Fun times

Last night went longer than I had planned as I was out on the town with many of my new friends here in Guatemala. Needless to say, waking up at 6:00 am this morning was difficult. I heard my roommate, Alfonso, open the bathroom door and enter the room. "Levantete!" - the usual morning wake-up call. "And oh," he mentioned on my way to the shower, "don't forget you need to wear a suit today. We are going to Congress." Well, great, I thought. Why do we always go to that place? They hate us. "And did I mention," he continued, "we are meeting with the radical left, so get ready."

Well, that's fantastic. Not only am I gringo to this country as a visitor, I am a gringo in politics as well. I have no clue have the stuff that is said because, well, my Spanish needs help. I sat down at an oval table, embracing the brewing storm. The battle began with formal introductions, an intimidating sound effect of camera snapshots from the press, and a confused gringo in the corner. As opening statements were made for each side, I watched. I observed the manner in which each spokesman dictated the ethos of the room. I soaked in the importance of confidence and genuine belief in a cause.

My ProReforma pamphlet lay in front of me. There, in a language I struggle to understand, in the hands of a political system I find corrupt, on the table of men who could change the condition of their country with one decision-there sat my convictions. There sat a document that diminished the power of a corrupt few and believed in the capability of Guatemalan citizens to make a better life for themselves. There sat a document, a deep, true solution to third-world poverty and government corruption.

For one who has been trained to defend the sanctity of human life, it seems clear to me that this document, the proposal of ProReforma, is the answer to so many global crises. What prevents the decision to follow this document and implement its principles? A friend asked me last night, "If you believe that government is the problem, how do you respond to the fact that the majority of individuals vote for more government? It seems to offer programs at a price the market cannot compete with." I could draw the Keynesian cross, explain the government spending and tax multipliers. I could talk about the "moral hazard," "prisonor's dilema," or the functionality of property rights. But to answer the first question, I recalled Hayek's fifth chapter of Constitution of Liberty and simply stated, "People are afraid to be free, because they are afraid to be responsible." (For more of my opinion on this chapter of Hayek, see "Freedom and Responsibility" at blog.brandoncarmack.com).

So there I sat, witnesseing the battle ground of ideas, asking myself, "How do we convince people that a cost like responsibility is worth the benefits of freedom?" This, I believe, is the cure for poverty, war, and distorted government: to convince citizens that they are capable of being responsible, and to convince governments of that nature of their citizens.

We laughed, we shook hands, and we hoped that liberty had been defended and advanced more than it had been before we entered the room.

A Philosphical Question...

I am here in Guatemala beginning my third and final week in this country. My education thus far has been incredible - academically, spiritually, and socially. What have I learned? New questions. This, after all, is the purpose of education: to be able to ask the right questions, not necessarily have all the answers. But what questions have I learned?

Today I went to a protest where Guatemalans screamed for justice over the recent murder by the President. But what is justice to a Christian? Now I hesitate because I feel like when I add the prepositional phrase " to a Christian" I have in some way removed the intellectual nature of the question. Why not just ask, "What is justice"? But why is this question more "intellectual" than the former? Is it because Christianity, at its core, places a premise of faith superior to any premise of reason? For instance, Christianity assumes a seven-day creation, which diametrically opposes many interpretations of certain scientific evidence. Christians are often considered "unintellectual" because they have chosen a paradigm of principles based on a foundation whose existence cannot be proven. Maybe this is the case. Maybe some "Christians" pursue God out of some self-seeking motive of security or self-confidence. But I believe at its core, Christianity simple adds moral dilemas to intellectual questions. Maybe rather than Christianity rejecting intellectualism, we have witnessed the exact opposite. When we add the phrase "to a Christian" to our original question, we are adding a moral condition to the quesiton of justice. It changes the source of the answer. If we simply were to ask "What is justice" the intellectual response would come from a well-reasoned source which has been educated in the way of some other philosopher, or higher education. In other words, it comes from man who has defined justice according to his understanding. His answer may be revenge, mercy, or other responses to wrong actions. We accept these answer because either 1) the preceeding argument makes sense to our logical pattern or 2) because if we do no agree, we can use our own logic to combat the conclusion. In other words, we remove the the necessity of an absolute. But when we add "to a Christian," we have added a statement of conditionaltiy which assumes on absolute answer which demands no logical pattern other than "God said so." On that "illogical" foundation, then, we make a moral statement that cannot be combated with reason because the Christian claims the declarations of God to be superior to the reason of man. Thus Christianity is removed from intellectual discussions, not vice versa.

