If I were king
Napoleon on his imperial throne by Ingres
One of the things I try to do as I teach history is try to show principles that govern personal and national behavior. As we compare nation to nation and system to system, we try to see what works and what doesn't. Though I agree that the American system has brought about a phenomenal amount of power and wealth, the experiment is not yet over and the final results are not in. Some Europeans have HOUSES that are older than our nation! We may just be a "flash in the pan". I personally find it embarrassing when a 235 year old nation takes it upon itself to tell the rest of the world how to run things and how to endure as a nation. Some nations like Iraq and Iran have been around in one form or another since the dawn of history!
So periodically, when we've been looking at things the US has done well, and not so well; when we wrap our minds around the cause of the French Revolution or what made Alexander the Great's system so great that people were submitting to his armies without even fighting, I ask "What would YOU do if you were in charge?" The results are often funny, and sometimes sobering.
I decided to ask myself the same question. "What would I do if I were put in charge?" By "in charge" I mean able to enforce whatever decision I make. If I were to make a law it would be like the law of the Medes and Persians - "so let it be written - so let it be done." Obviously people are going to still exercise their free will and most will yet struggle with the yetzer hara. There will still be greed, jealousy, ambition and laziness. Each one will still seek his own good. However, the point will be to determine what seemed to make for good governance in the past and take the best of all and combine them into a national system. Utopian? Absolutely. Impossible to achieve? More than likely. Nevertheless, it is an intellectual exercise that I hope will not be without merit. If nothing else it will help me be a better father, a better teacher, a better pastor, a better leader.
Geographical location is always critical, and since it is a mental exercise I could have chosen any country. I decided to simply stick with my host country, the United States of America. So the game is, "if I were put in charge of the United States, what would I do?" Let the armchair, Monday morning quarterbacking begin!
So periodically, when we've been looking at things the US has done well, and not so well; when we wrap our minds around the cause of the French Revolution or what made Alexander the Great's system so great that people were submitting to his armies without even fighting, I ask "What would YOU do if you were in charge?" The results are often funny, and sometimes sobering.
I decided to ask myself the same question. "What would I do if I were put in charge?" By "in charge" I mean able to enforce whatever decision I make. If I were to make a law it would be like the law of the Medes and Persians - "so let it be written - so let it be done." Obviously people are going to still exercise their free will and most will yet struggle with the yetzer hara. There will still be greed, jealousy, ambition and laziness. Each one will still seek his own good. However, the point will be to determine what seemed to make for good governance in the past and take the best of all and combine them into a national system. Utopian? Absolutely. Impossible to achieve? More than likely. Nevertheless, it is an intellectual exercise that I hope will not be without merit. If nothing else it will help me be a better father, a better teacher, a better pastor, a better leader.
Geographical location is always critical, and since it is a mental exercise I could have chosen any country. I decided to simply stick with my host country, the United States of America. So the game is, "if I were put in charge of the United States, what would I do?" Let the armchair, Monday morning quarterbacking begin!
Principles of Sound Governance
Foreign Policy
No empire building would be allowed. However, if any country or territory should want to join us, they may as long as they join the whole system. They don't get to reap the benefits while not contributing fairly to the system.
The difficulty is that the larger your nation, the larger the border to defend and the more enemies that you have. Even if you aren't aggressive, some will become your enemy out of simple jealousy and greed. Finding the balance between having enough land to house and feed your people and becoming a far flung empire with impossibly long logistical lines, and nightmarish involvement in multiple culture clashes is a definite must. The fine art of contentment is apparently not taught to our current foreign policy chess masters. Apparently they've never heard of strategic overextension.
Any colonization would come from one of two situations: a) they would seek to join us because they wanted the advantages of our system, or b) they would be military conquests we decided to keep. See defense policies.
I would not do business with anyone who does my country harm. I would not give aid to any country that did not love and support my country. I would treat my allies well and give those who are either indifferent or inimical to me short shrift. I wouldn't attack them, but I wouldn't help their system either. Why enable or empower sin?
Alliance should be few in number and hierarchical in nature. Nations next to us and friendly to us get more favorable alliances than either friendly nations which are far or unfriendly nations that are proximate. Another factor besides friendliness, and geography must be resources or services. A resource that is vital and only available to us through a given nation is a mitigating factor. I would further use macroeconomic stability, political maturity, openness of trade and investment policies and quality of education as criteria.
We need to be commercially extroverted but militarily introverted. We actively seek trade and mutual education. However, we keep our military close to home unless someone threatens us.
The difficulty is that the larger your nation, the larger the border to defend and the more enemies that you have. Even if you aren't aggressive, some will become your enemy out of simple jealousy and greed. Finding the balance between having enough land to house and feed your people and becoming a far flung empire with impossibly long logistical lines, and nightmarish involvement in multiple culture clashes is a definite must. The fine art of contentment is apparently not taught to our current foreign policy chess masters. Apparently they've never heard of strategic overextension.
Any colonization would come from one of two situations: a) they would seek to join us because they wanted the advantages of our system, or b) they would be military conquests we decided to keep. See defense policies.
I would not do business with anyone who does my country harm. I would not give aid to any country that did not love and support my country. I would treat my allies well and give those who are either indifferent or inimical to me short shrift. I wouldn't attack them, but I wouldn't help their system either. Why enable or empower sin?
Alliance should be few in number and hierarchical in nature. Nations next to us and friendly to us get more favorable alliances than either friendly nations which are far or unfriendly nations that are proximate. Another factor besides friendliness, and geography must be resources or services. A resource that is vital and only available to us through a given nation is a mitigating factor. I would further use macroeconomic stability, political maturity, openness of trade and investment policies and quality of education as criteria.
We need to be commercially extroverted but militarily introverted. We actively seek trade and mutual education. However, we keep our military close to home unless someone threatens us.
Military
Combined arms training in the Mojave desert
I would develop a strong, efficient military but not to the point where it hurts commerce. You can't eat bullets and air craft carriers. If my population is well fed and prosperous, on the other hand, I can afford to build up quickly to meet the need as the US did just prior to World War I. So the key is to have a strong enough military to hold the enemy off until I can build up to an adequate level to overcome the enemy.
Possessing a modern navy has always been important to the maintenance of security. Today however, that security must be extended to the skies. So a good Navy and Air Force is critical. However, I would limit their movement to within 500 miles of our shores. I would not spend the vast amounts necessary to project our military presence to foreign seas. Their primary purpose is to beat off any attack and hold until we can get ramped up and project our force on a known enemy - a definite target.
If anyone attacks us, we do our best to beat them, then we get to keep them if we want them. If we don't want them, we take whatever will help pay for the war they prosecuted, then leave them to their own devices.
I would end the wars, allow those nations to stand or fall on their own, and bring our troops home. If we are going to fork out trillions of dollars, then bless God we'd better have a clear, ending goal in sight, and we'd better come away with something to be worth it. If I'm going to have to defend another nation for a decade then that nation might as well be mine - all the way. If they don't want that, then let them defend themselves.
If war is necessary, I would do my best to limit it to a single front, throw everything at it to finish it quickly and keep what I win.
I would seek to use natural landforms as defense as much as possible. We are fortunate to have an ocean on either side and a huge (land wise anyway) friendly nation to our north. Our border with Mexico however has always been problematic. It is too long and open to defend easily. Perhaps if we got our own affairs in order, I would send patient, wise people to begin planting seeds in the minds of those people. I would try to get them to join my country of their own free will, offering even to pay their bills, bring domestic tranquility and investment in fundamental infrastructure. Obviously I would have to make sure that our OWN bills are paid first and that we can afford to take them on. The Guatamalan border would be much easier to defend.
If I must get involved in another nation's war: a) It must be because it directly impinges on a resource or service upon which my nation depends; b) it must be because the moral necessity is so clear to all that to NOT intervene would be judged immoral by God; c) better to enter in later rather than sooner so the issues are clear and so I can enter fresh against exhausted enemies; d) I better come away with something for my pains - the aggressors will pay the cost and more for the trouble they created.
Ever increasing expenditures on the military are usually signs of a nation on the decline. It's like a sign of the desperation they feel to maintain their position. If I see this, I would look to determine the TRUE cause of the weakness of my nation. If my nation is financially stable, domestically calm, industrially well founded, and I am not acting in a belligerent manner toward others then I shouldn't be particularly concerned. The only time my military expenditures should spike should be when we are attacked.
