Tag Archives: Political Science

Should The U.S. Electoral College Be Abolished?

September 9, 2019 By in History, Philosophy Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 2 Comments
Should The U.S. Electoral College Be Abolished?

Many Americans uphold the U.S. Constitution as a visionary document: drafted in a spirit of equality and encouraging the maximum democratic participation for all voters. The Preamble’s introductory line, “We the people of the United States, in order to establish a more perfect union,” seems to imply that all citizens of our Nation would be involved in the process of creating and directing the government. In reality, however, the framers of the Constitution only provided a small voting role for the general electorate. The drafters intended that only members of the U.S. House of Representatives would be subject to direct election by the general voting population. In contrast, U.S. Senators and the U.S. President would be indirectly elected for longer terms of office. 

Indirect Versus Direct Democracyfederalistpapersauthors

In The Federalist Papers, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, wrote against the concept of direct elections of the President and Senators. Alexander Hamilton stated that the objective of the Electoral College was to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

In his papers #49 and #63, Madison argued that giving ordinary citizens the right to elect their president would mean that “the passions, therefore, not the reason, of the public would sit in judgement.” Moreover, the indirect election plan would protect the American public against “their own temporary errors and delusions,” “their violent passions,” and “popular fluctuations.” Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Paper #68 advocated for indirect elections as a means to avoid “tumult and disorder” and “violent movements.” 

Have indirect elections for the U.S. President protected the country from irrational and Alexanderhamilton.pngdelusional public voting?

In contrast to appointing others to vote on one’s behalf, “direct democracy” describes when citizens make decisions about elections and policy in person, without going through representatives and legislatures. In this context, “direct democracy” means that individual citizens could cast a vote which would then be counted to determine which candidate would be elected.  Another example of direct democracy granted to citizens, including to citizens in Colorado and twenty other U.S. States, is the power of initiative by which a petition signed by a certain minimum number of registered voters can bring about a public vote on a proposed law or constitutional amendment. Should U.S. citizens be given the right to “direct democracy” at the Federal level?

The Constitutional Limits to Direct Democracy

The Electoral College was not the only limit the founders included on direct democracy in the Constitution, though we have discarded most of those limitations. Senators were initially to be appointed by state legislatures, and states were permitted to ban women from voting entirely. Slaves were also denied the right to vote, and a slave only counted as three-fifths of a person in the determination of the number of legislators a State would receive in Congress. The 14th Amendment abolished the three-fifths rule and granted male former slaves the right to vote. The 15th Amendment abolished federal and state government’s authority to deny a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen’s “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The 17th Amendment made senators subject to direct election, and the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote.

 The U.S. Constitution’s Requirements for Electing the President

James Madison’s and Alexander Hamilton’s indirect voting philosophy informed the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, which outlines the method of selecting in the President in Clauses 2, 3, and 4 of Article 2, Section 1. 

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2: Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

9electorscastvotesinColorado

Nine Colorado electors take the oath before casting their votes on Nov. 19, 2016 at the State Capitol.

Under the U.S. Constitution, by means of a constitutional grant of authority to the State legislatures, the President and Vice President are chosen by electors. This system allows each State to determine the means by which it will create its State College of Electors. In current practice, State legislatures create their panel of electors by indirect popular vote. 

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 3: The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot… they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed… (Note: This clause was changed by the Twelfth Amendment in 1804).

Each individual State chooses its electors in the popular election. Once chosen, the electors meet in their respective states to cast ballots for the President and Vice President. In the case where no Presidential candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the House chooses from the top three candidates. 

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4: The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Congress determines the national Election Day, which has been determined to be the Tuesday following the first Monday in November in the year before the President’s term is to expire. Then, the Electors cast their votes on the Monday following the second Wednesday in December of that year. The votes are then opened and counted by the Vice President, as President of the Senate, in a joint session of Congress. The Constitution does not include a requirement that the electors cast their votes to match the voting outcome Electoral+Collegeof the popular elections within the state.