But doesn't this solidify the argument of intellectuals that Christianity cannot be a credible paradigm because it rejects any reason of man as a "depraved" sense of understanding? On the contrary, I believe Christianity proposes a moral foundation to guide our reason. Christianity understands that at some point, absolute good and evil exist. Other things equal, we can for the most part, associate pain inflicted by one individual onto another innocent individual as "bad." There are a million and one conditional "what-if" scenarios which could change the outcome of our conclusion. But we only need one time to agree that for one person to hurt another innocent person is bad. But why? Why do we think that a middle-aged rapists should be placed in jail for the murder and rape of a young girl? Why should the President of Guatemala be placed in jail, or at least lose his office for the murder of an innocent lawyer investigating the truth? The very cry for justice demonstrates that "wrong" has been done and it is "good" to punish that wrong. But what gives us this sense of right, wrong, good, or bad? The universal nature of government: executive, legislative, and judicial authority implies a universal understanding of what is right or just. Can this universal good be reasoned or is it a higher law to which we ascribe- written by something higher than man? If it were defined by man, it would be subjective in nature to man's imperfect understanding.

I can't answer the question yet. I do not pretend to know the answers; however, I do believe that Christianity is the truth and must be the backdrop of questions that consider the nature of man. We must add phrases like "to a Christian" to our questions because man's reason and emotion daily. I assume that the moral code which defines good and bad is found in Scripture. I cannot prove this assumption; however, neither can I disprove it. I hope to continue my education, asking the right questions, so that at I can find the right answers. I do not believe I will ever prove the existence of God and his relationship to the supremecy of moral law. If I could, faith would be irrelavent. But we must not reject something because it cannot be proven, nor choose to be ignorant under the banner of "faith." If it is truth, it can be defended, and must be considered when asking the right questions.

Here we go!

*A preface to the following blogs: I am beginning research on my senior thesis. The next few blogs will be my thoughts on the three points I have chosen for my thesis: the nature of political economy, the role of constitutions in political economy, and based on the conclusion of that inquiry, why ProReforma is the best first step for Guatemala.*

“I just don’t know what to expect,” I told a friend on the phone. “With crime rates this high and government this corrupt, I’m not sure what I’m getting myself into.” He paused for a moment and replied, “Do not go down there with any expectations.” This was probably the best advice I could have been given for my trip to Guatemala. I stepped off the plane and into the muck and mire of political and economic chaos. My only choice was learn as much as I could about the organization that I had come to help: ProReforma. What was its purpose, plan, or potential? Barely a week passed and I became overwhelmingly aware of a relationship I had only studied in books: a stable constitution produces a stable economy. With this thesis as my backdrop, I began to analyze the heart of a true Guatemalan revolution.

To accurately work through the problems facing Guatemala and the solutions found in ProReforma, I must first define the relationship between politics and economics. With constitutional reform being the essence of ProReforma, I will then examine the role of a Constitution in this relationship. Based on the conclusion of these analyses, I will demonstrate that ProReforma is the best first step for political and economic reform in Guatemala.

What do we mean by political economics? Each of these words contains a definition that builds a critical foundation for this study. What do I mean by “politics”? Webster defines “politics” as the “factional scheming for power and status within a group.” One must recognize the distinction here between politics and government. Webster defines government as “a small group of persons holding simultaneously the principal political executive offices of a nation or other political unit and being responsible for the direction and supervision of public affairs.” Politics is not, therefore merely the organization of society; rather it is the process by which individuals strive to organize society according to their personal motives. This does not assume that the motives are selfish. This definition simply recognizes that individuals promote ideas that will result in some positive return on the individual. For example, one might promote limited government because he has a certain conviction of individual liberty; therefore the return on his work is the personal satisfaction of promoting a cause. On the other hand, a politician may promote certain government programs to satisfy the desires of his constituents. This will result in his re-election, which may be his goal. Either way, both politicians are practicing politics because they are organizing society according to personal motives. This definition includes a realpolitik paradigm or evangelical republicanism; thus in a utilitarian sense, it is a good definition for this study because it is extremely useful for the majority of political understanding.

