Archives for History

Freedom’s Antithesis

1 Comment

Well, I finally went and did it – this past Tax Day, April 15th, I attended my first Tea Party rally on the Washington Mall. I have defended this group for a while on this site, and wanted to go see it for myself. Generally speaking, I was impressed with the common sense and cordiality of those in attendance. Surprisingly, I made a liberal friend who could not be any more different than I am. I got to hang out with some pretty cool family members as well.

The driving force of this movement can be summed up in one word: Liberty. Many times on this site I have quoted British philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who said, “Every law is an infraction of liberty.” His American colleague John Stuart Mill, author of the source on the subject, On Liberty, went further in summarizing this into the harm principle of utilitarianism, saying, “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” This is the essence of the Tea Party Movement. They want freedom, under a respectable rule of law, provided by a dual system of governance -the intent of our forefathers – conceived in our founding documents, namely, the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Americans react when these principles are threatened.

This Tea Party Movement closely resembles the caucus I was calling for leading up to the 2008 presidential elections, where libertarians and conservatives could converge. At that time, I called this group the Sons of Liberty, notably, here, here, and here. Historically speaking, I wasn’t that far off. I’ll let you research that little tidbit for yourself, but in a nutshell, dating back to 1765, protests over Leviathan government are by no means a new occurrence in this country.

At the Tax Day rally, anti-Tea Party leftists made their way through the crowd to stir up the patriots protesting tax increases. A Tea Partier with a megaphone charged back: ”We believe in liberty; what do you believe in?” The leftists answered with a deafening silence – collectively, of course.

So, what is the opposite of liberty? A reoccurring theme at the Tea Party is the title of a recent Mark Levin bestseller, Liberty and Tyranny. Is tyranny the goal of the left? Well, not intentionally, but the ideological divide between Republicans and Democrats, conservatism and liberalism, libertarianism and statism, whatever, all boils down to this fundamental struggle between freedom and control, or as Ben Franklin said, between liberty and security. The aforementioned principle of freedom is the theoretical end state for those on our side of the argument; what is the eventual end state for the leftists in the struggle?

Struggle Displaces Utopia

To understand the rest of this post, you must believe two truths: one, that in any society, the public sector exists to benefit themselves, their interests, and their constituents; and two, those benefits will cost their opponents and opposing interests. You will find this to be true with both benevolent and malevolent governments.

In America, the public sector is dominated by social justice champions, who are beginning to realize we can’t all be thieves; what they can scrape off the top is merely a fraction of other people’s labor. We can’t all subscribe to that way of life. A divisive political environment, driven by envy on one side and fear on the other, splits our society in half between the “makers” and the “takers.” A vibrant private sector is necessary for the survival of the left, specifically, the Keynesian spenders of the largest public sector in our nation’s history and its constituents in the expansive welfare state. This battle seems to be sustainable, as long as the lines between makers and takers are plainly drawn.

So, in an a way, this sustained struggle has displaced the socialist utopia for the left. For this enigma I coin the term “postmodern socialism” to describe the relationship the dependent enjoy at the detriment of their self-reliant compatriots. Perhaps perpetual struggle is the progressive agenda, after all; conflict keeps both parties vigorously fighting for to maintain their position. Fear and distrust keep the private sector on its toes, so they work harder to generate income, from which the public sector takes a dividend. That means more citizens can join the lazy collective, with the federal government handing out benefits (tax cuts, subsidies, welfare checks, bailouts, vouchers, etc.) to the less productive among us. That’s what Obamacare does; it throws money at our health care problems and hopes the private sector will work harder and the indebted public will shut up.

But the backlash is growing against this culture of dependence. Andrew Kohut in today’s Wall Street Journal states:

“There is growing concern about the size and power of the federal government. The public is now evenly divided over whether federal government programs should be maintained to deal with important problems or cut back greatly to reduce the power of government.”