The Electoral College 

The political philosophy that ordinary citizens were not qualified to choose their leaders was common practice in the early years of popular voting. Instead, nations made use of indirect voting, whereby the voters would elect a group of representatives to select public leaders on their behalf. The Electoral College is the last vestige of this arcane system still operating in the United States. Thus, when Americans go to vote for the President on Election Day, they are not voting for the President; instead, they are choosing representatives who will vote on their behalf. In each State, the voters are technically choosing between the groups of electors who have been elected or appointed months prior to the election. The electors are then pledged to support their own party’s presidential candidate. 

The Electoral College operates on a system of 538 total electoral votes for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. To win the general election, 270 votes are needed for a candidate. Each state is entitled to a number of electoral votes equal to the combined number of Senators plus the number of U.S. Representatives for that state. For example, Montana has a single member of Congress and two senators. Thus, Montana receives three electoral votes in the Presidential contest. In contrast, California has 53 ElectoralCollegeVoteCertificationmembers of Congress and 2 Senators, receiving 55 electoral votes. 

Following the general election on the Tuesday after the first Monday of November, the winning balloted electors travel to their State Capitol to formally cast their votes on the Monday following the second Wednesday in December. While rare, electors have, in the past, broken their pledges and voted for a different candidate. Although most states have passed statutes binding their electors to their pledges, constitutional authorities have raised doubts as to whether these state laws would be enforceable in the National election. In the 2016 Presidential Election, six U.S. electors broke with tradition to vote against their state’s popular vote tallies – the largest number of “faithless electors” seen in a century. Four U.S. electors declined to vote for Hilary Clinton, and two electors refused to vote for Donald Trump. Should the Electors of the Electoral College be allowed to vote their conscience?

While the popular vote usually correlates with the election of the President, there have been exceptions in American History.

1824 Election – There was no majority winner in the electoral college. Four candidates split the vote: John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, and William H. Crawford. The election was sent to the House of Representatives who chose John Quincy Adams despite Andrew Jackson winning the popular and electoral votes. The choice was the ultimate result of what is historically referred to as “The Corrupt Bargain,” devised and executed by Adams and Clay.

USPresidentsLostPopularVote1876 Election – Samuel Tilden was chosen by the popular vote, but a special commission overruled this vote, electing President Rutherford B. Hayes instead.

1888 Election – Grover Cleveland received more popular votes, but the Electoral College elected President Benjamin Harrison.

2000 Election – Al Gore won the popular vote with 48.4% of the vote, but President George W. Bush won the Electoral College with 271 votes, following the recount in Florida. Gore received approximately 540,000 more votes nationwide than Bush. This vote count, however, pales in comparison to the 2016 Presidential Election final votes tally.

2016 Election – Hillary Clinton won the popular vote with nearly three million more votes than President Donald Trump. According to the non-partisan Cook Political Report, Clinton received approximately 2,864,974 more votes nationwide than Trump. Donald Trump won the presidency by securing 306 electoral college votes which is 36 more than the 270 votes needed to claim victory.

Thus, in 53 of the 58 total elections, the winner of the national popular vote has also carried the Electoral College vote.

Equality and Justice in American Elections

Do Americans still lack the responsibility and reasoning necessary to elect the President? Electoral-College-1Must we still be protected against our “own temporary errors and delusions” and “violent passions” as James Madison argued? Freemasonry rests under the banner of the universality of all mankind and operates under the principles of tolerance, justice, and equality. 

When American Citizens are withheld the electoral power to choose our President, are we truly operating as, “we the people?” Can we form a “more perfect union” when we voluntary abdicate our voting choices to others deemed to be more rational and less ruled by passions? Perhaps, we need to realize the responsibility inherent in acting as mature adults, subdue our unruly passions, and advocate for equal voting rights in the election of the U.S. President. 

 

 

Understanding Chaos

March 22, 2017 By in Behavioral Science, Formal Science, Philosophy Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment
Understanding Chaos
In this first 100 days of  2017, here in America and in some other countries, there has been a great deal of what we like to call chaos. Chaos is “complete disorder or disruption.” However, I’m going to challenge us all, especially Freemasons, to look at Chaos differently. We put “Order out of Chaos” but what does this mean? The challenge I have is to look at Chaos as something different and necessary to life and growth, or at least our ability to tell the difference.
 