But, what of economics? To what am I referring when discussing this complex department of social science? The very nature of economics is the study of allocation of limited resources among unlimited wants. Every individual has an unlimited number of wants or needs. Yet there are billions of individuals on the planet. Earth’s resources are not unlimited, and therefore a responsible method of allocation is needed to ensure the mere survival of such a population. According to French economists, Frederick Bastiat, economics must be understood before politics can be properly formed. In his work The Law, Bastiat states:
A science of economics must be developed before a science of politics can be logically formulated. Essentially, economics is the science of determining whether the interests of human beings are harmonious or antagonistic. This must be known before a science of politics can be formulated to determine the proper functions of government.
Economics quickly becomes a philosophical study because it inquires the nature of man in order to understand the reason for interaction between individuals. Do men naturally get along or not? Is the process of exchange mutually advantageous or does a zero sum game exist? What are the mechanisms one uses to determine the answer to these questions? This is the heart of economics.

And thus the relationship between politics and economics becomes abundantly clear. In order for limited resources to be best allocated among unlimited wants, government must engage in policies that will assist in that allocation. These policies are what I will refer to throughout this paper as “political economy.”

What is the difference?

One of the great questions often debated is: How can some countries have mass poverty and others mass wealth? I got to the office this morning, grabbed a cup of coffee and looked out my enormous wall of glass with a beautiful view of the city. I wondered why this biggest city in Guatemala is barely bigger than my hometown with a crime rate that makes Flint look like heaven. Does this city, or country for that matter face a spiritual, economic, or political condition? What is at the core? I sat down at my desk and fired up my computer. While I was waiting for it to boot up, I picked up the Prensa Libre and read the following: 50% of the 13 million Guatemalans are facing conditions of poverty; 17% are in extreme poverty (living on $1 a day). But how is this? How can I go home, a middle-class citizen, and enjoy all my toys and they have nothing? I believe the core reason stems from a critical principle: economic stability will only result from constitutional stability. I sat my coffee cup down, and got on facebook.


The US Constitution resulted from a desire for economic improvement. While Jefferson wanted an agrarian communal approach, Hamilton desired strong centralized power that directed the economy. Madison sought a futuristic approach, which was one of a nation, or people that could respond to changes as they came. This, I believe, as Russel Hardin puts it, was the "saving grace" of the US Constitution because it allowed the American people to function out of coordination, rather than a contractual agreement with the economic mandates of a Constitution. This can be best demonstrated through the economic responses to WWI, The Great Depression and WWII. Economic policies of all types were proposed, implemented, and proposed again. Had Jeffersonian agrarianism dominated the Constitution's economic policies, no adjustments could have been made to respond to economic needs- and the same is true of Hamilton. I do not think, however, that the economic reaction to those crises was the best - an observation I make in hindsight mind you.

My point is this: You must have a stable Constitution that functions as a coordination mechanism rather than a contract between government and society. In Guatemala, five Constitutions have been put into effect. How can a people invest under such instability? They can't. Their only security is to depend on community property in order to distribute the losses. If you know by the flip of a coin that you can either double your property or lose it, you're less likely to take the risk. In Guatemala, it’s not much different. The laws consistently change.

But not only do the laws change, but so to do the institutions. Like American Progressive Woodrow Wilson stated: "The Constitution was not made to fit us like a straight jacket. In its elasticity lies its chief greatness." The problem with this view is that it does not understand that the very purpose of our constitution was to allow us to respond to social evolution and advancement without the need of institutions to secure any one way. In Guatemala, the Constitution of 1985 has already become passé. The government has replaced the Constitution with institutions. As a result, the people do not know what the law is and cannot respond accordingly.

Now I must add here that there are various institutions that governments should implement- for example, private property rights. In America, the process of acquiring property is fairly simple. But in Guatemala, we find the contrary. There is no stock market in Guatemala. Investment is impossible. What incentives are there then to promote social harmony when the individual cannot seek to better his personal welfare? In the US, the Constitution did not guarantee any certain economic structure. What it DID guarantee, however, was a respect for individual rights. This naturally resulted in a market capitalist economy because Market Capitalism is the system that best respects individual rights. The US Constitution protects individualism and then allows the welfare of the individual to be determined by the market and not by the polity.