As our government grows, our society is split in half, with 47% of Americans paying no income taxes, and 45% saying they are taxed “about right.” Coincidence? If this isn’t a “progressive” income tax, I don’t know what is. The silver lining herein is the statistical fact that at least some of the people paying no income tax at all are unhappy with their situation.

But I digress. My point is this: the left now realizes that to maintain their culture of dependence, the struggle must continue. As every dollar for the public sector comes from the private sector, a balance must be maintained in order to keep stealing from the top. The left understands utopia for everyone cannot be achieved as a lasting societal model; who would be left to do all the work? The leftists themselves? Ha!

Looking Abroad

The former Soviet Union serves as an example of a socialist state that sought utopia but failed. While it’s plainly obvious the lack of innovation will eventually destroy an authoritarian regime, it was the Soviet Union’s isolationism that predicated its collapse, and with it, the collapse of last century’s Communist model. This is not to say freedom filled the void; many of the Soviet satellite states are still dealing with the lingering effects of their authoritarian instincts. I once learned in school that it takes six months to convert an economy to capitalism, six years to convert a government to a democracy, but sixty years to change a societal culture towards freedom. I cannot find the source for this thumbrule anywhere, but I need to make clear it is not my own. Nevertheless, these countries sought utopia, but were left with tyranny.

While China is indeed a tyranny, it seems to have learned from the Soviet mistake of isolationism. In contrast to the former Soviet Union, Communist China relies upon Capitalism abroad to survive, while imposing autocratic rule on its subjects at home. Again, when I was in school, I wrote a paper theorizing the Internet in China would perpetuate the collapse of Communism and the emergence of a free society. Hmm; guess I was wrong.

In fact, it seems instead of liberating China, our economic relationship may be socializing America; that is, we might be rubbing off on each other. How could that be? Again, under postmodern socialism, this is sustainable as long as there is constant struggle.

In the Communist Manifesto (and first in Das Kapital), Karl Marx, in his critique of Capitalism, wrote extensively on the division between Capital and Labor. He called for an equalization, that is, an elimination of the division between those who make the money and those who keep it. Surely, out of the millions of Communists in China, someone realizes the large rift between Chinese labor and American wealth. We are indebted to them, and I believe the only reason they haven’t collected yet is that the problem is getting worse. Wouldn’t you wait until your investment was fully mature before cashing it in?

So every time the United States increases its debt, it increases it’s risk of defaulting on it. This is referred to as sovereign debt default, and yes, I’ve covered it before. It is the greatest threat to the American way of life, and brings us closer to fulfilling the prophecy of former Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev: ”We can’t expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.”

Dissent Fights Back

Has the federal government become too swollen to maintain postmodern socialism? Is our debt to large to reverse the course of history, to free ourselves from eventual indentured service to the Chinese? The only way to do that is to look back at our history, how we came to be, and return to a “culture of independence.” I submit this is the idea behind the “Take Our Country Back” signs at the Tea Party rallies.

Capitalism in America has spawned the highest standard of living in the world, so that people - that is regular, ordinary people, not business execs or “Wall Street fat cats,” to use the parlance of the President – have vehicles for toys, and not for mere transportation. Now America is on the brink of decline, with half our population leaching off the productive half. We face the prospect of having the tables turned on us, if we don’t get our debt in control. As we veer off course, is it wrong to dissent?

As then-Senator, now-Secretary, Hillary Clinton screeched waaay back in 2003: ”I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any Administration.”

So I offer this: We are, in fact, Americans. We have the right to be proud of where we are, and how far we have come. And, we have the right to debate and disagree with this Administration. There’s no reason to apologize for that. It’s time to tell this government, “No thanks, with God’s help, I can do it myself,” and displace dependency with self-reliance once again.

“The end of law is not abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.”

~ John Locke, Two Treatises of Government (1698)

Share on Facebook

Filed under History, Ideology, News

Apr 18, 2010

Castor’s Sacrifice

1 Comment

My apologies for the last string of posts. I was boring myself with them, honestly. You probably don’t want to hear me drone on and on about the decline and fall of Western Civilization – it’s depressing. The data is there if you want it. You really don’t need me to simply repeat it for you. The argument always deteriorates into something I never wanted to get into: first, I present the facts; then, I give my opinion on the facts; but after that, I start questioning motives, saying things like “Obamacare is not about health care at all – It’s about control.” I mean, how could I know that? Are the President and Congress deliberately driving the nation over the brink? Who am I to say? In the parlance of the President, that’s “above my paygrade.” That’s between them and God.

This week, however, I reached an inflection point, at least in my own mind: if I had to guess, I’d give the United States a fifty percent chance of making it as a (free) nation. Why do I say that? Well, this week, the White House Budget was released, and it’s quite ridiculous. With a record-breaking $1.6 trillion deficit, the federal government is set to spend $3.8 trillion in 2011.

Does this make any sense to you? Is this how people live? Oh, right, right, we have to do all this, certainly because of something George W. Bush did. I hear it almost daily. This liberal trope has run its lifespan; the largest of the Bush deficits, of which this Administration “inherited,” was less than $200 billion (one-eighth of Obama’s, if you are not mathematically inclined). I’d call it “doubling down cubed” on the worst parts of Bush’s policies.

Although I promised not to go into the stats – yeah, I’m already slipping – but our deficit-to-GDP ratio is 10.6 percent. To put this in relative terms, the EU is set to order Greece to reduce theirs from a current 12.7 percent level to 3 percent. What would we do if China ordered us to do that same thing?

Which leads me to conclude we are in a free fall, held hostage by the most irresponsible public servants in our nation’s history, unwilling to make the hard choices, unwilling to sacrifice, like Castor for Polydeuces, an “entitled” level of comfort to sacrifice for others, namely, our children. Both parties lack the willpower to do so. Is there any HOPE? Tell me what you think, because I’ve said my piece.

I’ll re-double my efforts and focus on abstraction. Take a ride with me, through my personal life and a bit of history, and see if you can follow a couple of themes, which have, in fact, already begun.

Boots or Boat Shoes?

Since getting a pair of boots last month, every morning, I face the same question. Do I wear my boots, with the hardest working soles I’ve ever owned, or my typical boat shoes, which are, by nature, flimsy. It should be noted I have three serviceable pairs of boat shoes, five total, but only one pair of boots. I feel like a boss in either manner of footwear, so the question is independent of preference, because I like them both equitably.

Why does it matter? Not accounting for the ambulatory requirements in the record snow now outside my house, this is indeed an existential question. Boots of all sorts are generally worn by people in a field of work involving something physical – I reject the term “working class,” as well as “middle class,” as I oppose any kind of feudalist order and terminology – while boat shoes are worn by, well, the “sailing class.” That’s sarcasm. Also, in a way, both of these shoes represent and pay homage to two distinct parts of my life.

And while the question is multi-faceted, the answer is not: depends on the pants.

Bluegrass or Old-Time String Music?

My favorite music spans these two genres. Admittedly, the two styles are intertwined, like siamese twins, hinged at the hip. Where one begins and the other ends is sometimes indistinguishable, while the extremities of the two are immediately recognizable as separate.

Bluegrass has a boom-chuck-boom-chuck rhythm, usually established with a bass and a chop from either a mandolin or a guitar, and filled with a rolling banjo and likely a fiddle. Bluegrass is immediately recognizable and often fast in nature. ”Old-timey” music sounds like Depression era hymns, are slower in nature, and are meant to be uplifting, healing, or simply provide comedy relief. What is more entertaining to see is how iTunes labels this music, especially when the former ventures into classical styles, such as chamber music, or jazz, as with the Flecktones.