Let me first start by saying this is not, emphasis on NOT, a political discussion. This is using an event in politics to illustrate a point. However you feel about the politics/events, right or wrong, is irrelevant to the content of this blog. What I want to do is illustrate how science and nature have a real place in our processes to affect change. Think differently. That said, here we go.

A recent event happened in politics in America – the Immigration Executive Order that Trump signed on January 27th. The executive order was, by mostly-credible accounts thus far, written by Steve Bannon, a self-designated fear monger. He stated, in a 2010 interview, “Fear is a good thing. Fear is going to lead you to take action.” He also stated that “I’m a Leninist,” [quoted as saying by a writer for The Daily Beast] He later said he did not recall the conversation. “Lenin wanted to destroy the stA30B258A-524B-4688-9D2F-EE9E6F4D5652ate, and that’s my goal, too,” the site quoted him as saying. “I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.”  Mr. Bannon told The Washington Post this year, “We call ourselves ‘the Fight Club.’ You don’t come to us for warm and fuzzy. We think of ourselves as virulently anti-establishment, particularly ‘anti-’ the permanent political class. We say Paul Ryan was grown in a petri dish at the Heritage Foundation.”

I do not think that Mr. Bannon is alone in
his thinking this way, especially across the current appointees and heads of various government agencies. I think Trump has a specific goal in mind: introduce chaos into the system to turn it on its head and change it. The difficulty that most people have is that it is chaos mixed with fear, hatred, and injustice – not Masonic values at all.

In a recent Facebook posting, historian Heather Cox Richardson explained this “shock event” in very succinct and clear terms – what it is, what the outcomes may be, and what we can do to overcome it. The full text can be found in this blog. I think that one of the best sentences in this piece, and one we should all take hold of is this: “But because shock events destabilize a society, they can also be used positively. We do not have to respond along old fault lines. We could just as easily reorganize into a different pattern that threatens the people who sparked the event.” Her point, in other words, is that we don’t have to react in ways we’ve always reacted – we can take our emotions and work differently. It takes consciousness, focus, and effort. It takes energy. Energy.

Here’s where I want to turn chaos on its head. In the world of science, specifically physics and thermodynamics, chaos equates to entropy. Entropy is not sitting on your couch, drinking a Coors, and watching the game. No. In physics, entropy is the lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder. Simply stated, entropy is the spreading of energy until it is evenly spread. A great, in-depth, and head-expanding article on the second law of thermodynamics and entropy is here. I warn you, it’s long and even though it says “simple,” it takes focus to really follow the whole article. Bottom line: let’s just say, energy disperses.

If you look at our country, or any “related system” I will call it, we were founded by many humans with a great deal of energy for change. Events which upset the equilibrium – taxation, religious persecution, and the like – created energy, which in turn led people to expend their energy differently – fighting for and creating a new country and a new form of government. This energy, related to the creating of the United States of America, has over time, received influxes of upsets to its equilibrium; these are the events more remembered as shapers of the country. It is how we got to where we are today.

How does this relate to thermodynamics and physics? Hang with me, I’m getting there. There is new discussion about entropy and how physics can be applied to the biology of life. Another long article but with a very clear video about the thoughts and theories is found here. In essence, the article explains that in the end, thought (that is, intention, logic, and problem-solving) are the keys to fighting entropy and disorder. Another way of looking at this is that the destruction of forms happens because of entropy; the introduction of an upset to the equilibrium staves off entropy (chaos) and causes the current energy to reorganize and become a viable source for change. We can look at teleology as having a connection to thermodynamics rather than biology. Simply said, thought is energy.

Did I lose you? I might have lost myself. But, stay with me. Where I’m getting to is this: Freemasonry values nature and science – we need to look at both for the answers of how did we get here and where do we go next. Let’s take a step and connect biology, physics, and politics, weird as that may be, into a line and we can see how we got here. And, to Heather Cox Richardson’s point, how we get out. We need to take whatever energies we receive from the upset of the equilibrium and turn it into a thoughtful way to change our world.