I do not dislike or mistrust the military. They are a critical component to any nation's stability. I simply recognize that every time I increase mine, my enemy will increase his. It's a never-ending spiral of death into a financial black hole. I would set aside money to regularly investigate new technologies and to keep my military modern. Small, elite, technologically advanced, well trained and professional will do better in any case over a bloated, undertrained and overpaid one.
I would rather invest in small special forces groups than large standing armies. If a large force threatens my people, I would rather send small teams to keep spreading chaos and assassinating enemy leadership than slogging it out with them in a long-standing war of attrition that will cost me not only in money and arms but more critically - in human lives! Some may object to assassination but to me it's a pragmatic decision even when I only take the enemy's cost in mind. A handful of enemy lives or thousands of enemy lives? Which is more ethical?
Possessing a modern navy has always been important to the maintenance of security. Today however, that security must be extended to the skies. So a good Navy and Air Force is critical. However, I would limit their movement to within 500 miles of our shores. I would not spend the vast amounts necessary to project our military presence to foreign seas. Their primary purpose is to beat off any attack and hold until we can get ramped up and project our force on a known enemy - a definite target.
If anyone attacks us, we do our best to beat them, then we get to keep them if we want them. If we don't want them, we take whatever will help pay for the war they prosecuted, then leave them to their own devices.
I would end the wars, allow those nations to stand or fall on their own, and bring our troops home. If we are going to fork out trillions of dollars, then bless God we'd better have a clear, ending goal in sight, and we'd better come away with something to be worth it. If I'm going to have to defend another nation for a decade then that nation might as well be mine - all the way. If they don't want that, then let them defend themselves.
If war is necessary, I would do my best to limit it to a single front, throw everything at it to finish it quickly and keep what I win.
I would seek to use natural landforms as defense as much as possible. We are fortunate to have an ocean on either side and a huge (land wise anyway) friendly nation to our north. Our border with Mexico however has always been problematic. It is too long and open to defend easily. Perhaps if we got our own affairs in order, I would send patient, wise people to begin planting seeds in the minds of those people. I would try to get them to join my country of their own free will, offering even to pay their bills, bring domestic tranquility and investment in fundamental infrastructure. Obviously I would have to make sure that our OWN bills are paid first and that we can afford to take them on. The Guatamalan border would be much easier to defend.
If I must get involved in another nation's war: a) It must be because it directly impinges on a resource or service upon which my nation depends; b) it must be because the moral necessity is so clear to all that to NOT intervene would be judged immoral by God; c) better to enter in later rather than sooner so the issues are clear and so I can enter fresh against exhausted enemies; d) I better come away with something for my pains - the aggressors will pay the cost and more for the trouble they created.
Ever increasing expenditures on the military are usually signs of a nation on the decline. It's like a sign of the desperation they feel to maintain their position. If I see this, I would look to determine the TRUE cause of the weakness of my nation. If my nation is financially stable, domestically calm, industrially well founded, and I am not acting in a belligerent manner toward others then I shouldn't be particularly concerned. The only time my military expenditures should spike should be when we are attacked.
I do not dislike or mistrust the military. They are a critical component to any nation's stability. I simply recognize that every time I increase mine, my enemy will increase his. It's a never-ending spiral of death into a financial black hole. I would set aside money to regularly investigate new technologies and to keep my military modern. Small, elite, technologically advanced, well trained and professional will do better in any case over a bloated, undertrained and overpaid one.
I would rather invest in small special forces groups than large standing armies. If a large force threatens my people, I would rather send small teams to keep spreading chaos and assassinating enemy leadership than slogging it out with them in a long-standing war of attrition that will cost me not only in money and arms but more critically - in human lives! Some may object to assassination but to me it's a pragmatic decision even when I only take the enemy's cost in mind. A handful of enemy lives or thousands of enemy lives? Which is more ethical?
Domestic Policy
Agriculture
I would want to encourage a diversified, healthy agriculture.
I would not force the issue but I would develop programs to educate the people on the advantages of eating lower down the food chain.
I would seek ways to discourage the mass mono-culture farms that produce grains that are inedible to humans and the terrible hog confinements and battery chicken installations.
I would encourage my people to have a garden and compost pile in every home and animals in as many as possible. Why? It's good for them physically to eat organically grown food close to home and to get a little exercise and sunshine on a daily basis. I also don't like the vulnerability of long, multinational logistical lines or having my people's food all come from one place. It may be cheaper to produce food that way but it's not necessarily cheaper in the long run.
I would not force the issue but I would develop programs to educate the people on the advantages of eating lower down the food chain.
I would seek ways to discourage the mass mono-culture farms that produce grains that are inedible to humans and the terrible hog confinements and battery chicken installations.
I would encourage my people to have a garden and compost pile in every home and animals in as many as possible. Why? It's good for them physically to eat organically grown food close to home and to get a little exercise and sunshine on a daily basis. I also don't like the vulnerability of long, multinational logistical lines or having my people's food all come from one place. It may be cheaper to produce food that way but it's not necessarily cheaper in the long run.
Financial System
I would practice financial prudence. The nation, as any household, must live within its means. A balanced budget is the most fundamental necessity of any healthy system.
I would redo the whole taxation system and make it more fair. For instance I would not impose a different rate of taxes for the rich or the poor.
I would ensure that as much of the tax income would go to real services for the people, i.e. defense, improvements in communication, roads, canals, dams, railroads, and assistance in the event of catastrophes.
I would not allow internal customs, taxes or levies between states or territories under my reign. I want to encourage cross-state commerce. One tax from the central government on the commerce is enough.
The money must be backed by something real. Make it gold, make it silver, make it diamonds, make it anything, but make it real. No more printing money that is not backed by gold.
I would encourage the accumulation of private capital and discourage the formation of debt. I would encourage people to find new solutions to new and old problems, manufacture those solutions cheaply and sell them dearly. But I would ask them to sell them more dearly to outsiders than to our own.
I would encourage the banking system to be as advanced as possible, but to practice their wiles on foreign nations. I would encourage them to consider the example of the Swiss banks.
I would discourage credit cards of any kind among my own people.
No borrowing from bankers for anything that isn't tangible and commercially viable. In other words, we don't borrow to pay interest. We don't borrow to prosecute war.
Even if we were to take over the entire planet, we would yet struggle with limited resources. Therefore our economic system cannot be based on the premise of infinite, ever-increasing growth. That's simply not possible. At some point the bubble has to burst. The alternative is to redefine success as healthy and sustainable living.
Ever higher dues stifles trade and depopulate cities. Unexpected or unpredictable taxes causes industry and skilled labor to leave.
I would impose a flat tax on everyone and a national sales tax. I would scrap the IRS and try to develop an entirely different system for the collection of those taxes. I believe these steps would free up not only free up billions of dollars from the bureaucratic nightmare we call our tax system but would generate trillions of dollars by stimulating business. I believe the benefits would quickly be seen on the Government (central and state) but also by taxpayer, whether personal or corporate.
No selling of offices.
I would redo the whole taxation system and make it more fair. For instance I would not impose a different rate of taxes for the rich or the poor.
I would ensure that as much of the tax income would go to real services for the people, i.e. defense, improvements in communication, roads, canals, dams, railroads, and assistance in the event of catastrophes.
I would not allow internal customs, taxes or levies between states or territories under my reign. I want to encourage cross-state commerce. One tax from the central government on the commerce is enough.
The money must be backed by something real. Make it gold, make it silver, make it diamonds, make it anything, but make it real. No more printing money that is not backed by gold.
I would encourage the accumulation of private capital and discourage the formation of debt. I would encourage people to find new solutions to new and old problems, manufacture those solutions cheaply and sell them dearly. But I would ask them to sell them more dearly to outsiders than to our own.
I would encourage the banking system to be as advanced as possible, but to practice their wiles on foreign nations. I would encourage them to consider the example of the Swiss banks.
I would discourage credit cards of any kind among my own people.
No borrowing from bankers for anything that isn't tangible and commercially viable. In other words, we don't borrow to pay interest. We don't borrow to prosecute war.
Even if we were to take over the entire planet, we would yet struggle with limited resources. Therefore our economic system cannot be based on the premise of infinite, ever-increasing growth. That's simply not possible. At some point the bubble has to burst. The alternative is to redefine success as healthy and sustainable living.
Ever higher dues stifles trade and depopulate cities. Unexpected or unpredictable taxes causes industry and skilled labor to leave.
I would impose a flat tax on everyone and a national sales tax. I would scrap the IRS and try to develop an entirely different system for the collection of those taxes. I believe these steps would free up not only free up billions of dollars from the bureaucratic nightmare we call our tax system but would generate trillions of dollars by stimulating business. I believe the benefits would quickly be seen on the Government (central and state) but also by taxpayer, whether personal or corporate.
No selling of offices.
Commerce
I would encourage broad based, diverse, basic manufacturing. We have become vulnerable since our basic manufacturing has been moved overseas. Why would we have critical diesel electric generators upon which our grid depends fabricated in China which as often as not hates us? Senseless!
I would form a team to keep track of the pace of technology. They would be responsible to determine the best way to organize and manage our newer means of production and technology.
I would regularly invest in infrastructure: bridges, roads, railroads, dams, canals, power distribution.
I would discourage unbalanced import/export. Why should our people have to compete with other nations who fail to give theirs a living wage? Why should what is, to all intents and purposes, slave labor be rewarded? However, this includes any American country that ships its manufacturing overseas to take advantage of the same things. Anything they bring in from said "cheap labor" is taxed the same way the foreign regime's products are.
I would form a team to keep track of the pace of technology. They would be responsible to determine the best way to organize and manage our newer means of production and technology.
I would regularly invest in infrastructure: bridges, roads, railroads, dams, canals, power distribution.
I would discourage unbalanced import/export. Why should our people have to compete with other nations who fail to give theirs a living wage? Why should what is, to all intents and purposes, slave labor be rewarded? However, this includes any American country that ships its manufacturing overseas to take advantage of the same things. Anything they bring in from said "cheap labor" is taxed the same way the foreign regime's products are.
Criminal Justice
I need to protect my people not only from external attack but from internal trouble. I must build a strong police force and have zero tolerance for corruption. Just look at what's happening to Mexico because they let that slip years ago!
Anyone in politics who is prone to intrigue or obstructionism is removed from office. If they continue to foment trouble, I'll exile them.
Anyone in politics who is prone to intrigue or obstructionism is removed from office. If they continue to foment trouble, I'll exile them.
Education
I would build a good educational system that is based on real skills rather than "feel good" or "political correctness". I would demand regular, standardized testing with grades that reflect actual performance. Schools that seem to be doing a better job would be rewarded. Schools that do not perform as expected would be penalized.
I would grant each household an education voucher that they can spend at whatever school they choose. I would make the schools compete for those vouchers. If they can't convince the people to come, then they don't get financed.
We should be conservative in our foreign policy, and in our fiscal policies, but not in our education. Libraries, universities and scientific studies should find a regular place set for them at the budgetary table. Rather than invest in casinos which increase our need for police presence and come with huge counseling loads due to various addictions and broken homes, why not invest directly in our people and develop an environment where education and entrepreneurship is valued? In the long run I guarantee that the second will outperform the first in building the local, state and national coffers.
I would grant each household an education voucher that they can spend at whatever school they choose. I would make the schools compete for those vouchers. If they can't convince the people to come, then they don't get financed.
We should be conservative in our foreign policy, and in our fiscal policies, but not in our education. Libraries, universities and scientific studies should find a regular place set for them at the budgetary table. Rather than invest in casinos which increase our need for police presence and come with huge counseling loads due to various addictions and broken homes, why not invest directly in our people and develop an environment where education and entrepreneurship is valued? In the long run I guarantee that the second will outperform the first in building the local, state and national coffers.
Environment
I would invest heavily in finding ways to reuse our garbage, including the methane.
I would not allow our garbage to be shipped overseas or dumped at sea. If we make the mess, we deal with the mess. We don't sweep in under the rug or make someone poorer and weaker than us deal with it.
Industries would be made as liable as any other neighbor. If I would not allow one person to throw their garbage on his neighbor's lawn, then why would I allow factories to pollute their neighbor's property and air? If they want to make it, they must make it clean.
I would actively invest in solar farms in the desert areas and wind farms on the mountain and ridge lines. I would offer incentives to individual households and industries to produce their own power. Regardless of whether or not complete sufficiency can be developed by these means, every bit that I can diminish my reliance on foreign oil is worth it.
