for change is ridiculously small. The entire world knows that the U in USA is a fantasy. Will we admit it to ourselves and take the action necessary to honestly call ourselves united? I do not know [emphasis added].
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment!