America the Beautiful: Rediscovering What Made This Nation Great (4 page)

Why three branches? The idea of having three branches of government was birthed by the writings of Baron Charles Montesquieu, an authoritative French professor, author, and legal philosopher — who was the most often quoted source among the colonists next to the Bible.
⁹
His book
The Spirit of Laws
“greatly impacted the formation of the American government, as it was read and studied intently in America.”
¹⁰
In it, Montesquieu acknowledges the deceit and wickedness of the human heart, as shown in Jeremiah 17:9, and advocates for a system that tries to check and moderate mankind’s worse excesses by dividing power into three parts, inspired by Isaiah 33:22, which states, “For the L
ORD
is our judge, the L
ORD
is our lawgiver, the L
ORD
is our king.”

The real genius in the system of checks and balances established by the founders is that the executive branch — the branch most likely to become
too powerful and “king-like” — is checked by the other two branches of government that did not want to be minimized. And in order for the system to be truly representative of the people, the representatives were intended to be integral members of their communities. The constituents of the House of Representatives and Senate were to be farmers, teachers, nurses, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, pharmacists, and — well, you get the picture. They were to represent every segment of society so that everyone’s interests would be represented fairly. As long as you have broad representation from many parts of society, representative government works extremely well. And it works even better when the representatives serve for only a short period of time and return to their communities, leaving a spot for someone else from the community to become the next representative.

A couple of things can severely interfere with the efficacy of this system of checks and balances, however. One is when an elected representative becomes entrenched and wants to keep returning to the House of Representatives, becoming progressively less connected with the community that he or she represents. Although the founding fathers thought of many things, they failed to realize that the facet of human nature that makes people strive for power and influence might result in it becoming very difficult for them to give up their seat in the House of Representatives once they had it. The other detrimental thing is having one profession or group of individuals being overly represented. If there were too many doctors serving in and/or represented in government, there would probably be an overabundance of health-related legislation; likewise, if there were too many farmers, there would likely be an abundance of agricultural legislation.

Perhaps as you’ve been reading you’ve wondered why a neurosurgeon is sharing his ideas about government when the training, education, and focus of a neurosurgeon’s life is decidedly scientific and concerns biomedical dilemmas and solutions. You might be surprised to know that five physicians signed the Declaration of Independence, and many of them were involved with the creation of the United States Constitution. I believe it is a very good idea for physicians, scientists, engineers, and others trained to make decisions based on facts and empirical data to get involved in the political arena and help guide our country. Physicians were once much more involved in their communities and with governance in general. But in recent years we have tended to spend all of our time in our operating rooms, clinics, laboratories, and professional societies, leaving the governance to others. This is a
mistake, because we should be concerned not only about the health of individual patients, but also about the health of our entire society. Since those in the health-care professions are among the most highly trained people in our society (a typical physician spends an average of over five years in postgraduate training), we should be willing to share the benefits of our education and critical thinking with the society that made it possible.

As it stands today we have too many lawyers in government — many of whom are very smart and decent people — but they are not immune from acting like lawyers. Consequently, we have far too much regulatory legislation. Also, what do many lawyers learn in law school? They learn to win by hook or by crook; it doesn’t matter how you fight as long as you win. Imagine a roomful of Democratic and Republican lawyers, each with one overriding goal to win, and this certainly helps one understand the distasteful partisan politics that characterizes Congress today.

Having three, well-balanced branches of government was an inspired and creative idea, but I do not believe that the founding fathers intended for a fourth branch of government to emerge — that of special interest groups. These groups would not have the great power they do today in the scenario originally envisioned by the founding fathers, in which dedicated citizens served in Congress for a few years and then returned to their original walks of life. But because many in Congress want to keep returning term after term, they need to constantly campaign and seek funding, much of which is obtained from special interest groups. Needless to say, money from these groups is not given without strings being attached. These tangled relationships have reached the point now where powerful corporate groups, unions, and other groups with large amounts of money to spend can exert great influence on the legislative process, which essentially pitches logical solutions to problems out the proverbial window, and favors solutions that benefit the special interest groups. This is an extremely serious problem, which threatens the very integrity of our system of government. I suspect that if the founding fathers were suddenly resurrected and saw the current situation, they would mandate a constitutional convention to find a solution to this problem posthaste!

One solution to the problem of special interest groups might be to lengthen the term one serves as a representative from two years to six, eight, or even ten years — with no possibility of reelection. You could couple that term length with a right of recall by the populace every other year if the
representative were doing an exceptionally bad job. Congressmen could then govern based on the wishes of their constituents and pay little or no attention to special interest groups. Can you even imagine how much more efficiently and logically our government would work under such a circumstance?

A few years ago, my friend Dr. Henry Brem, who is the chairman of the neurosurgery department at Johns Hopkins, and I wrote an op-ed piece for the
Washington Post
focusing on tort reform. In that piece, we called for the media to focus attention on the United States senators who had been co-opted by the Trial Lawyers Association to the point that they would always filibuster any tort reform bill that came before the Senate. This is certainly an example of how the media could be very helpful by exposing not only the special interest groups and what they are doing, but also the leaders who are being influenced by them. Revealing this practice could discourage such close relationships between our elected officials and special interest groups.

The founding fathers certainly feared government becoming too big and too powerful. Observing this imbalance overseas, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter, “Experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind; for I can apply no milder term to the governments of Europe, and to the general prey of the rich on the poor.”
¹¹

When the American experiment appeared to be preparing to return to big government rule, ex-President George Washington wrote to Justice John Jay, astounded that the ideals that had been agonized over, rehashed, and reworked had fallen into a whirlpool of indifference:

The founders realized that a gigantic government would require increasingly large amounts of resources from the people in the form of taxes, and that the people would consequently expect more from such a government since they were giving it so much of their money. Eventually government could become so big that its ravenous appetite for tax money coupled with a populace that expects so much from it creates a bloated, unsustainable system,
no longer able to provide for itself. Many of the countries from which the founding fathers fled could be characterized in just this way, which is why they were so rightly concerned the United States would fall prey to the same problems.

Certainly the plight of such countries as Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, and Spain have received a lot of attention recently
¹³
due to significant public outcries, demonstrations, and even riots because their governments have not been able to fulfill their promised social obligations to the people due to lack of funds, despite high tax rates. We could not ask for more timely examples of what happens when we abandon our founding principles of limited government and protecting individual rights.

The founding fathers also knew they needed to design a system that would give the people flexibility to alter the government if it became too bloated. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press, as well as the right to peacefully assemble, were among the key provisions included to preserve our freedom. In many societies around the world, criticism of the government can result in imprisonment or death; in America, however, criticism occurs on a daily basis. In fact, our free press is one of the real virtues of American society. One of the greatest journalists of all time was Walter Cronkite, whose integrity was never questioned. Although his political leanings were decidedly left-wing, you would have had great difficulty detecting it because of his balanced treatment of the news.

I do not want to be overly critical of the news media today because I realize what a difficult task they have reporting news around the clock. When one has all day to talk about the news — and one
has
to talk about the news all day — it is hard not to offer personal commentary and, at times, embellish. Nevertheless, we the people should expect integrity from the news media and unbiased reporting of newsworthy events. When a news reporter or commentator can tell a flat-out lie and not be terminated or even required by the network to offer a public apology, we have a problem. I am still a big fan of our news media, however, and I certainly hope they can take corrective action on their own to preserve a noble profession.

The freedoms built into our Constitution actually give us power to dramatically change things about our society with which we disagree. For instance, in the 1950s and 1960s, segregation and racial discrimination were rampant in America. The populace became increasingly discontent with
the glaring injustices they witnessed nightly on television. Many nonviolent protests were carried out, and the media did a magnificent job of highlighting the shortcomings of both federal and local governments in resolving the situation. As a result of these social movements and the courage of many individuals, a whole way of life that was a scourge upon our nation was changed. Protests and the media were also instrumental in ending the Vietnam War. As long as we have a courageous populace, and a courageous and unbiased media, we are likely to be able to correct significant societal problems as they arise, which is a part of the greatness of America. Unfortunately, political correctness threatens the integrity of the media, and we must all be vigilant in our attempt to continue the great experiment that is America.

The kind of government proposed by the framers of our Constitution was intended to serve the people. This meant providing protection, adequate infrastructure, the right to make a living, and the right to pursue happiness. The kind of government that the framers did not want was one that tried to control the lives of its constituents. They realized that the latter type of government would transform “we the people” from a “can do” society to a “what can you do for me” society.

It is really quite phenomenal how quickly America went from a lowly colony to the very pinnacle nation of the world. It happened because so many people were willing to work hard, not so much for themselves as for their children and their grandchildren. Many of them had emigrated from countries where hard work did not pay off, and they were excited to be in a place where they could actually realize the fruits of their own labor in a tangible way, improving the possibilities for their offspring.

Those who propelled our nation to the pinnacle status in a very short period of time also knew the importance of sacrifice. Now it sometimes seems our government leaders do not understand the concept of sacrifice. They have no problem with the
populace
sacrificing, but our federal government does not seem to know how to tighten its own belt, preferring to simply raise taxes to cover its own excesses. This would not be the case if our representatives in Congress were more in tune with their constituency. The current government is akin to a person who checks into a hotel and discovers that all of his bills are being taken care of by someone else, and so he feels free to live it up.