Each political party also constitutes a system.  Each political party system has its exclusive objectives, components, culture, operating procedures, maintenance procedures, sensors, control systems, feedback mechanisms, and criteria for success.  Since the two dominant political parties are in competition for governmental powers, they necessarily and constantly engage their resources in political warfare with each other.  When the two opposing political systems approach an election, each searches desperately for any tactic that will give it an edge.  Nothing the other side says or does is right; nothing that our side says or does is wrong.

Although the political process nauseates the voters, the democratic process requires the voters to decide which party should have power.  Many voters are ill prepared for this decision, so candidates can win (or lose) elections because of how they look or because of personality differences.  Photogenic handsomeness or beauty can get extra votes.  Name recognition and advertising money can get extra votes.  False promises to special interest groups and even blatant lies can get votes. Knowledge, experience, and fundamental character issues play a secondary role in the decision making process for many voters.

Successful politicians know these simple truths and take full advantage of them.  More qualified (i.e., probably better for the interests of the country and the people) but unsuccessful politicians may also know the ropes, but their integrity often gets in the way.  Thus, scoundrels or professional politicians can easily capture governmental power in a democracy.  As a result of voter default, the essential qualifications for office are simply too low to ensure the election of capable and honorable people.

Voters default to scoundrels often because of a lack of time to collect, understand, and weigh each candidate’s credentials and his or her true views on key issues.  In an increasingly technical society, voter limitations and the resulting defaults are likely to get worse.  Rather than proactively selecting the right people for office in the first place, the voters will do what they have done in the past.  They will wait for adverse feedback to develop (consequences) that affects them personally, and then they will vote against the incumbent.  This reactive approach to voting often results in putting another professional politician in power, qualified or not.

The political process has gotten so bad that capable, respected, and honest people will not even seek office, as evidenced by General Colin Powell’s decision not to run for president.  He said he had inadequate “fire in the stomach,” needed to maneuver the political election gauntlet.  This decision, by someone who might already have a majority of the voters in his pocket, says a lot about the current nature of the U. S. political system.

To facilitate voter ability to choose good people, and to encourage good people to seek elective office, the time has come to raise the standard for political office.  To raise the political standard properly, we must first understand where our political system comes from and what its functional objectives ought to be.  If we do this review in a semi-technical context, the review will result in a better understanding of how the modern technological environment should interface with the political system.  With this better understanding comes a natural approach to raising voter and political standards.

To make sense out of any political system, especially democracies such as the United States, we must first establish a frame of reference from which to inspect and assess that political system.  Even if we can make sense out of it, we may not like it as it operates currently.  We also may not be able to fix what we do not like about it, but we should keep trying to do so.  The U. S. political system touches everything, so it is appropriate to begin with it.

Democracies encourage the creation of at least two strong political parties that are almost guaranteed to be polarized and, thus, squabble over every issue in which an advantage with the voters might be gained.  The U. S. political system is a relatively volatile subsystem of the U. S. Constitution, which is (fortunately) a very stable system.  As a shorthand in this first chapter, I apply the word “politics” (and its variations) when I am referring to the more controversial and rapidly changing aspects of the U. S. government and the associated constitutional processes.  I use the “constitution” (and its variations) when referring to the more stable and documented underpinnings of those governmental operations.

After dealing with the political and constitutional issues and their relationships, it will be a lot easier to go on to government issues.  The actual performance of governmental institutions is not the same as its underlying politics and its constitutional framework, although they all have many connecting interfaces and operational similarities.  Government results from constitutional guidelines and from politics, but they are three different systems.  Before addressing modern governmental issues in terms of systems and common sense, it is useful to review their constitutional and political framework.

Thus, we turn first to the basis for the current U. S. political system, the U. S. Constitution.  It is useful to start a book that focuses on common sense by reviewing colonial and Founding Father perspectives because they used the need for common sense in government to promote support for the Declaration of Independence.  Thus, they created an atmosphere of common sense that was important in the statesman-like creation of the U. S. Constitution and, also, contributed to the environment in which the U. S. political system was born.  Also, there is nothing like placing one’s life on the line to promote clear thinking, so most people consider this creative process to have produced a good constitutional environment for that operation.

It was their objective to lay the foundation for a new type of government.  It was their hope that we would be able to continue to build on that foundation in a manner that would sustain the highly respected concepts of human rights, self determination, and freedom.  From our perspective, we ascribe significant respect to our constitutional forefathers for their wisdom in laying the foundation, although we argue quite a bit about what their original intentions were and were not.  Their intentions are most often brought out to make a point in modern arguments, supposing that our highly revered predecessors would have known what to do in today’s circumstances.  We suppose that they are somehow conveying their all-knowing guidance to us through the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers.  If things had not changed so much in the last two hundred years, our suppositions about their forward-looking sageness would be more valid.

While we might muse over what the great revolutionary leaders would think about some of our current government problems, we will never know.  It is also clear that we should solve our own problems, without unduly burdening the Founding Fathers’ spirits with the responsibility of contributing to the answers.  They provided us the necessary constitutional tools to find our own answers, something that requires an increasingly complex process to be successful.

The Guru of Common Sense
Most of us learned about Thomas Paine while we were in school.  Unfortunately, these days his contributions are passed over very lightly, such that we barely are able to connect his name with the concept of common sense.  Thomas Paine was one of the key heroes from the American Revolution.  Tom became famous as a result of writing Common Sense, which was a bold precursor to the development of the Declaration of Independence.  Common Sense was originally published in January of 1776, about six months before the Declaration of Independence.  Tom had an ability to describe the different sides of controversial issues in a manner that exposed nonsense.

Thomas Paine was a good writer, and his logic was unfettered by any significant issues related to technology.  He lived in relatively simple times.  Tom’s ideas and passion inspired many colonists to support the movement for independence from Britain.  He stimulated the population to support independence from England and set the tone for the Declaration of Independence.  Due to style similarities between that document and Tom’s pamphlet Common Sense, there are some scholars who believe Tom penned the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, providing the style and key phrases to Thomas Jefferson.

His ideas are further embodied in the U. S. Constitution, although he did not help to write that document.  His ideas on the fundamental rights of man and the need for subservience of government provided a broad foundation for a democratic, yet representative constitutional approach to resolving disputes and managing an independent country.  The intervening reinforcement afforded by the Revolutionary War, firmly connected the Declaration of Independence to the U. S. Constitution.  Thus, the U. S. Constitution was created in an atmosphere charged with the principles of common sense, ensuring close attention to human rights and to ensuring that the federal government is responsive to representatives from the states and, thus, to the citizens’ interests as expressed through those representatives.

Although possibly deserving more recognition than he received, Thomas Paine held the respect of many of his contemporaries as a powerful influencer of the colonial decision to choose independence from (rather than reconciliation with) England.  In achieving this respect and influence, Tom began his Common Sense logic with the fundamentals of nature.  Thus, his logic was difficult to attack.

The colonists that formed Thomas Paine’s audience did have a significant advantage over their modern counterparts.  The colonists’ advantage over us was that they not only had more common sense, they had to exercise it frequently simply to survive.  Those that didn’t, didn’t.  Colonial leaders were quickly challenged and ridiculed when they displayed a lack of common sense.

Modern leaders can more easily rely on emotion overwhelming common sense.  Reliance on emotion allows modern leaders to ignore the fundamentals that formed Thomas Paine’s notions of individual human rights and common sense in government.  Thus, modern dialog on right-and-wrong often involves emotion at the expense of common sense.  Yet, without a foundation in common sense, emotion seldom becomes passion.

The content and tone of the Declaration of Independence were largely derived from Thomas Paine’s writings in Common Sense.  Tom had a talent for reducing the complex issues and passions of the American colonists to their fundamentals, describing the root causes of problems and putting things into perspective.  He reminds me of Rush Limbaugh.

Thomas Paine, the Colonial Rush Limbaugh
Tom’s clarity and no-nonsense approach to issues galvanized each reader’s self-confidence and increased reliance on common sense.  Common sense was an essential element needed to motivate the colonists to seek independence from the King of England and from the English Parliament.  People realized that they could think for themselves.  They did not have to rely on others to support them, so they certainly did not have to rely on others to think for them.

Thomas Paine was the Rush Limbaugh of the American Colonies, although he did not have to resort to extreme modes of entertainment and to exaggeration to captivate an audience and to make his points.  Tom did have an ability to identify and express what many colonists felt, and his approach and style were unprecedented.  Like Rush, Tom had faith in the people and their ability to sort things out logically when presented with the relevant information.  Such logic attacks unwarranted assumptions and changes how people view the fundamental characteristics of their society.

There are other interesting similarities between Tom and Rush.  Urged on by Tom, colonists viewed the 18th century European forms of government as often allowing robbers and murderers to go unpunished.  Justice was frequently not served well under kings, queens, and dictators.  Oppressive governments were the problem, not the solution.  With a few changes in terminology, Tom’s writings could be Rush’s.  Rush goes into a lot more detail in his books about the early settlers of this country, supporting his fundamental and constant adherence to the principle of individual responsibility and the need to control the federal government.

Similar to Rush Limbaugh’s current attacks on big government, Thomas Paine complained of the royal appointment of a multitude of bureaucrats to harass the colonists and take away their wealth.  He coaxed the colonists to take the action needed to fix government problems, pointing out that failure to do so would mean that they deserved the harassment and loss of wealth.  Unlike today, the citizens of the colonists were communication starved and hungry for information.  They had enough common sense of their own to read, sort out, and understand the facts of a situation even without a persistent, persuasive, and clever spokesman.

Would Thomas Paine agree with and be proud of Rush Limbaugh?  Probably.  After all, common sense is a proven, effective tool for tearing down modern forms of governmental nonsense, the stuff of the last 30 or so years.  Tom had the advantage over Rush because he only had to promote independence to get all or most of his concerns resolved.  Rush, in contrast, is faced with much more complex issues.  He is fortunate because he is not really expected to provide any details about how to  improve things, although he is quick to assert the need for common sense and reliance on fundamental principles.  Thomas Paine also focused on fundamental principles, but he lived in simpler times.

Tom and Rush must be classified as a form of whistleblower, those that are able to be effective even without inside knowledge.  Their effectiveness springs from common sense, as enhanced by their communication clarity gifts.  Paine’s relatively direct approach was adequate to help light the fire of independence.  A keen focus on common sense helped spur the colonists to support the type of self government reflected in the Constitution.  Perhaps Rush Limbaugh’s modern efforts to do the same will help return the United States to common sense fundamentals and a feeling of self confidence in the validity of those fundamentals.

Rush Limbaugh:  A Modern Thomas Paine
We can only speculate whether the Paine/Limbaugh approach also resulted in motivating the colonial citizenry to a heightened level of self confidence in their own abilities, but this approach seems to be very effective today, as used by Rush Limbaugh.  People are starting to think more critically, but they continue to flock to their modern common sense guru for guidance on which way to go.  Rush constantly generates different perspectives than those presented in the news media, providing his polarized (and thus balancing) arguments for his audience’s consumption.

Rush has the resources needed to produce a weekday television and radio barrage that conforms to modern communication techniques and the average citizen’s need to be entertained while being enlightened.  The need for entertainment complements the need for thematic repetition of conservative principles, countering the more liberal assumptions and themes expressed daily by his opponents.  Rush is placing a system of constitutional principles and Founding Father intent up against political and social systems that have neglected those principles and that intent except when they serve to promote their own systems of power control and wealth redistribution.

Rush pontificates on fundamental ideas in a relatively superficial manner, although not unlike the approach taken by Thomas Paine.  In contrast to colonial days, Rush is providing his views in a more challenging era of significant social, political, and technical complexity.  Yet, criticisms that are based even superficially on common sense are superior to those that have no common sense basis at all.  Stated from a broader perspective, whatever motivates a modern political or government decision, if common sense is not part of that motivation, the decision is vulnerable even to superficial attacks.  No detailed knowledge of a subject is needed to attack a decision if it fails to meet common sense tests.  However, fixing it or addressing the original problem that motivated the decision is much more difficult.

While Rush Limbaugh also is creating a common sense framework for future action, it is relatively easy to carp at others from the sidelines, albeit with biting and accurate common sense.  It is quite another matter to come up with the details of the future actions needed to make significant improvements, organizing those actions into a plan such that they are not subject to common sense carping from the sidelines.  The ongoing need to apply common sense in today’s world is certainly still there, just as it was in colonial days.  It is now much more difficult.

Applying common sense within the framework of a systematic approach seems like an obvious concept, but it is probably a lot more difficult than might be inferred by Rush Limbaugh’s merciless ridicule of liberals.  The problem is that polarized thinking (i.e., right and wrong, up and down, or left and right) attempts to deal with issues on an all-or-nothing basis.  Polarized advocates can increase confusion and can produce disorderly and inaccurate results.  Polarized advocates can be viewed as components in opposing systems, each having different principles and objectives.  The two polarized systems can exist without creating or being part of a system capable of solving the problem.

When faced with opposing, polarized advocate systems, we often need a jury to decide guilt or innocence, based on what are often radically polarized approaches of the prosecuting and defending attorneys.  Although prosecutors are supposed to seek the truth, they are at a disadvantage relative to defense attorneys, who need not seek the truth and who are free to polarize their side of a trial in any manner that works with the jury.  The jury selection process polarizes the jury, allowing jurors to be screened by polarized attorneys.

Beyond Limbaugh
Let us assume that the United States becomes totally conservative and that liberalism is responsible for all the bad stuff Rush attributes to them.  After eliminating all the misguided liberal social programs (returning to self reliance and self sufficiency), how do we then optimize our social, commercial, educational, and government systems in this increasingly competitive world?  How will things have changed such that we will not drift back into our state of uncoordinated and ill founded social anarchy?

The answer may, in part, be found in expanding our common sense way of thinking such that some of the topical complexities and details are dealt with more systematically.  Applying overlays of technical models on complex issues can help with this expanded thinking, organizing our previously random and happenstance thoughts more systematically.  Even if we simply apply basic system concepts to some of these seemingly complex issues, we can discern where common sense tells us to go.  Understanding everything in terms of systems and the interfaces between systems can be very powerful in bringing clarity to a situation.

While Rush Limbaugh often forces his listeners to think from a different perspective or direction, be has his limits.  Rush’s sense of direction seems to come naturally, but it is also unconstrained by responsibility.  Even his most ardent followers remain unsure as to which way to go on many choices that contain more than two options.  Basic notions that would normally constitute common sense are poorly defined and applied in a complex and technical society.  Everyone is an increasingly narrow specialist, but only a few modern specialists strongly impact a broad segment of society.  The most obvious examples are found in the education field.

For example, school teachers are now educated on a range of educational processes beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic.  Level four educational research often leads to poorly considered and poorly coordinated changes in the educational system.  Parents find it difficult to judge how well the school systems are doing or which school policies make sense and which ones do not, so experimentation in education has been rampant for several decades.

We have suffered through new math, open classrooms, dumbing down, and the banishment of corporal punishment.  Educators have even argued that it is stifling to correct a student’s grammar.  Thus, we get college students and entry-level employees who can not express themselves adequately in writing and who have nothing important to say in any case.  With a little more structure in the form of a systematic approach or technical framework, the ability to challenge educational system nonsense will become easier.  The education system must be interfaced better internally, with business, with technology, with social values, and with crime prevention.

Rush’s more generic combat with liberals can be reflected in the system analogy.  He describes liberals, especially the news media, as portraying conservatives as evil or bad.  Liberals claim that conservatives lack the compassion needed to make life better and easier for everyone.  The news media, as a system, simply thrives more in an atmosphere of constant change.  Almost by definition, a conservative system is one that is well defined, with little or no changes and with no significant risk of making a mistake.  Conservatives are not newsworthy except to the extent that they oppose liberal changes to the status quo.  They become news when they seek to change the status quo.

From Rush’s conservative perspective, liberals are unprincipled big spenders of other people’s money.  To a conservative, if change is undertaken, there is plenty of time for deliberate implementation, feedback, and appropriate corrective actions based on that feedback.  Concurrent changes in multiple areas are to be avoided so that feedback signals from different programs (systems) are not likely to be confused with each other.  Big changes should be tested in well-designed pilot programs.  Positive, overall benefits should be expected and demanded.  Conservatism has a significant head start in its application of common sense from a systematic perspective.  Rush’s ridicule-the-liberals-and-their-media-cohorts job is easy.

The U. S. Constitutional System is Born
One of the permanent legacies of the American colonists and the U. S. Founding Fathers is the U. S. Constitution, as amended.  I am sure that they had no idea what the world would be like at the end of the twentieth century, but they made a major effort to provide a long-lived form of government.  Would they be surprised if they time warped to the present and inspected modern society?  Not at all.  They would, however, be astounded at modern technology.

The Constitution grants 18 specific powers to Congress.  Also, in Article I, Section 9, are a number of things that Congress is not allowed to do.  Some powers are, indeed, specifically denied to Congress.  This means that the federal government can legislate in some areas but not in others.  Most of us would find it difficult to list any significant areas in which the U. S. government has no influence.  Indeed, the federal government is viewed as having preemptive control at a level never intended by the Founding Fathers.

While the Founding Fathers would probably be offended by the modern level of sexual provocation and immodesty, they would wonder at the ability of a federal agency to tell the Hooters restaurant chain that they had to hire men to wait on tables, with additional intrusive and irrelevant controls.  It is no wonder that attitudes are starting to shift away from federal invasiveness-in-the-name-of-equality.

The common sense and realism that promoted independence and that remained at the end of the seven year Revolutionary War provided the focused energy and noble intentions needed to proceed with the creation of a new country.  The historical knowledge of the day revealed what types of government worked and what did not work, what was good for people and what was not good for people.  Assembled in one place, these historical principles provided the raw materials for composing the formal constitutional system verbiage needed to move forward.

A governmental constitution is primarily a system of guidelines and limitations that operate to generate, implement, and enforce laws.  It is meant to provide functional guidelines under which everything that is done within the governmental entity that it establishes (constitutes) systematically supports the goals and principles that underlie that constitution.  Every modern country has some type of constitution, and each represents a system under which everything in the country is supposed to function.  As with anything created by mankind, there are good constitutions and bad constitutions.  There are those that mean something and those that are ignored.  Even good constitutions can be misunderstood and, thus, poorly implemented.

In the United States, the 1787 Constitutional Convention was called to deal with the new government’s cash flow problems by revising the earlier Articles of Confederation constitutional system.  The convention delegates quickly decided that an entirely new document was needed, so they spent the summer being creative.  After the delegates were done writing it, the U. S. Constitution had to be understood by the citizens and approved by the states.

To explain the finer points of its rationale and to facilitate its approval, additional documents, such as The Federalist Papers, were generated.  These additional documents detailed the logic behind the U. S. Constitution, joining many different historical and common sense components into the complex systems and subsystems of a democratic, representative government.  From a systems perspective, we have not only the constitutional structure of the system (the final design documents, as built and as modified), we also have the documented design studies that reflect the functional intent (design basis) of the original system architects for each component, subsystem, and system.  Such backup documents are often referred to for clarification of the original intent of the Founding Fathers, although differing interpretations still result.  It is in the area of different interpretations that the U. S. Constitution digresses somewhat from a well-defined, reproducible system.  Engineers like to remove all ambiguity from their designs.  Words like “assume” and “interpret” are red flags that indicate to engineers that their formal documentation is inadequate.  That is, any engineering document that has to be interpreted is not adequate.

Would you like to have to “interpret” a nuclear power plant safety requirement?  The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) had the managers of all the licensed nuclear power plants in the country go back and redevelop their design documentation, some of which had not been maintained or had been destroyed.  NRC experience with emergent nuclear power plant design problems indicated that nuclear power plant safety could not be ensured without a clear design basis in place for every safety related system.  Even with a completely documented safety basis, we still hear nuclear engineers and managers using the word “interpret.”  The point is that ambiguity is much like cancer.  It can show up in many forms, it is often life threatening, and it does not go away just because we want it to go away.  See Chapter 11, Your Safety System.

Constitutional Perfection
The U. S. Constitution is one of the most elegant systems ever devised by man in that it integrates and balances many diverse subsystems while remaining focused on two primary principles or objectives.  The first of these is that the individual is superior to the government.  The second principle is that government is basically evil and must be under the control of the people and their elected representatives.  When these principles are not maintained, the people have the power to take appropriate action.  Thus, we constantly hear American politicians refer to what is good for the American people rather than what is good for the American government.

While the U. S. Constitution was created in the wake of the Declaration of Independence and the (failed) short-lived Articles of Confederation, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson were not involved.  Nevertheless, the revolutionary spirit of reason and reliance on fundamental common sense are present in the U. S. Constitution and its amendments.
The U. S. Constitution is not perfect, but it created a new form of government that was and is better than most.  Also, it is not the constitutional system itself that causes many of its problems.  Many problems are caused by the operation of that system in a polarized political environment.  The defenders of this polarized political environment may tout the need for such a process, but the process performs in a manner that is less than optimal and in a manner that is often contrary to the general welfare.  Political polarity breeds compromise rather than correct answers.

The operators of the U. S. Constitution include elected and appointed officials, but they also include all the states, a myriad of lesser organizations, and the citizens themselves.  If every citizen were exactly like every other citizen, the country could be easily defined and (most likely) readily governed.  Technically speaking, we could also claim that a country’s constitution includes not only the fundamental citizen as a component, it also includes each individual’s component parts, mental condition, state of health, and basic attitudes.  In fact, each citizen is a component of larger systems, yet each citizen is also a highly complex subsystem, with many interfaces.  With this in mind, it is easy to appreciate the difficult of bringing the full range of constitutional systems into harmony.  Unless everyone is cloned from the same source, it is not possible to make every citizen happy.  The constitutional system is only as good as the collective goodness of its diverse citizen components.  Thus, all we can hope for is system optimization, not perfection.

Constitutional System Design Principles
Although not as complicated as today’s high-tech engineering, understanding the intent of our colonial forefathers in their relatively simple times is probably the key to understanding their words.  Their intent is expressed in simple enough words that indicate a desire to prevent government from telling people how to be properly religious.  The application of that intent is the issue.

Samuel Adams warned that public officials often seek more power than the people intended to give them.  He was right, so we are fortunate that we have as many constitutional safeguards as we do.  It is no mystery these days that there is public discontent because federal government leaders have lost touch with the people and do not respect the citizenry.  Government officials are smart enough to display a politically correct level of respect for citizens, but little value is placed on citizen views that conflict with the views of the officials.

The original constitutional design process is viewed as successful by most of us, especially since it allowed for its own amendment to meet changing needs.  It is viewed as unsuccessful by some people, especially those who have had to struggle to achieve its benefits and to demand fair application to them.  While it was intended to protect the rights of the individual, the functions of the U. S. Constitution were defined and carried out primarily by white European males who were focused on avoiding European types of governmental defects for themselves and for their own posterity.  Moreover, this focus precluded the consideration of the full range of human rights for groups such as women and racial minorities.  The application of constitutional common sense to non-Europeans who increasingly found themselves part of the country’s physical constitution proved to be quite difficult, and much of it is still in progress.

Engineered systems that perform mechanical and electrical functions are dependent on good engineering principles.  Government constitutional systems are dependent on good governmental principles.  Some of those good governmental principles were documented by Thomas Paine in his pamphlet on Common Sense.  Others were identified during the Constitutional Convention and were incorporated directly or indirectly into the U. S. Constitution.  Others were added later as amendments to that document.

After all, they studied the ups and downs and ins and outs of all of that before they wrote the U. S. Constitution.  Although they could dream about modern society (air conditioned automobiles, jet airplanes with hundreds of passengers 7 miles in the air moving 500+ miles per hour, spaceship shuttles cycling into space routinely, instant worldwide news available to everyone, and all-purpose laptop computers solving as well as creating problems), none of this could meet the notions of common sense prevalent in the eighteenth century.

The Constitution incorporates a relatively complex set of checks and balances that are intended to minimize the kinds of problems found in other governments around the world.  We think of the checks and balances as being among the executive, legislative, and judicial subsystems of government, but they include additional subsystem-specific limits and controls of equal importance.  As operators and maintainers of those controls, we should understand them in terms of modern society and technology.

We frequently hear about the good old days and how bad modern society has become.  Since the U. S. Constitution has not changed much, perhaps additional principles are needed or the application of the original principles contained in the U. S. Constitution should be improved.  Since we hate to try to fix things that might not be broken, let us hope first that improved application of the current guidance in the U. S. Constitution is adequate for our needs.

As mentioned above, one of Thomas Paine’s key fundamental principles is that government is a necessary evil.  We would rather not have a government at all, but one is necessary if we are to have any hope of achieving order out of the chaos created by an increasing population.  Unfortunately, this necessary-evil principle is more cute than useful.
Perhaps the most useful principle relied on in the U. S. Constitution is that government exists to help people freely exercise their fundamental human rights, at least if exercising such freedoms does not interfere with the similar freedoms of other individuals.  The original goal of the colonists in seeking independence was to achieve freedom from tyranny, first from the tyranny of government entities and, then, from the lawless tyranny of other citizens.  Many modern issues could be resolved with the application of this single principle.

Not all things that are viewed as a problem in modern society were considered such in colonial days.  The colonists and frontiersmen were particularly accustomed to the principle of rugged individualism.  Life was supposed to be hard; thus, people were also supposed to be hard.  The modern version of rugged individualism is embodied in people sleeping in the parks (summer) and on the ventilation grates (winter).  The U. S. Constitution did not guarantee every citizen a good living, just the opportunity to pursue achieving one.  Colonial homelessness was countered by hospitality, with the expectation that guests in one’s home would, if needed, help with chores and quickly move on and manage for themselves.  In recent times, rugged individualism and living off the land has been replaced with rugged dependency and living off the handout.

The federal judicial, legislative, and executive powers are defined such that actions by two of these three functional organizations must cooperate to do business, in a manner that prevents any one of the three from acting alone.  Key to the intent of the U. S. Constitution is that no one person or group of persons would be entrusted with all the power.  These constitutional subsystem control mechanisms ensure that subsystem responses to short-term fluctuations or special interests are dampened.

Indeed, what the Framers dreaded most was the concentration of power in one person's hands. Thus, they provided for (at least) a three-way separation of powers and a rather complex system of checks and balances.  The separation of powers principle is compromised a bit through the checks and balances aspects.  For example, the President can veto legislation that he does not want to execute.  Then, Congress can override the veto.  From a systems perspective, these elements introduce dampening feedback and functional thresholds intended to manage and control the legislative process output.
Justices of the Supreme Court, although initially appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, may serve for life.  The President, besides being elected under a somewhat complex elector process, must meet additional qualifications of citizenship by birth and experience by age.

Congress consists of two bodies, the Senate and the House of Representatives, that are equal in some ways and unequal in others.  Each of the many constitutional requirements has a well-considered purpose, even as each component in an engineered system has a well-considered purpose.

While it would be educational and instructive to list the underlying purpose or principle embodied in each constitutional control, the list would be subject to argument.  Besides, the U. S. Constitution is a fait accompli.  In this book we may assume that, although not perfect, it reflects a complex array of common-sense-based requirements discussed and approved by the Founding Fathers.  It also represents an established and proven governmental system that operates under specific design constraints that are intended to ensure the effective performance of the intended (allowed) functions of an enlightened government of free people.

That enlightened government system is operated and maintained by citizen systems, either directly or indirectly.  Thus, for the overall government system to be optimized and most effective, each citizen system needs to understand the system and operate it efficiently and appropriately.  Fortunately, the Founding Fathers did not assume that the citizens of subsequent centuries would continue to have the common sense that apparently made so much difference in the minds of the colonists.  They only assumed (hoped) that their electoral processes would result in statesman-like wisdom in two out of the three.

They could not anticipate the rapidity of technological change and the influences of technology on society and on the governmental systems represented in the U. S. Constitution.  They could not anticipate a country of superficial citizen participation and one where politicians were elected based on impressions made during shallow and repetitive 60 second television productions.  They never imagined that a president could send military forces into action anywhere in the world in a matter of minutes.

Nevertheless, the Founding Fathers would be pleased (if not surprised) that they were so successful in framing a long-lived constitution.  After more than two hundred years, we still proudly reference the work of the Founding Fathers as the rationale for what we do (and don’t do).  Their constitutional framework has been tested repeatedly, and it has held up rather well, although it may be a little frayed around the common sense parts.  The deterioration of common sense in government is simply another problem that could not be anticipated two hundred years ago.  Even if it could be anticipated, there is little that could have been done about it.  Even today, while we see governmental common sense failures all the time, we have been unable to come up with viable corrective measures to remedy the situation.  See Chapter 2, Your Government System.

Political System Operations
Most of us suspect that the common sense approaches of the colonists might not be adequate to deal with many of today’s problems that we take for granted.  It is doubtful that any colonist would be able figure out how to pay taxes (fill out a tax return) or how to get permission to build a log cabin on his waterfront property (overcome environmental laws and regulations).  We know this because we are not so sure we can do it even after living with such obstacles for decades.  Modern problems are increasingly devoid (or caused by a lack) of common sense.  We have gradually become so accustomed to nonsense that it seems normal.

Likewise, our version of common sense might not suffice for dealing with many colonial problems, many of which have now been taken over by specialized providers.  While we could probably figure out how to pay taxes in bales of tobacco, few of us could build our own home under any conditions, especially in a wilderness (no power tools, no pre-cut lumber, no steel nails, and no prefabricated shingles) and concurrently produce enough food for our families to survive, even with a group effort.  It was tough on the colonists, too.

From the technological abstractness of the global nuclear war and the Unibomber’s manifesto, to the communication realities of the Internet and the O. J. Simpson television trial, the Founding Fathers were totally clueless.  Yet, they gave us a good form of government that is reasonably able to accommodate and respond effectively to such emerging realities.  Like every other complex system, the Constitution can be upgraded and improved to address new purposes, but its effectiveness remains subject to its operation and maintenance in a rapidly changing world.  As its operators and maintainers, we need to stay abreast of that rapidly changing world as that world produces new social and technical problems for us.

Whether we have kept up and are keeping up with social and technical changes and problems is increasingly dependent on whether we have been and are able  to keep up.  We are all aware that technology has grown so rapidly that we as individuals are coming to know more and more about less and less.  So it is with our elected officials.  Some (probably most) elected officials’ only true expertise is in the area of how to get elected.  Once elected, they face a complex array of decisions, many of which are affected by technology and matters in which they have little of no significant experience.  With advanced technology comes higher prices, so each decision can involve several billions of dollars.

The result is that many important decisions depend on staff work and on inputs from lobbyists.  Lobbyists for technical projects naturally have more influence when elected officials have limited technical understanding.  Without any technical input or relevant experience of their own, professional politicians can make rather whimsical decisions.  Which aircraft is better?  Do we need breeder reactors?

Often, politicians from one political party will oppose important legislation or funding simply because it is supported by the other party.  Operating a democracy in a technical era under such superficial conditions results in a new form of anarchy, one that wastes billions of dollars for no logical or technical reason.  Even increased emphasis on the collective wisdom of popular opinion is of little help in many instances.  Unfortunately, the collective wisdom of the citizenry also has gradually eroded, making it difficult to perceive how we are supposed to meld modern society and technology to function effectively under the U. S. Constitution.

The wisdom degradation is, in part, relativistic.  Technology has advanced to levels well beyond what was previously considered to be subject to conventional wisdom.  It has in many areas advanced beyond the level of political parties and elected officials, even with a sophisticated and difficult electoral process.  The Founding Fathers placed their faith in the wisdom of the people to select good leaders, and they trusted that those leaders would collectively be able to operate a federal government successfully.

As one step forward in redeveloping our basis for conventional wisdom, I believe that we must redefine our notions of common sense in terms of our societal and technical changes.  If these notions can be constituted systematically and applied realistically, then we can maintain the intent of the Founding Fathers that the Constitution should be enduring.  From the opposite perspective, it is increasingly clear that failure to apply common sense with a technical perspective will be hazardous.  At best we will be reduced to muddling along on a trial and error basis, reacting to crises rather than avoiding them.  At worst we will be responsible for allowing the United States (and, possibly, mankind) to back into adverse, irreversible situations.

There are many voters who believe the federal government is out of control.  They are trying to vote for good leaders to get control, but they are still mostly offered candidates who are professional politicians.  Voters vote increasingly against incumbents, but the newly elected politicians are often not any better than the old ones.  They are just different, often too different.

Political Polarization
As with most battles, extremist or polarized perspectives and actions are likely to be promoted simply to achieve effectiveness in countering the opposing camp.  Extreme polarization results in underhanded political tactics and strategies that ignore logic and defeat objectivity.  Even when both sides want the same thing, they have to find ways of claiming credit and defaming the opposition simply to promote the survival of their own political subsystem.  Bipartisan cooperation is most likely when the country as a whole is threatened and the individual political subsystems are not at risk.

To find remedies, we are prone to indulge in battles between conservative and liberal philosophies.  These opposing philosophies can be viewed as opposing systems, each with its own components, objectives, principles, and feedback mechanisms.  While these specific polar philosophies have become identified in the United States with the current Republican Party (conservative) and the Democratic Party (liberal), the most important result is very fundamental:  Each of these politically oriented combatants vigorously uses all of its resources (usually just within the law and within the constraints of the U. S. Constitution, sometimes beyond) primarily to promote itself rather than to place priority on the principles of that constitution and the general interests of the people.  To the extent that each political philosophy interfaces with other systems (e.g., religious and economic), each is modified either by amplifying or dampening forces (i.e., positive and negative feedback).

For example, there may be many more qualified people for a federal appointment, but such appointments go primarily to people who not only support the controlling political party and its polarized system, they are used to reward those people who most vehemently denounced the opposition and who did the most to raise funds for the very expensive election campaigns.  From those candidates meeting these specific prequalifications, if additional support is needed for official confirmation, a Sunday school teacher or a former chief executive officer might be put forth.

These are considered legitimate political appointments, but it is easy to understand that, in today’s increasingly complex world, qualifications for political appointments are generally too low to ensure that government entities are able to function efficiently.  Everything changes with new appointments, replacing the old and inadequate approach with a new and inadequate approach.  It is easy to come up with reasons to replace the old and inadequate approach.  The hard part is to identify and install a new and adequate approach, something that is increasingly less possible using the old politically oriented spoils system of appointments.

Said another way, neither political party would support a more qualified candidate to a government position if the individual could possibly promote anything that might adversely affect the existence of that party’s system.  Issues of right or wrong and that person’s demonstrated conformance with ideals such as the fundamental constitutional principles are of secondary importance.  The same is true for political ideas and positions in general.  The party as a system takes priority over the interests of the people and the principles contained in the constitution.  When principles conflict, they must be worked around.

Consider the case of mixing the religious system with the political system.  A little religiousness by a political candidate or appointee might be consistent with the political system’s objectives.  A lot of religiousness would result in overlaying a religious system on a political system.  Likewise, zero religiousness is not likely to be successful.  Neither preacher or atheist is likely to succeed in a broad political system, assuming those characteristics were known within the political system.  Similarly, there are a number of other “problems” (systems and their symptoms) that would work against a political candidate or appointee.  They are mostly related to the individual as a system, and their discovery and exploitation feed the political and news media systems.  See Chapter 10, Your News System.

When a politician actually sacrifices politics and makes decisions purely based on right and wrong, that politician is so unique that he or she is labeled as a statesman, a term generally reserved for the more capable and selfless politicians.  Even without statesmen, each party is forced by the opposing party and by the constitution itself to stay within obvious legal and constitutional bounds, at least in the public arena.  Yet, neither party will voluntarily support a law nor a constitutional principle if it works against the party or if it adds support or credibility to the opposing party’s position.

Thus, we have a polarized political system that is continually bouncing off the walls of our legal and constitutional framework, resulting in more hysteria and confusion than is really necessary.  This political system thrives on superficialities and alienates the people it is supposed to serve.

Today, for various reasons, governmental tyranny and criminal tyranny seem to be thriving.  Tyranny is the function of muggers, the Internal Revenue Service, local home owners associations, politicians, 18 wheelers going 80 mph in a 55 mph zone, and automobile repair shops.  If we were to apply the freedom-from-tyranny principle more often, a lot more people would find themselves severely sanctioned under the law, including common law.  Under common law, muggers would be shot by their victims without fear of legal reprisals, the IRS would never have been created, home owners associations would function (if at all) on an exception basis rather than an inception basis, politicians would be required to have redeeming qualities and useful talents to get into office, speeding truck drivers would lose their trucks permanently, and automobile repair shops would have lie detectors permanently connected to their service representatives and mechanics.

Regarding this last item, did you know that automobile service technicians can get paid much more that the posted hourly rate simply by working much faster (at your expense, in more ways than one)?  If it only takes a mechanic one hour to do a two hour job, the mechanic gets paid for two hours, and the repair shop makes a bigger profit at the same time.  If it takes a slower mechanic three hours to do a two hour job, it is likely to be defined as a three hour job.  Combined with the so-called policy of the shop’s liability insurance company that prevents you from watching the work actually being done, you are constructively being subjected to tyranny, and it is all legal.  The average citizen simply does not have the ability or the resources to fight such forms of business-related tyranny.

The U. S. Constitution requires that:  “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”  The federal income tax system required an amendment to the U. S. Constitution, and that amendment was approved with the understanding that it would only apply to the most wealthy few percent of the people.

This new individual inequality under the law has mushroomed out of control, but in a gradual manner.  It has been so gradual that the encroachment of the IRS on individuals and their property has yet to be viewed as a form of tyranny much like that which provoked the Declaration of Independence from England.  It is increasingly likely that severe legislative or constitutional steps will need to be taken to either eliminate income taxes altogether or (more likely) change to a flat tax rate for all citizens.  In the religious culture of many citizens, God asks for only ten percent, regardless of amount of a person’s income.

Likewise, annual taxes on property (real estate and personal property) provide a means for local governments to take away a citizen’s property.  Paying the property tax on an annual basis is like paying rent or paying for the privilege of ownership.  If a citizen fails to pay taxes on the property, that citizen can lose the property, go to jail, or both.  Thus, the right to property under the U. S. Constitution needs to be reinforced by an amendment that ensures static ownership of property is not taxed.  For example, “No tax or other confiscation by the several states or by the federal government shall be placed on personal or real property except upon a change of ownership by commercial sale or as determined judicially under due legal processes.”

Within our local communities are many additional governmental and community organizations that form systems in which the individual is a basic component, such as tax and voting districts, school boards, home owner associations, service clubs, religious organizations, block-watch (anti-criminal) organizations, and the basic family unit.  Most family units have informal community systems with their next-door neighbors, their religious organizations, and their extended families.

Going one step farther, each person is a component of multiple systems but each human component is also a system, distinct from all other people.  In American society, the distinctions of the individual are considered to be good and are encouraged; however, in many Asian societies, individualism is discouraged.  Rugged individualism has been considered essential to settling the Americas, but it can be a problem in densely populated areas.  Thus, we would worry about a China full of Rambos more than a modern America full of Rambos, except in the inner cities.  We also would not be surprised if many Rambos existed in the Old West; however, most of the American settlers were quite shy and polite.

Each governmental organization, from the federal level to the block-watch organization, has its own constitution or guidelines.  When all of these governmental organizations are well balanced relative to each other, when each is working within reasonable guidelines to promote its limited social responsibilities, and when reasonable citizens believe that it all makes sense, then the constitutional system can be said to be operating well.  Extended, satisfactory operation creates a notion of what makes sense in different situations.  In the aggregate, such notions become common sense, and it is deviations from that common sense that get our attention and that are most likely to get opposed and corrected.

The problem that we face in a technical age is that things get changed so fast that it is difficult to put out finger on what makes sense anymore.  We are likely to do things because we can do them rather than because they make sense.  For example, Medicare as we know it could not exist without being enabled by the wealth of the population, but it is now also dependent on computer networks and high speed printers to generate benefit checks everyday.  We can do it, but it is out of control and subject to fraud by some of those rugged individualists.  It has been a Level One system on which many Americans have come to depend financially, but the we-can-do-it part is being overwhelmed by failure to control costs and to punish greed, both of which require continuous system feedback and corrective actions.

Americans are used to a lot of things that are questionable in terms of common sense.  Can you imagine the scream that would result today if voting were limited to those people who actually pay income taxes or property taxes?  This type of voting limitation was a common part of early colonial and state governmental processes.  While such an indication of competency still makes a lot of common sense, it conflicts directly with the current social notions of fairness and equality.
In fact, the notion of citizen competency has been turned upside down.  Not only do productive and self sufficient people get ignored as a group, they also have to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than do less productive and nonproductive people.  Indeed, national lobbying organizations thrive on advocating the rights-to-a-safety-net of nonproductive citizens.  They even hire willing-to-work citizens to create public-outrage demonstrations and to solicit additional charity funds to supplement the poorly conceived, poorly managed, and corrupt welfare programs.

Not only is the notion of citizen competency turned upside down, there is now another major haven for inefficiency and for incompetent workers and managers.  The hundreds of thousands of federal workers include those people trapped in inefficient organizations, those people sidetracked into nonpositions for not being team players, those people who have incompetent people working for them, and the actual incompetent people themselves.  With the aid of civil service protection legislation, federal organization inefficiency (i.e., waste) is an economic albatross that would have killed any commercial profit-and-loss company long ago.  Federal workers get paid even when the federal government is shut down for lack of funds in the national treasury.  Such is the impact of political power and political systems, allowing bad government to persist.

Can you imagine a commercial enterprise laying off workers and still paying them?  The difference is, of course, that company chief executive officers do not depend on votes of the employees for their jobs while elected officials are totally dependent.  Technically speaking, we want the most productive elements of the work force to be encouraged rather than discouraged.  While there are undoubtedly some very hard working people in government, their efforts are wasted relative to the productivity expected and achieved in the private sector.  See Chapter 5, Your Business System.
We now encourage people to be nonproductive and to avoid hard work and difficulty.  Similar to the fall of the Roman Empire, an increasing segment of the population is not willing to expose themselves to real work and hardship.  We get the impression that some people would rather starve to death than dig a ditch or sell apples on the corner.  Able bodied panhandlers now walk up to total strangers and ask for money for doing nothing.  They stand at busy intersections with signs that say “Will work for food,” tugging for sympathy but accepting only cash.  Even in the Great Depression, bums would perform a modest amount of work for a modest amount of food and shelter.  Now they can make a decent “living” just asking for money, while leaving manual labor to others.  Indeed, in modern America many legal and illegal immigrants seek any employment regardless of difficult, resulting in minorities cleaning the outside of windows on skyscrapers.

As espoused by Thomas Paine, government is simply the lesser of two evils, the other being no government at all (anarchy).  Of course, government could and should be constrained to be as good as possible.  The problem is that most people have trouble determining what is good and what is bad simply because of the conflicting systems and the natural polarization of most arguments.  Determining good and bad is made easier through technical common sense, which is facilitated by systematic thinking or a systems approach.  If governmental systems are viewed as beyond the understanding and control of the citizens, they become increasingly disconnected and unaccountable.  In the absence of interfaces and feedback, the government can become worse than anarchy simply because of the inability of the bureaucratic management system within government to understand and control the details of situations.  In particular, worse-than-anarchy decisions can be made “in the field” because of misguided notions of authority and responsibility, such as the overt acts committed at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

A system can be designed to meet or satisfy principles, which then becomes the system’s purpose.  All the system components should serve that purpose.  For example, one purpose of the U. S. Constitution is to protect the individual while avoiding the tyranny of any individual, especially government officials.  This individual-protection-from-government-tyranny is, perhaps, the key purpose of the U. S. Constitution, a purpose that has been largely achieved (although certainly debatably) for two centuries.

However defined and argued, the U. S. Constitution, as a system, must have and has at least one purpose.  Certainly, it has many other purposes and objectives.  Just as it has many subsystems that (presumably) support it, all the way to the individual citizen.  To understand the purpose of the U. S. Constitution best, it is necessary to modify the presumption that everything supports the Constitution.  Actually, it is the Constitution that supports the interests of the individual.

The power of reliance on the collective power of well motivated individuals over the organization becomes most evident in technical areas.  This is how modern computer software is generated.  Each individual does his or her part in a tedious process, but each is respected and depended on for good performance of the overall product.  It is mostly when we get away from respecting motivated individuals that we get into trouble.  This is what happened when the Challenger shuttle exploded.  The responsible technical individual was not respected.  The management organization’s public relations and political funding interfaces superseded the technical decisionmaking processes.

Thus, nontechnical forces can exist in the government, in pseudo-government projects, and even in commercial businesses.  These forces encourage managers to make technical decisions based on nontechnical interfaces, overriding the judgment of the technical personnel who are most able to make the technical decision.  From the perspective of the individual, this organizational smothering is contrary to individual rights, but it is most apparent in a highly technical society in which managers are not able to make technical decisions.

It is important to understand that the new Constitution created a new system.  In the process, it forcibly removed components and resources from another system, the British Empire.  Likewise, the Founding Fathers sought to disconnect the United States from the broader context of European system embroilments, many of which had gone on for centuries (and which continue today).  For a variety of reasons that include technology advances, a long succession of statesmen and politicians were not successful in keeping the United States isolated from Europe or from the rest of the world.  There are more than 180 independent systems of government in the world, each with its own constitutional basis and self-serving objectives.  The United States as a system interacts with all of them at various levels of effectiveness.

From an internal perspective, the U. S. Constitution failed to deal effectively with some of the closer human and territorial systems that might have been incorporated.  Ignored were the Native Americans and their individual rights, as well as those of the African American slaves that resulted from the ongoing business of slavery.  These de facto internal systems were essentially left outside the new Constitution’s system and subsystems.  Thus, they were outside the individual protections afforded by the Constitution.  Indeed, the U. S. Constitution can be viewed as a system that extracted resources from such internal (but essentially ignored) systems.

Whether this resource extraction was right or wrong, avoidable or unavoidable, or beneficial or self defeating is debatable, but the basic system concepts underlying the potential arguments are instructive.  Specifically, a system that ignores its own component parts or the interacting systems can not realistically be optimized.  It will probably continue to have problems with those components and systems.  While this is no big surprise, this way of thinking helps to bring order out of chaos, or makes it possible to do a job right in the first place.

One wonders what the U. S. Constitution might have looked like if it had gone through a modern total quality management (TQM) process in which all of its “customers” would be identified early.  While this author does not worship TQM, some of its basic ideas are useful when properly applied as part of a system development process.  The proper functioning of a governmental system depends on leadership as well as management and principles as well as requirements.

The unfortunate consequence of failing to incorporate all the logical systems and subsystems into the newly formed constitutional system eventually resulted in severe problems, some of which have threatened that constitutional system.  The Civil War is the obvious result.  The gradual demise of the Native American nations and the relegation of the Native Americans to reservations is also apparent, but it does not appear to be viewed with significant concern within the encroaching constitutional system.  The constitutional system was almost destroyed from within by its slavery management subsystem, even as  the government resulting from the U. S. Constitution itself overwhelmed many Native American sovereign systems.

Perhaps the reason for ignoring or neglecting such interfacing systems is that, while neither the African Americans nor the Native Americans and their systems were integrated into the newly formed constitutional system and the resulting new social identify, the interfaces with the Native American systems were significantly fewer than those with the African American systems.  The relatively independent Native American societal systems were gradually sent to reservations and were expected to fend for themselves -- out of sight, out of mind.  The more physically integrated African American societal systems were far more visible and had a far greater systemic impact at the interface with the new constitutionally formed American society.  One societal system was viewed as an obstacle (Native Americans) and the other as a resource (African American slaves).  Of course, the Native American obstacle was related to the acquisition of desirable territory and natural resources.  Technically speaking, a system’s resources are more significant to the system than obstacles, since obstacles are temporary and can be moved or worked around.  Resources have to be created continuously.

Also technically speaking, it is interesting that the colonial settlers chose to transport slaves from Africa rather than make slaves out of the much closer Native Americans.  There are several subjective as well as practical reasons for this apparent inefficiency, but they are only academic at this point in history.  The bottom line of this train of thought is that the U. S. Founding Fathers may have created an excellent governmental system, but even they had their limitations.  They were adequate in some respects, but they did not even deal perfectly with the new system’s 18th century interfaces.  Thus, we should not rely on them too heavily as a source of wisdom in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Of more practical value today is the issue of how the modern United States treats other societal systems (internal and external) that are of a different culture and, in many cases, at a different level of technological development.  Our collective thinking has certainly matured, but we still have trouble dealing with these other systems.  We are internally perplexed by continuing issues associated with the African American and Native American systems, but we are also confounded by external interfaces with countries such as Mexico, Japan, and China.  These external interfaces have resulted in the development of new internal cultural systems that are more difficult to deal with because of language and cultural systems.

Of all of these factors, the most subjective one is “What needs to be done to make it a better system?”  Such a question implies that system is not already perfect, but it also is based on the assumption that it is not already adequate as a system.  An adequate system often simply needs to be operated and maintained well, possibly avoiding the problems that suggest imperfection.  Thus, it may not be necessary to pass a law or constitutional amendment to force everyone to use a single language, especially if the intent is to discourage the use of other languages, which are important to international trade and effectiveness in many world arenas.  The purpose of focusing on one language would be to maximize each citizen’s ability to understand and express complex issues or shades of subtle thoughts.  This need for understanding is as true within the federal constitutional system as it is of the local block-watch organizations in our communities.  Importantly, it is the health of the discourse-related factors that most directly contribute to human system effectiveness.  Properly operating and maintaining the existing governmental systems as intended in their design basis makes common sense as well as technical sense.

Unfortunately, we spend most of our time fussing with where we are going (i.e., the next election of governmental managers) rather than focusing on making sure that what we have now performs efficiently.  It is like spending most of our time speculating on the new automobile that we will buy next year, while turning our current automobile over to an unlicensed teenager eager to go joyriding to impress young friends.  It may be the path of least resistance and may result in some short-term thrills, but common sense tells us that it is a foolish path to take.  We must focus as much on how we are operating today as we do on changes for tomorrow.

Nevertheless, as soon as we start talking about the government, our eyes glaze over with awe and wonderment, and we assume that we are not able to understand and affect its ongoing functions.  We focus on tomorrow’s changes as if whatever problems may exist now will somehow be fixed by getting new officials at the next election.  Of course, as soon as new elected officials get into office, they assume they have a mandate to change everything to suit themselves.  In reality, the voters may believe that the current programs are clunkers, but they are not able to tell whether this is due to fundamental design or improper operation and maintenance.  It is ineffective to rotate the tires if the problem is that one of the tires is flat.  One of the “flat tires” of previous administrations was the lack of true citizen involvement in federal decisions that affect local communities.

Nevertheless, the path of least resistance for newly elected officials is to start over with new programs, regardless of what problems exist and without worrying too much about the cost inefficiencies inherent to taking that new approach.  After all, they have a mandate for change, provided by the unhappy voters.  If the unhappy voters and taxpayers truly wanted to get their money’s worth and minimize the cost of government, they would keep the same people in office and ensure that the programs were operated and maintained in a manner that promoted meeting their design intent.  If programs are not working, waiting until the next election to do something about it is ineffective and costly.

Moreover, the process of achieving broad-based understanding on difficult issues and self confidence in the resultant personal conclusions was probably less complicated for the colonists than it is today.  We not only have additional sources of information, more topics to consider, and a world-wide (and galactic?) sphere of interest, we also have more ready access to information and a higher rate of presentation.  Also, in a world increasingly driven by technology and technical issues, it has become more difficult for individuals to bring issues into adequate focus.

Even Rush Limbaugh, with his “talent on loan from God,” can not confidently address and correct today’s range of problems and issues.  His common sense, fundamental approach may often result in more accurate analysis of what is going on, allowing a little better focus on some problems and issues.  Solutions are more difficult, but his emphasis on basic principles at least causes other people to look for basic principles among the chaotic clamor that comes from all sides.  With a more systematic approach to common sense (exceeding Rush Limbaugh’s), we should be able to get closer to “the truth,” closer to valid answers.

Being bombarded constantly with information on each of many important matters, we do not have the luxury of hunger for information enjoyed by Tom Paine’s readers.  The key defect in the information bombardment is that it is often polarized, so we get two radically opposite views.  Even the special interest groups of colonial days eventually had to “put it in writing” to get the message across to the voters.  The rationale and validity of the differing colonial viewpoints were generally self evident once they were reduced to written form, but colonists depended on that form so it had a greater relative impact than modern books and newspapers.

Today, we often get superficial information on radio and television, and many newspapers reflect underlying support for one side or the other.  Reporters are also less able to sort out the different views, so they are likely to give equal weight to experts and to novices on any given subject.  If reporters have no basis for assessing the information that they put in their articles, the readers probably do not either.

Modern news information is assimilated and presented by professional news media organizations and individuals who also have little or no perspective on the topic at hand.  They believe that simply presenting two sides (regardless of the validity of each side) of an issue is adequate presentation, especially if it has to be ready for the six o’clock news.  Even if a news item is presented truthfully, accurately, and completely, it is still only level one information (superficial).  In seeking balance within a superficial flow of information, news reporting organizations are subject to manipulation by both sides of an issue.  One side can “leak” information, requiring the other side to “respond.”  The results are often so polarized with self interest that the truth is seldom stated or identified with any credibility.

As educated, self-supporting citizens, we are probably still reasonably well aware of important current issues, but we might not have the time to sort out the details to arrive at educated opinions on many of our modern and often technically complex issues.  Even if the time were available, our individual, life-long focus on one primary (and often relatively narrow) area of self support (work) might make us quite dependent on what others have to say on many issues.  This makes us very vulnerable to opinion manipulation, an important component of power in modern society.

In the period of time since the American Revolution and constitutional forefathers declared the independence of the 13 colonies from England, the continuing political process has been largely successful in fulfilling the dream for a better form of government than previously established in the world.  At least through the 1940s and (possibly) into the 1950s, the United States demonstrated reasonably continuous economic improvement and started taking on world-leadership roles in a manner that seemed to prove the viability of individual-freedom-based democracies and the check-and-balance approach to government.  Although the Revolutionary War foundation for political common sense had its ups and downs along the way, that is now water under the bridge.