Why do I like this music so much? Perhaps it’s because of our similar origins in Appalachia, and before that, back across the pond. Unlike steel, though, DNA is not made stronger by folding (and re-folding) it onto itself. Somewhere deep in my DNA lies a proclivity for the pairing of a banjo with fiddle (or two, best represented with the twin fiddles of Mark O’Connor and Stuart Duncan on Bela Fleck’s “Up and Around the Bend“). More than likely, my ancestors have been playing music like this for centuries.

This kind of music evokes an emotion within me other types of music simply cannot. Why try to classify any of it? I mean, what, exactly, does Doc Watson play? I don’t know, but I know I like it.

Wilson or Coolidge?

In our history books (and Wikipedia), one of these men is lionized, while the other is demonized. That’s not surprising, as the American system of learning has been hijacked by leftists, perpetuating the problem by producing little leftists. If you couldn’t tell, I obviously have a different take on it, for the following reasons, which are not spelled out by the Trotskyites who plagiarize their professoriat for Wikipedia.

Before Woodrow Wilson, there was no permanent income tax. There was no Federal Reserve, and no Internal Revenue Service (as we now know it). When first implemented in 1913, the upper income tax rate was 7 percent. Eight years later, the upper rate had been increased to 77 percent. Admittedly, much of this was a result of World War I, but most was due to an expansion in the role of government in everyday life.

Something odd occurred as a result of these high income taxes. Instead of raising revenues, the national debt increased from $1 billion to $24 billion under Wilson. Why is that? Well, instead of taking the risk of failing and losing everything, or succeeding and keeping 23 percent, would-be innovators simply decided not to play. Unemployment was eleven percent when Wilson left the Presidency, even though unemployment tends to drop during wartime.

This was the financial situation Warren Harding “inherited.” Harding was personally ravaged by scandals (such as Teapot Dome) that plagued his Administration, due greatly to his character deficiencies, and he up and died two years into his term. During those two years, however, he put forth the framework for cutting the income tax, something Calvin Coolidge acted on.

Coolidge, along with his Congress, cut the top tax rate to 24 percent, with only the top 2% of wage earners paying any income tax at all. Unemployment, as a result, fell to 3 percent, and inflation flatlined at 1 percent, producing what is commonly referred to as the Roaring 20′s, with the lowest “misery index” in our nation’s history. As a direct result of his tax (and spending) cuts, Coolidge (with Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon) drew down the national debt by $7 billion and experienced six years of budget surpluses during his Administration. He is, in fact, the only President who had a surplus every year of his tenure. How? By doing less, not more.

So, in my mind, one of these men is a Saint, and the other is a Monster. Long live laissez faire. Case closed, right? Well, another piece of history came about, but it’s a bit different than your teacher told you.

Miscalculations

When the stock market crashed, President Herbert Hoover took bold action to stop the hemorrhaging, but instead, made it worse, by raising the upper tax rate from 24 to 63 percent, and signing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930. Hoover, a progressive Republican, took a lot of blame for not doing anything about the crash, and then came Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a true Wilsonian if there ever was one. (Note: Vice President Biden has a different take on this.) FDR raised the top income tax rate first to 79, and later to 90 percent. In 1941, FDR proposed a 99.5 percent marginal rate on all income over $100,000. When an advisor questioned this proposal, his response was, Why not?”

When that proposal died in Congress, Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9149 on April 27, 1942, taxing all income over $25,000 at a rate of 100 percent, effectively establishing a maximum wage in the United States. The next day, FDR addressed the American people, saying, “I do not think that any American citizen should have a net income in excess of $25,000 per year after payment of taxes.” Today, FDR’s $25,000 is equivalent to about $250,000. Where have I heard that number before?

20090409-depression_era_soupline_00

Congress eventually overturned that executive order, but not before FDR lowered personal exemptions to $600, meaning most Americans now paid some form of an income tax. What happened to the unemployment rate under FDR? It skyrocketed to 24 percent, until World War II virtually evaporated unemployment in the United States, as the future of our nation depended on every able-bodied person.