I would not allow our garbage to be shipped overseas or dumped at sea. If we make the mess, we deal with the mess. We don't sweep in under the rug or make someone poorer and weaker than us deal with it.
Industries would be made as liable as any other neighbor. If I would not allow one person to throw their garbage on his neighbor's lawn, then why would I allow factories to pollute their neighbor's property and air? If they want to make it, they must make it clean.
I would actively invest in solar farms in the desert areas and wind farms on the mountain and ridge lines. I would offer incentives to individual households and industries to produce their own power. Regardless of whether or not complete sufficiency can be developed by these means, every bit that I can diminish my reliance on foreign oil is worth it.
Leadership and power issues
National efficiency must be the constant refrain. No waste allowed! If you can't manage it well, then you can't lead it.
National morale should be based on personal freedom, responsibility and autonomy; not on an artificial patriotism centered on a mistaken notion of "supporting the troops" even though their leaders involved them in an unjust war. It should not be an artificial construct of America always wearing the white hat, no matter what unethical practices our large corporations are perpetrating overseas.
I believe in decentralization; in distributed leadership. I like the flexibility, the creativity and the redundancy that it provides. Large, centralized, despotic governments simply don't do well. Even if they last, both the people and the despots are miserable. Oh, the despot may have luxury yachts, mansions and bottles of Bordeaux, but he also has to live with body guards and with limited movement. By moving authority and responsibility out from me, I do not remove my authority and power. Power does not diminish when it is distributed. It is amplified. The money from taxes would flow to the lowest level possible and still get the job done. If I can get the counties to take care of their infrastructure, why make it the state's responsibility. Those who live in the county are far more likely to truly know what is needed and they are far better motivated to get the job done. They live there. Worse! Their mother's live there!
Centralizing too much power makes a nation weak. It's like standing on one leg. Which is more stable, one leg or two? Which is more stable, two legs or four? Just try playing tug-of-war with your much smaller dog and then decide. Even if I am a wise and benevolent king, if too much depends on me, and I have a wicked or simple-minded successor, then all my work will be of no avail and the nation will decline.
National morale should be based on personal freedom, responsibility and autonomy; not on an artificial patriotism centered on a mistaken notion of "supporting the troops" even though their leaders involved them in an unjust war. It should not be an artificial construct of America always wearing the white hat, no matter what unethical practices our large corporations are perpetrating overseas.
I believe in decentralization; in distributed leadership. I like the flexibility, the creativity and the redundancy that it provides. Large, centralized, despotic governments simply don't do well. Even if they last, both the people and the despots are miserable. Oh, the despot may have luxury yachts, mansions and bottles of Bordeaux, but he also has to live with body guards and with limited movement. By moving authority and responsibility out from me, I do not remove my authority and power. Power does not diminish when it is distributed. It is amplified. The money from taxes would flow to the lowest level possible and still get the job done. If I can get the counties to take care of their infrastructure, why make it the state's responsibility. Those who live in the county are far more likely to truly know what is needed and they are far better motivated to get the job done. They live there. Worse! Their mother's live there!
Centralizing too much power makes a nation weak. It's like standing on one leg. Which is more stable, one leg or two? Which is more stable, two legs or four? Just try playing tug-of-war with your much smaller dog and then decide. Even if I am a wise and benevolent king, if too much depends on me, and I have a wicked or simple-minded successor, then all my work will be of no avail and the nation will decline.
Population, migration and distribution
I would encourage balanced population growth. By balanced I mean that I would keep my people's birth and death rates in mind as I consider immigration rates. By balanced I mean that I would consider the quality of life and quality of environment in mind as well.
I would actually encourage immigration. Foreign people with foreign languages offer different perspectives and different skill sets to deal as yet unknown challenges. We invite and celebrate their differences. However, each immigrant must learn English and all education must be English. We have to have one market language that we all understand. Each is free to continue speaking his or her language and follow his or her customs, including religion, but there must be sufficient points of commonality for us to act as a single family.
I would also include a probationary period. If they fail to demonstrate their usefulness within that time frame they are returned to their country of origin.
I would discourage if not forbid the placement of cities in ridiculous places like the middle of the desert that have to be supported by thousands of miles of pipe lines, bleeding the water tables of surrounding counties and states so that they can maintain their gushing fountains and lush lawns in the middle of a desert!