The October 1995 Million Man March on Washington, D. C., provided us with a reality check in this regard.  The gathering’s leaders still acknowledged that the United States is one of the limited number of countries in the world where black men could assemble to express their frustration with the government, their frustration with the practice of white supremism, and their frustration with themselves.  Yet, Colin Powell’s rejection-of-candidacy speech in November 1995 made it clear that much has been accomplished in one generation.

There are many opportunities for the average citizen to influence positively the performance of the government established by the U. S. Constitution.  Since the government system is operated by elected politicians who appoint additional officials, elections are important.  More than ever before competent citizens are needed and should be encouraged to provide reactions and ideas regarding the many ongoing government programs and decisions that influence their lives and communities.  Complex systems work best when there is strong and appropriate feedback.  If the results of a program are not as good as what was intended, and (especially) if a program produces negative results, ongoing and persistent citizen input is needed.

This input must be measured and balanced.  Promoting the interests of some groups over the general public interest is not balanced feedback.  Emphasizing special interests is no more appropriate than taking your automobile into the dealer’s service center and letting them decide what maintenance needs to be done.  Thus, when writing letters and when speaking at public meetings, those people who try to understand and discuss multiple perspectives provide the best feedback.  Polarized advocates are easily recognized, and their ideas are easily dismissed as not important.

If good feedback is there and the government officials and organizational entities fail to be responsive to pleas for reasonable program development, operation, and maintenance, it may be that adjustments are needed to the legal or even the constitutional guidelines that form the government system.  We have a good constitutional framework, but if the constitution is not being operated and maintained properly to meet modern governmental needs, then it makes sense to adjust the constitution to make it better, as was intended by the Founding Fathers.

The problem is that many people jump right to the part about amending the constitution and skip the part about providing balanced and persistent feedback within the current constitutional framework.  Fortunately, the Founding Fathers made changes to the U. S. Constitution so difficult that the desires of many (or even most) people are not sufficient to change it.

Changes to the Constitution were reluctantly allowed by its framers.  Proposing amendments requires a two-thirds vote by Congress or the state legislatures.  Amendment approvals require concurrence by three-fourths of the states.  These hurtles make constitutional amendments difficult.  It took women 72 years of effort to get the 19th Amendment passed, allowing women to vote.  Fortunately, proper maintenance of the governmental system established by the U. S. Constitution does not require frequent amendments.  Proper maintenance does  require an understanding of modern government problems, an understanding that is increasingly difficult to achieve in a complex, technological world that has new and radical levels of risk.

The differences between the colonial forefathers’ level of risk and ours are apparent.  Few of the major risks to the colonists are present today, and few of the risks to which we are routinely exposed were possible in colonial days.  They worried about falling off horses and small pox.  We worry about falling out of the sky and acquired immune deficiencies.  They had a higher risk of death by disease, wild animals, and cannonballs.  We are at risk due to highway traffic, nuclear weapons, pollution, and drive-by shootings.

Given the right experience and support, most problems should be amenable to resolution through a reasonable application of common sense, either through prevention, defense, or corrective actions.  These three basic steps are typically applied in the technical world.  Depending on the issue, problem, or area of risk, the three risk reduction levels of prevention, defense, and correction can be applied in different ways.  The range or number of risk-related applications changes over time and increases or decreases with advances in technology.

Political System Interfaces with Other Systems
Nevertheless, the rapid expansion of technology and the associated impacts on today’s critical decisions for tomorrow require that we expand on Thomas Paine’s foundation.  If we can build a better understanding of what constitutes common sense in today’s complex society, perhaps we can more confidently and competently participate in the democratic process, causing the government processes to improve.

As in the colonial days, citizens today still demonstrate an amazing capacity for self sacrifice and patience.  Over the past four decades, they have endured the Vietnam War, a range of social experiments, the resultant high taxes, increased Federal interference with commerce through regulatory absurdities, an out of touch and manipulative media, and a legal system that is upside down.

Thomas Paine noted that when republican virtue fails, slavery ensues.  Are the citizens of the United States not increasingly caused to bow in the direction of Washington, D.C.?  The colonists and the Founding Fathers advocated a simple but controlled government, one that is close to and in the hands of the people and their elected representatives.  The federal government was to be structurally simple and was to be responsive to popular sovereignty.  Currently, neither of these objectives is being met.

Recent history is full of examples in which the functional health of the United States is not evident.  Our news media provide these examples daily, reporting a full spectrum ill health while itself being part of the problem.

There is also really bad government, which for the colonists included the one that no longer made any sense.  England is too far away to manage the affairs of the New World.  England was looking out for its own interests, not those of the colonists.  Subjugation to England was a convenient habit, but it was not practical.  It took months to communicate by messengers and slow sailing ships.  Decisions were not timely.  We have our own governmental problems
.
The focus on subcultures and foreign cultural origins, while injecting awareness and a favorable cultural identity, established isolated political and social subsystems that are ill-prepared to enhance the economic condition of their constituents within the framework of a representative and democratic constitution.  Thus, racial and ethnic differences have been enhanced rather than minimized while exercising constitutional and legal guarantees of functional fairness and human equality.

Constitutional System Upgrades
There are several changes that could be made to the U. S. Constitution.  Each change proposed will cause many advocates and opponents to come out of the woodwork, resulting in the usual, highly polarized arguments to which we have become accustomed.  Nevertheless, each citizen should thoughtfully consider each possibility and should add his or her own proposed amendments, hopefully from a systematic perspective.

The first hurdle to changing the U. S. Constitution is well known and is often the first response heard.  This first reaction is that we would go too far.  With the recent experience with cultural deterioration, there is no doubt in the minds of many people that evil would overwhelm good.  However, we should note that restraint is already built into the Constitution.  The Founding Fathers intended that changes to the U. S. Constitution would be difficult to achieve.  The proof of the amendment is whether it would be repealed after being implemented.  For example, it took 72 years of debate for women to get the vote nationwide.  Now that people are used to the idea, it seems reasonable to let women vote, especially in a country that supports basic human rights.

Of the 27 amendments approved so far, most are related to providing fundamental human rights and controlling the powers of the federal government, consistent with the original intent of the Founding Fathers.  The majority of these amendments are legitimate refinements that could easily have been included in the original document.  Thus, human-rights and limited-government amendments are entirely within the system of constitutional guidelines for which the document was intended.  At least we readily understand that such amendments were intended to lead to better government and to establishing or confirming citizen freedoms.

In contrast to the majority of amendments, the experiment with prohibiting intoxicating liquors (18th Amendment) did not serve to enhance the government or to ensure citizen freedoms.  Indeed, although intended as a social improvement, this was a failed exercise in limiting freedom.  Its objectives were more relevant to systems of morality, religion, and social issues.  Prohibition was repealed (21st Amendment) after 13 years, with the authority for addressing such matters returned to the states and local jurisdictions.  From a systems perspective, the failure of this intended improvement was due to its failure to conform with basic constitutional objectives of freedom and limited government powers.  It was an attempt to make up for social system weaknesses by using government system powers.  Interestingly, when considered together, the 18th and 21st amendments validated the freedom of citizens to be self destructive and clearly limited the federal government’s authority over how people choose to live.

Much more complex is the 16th Amendment, which allowed the federal government to collect individual income taxes without regard to the original constitutional constraints related to tax apportionment by population.  As the country matured, taxes based on population became less attractive.  Also, the size of the federal government grew, requiring new revenue to feed its increased appetite for resources.  We are now so accustomed to the federal income tax, we have forgotten that it was not in the original U. S. Constitution and that we were promised that the 16th amendment would only affect the top five percent of wealthiest citizens.

There are several possible amendments that could be offered for the U. S. Constitution.  Some have been around for a while.  Others are new.

New Amendments
The Equal Rights Amendment (making men and women equal in all respects, including the obligation to participate in combat roles during warfare) and the District of Columbia Amendment (making it more like a state) have been around for years.  Each of these proposed amendments superficially complies with but fails to support the key objectives of the U. S. Constitution as a system, which include individual freedoms and a controlled government.

Of the two proposals, the Equal Rights Amendment was the only one that was almost approved.  It failed approval largely because it proposed that males and females should be treated alike, even in warfare.  Not only did this notion involve potential conflicts in the optimization of the military system (see Chapter 7, Your Military System), it contradicted basic assumptions of societal and religious systems.  Whatever benefits might be achieved in the name of equal rights and equal opportunity under the U. S. Constitution system were directly negated under these other systems and their subsystems.

The land for the District of Columbia was donated by Maryland and Virginia as a separate geographical entity containing the federal government and governed by the U. S. Congress.  With an increased population, the D. C. community is much different from that existing two hundred years ago.  Nevertheless, its primary objective, business, or commerce continues to be to support the federal government, including the associated tourist trade.  Few of its transient private and government-support corporate citizens have much interest in assessing and improving D. C. as a local government of choice.  If the nongovernment parts of D. C. were returned to Maryland and Virginia, at least county and state systems would be involved.

D. C. remains quite dependent on oversight by Congress.  As a city, it does not enjoy the support of either a county or a state government. As a state, it would have no county and city governments to which it could delegate local responsibilities.  Thus, D. C. will never truly be like the other states, it was not intended to be a separate state, and it was not intended to be a state-like governmental entity at all.  Nevertheless, we now have a separate D. C. government, organized as an independently functioning city but still at the mercy of the federal government.  The federal government oversight system mostly reacts to problems after they become severe.