We face the same situation today, with a similarly progressive leadership, who want to tax and regulate anything that makes a profit, until they need to be subsidized just to survive. I believe we need taxes, and regulations, but I equate the proper regulation of capitalism to the act of establishing a bowling lane for kiddos with gutter bumpers. Regulations serves as the bumpers. If the ball is moving in the wrong direction, you don’t go running down the lane to push it one way or another. You let it go. This is something the Keynesian central planners cannot, by nature, understand.

Historical statistics, as well as basic economics, proves that wage intervention produces unemployment. Instead, our central planners get involved in everything, targeting specifically those industries that make a profit, in that way, acting as locusts that feed on one field and then move to another, moving quickly to disrupt and dismantle the capitalist order upon which innovation and production is built. Gee, where did American production go, exactly?

Final Thoughts

I personally believe half the country is perfectly fine with what’s going on, if not complicit, then oblivious to the deleterious effects of our government’s policies. A recent Gallup poll supports the idea that more are complicit than oblivious, reporting 36 percent of Americans viewing socialism positively, with 61 percent of liberals, 20 percent of conservatives, and 39 percent of moderates expressing this sentiment.

Let me ask you: How did Rome fall? A once-great nation was spread too thin with two acting capitols, out of resources, militarily weakened, letting the Visgoths silently infiltrate them. By the time the Romans realized what was happening, it was too late, and no those who noticed didn’t really care anymore. What’s that got to do with us, you ask? Lech Walesa, co-founder of the Polish Solidarity movement, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and former President of Poland, put it bluntly this week, at the Foundation for Human Rights in Cuba:

“The United States is only one superpower. Today they lead the world. Nobody has doubts about it. Militarily. They also lead economically, but they’re getting weak. But they don’t lead morally and politically anymore. They world has no leadership. The United States was always the last resort and hope for other nations. There was the hope, whenever something was going wrong, one could count on the United States. Today, we lost that hope.”

But there I go again, questioning motives. Complicit or oblivious? Let’s get back to the peripherals. In Greek mythology, Castor sacrificed his deity for his dying half-brother Polydeuces, so they could both live together on earth, as Homer put it, bound to “the corn-bearing earth that holds them.” Will this generation give up it’s so-called “entitlements” (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) to save an entire nation?

Castor made the sacrifice, and now both brothers are immortalized in the sign of Gemini, represented by the planet Mercury, faster than any other planet in our solar system, taking only 88 days to circle the sun. I’m not much for astrology, and I could go further than you’d want me to, discussing the theories associated with the end of the Age of Pisces, the dawning of the Age of Aquarius, how it ties into end times and the pouring out of the seven bowls containing God’s wrath, but I think I’ll stop there, and to that home on God’s celestial shore, I’ll fly away.

Share on Facebook

Filed under History, News, Personal

Feb 7, 2010

The Dissent of George Mason

0 Comments

“Who’s George Mason?” you might ask, proving that the victors indeed write the history.

People inherently bring their previous experiences to any challenges they encounter in life. As a Virginia delegate to the Ratifying Convention and framer of the U.S. Constitution, George Mason certainly drew on his experiences in Virginia state politics. As the author of Virginia’s Declaration of Rights, which preceded the Virginia State Constitution, he expected a declaration of rights to precede the federal constitution, or at least be included from the outset.

Given that our Bill of Rights did not come about until two years after the signing of the Constitution, George Mason became a vocal opponent of the Constitution’s ratification. He refused to sign the Constitution, saying that without a Bill of Rights, its first principles were “highly and dangerously oligarchic” and with a Bill of Rights, the Constitution would be restricted in its “awful squint towards monarchy.”

In May of 1776, two months before Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, the origins of which I recently discussed here in relation to property rights, George Mason penned these words in the Virginia Declaration of Rights:

“That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent natural Rights… among which are the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the Means of acquiring and possessing Property, and pursueing and obtaining Happiness and Safety.”

George Mason’s words obviously influenced the direction Jefferson took. These principles were commonly regarded as sacred among our founders, but the execution of a federal government for the protection of these rights was hotly debated. The belief that a decentralized government would govern best solidified a group of patriots known as the Anti-Federalists, opposed to the majority party, deemed, you might have guessed, the Federalists. If today we think the minority party is defined by its opposition alone, it is worth looking back and seeing what a true opposition party looks like. America’s First Congress fought over the Bill of Rights for two whole years, the principal founding years of our nation.

What I found interesting about this particular debate is that the minority party did not capitulate on their ideas. Instead of meeting the majority’s demands for a stronger federal government, they stood by their fundamental beliefs that the individual was sovereign and any authority is a trust endowed by individuals, conceded to the state first, and then to the federal government. These are the very principles George Mason believed in, and are reflected in our Bill of Rights today.

The Anti-Federalists vocal opposition of the Constitution, as it was proposed, lead them to sponsors for their concerns within the majority party, including the influential statesman Thomas Jefferson, and leader of the Federalists, James Madison. Their sponsorship, however, was not achieved without a partisan fight.

Standing Athwart History

Federalist Alexander Hamilton, co-author of the Federalist Papers, eloquently argued against the Bill of Rights on justifiable grounds in The Federalist No. 84, stressing that the while he favored a British system of common law, that is, of rights that exist undefined, the U.S Constitution was different than anything seen before, and therefore, a Bill of Rights in America was unnecessary. Hamilton stated:

“Bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was “Magna Charta”, obtained by the Barons, swords in hand, from King John.”

To Hamilton, defining particular rights of the citizen would put restraints on the citizen through omission. ”Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”

While his logic is reasonable, Hamilton in fact dissects his own argument: The limits of state power were not defined, and the individual needed explicit protection from his government.

It became clearer to the founders on both sides of the aisle that a Bill of Rights was going to be necessary, and Thomas Jefferson in particular realized that Anti-Federalist support for the Constitution depended on a Bill of Rights, but further delay endangered the entire process. As Ambassador to France, Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison, wrote, “Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can.” The Federalists answered in kind, and the Constitution was finalized without a Bill of Rights.

Meaningful Opposition

George Mason, in turn, refused to sign the Constitution on September 17, 1787, a great document he saw as wanting, and it underwent the Ratification process without his approval. George Mason’s opposition cut ties with George Washington, his neighbor and friend, and along with his affiliation with the Anti-Federalists, accounts for why George Mason is lesser known than his Federalist colleagues.

The Anti-Federalists united in opposition against a Constitution without a Bill of Rights, and stood their ground. Patrick Henry, the articulate, well-known leader of the Anti-Federalists, even refused to accept offers to be this nation’s first Secretary of State or a Supreme Court Justice. In June of 1788, he argued against the Ratification in his famous “Liberty or Death” speech:

“Is it necessary for your liberty that you should abandon those great rights by the adoption of this system? Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings — give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else!”

The vehement opposition of the minority had a subsequent effect on the process. James Madison, the other co-author of the Federalist Papers, tried to reassure a concerned, fledgling nation of colonies, in the process of becoming states, in The Federalist No. 39, in 1788:

“Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.”

State by state, the Constitution was ratified, with the exception of Rhode Island, who opposed it on similar grounds as George Mason; they felt the Constitution, without explicitly enumerating rights, had the power to reinstitute a monarchy. When Rhode Island finally ratified the Constitution, it sent a message back to Congress, with demands for a Bill of Rights. Acts such as these from other colonies – North Carolina, South Carolina, and New York were also visibly upset - as they became states lent credence to the Anti-Federalist movement.

Eventually, the Constitution was adopted, and went into effect on March 4, 1789. The First Congress met in September of that year, two years after George Mason’s dissent; almost immediately, delegates began to argue for a Bill of Rights. James Madison had proposed a Bill of Rights to Congress earlier that June, in an attempt to avoid a Second Constitutional Convention, which he knew had the potential to destroy the budding nation.