Like the small discs of atoms the researchers used in their experiments in the above article, we too can use tools and socially organize into effective change advocates. We can create something new from the impetus we’ve been given. To me, Freemasonry has given me the balance to look at something like Chaos as see it as a blessing. I’m not talking about how that chaos is delivered, which may involve incredible emotional and physical upheaval. Pain, Fear, Hate, Ignorance – all of these continue. It is in our responses where we can affect the change. Until we think about our next moves, use the energy that we’ve been given to that plan of thought, and execute well, the shock event will actually create nothing new at all. I might even venture to say that what we might view as negative change can actually be what positive change needs to get going. All of these lessons are clear in nearly all degrees of Freemasonry. Sometimes, it takes chaos for us to see the value in what we’re learning. If we can take a breath and use our thought processes to absorb the disruption, we might be able to see the value in all sides of an event.

The Caucus, Primary, and National Party Conventions: How Has History Shaped the Presidential Nomination Process?

July 29, 2016 By in History, Philosophy Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment
The Caucus, Primary, and National Party Conventions: How Has History Shaped the Presidential Nomination Process?

How do U.S. political parties nominate a candidate for President? To win the nomination in one of the parties, the candidate collects pledges from a majority of the delegates to the parties’ National Conventions, currently held during the summer before November’s general election. There are three methods used presently to allocate delegates to presidential contenders: 1) the Caucus System, 2) the Primary System, or 3) a combination of the two. To determine their candidate, each state hold’s a political contest, referred to as a caucus or primary.  The caucus method is organized by the political parties, whereas, primaries are organized and overseen by the State government. The candidate who secures the highest number of delegates at the political convention wins the nomination and competes in the general election. How has history shaped this nomination process, and how did Freemasonry impact the evolution of that process? 

The Caucus

As the older method of choosing delegates, the caucus system was utilized by all States in the Union until the 1832 election. The term “caucus” is derived from Latin origin, meaning,  “a drinking vessel” and was used to describe informal local pocaucusmeetinglitical clubs prior to the forming of the United States. 

A caucus is defined as “a meeting of a political group to select candidates, plan strategy, or make decisions regarding legislative matters.” In the nominating process, a caucus is a local meeting where registered members of a party gather to select a delegate that may represent them at the National Convention. In most states, the attendees at the precinct caucus vote for their preferred party candidate, which informs and directs a percentage of the State’s delegation at the National Party Convention. In 2016, approximately 123,500 Democratic voters in Colorado attended their local caucus on March 1st and voted to select a party candidate. In contrast, the Republican Party in Colorado decided to forgo voting for a candidate in their precinct caucuses and only selected delegates for their future convention. This means that of the 5.5 million citizens of Colorado, only 2.2 percent of the population voted to select a Presidential candidate for the 2016  general election. 

In 2016, thirteen states (Iowa, Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska, Maine, Idaho, Utah, Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, and Wyoming) utilized the caucus system. In most states, only registered voters can participate in a caucus, and they are limited to the caucus of the party with which they are affiliated. Caucuses are typically used in combination with congressional district assemblies and a state convention to elect delegates to the national nominating convention for presidential elections. 

The Primary

A primary is a state-run process of selecting candidates and delegates, where the results are used to determine the configuration of delegates at the national convention of each party. Unlike caucuses, primaries are conducted at regular polling stations, paid for by the state, and overseen by state election officials. Voters cast a secretPrimaryVoting ballot for their preferred candidate, as compared to caucuses where the voting is done in a group forum usually by a show of hands or breaking into groups based on support.  In 2016, thirty-seven U.S. states (New Hampshire, South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Arizona, Wisconsin, New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota) and the District of Columbia will conduct a primary election. Voter participation tends to be significantly higher in primaries. In 2016, more than 1.5 million citizens of the state of Missouri voted to nominate candidates for president. With approximately 6 million people living in Missouri, this equates to 25 percent of the population voting for a presidential candidate. 

There are several types of primaries in the U.S. system: closed primary, semi-closed primary, open primary, and semi-open primary. 