In the process of establishing a federal government, the U. S. Constitution did not address what to do with the excess District of Columbia land it did not need.  The excess land is a nonfunctional appendix as far as the federal government is concerned.  One of the underlying problems is that the land ceded to and reserved for the federal government has become inhabited by many people and companies that are not there just to support the federal government.  The federal government need only cede back to the respective states jurisdiction over such properties that are now under private ownership.  Certainly any community in D. C. that requires public schools should be returned to the original state.  If the federal government grows (even more than it has?), then let the Congress reclaim the necessary land from the two states.

Going Forward with the U. S. Constitution
Besides these two questionable amendments on women’s rights and D. C. statehood, there are several amendments that ought to be discussed.  Closing our eyes in the name of Pandora’s Box negates the intent of the Founding Fathers.  They provided a strict process for changes, but they did provide one that is reasonably controlled.  As already noted above, it took about 70 years just to get an amendment to allow women to vote.

Technology advances could not have been anticipated by the Founding Fathers.  There may be adjustments needed to the U. S. Constitution to deal with technology changes that impact constitutional objectives.  Technology has made it possible to know a lot more about the unborn child, certainly much more than what was possible two centuries ago.  The previous assumption was that a pregnancy would result in a baby being born, unless natural abortion processes intervened or unless a death was anticipated.  Forced abortions were dangerous not only to the baby but to the mother.

With technology came an ability to see into the womb and an increased frequency of abortion-on-demand.  The basis for the demand became less important than the demand itself.  Thus, a major technical capability affecting individual human rights has developed, but the U. S. Constitution does not address the issue.  The result is a continuing public argument that shifts with the political and judicial winds.  Technology has not only enabled and prompted baby abortions, it has also resulted in a capability to prevent pregnancies in the first place.  Thus, if a right-to-life amendment were passed, it would focus a lot more attention on pregnancy avoidance.  The issue of baby abortion remains one of the most polarized topics of modern society.

Another area for amendment consideration addresses another right-to-life issue.  Many people die each year due to defective organs, although modern medicine is fully capable of reliably transplanting organs.  The problem is that many people (or their families) fail to donate organs for such use.  This is obviously another area in which modern medical capabilities have quickly exceeded societal progress.

Does it make sense to argue for an unborn baby’s right-to-life while failing to support saving lives by organ donorship and transplantation?  Even if one assumes the right of families to decide whether to donate the organs of a loved one at the time of death, such decisions should be active (before-the-fact) actions rather than waiting until after a fatal accident occurs or until after death.  At what point does an individual’s right (if there is such a right) to be saved by transplantation give way to a family’s right to send functional organs into a grave or to cremation?

Why do we believe it proper to struggle to keep dying people alive in even the most terminal and painful cases, forcing them to painfully accept their very last possible breath?  Upon death, failure to transplant vital organs then effectively sweeps several other people into their graves as well.  If we can keep organs alive, what allows us to let these other people die?  Is there an applicable religious or social principle or objective that causes us to throw away life so easily?  Where is the legal system on this issue, one which is much more important than most modern legal actions?  Is it only for lack of precedent that the family of a person who has effectively been killed can not sue a family preventing an appropriate organ donation?  Would a family or individual who prevented transplantation from their own family member then have a legitimate expectation to receive an organ donation from another family in the future?

We have seldom entertained such radical thoughts, but perhaps we should.  We have simply not addressed the transplantation topic as comprehensively as it would be discussed if an amendment were to be proposed.  Difficult as it might be to achieve, an amendment to the Constitution to require transplantation of healthy human organs to those who need them should be entertained.

Other rights-based amendments that might be considered include those that provide for:
• The right to a smoke-free environment.
• A flat income tax rate, or repeal the sixteenth amendment (which allowed a federal income tax) entirely.
• Morality-based and socially-based education, as distinguished from religion-based education, putting the notions of separation of church and state into perspective.
• Property Taxes:  No tax or other confiscation by the several states or by the federal government shall be placed on personal or real property except upon a change of ownership by commercial sale or as determined judicially under due legal processes.
• Repealing and preventing any laws or regulations impeding citizen ownership, bearing, and display of weapons (publicly or privately) and removing these privileges permanently from mentally ill citizens and from convicted felons.

Other amendments that are not related to individual rights and that should be argued include:
• No U. S. military forces shall be made subject to foreign command or control without the specific two-thirds legislative authorization of Congress and approval by the President.
• Organized crime (two or more people committing two or more crimes) are subversive to freedom and society and shall be treated as federal crimes and capital crimes (subject to the death penalty).
• Citizens of foreign countries may not own real property in the United States or its territories.  Companies controlled by foreign citizens or companies may not own real property within the United States or its territories.
• Paternity and maternity of all minor persons shall be legally and permanently established at birth in the United States, upon immigration and naturalization as United States citizens, or upon judicial need, whichever occurs first.
• Parents are legally bound to provide support for their children until they are 18 years of age unless excused by a court of law.  Children are bound to provide support for their parents under all conditions unless excused by a court of law.
• Persons born in the United States to parents both of whom are noncitizen aliens or either of which is present illegally shall not be afforded United States citizenship except through established naturalization processes, as applicable to all noncitizens not born in the United States.
• Contributions to political campaigns for federal office may be made only by individual citizens of the United States.
• Candidates for federal office shall not spend from their personal or family funds an amount that exceeds one year’s salary of the office to which they are seeking election.
• The annual total compensation of each member of Congress and the President shall not exceed the average salary of secondary school principals in the United States.

All of these possible amendments respond to situations not anticipated by the Founding Fathers.  Each situation reflects either a technological change or a significant social problem.

Political Conclusions
The U. S. Constitution is one of the most effective governmental systems ever devised by man.  Great and noble sacrifices were made by determined men during the Revolutionary War as well as over these two intervening centuries, bringing us to this period of relative confusion, doubt, and vacillation.  We need not assume our inherited form of government to be perfect, nor should we cling blindly to all of its features and component parts without understanding them and without continually improving how we operate and maintain them.

Clinging blindly to the practices of two centuries is probably better than rushing blindly into the future, reinventing government reactively as we go.  Here we suggest that it is useful to view the U. S. Constitution as a system, identifying its interfaces with other human systems and dealing with issues in an organized and balanced manner.  A systems view of the U. S. Constitution can assist in understanding how the current federal government functions, what the problems are, and how to proceed in the improvement process.  It is not enough to change how the government operates reactively, whenever the issues finally get so bad that they overwhelm the incumbent officials.  It is not enough to blame the incumbents for our problems and then have the elected officials changed out by the voters.

Before we find ourselves blinded by overconfidence in the U. S. Constitution and by our ability to elect a different set of public officials whenever we are not happy, we should reflect on how well the federal government is performing as a system today.  While no one can provide an all-inclusive discussion of such a huge and complicated government, there are a number of basic system principles that can be identified (good and bad) and which are likely to be found throughout most of the government.  None of the principles suggested here is mysterious or unexpected, but many reflect new possibilities and, to the extent that they are now becoming more important, support the notion that the federal government is too big and is not under control.  Reducing it and controlling it requires understanding it as a system.

Politics Inside the Beltway
The federal political paradigm is found mostly within the Washington, D. C. beltway.  It is a highly polarized, political paradigm.  How do we get something in between political extremes that we can live with?  The answer in the political paradigm has been to let the opposing extremes cancel each other, pitting Congress against the opposing political party in the White House.  The Congress represents a large mass with a lot of inertia.  The president can be replaced much faster by the voters, either helping or hendering Congress by accelerating its programs or putting on the brakes.

This political paradigm and approach results in periodic political gridlock, which is a good thing to have when professional politicians are running things.  Gridlock forces each side to appeal its case to the people, hoping that the other side will get some kind of message from the voters.  Unfortunately, the paradigm must grow to incorporate the voters, bringing new political planning, strategies, and tactics intended to influence the voters.  Due to the increased technical complexity of modern society and the day-to-day stresses faced by the voting public, experience has caused the the political paradigm to conclude that lies, half truths, and shallow debate is effective in influencing the voters.  Elections continue to be popularity contests, often among nice looking and well spoken individuals whose most significant credential is being able to get elected.  Once elected, they are at the mercy of lobbyists and special interest groups for the information needed to make decisions.  They find it difficult to sort out the two sides of a debate, hard as they try.  Votes on legislative bills in Congress are often close, often turning on a minor point, making external inputs from the voters important.

Modern communication technology makes it easier than it used to be to manipulate the voters, but we can always fall back on the final truth -- the voters get what they deserve.  They have gotten higher taxes, lower pay checks, more unemployment, and a lot more crime and social disorder.  Yes, we have earned our problems nobly.

Modern communications also make it easier for the voters to see what is going on inside the beltway.  Radio and television entertain us with talk-show hosts that thrive on ridicule and exposing political hypocracy.  Recently, segments of the voters have been sending lots of messages to the political paradigm in recent elections, in the public opinion polls, in letters, and in telephone calls.  Hitting the political paradigm with political redirections is increasingly popular.