I would tax anyone who wants to build in high risk areas like coasts or flood plains. That money would be used to pay for the rescue of the people when calamity strikes but not to rebuild in the same dangerous area.
I would consider moving the capitol city to somewhere like Wichita, Kansas. Why? Remember that when Washington was chosen there were only the thirteen colonies. It was actually fairly close to the center of the action of the day. Also, back then, the primary source of trade and diplomatic relations was by ship. Today, those issues no longer apply. Washington is now far removed from the center of the nation's day-to-day life and diplomats can fly. Wichita offers strategic and logistical advantages by being as close to the center of the nation as possible.
What to do with old Washington DC? I would allow either Maryland or Virginia to absorb it. If they chose they could transfer their capitol there.
I would actually encourage immigration. Foreign people with foreign languages offer different perspectives and different skill sets to deal as yet unknown challenges. We invite and celebrate their differences. However, each immigrant must learn English and all education must be English. We have to have one market language that we all understand. Each is free to continue speaking his or her language and follow his or her customs, including religion, but there must be sufficient points of commonality for us to act as a single family.
I would also include a probationary period. If they fail to demonstrate their usefulness within that time frame they are returned to their country of origin.
I would discourage if not forbid the placement of cities in ridiculous places like the middle of the desert that have to be supported by thousands of miles of pipe lines, bleeding the water tables of surrounding counties and states so that they can maintain their gushing fountains and lush lawns in the middle of a desert!
I would tax anyone who wants to build in high risk areas like coasts or flood plains. That money would be used to pay for the rescue of the people when calamity strikes but not to rebuild in the same dangerous area.
I would consider moving the capitol city to somewhere like Wichita, Kansas. Why? Remember that when Washington was chosen there were only the thirteen colonies. It was actually fairly close to the center of the action of the day. Also, back then, the primary source of trade and diplomatic relations was by ship. Today, those issues no longer apply. Washington is now far removed from the center of the nation's day-to-day life and diplomats can fly. Wichita offers strategic and logistical advantages by being as close to the center of the nation as possible.
- Psychological distancing. Well, for one thing, I think that there has been so much bad governance in Washington DC that it has become a byword for corruption and ineptitude. I would want to move away from all that, disassociate myself from it. Also, remember that the exercise here is "If I were KING". It's not just the former corruption but the entire system that I would move away from.
- Defensive depth is one of those advantages. Having my capitol right at the far edge of my country, within easy reach of the ocean (and enemy ships or submarines) or within reach of European planes is not my idea of security. The capitol is not necessarily a shipping center and doesn't have to possess a huge port. By moving the capitol to the center of the nation it's pretty much out of reach of most navies and any plane or cruise missile would have to be exposed over a whole lot of land before it could reach the capitol.
- Safer weather. It moves my capitol out of reach of tsunamis and hurricanes. True, there are tornadoes in Kansas, but I would encourage my architects and engineers to build down rather than up anyway. It makes more sense as far as energy consumption is concerned and allows better use of the land. It also makes one's buildings less liable to bombing, both of foreign armies and home-grown terrorists.
- Better access for the people. Everyone is within less than 1,900 miles of the capital as opposed to the 2,700 miles I had to travel from Monterey, Califonia to Quantico when I was in the Corps.
- Less disconnect. I think that having the capitol city on the far northeastern edge of the nation has allowed a psychological disconnect to occur from the majority of the people. Those poor corrupted souls caught in snares of the Beltway for any length of time do not seem to have a firm grasp of reality as the common man knows it. I realize it's not all a geographic issue, but it's a factor.
- Jobs. Moving the national capitol is a really big deal involving a lot of work. Making that happen over a period of about a decade would allow for a lot of construction jobs. It's not just the buildings but also the infrastructure, the beefed up highways, the defensive measures etc. That's a lot of real jobs for real people. Maybe some of the recently laid-off bureaucrats (I'd be chunking a whole lot of them!) could learn some real skills and find out what it's like to really work!
What to do with old Washington DC? I would allow either Maryland or Virginia to absorb it. If they chose they could transfer their capitol there.
Other Domestic policies
I would make sure that the press was free as possible, within the bounds of common sense.