In Guatemala, this is not the case. Social democrats proclaim to guarantee the prosperity of Guatemalans and try to determine the welfare of the citizens in the polity, removing any individual rights in the market. When we view a constitution as an "elastic" document, we remove the chains of government. This is what is happening in Guatemala. They cannot have a stable stock market, because investment depends on the law, which constantly changes.

An inconsistent Constitution results in shambled economy. Guatemala proves this. I am glad that I’m working for an organization like ProReforma which understands the importance of equality before the law. ProReforma is the first of many steps that are needed to see reform in the country of Guatemala.

Battles

This morning, I woke up like every other day in Guatemala....extremely early. Guatemalans have a thing for waking up early, sleeping in the afternoon, and partying at night. This morning, my roommate, Alfonso, and I went to breakfast with the members of the board of ProReforma. It was an extremely fancy breakfast and I really enjoyed the conversations.

They often asked me questions about the American economy. What do I think caused the crisis? Where do I see our economy going? Why do so many Americans like Obama? But my favorite question today was this: Brandon, is your generation prepared to work hard; or has America lost its work ethic as a result of its innovations? This question stumped me. The great thing about northern America, one director said, is that has a winter. Winter has taught Americans how to prepare for rough times, and how to work hard during those times. It appears winter has hit America, he continued, and the people forgot to prepare for winter. This statement continues ot baffle me because I do think its true. He commented on the lack of work in Guatemala. He stated: people in Guatemala hardly work; and if they do work, they work just enough. When we work just enough to get by, we forget winters come, and we must be prepared. Has American lost her work ethic: I think this is a question worth asking.

To update you on our situation in Congress, the amendment is in debate with a congressional committee right now. Two days ago, the president of that committee had a fight with many members of his political party. As a result, he left the party, which strongly supported ProReforma. Individually, he also supports the amendment, but we have no idea what will happen as a result of this.

Please continue to pray. I'm constantly reminded that I'm not in America. I have become aware of much political turmoil within our organization that occurred only days before I came. My ability to understand Spanish is getting better, but I still get frustrated at times. Please also pray that I can continue my testimony to those around me. I'm very much the only Christian in this area, and the balance between being a person respectful of cultural differences and standing up for my personal beliefs is becoming increasingly difficult. Most of all, please pray that God will use me to expand His kingdom, even if I never see the results.

Greetings friends and family from Guatemala. Many of you have asked me about the work that I am doing down here, and the situation surrounding it. Here is a brief update on the situation down here and what my involvement entails.

In 1985, Guatemala adapted a new constitution. The constitution made government officials in Guatemala immune to any crime they commit because it placed the judicial power of government in the congress. It also designated a complete article to the immunity of government crime from any consequences. In a gross generalization, the current constitution of Guatemala neglects any individual rights of the Guatemalan people. The economy is in shambles with mass inflation, extreme poverty, and no direction. Ironically, the country has a "Ministro de la econmia" who oversees these problems. But not only is the economy in shambles, but the crime rate is through the roof. In Guatemala City, nearly 17-20 murders take place daily. Of all the cases that make it to the "Supreme Court" only 2% are actually sentenced to any type of punishment.

The economic and political turmoil of Guatemala went into a tailspin on May 10 (just a few weeks ago), when Rodrigo Rosenburg, a prosecuting attorney who accused the President of Guatemala of murder, was killed near the President's house. Shortly thereafter, this video was released: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=243X1pI6-I8. In the video, Rosenburg states: "If you are watching this video, it is because I've been murdered by the President."

The country is now crying for another civil war (only 9 years after the last civil war). This situation has put ProReforma, the organization for which I work, in a great place. The country now sees the political turmoil before its own eyes, and the importance of an independent "Corte Suprema." ProReforma seeks to divide the unicameral congress into a Senate and House of Representatives with a division between their responsibilities. The House of Representatives are to focus on private affairs and the Senate on public affairs. As they say in Guatemala this is to divide legislation which will focus on rights vs. political interests. It is a complicated piece of legislation as it seeks to reform 72 of the 281 articles of the Guatemalan Constitution. My role in this project has been to study it in the light of my understanding of political philosophy and economics convictions and write my thesis on this movement for Hillsdale College.

I hope this answers many of your questions. Please feel free to ask any questions and please pray that God will give me safety and wisdom as I seek and pursue His will in this desperate county.