  • Closed primary: Participation is open only to a particular political party’s registered members. Independents or other party members cannot participate. Florida holds a closed primary. 
  • Semi-closed primary: Participation is open to registered party members and unaffiliated voters. State election rules determine whether unaffiliated voters may make their choice. New Hampshire holds a semi-closed primary. 
  • Open primary: Any registered voter may participate in any party primary. Illinois holds an open primary. 
  • Semi-open primary: Any registered voter may participate in any party primary but when they identify themselves to election officials, they must request a party’s specific ballot. Ohio holds a semi-open primary. 

Prior to the 1970s, most states utilized the caucus system to choose their delegates, but public outcry over corruption by political bosses led to substantial changes in the process for the 1972 election.  The caucus system favored powerful leadersRepublicanNationalConvention with pull in their delegation like famous party boss Mayor Daley of Chicago. In 1968, CBS reporter, Martin Plissner, stated, “If Daley instructs the Illinois delegates to vote for Ho Chi Minh, all but twenty votes will go to Ho Chi Minh without question.” In an effort to make the nomination process more inclusive and transparent, most states have moved to the primary system. 

Political Party National Conventions 

Every four years, a political party national convention is hosted, usually in the summer, by the major political parties who field nominees in the upcoming U.S. presidential election in November. The purpose of the national convention is to select the party’s nominee for President, adopt a policy platform, and adopt the rules for the party’s activities for the next election cycle. During the convention, a roll call of the votes is held, where each state delegation announces its vote totals. If no candidate secures a majority of delegates during the first vote, a “Brokered Convention” in invoked. In a brokered convention, most pledged delegates are released from their agreements to support a specific candidate and delegates are then able to switch their allegiance to a different candidate. The party nomination is then decided through a process of debate and rounds re-voting until a candidate is selected. 

Historical Analysis: Freemason Andrew Jackson and Reforms to the Nomination Process

Before 1820, members of Congress would hold a caucus meeting and nominate candidates from their party. There were no primaries or national conventions, instead congressional party members gathered in a caucus meeting to decide the party’s candidate. The system was altered following the U.S. Presidential election of 1824, referred to as “The Corrupt BargainCorruptBargin1824,” when Andrew Jackson won the popular and electoral college vote, but the U.S. House of Representatives chose John Quincy Adams to be President. Mr. Jackson decried the corruption stating, “I weep for the liberty of my country when I see at this early day of its successful experiment that corruption has been imputed to many members of the House of Representatives, and the rights of the people have been bartered for promises of office.”

Andrew Jackson, a Freemason and Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Tennessee (1822-1824), was among the most strident critics of the caucus method of selecting candidates. In his 1828 presidential bid, Jackson ran with the vocalized intent of restoring the voice of the people to the election process. As a man of the people, Andrew Jackson argued that the caucus system was elitist and undemocratic, as only a small percentage of the population was engaged in the process. Jackson pledged that he would open up the system to increase the political power of the electorate, and he proposed to eliminate the Electoral College and institute a direct popular election of the president. Jackson argued, ” Our government is founded upon the intelligence of the people. I for one do not despair of the republic. I have great confidence in the virtue of the great majority of the people, and I cannot fear the result.” The election of 1828 was described as a “triumph of democratic politics,” in which more than 1.1 million men participated compared to only 300,000 in 1824. 

Andrew Jackson was elected U.S. President in 1828 and was re-elected in 1832. In 1832, national conventions were held by the political parties, including the Anti-Masonic Party which held its convention in Baltimore, Maryland on September 26, 1831 to select William Wirt as their Presidential candidate.  President Andrew Jackson, candidate of the Democratic Party, won re-election against Henry Clay the candidate of the National Republican Party, and William Wirt the candidate of the Anti-Masonic Party. Jackson won with 219 of the 286 electoral votes cast in the national election. 