Madison’s proposal was based mostly on the work of his friend and fellow Virginian, George Mason, which drew upon centuries of laws and theories, from John Locke to the Magna Carta. It took two more years for the colonies to ratify the Bill of Rights, which went into effect December 1791, more than four years after the signing of the Constitution, and more than fifteen years after George Mason first wrote Virginia’s Declaration of Rights.

The Prescience of George Mason

George Mason feared a powerful federal government would eventually usurp the privileges granted to it under the Constitution, as he felt the federal government would see powers not prohibited explicitly as permitted implicitly. Although he had crafted the Declaration of Rights for his own state, he feared for state rights under the new federal system. In his major speech detailing the reasons for his objection to the Constitution, George Mason argued, “The laws of the general government being paramount to the laws and constitutions of the several states, the declarations of rights in the separate states are no security.”

Mason also feared the powers granted to the Executive Branch, and made these salient points about the dangers of an unrestrained governing body:

“The President of the United States has no constitutional council, (a thing unknown in any safe and regular government). He will therefore be unsupported by proper information and advice, and will generally be directed by minions and favorites; or he will become a tool to the Senate; or a council of state will grow out of the principal offers of the great departments – the worst and most dangerous of all ingredients for such council, in a free country; for they may be induced to join in any dangerous or oppressive measures, to shelter themselves, and prevent an inquiry into their own misconduct in office.”

George Mason’s objections drew a proverbial line in the sand with the majority party, and his dissent did not come without consequence. Although Mason found a critical sponsor for his Declaration of Rights in James Madison, the leader of the Virginia Federalists, he relinquished his spot in American history with his opposition. Instead, George Mason shares the title of “Father of the Bill of Rights” with James Madison.

In his closing remarks before the Constitutional Convention, Mason made this prediction about the burgeoning governing body for the newly formed United States of America:

“This government will commence in a moderate aristocracy: it is at present impossible to see whether it will, in its operation, produce a monarchy or a corrupt oppressive aristocracy; it will most probably vibrate some years between the two, and then terminate in one or the other.”

On this point, I sincerely hope we prove George Mason wrong. Looking at the fever pitch of politics today, I’m not sure where we are heading. It looks like we are coming apart at our seams. What common thread weaves together the diverse fabrics of America? It’s hard to see what, if anything, we have in common with each other anymore.

I wonder what the founders would think of our arguments today. Patriots today still stand athwart history, and have become targets for the bosses in both government and media. To quote French philosopher Voltaire, “It is lamentable, that to be a good patriot one must become the enemy of the rest of mankind.”

Some Final Thoughts

When an archer draws back his bow to launch an arrow at his intended target, the glide path of that arrow is always the same: the arrow ascends upward; the arrow crests; the arrow begins its descent. So it is with governments. Nations may remain constant, but their governments come and go, ebbing and flowing, with distinct historical trends.

State power gained is individual liberty acquiesced; it you don’t believe me, look at the “communist” countries in the world, and assess the magnitude of personal freedoms their citizens enjoy. Pretty blight, huh? This trend is not coincidental; democracy depends on the protection of individual liberties, which are devalued by state control.

Our government is the longest lasting sovereign democracy in the world. I believe our arrow has crested, and is descending towards either its intended target, or a failed state. Constant maintenance is required to keep the arrow moving towards the target the founders intended for the people of this nation. President Ronald Reagan conveyed as much by reminding us:

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

I hope the cause of individual liberty might provide a little more lift for this arrow, and for our current government. If not, I hope that when individuals take action, it will be for that cause, in accordance with Jefferson’s finalized words in the Declaration of Independence, which I have included in context:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

Share on Facebook

Filed under History

Sep 17, 2009

Archives for History

Freedom’s Antithesis

Castor’s Sacrifice

The Dissent of George Mason

Discovering My Perspective

My Twitterfeed

Recent Posts

The Archives

My Pages

Categories

My Site