Does International Free Trade Promote Freemasonic Ideals? An Analysis of The Trans-Pacific Partnership Treaty

December 6, 2015 By in Philosophy Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment
Does International Free Trade Promote Freemasonic Ideals? An Analysis of The Trans-Pacific Partnership Treaty

Often viewed as highly contentious, the rubric of free-trade involves numerous nuances that can be polarizing. Does international free trade promote Masonic ideals? Proponents of international free trade argue that treaties, such as The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), help to spread the value of freedom and reinforce the rule of law. Similarly, Freemasonry promotes freedom of thought, speech, and action for all Mankind, regardless of race, religion, or gender.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

In a globalized world, the United States is seeking to expand international free trade in a manner that  addresses 21st century issues. Described as “the cornerstone” of President Obama’s economic policy in the Pacific region, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a proposed U.S. treaty with eleven countries, including: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. According to the Brookings Institute, these nations together account for about one-third of all international trade.12countriesTPP
The TPP is intended to enhance trade and investment; promote innovation, economic growth and development; and support the creation of jobs. The proposed agreement began in 2005 as the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement. Participating countries set the goal of wrapping up negotiations in 2012, but contentious issues created stumbling blocks in the areas of agriculture, intellectual property, services, and investments. The total GDP of the twelve countries involved with the TPP comprises 40 percent of global GDP, and the proposed benefits of the trade agreement are estimated at $295 billion annually.  

As the major proponent of the treaty, The Obama Administration has argued that the TPP will open up the United States to all kinds of new markets and business. Agribusiness is one area expected to see a large benefit from the TPP by allowing certain U.S. companies new avenues for the sale of their products. Moreover, the Obama Administration stated that the TPP will increase labor and environmental protections in the TPP countries and globally by forcing nations to meet the standards negotiated under the treaty, thereby essentially “leveling the playing field” for American businesses that must currently meet high levels of regulation in these areas.

As one of the primary goals in his trade agenda, President Obama advocated diligently for the implementation of the TLeaders_of_TPPPP. After seven years of negotiations, a final agreement was reached between the 12 countries on October 5, 2015.  The text of the agreement will have to be signed and ratified following the national procedures of each of the individual countries. 

Controversies Surrounding the TPP

The largest controversy surrounding the TPP is that was that it was being negotiated behind closed doors. The governments involved argue that such conditions are necessary in order to reach agreements, which involve complex issues related to multilateral trade and global investments. The U.S. government responded to complaints regarding the secrecy of ongoing investigations stating, “In order to reach agreements that each participating government can fully embrace, negotiators need to communicate with each other with a high degree of candor, creativity, and mutual trust.” In the interest of all governments involved, it has become routine practice for proposals and communications related to negotiated treaties to be kept confidential.  

Another issue regarding the TPP is whether it would actually improve labor conditions. In a document entitled, Broken Promises, Senator SenatorElizabethWarrenElizabeth Warren outlined ‘lack of enforcement’ as one of the major criticisms of free trade agreements.

“By now, we have two decades of experience with free trade agreements under both Democratic and Republican Presidents. Supporters of these agreements have always promised that they contain tough standards to protect workers. But this analysis reveals that the rhetoric has not matched the reality.” – Senator Elizabeth Warren

Senator Warren highlights that there have been widespread enforcement problems with the free trade agreements enacted in the past two decades. The U.S. State Department has written several reports revealed persistent inadequacies related to reducing child labor and enforcing labor rights in countries that have signed free trade agreements with the United States.

Yet another controversy involves legal issues surrounding the agreement. Leaked chapters of the TPP have intellectual property advocates, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, concerned that the TPP over-extends copyright laws and fair use rules. Doctors Without Borders has voiced concern that the TPP could unfairly impact citizens in third world countries by making it more expensive to obtain generic drugs, thus restricting access to medicine for some of the poorest individuals world-wide.

FreemGeorgeWashingtonFreemasonasonry and Free Trade

Does free-trade promote Freemasonic ideals? According to the 2012 Index of Economic Freedom, countries with the most trade freedom have higher per capita GDPs, lower incidences of hunger, lower rates of unemployment, and cleaner environments than countries at the bottom of the trade freedom scale.

Freemasonry stands as a global organization dedicated to improving the lives of all people through charity and brotherly love.Moreover, free trade among nations has been shown to promote peaceful international relations. When free-trade exists across political boundaries, the world becomes more integrated as individuals and companies interact.  As President George Washington wrote in 1791, Masonry was “founded in justice and benevolence,” and “the grand object of Masonry is to promote the happiness of the human race.”