The Occupy Wall St Movement: The Marxist Corruption of Liberalism

Like many Americans, I have been watching the Occupy Wall St. protest spread across the country.  I have been reading the signs and listening to the slogans the protesters carry and chant.  I have also watched as celebrities, politicians, and the MSM line up in support of the movement.  Through all this, I am struck how much Liberalism has been corrupted by Marxism.  I cannot help recalling the words one of my favorite essays:

              
                     My Creed

I do not choose to be a common man.

It is my right to be uncommon...if I can.

I seek opportunity...not security.

I do not wish to be a kept citizen,

humbled and dulled by having the state look after me.

I want to take the calculated risk;

to dream and to build,

to fail and to succeed.

I refuse to barter incentive for a dole.

I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence;

the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia.

I will not trade freedom for beneficence

nor my dignity for a handout.

I will never cower before any master

nor bend to any threat.

It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid;

to think and act for myself,

enjoy the benefit of my creations

and to face the world boldly and say,

this I have done.

This essay could have been written by a TEA Partier or other Conservative “Right-winger.”  But it wasn’t.  It was written by Dean Alfange.  During the Great Depression of the 1930s, Mr. Alfange was the leader of the American Labor Party and in 1944 formed the Liberal Party.  Additionally, he held a chairmanship in Franklin Roosevelt’s successful campaign to be a three-term president.  He fervently opposed the GOP and ran several campaigns against them.  By any sense of the word, he was no “Right-Winger.” 

Now compare the words of this traditional Liberal (before the infection of Marxism) and those of the Occupy Wall Streeters and their supporters.  How far has Liberalism moved from its original principles!  The modern version has nothing to do with Liberating people and everything to do with enslaving them under the Marxist yoke.  That is why I call Modern Liberalism “Faux Liberalism.” 

Multiculturalists: The Pocahontases and Melinches of Our Time

This past Friday, in another defeat, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton dismissed Arizona’s counter- lawsuit against the Obama administration.  In that lawsuit, Governor Jan Brewer accused the Obama government of failing to maintain control of Arizona’s border with Mexico by not enforcing federal immigration laws.  This was an attempt to undo previous decisions by Judge Susan Bolton that blocked the state’s attempt to control illegal immigration within its borders.   

This decision and similar actions against Alabama’s immigration laws seem to re-affirm the open border thinking that the federal government currently holds.  As President Obama is so fond of saying, “We are not defined by our borders.” 

I am sure that whoever came up with the slogan is patting himself on his back for being so original, so enlightened, so avant garde.  It sounds so appropriate for the post-nationalist world.  After all, we are all “citizens of the world” now.  We are now a multicultural society; no longer tied to such outdated, outmoded ideas such as borders, national identities, and sovereignty.  In other words, we are defined by…? Well, I do not know what they think we are defined by but, whatever it is, it must be better since it is considered progress by those who profess to know more than we do.

Unfortunately, for President Obama, this is not new, enlightened, nor avant garde. It has been done before.  Not only in the world, but also in what would become the United States. What needs to be understood is that the indigenous people along the Atlantic coast unknowingly took the same approach when the Europeans started arriving.  I say unknowingly because, unlike the people of today, they did not have the concept of landownership or national sovereignty; therefore they had no concept of borders.  This is a shame because if they had then maybe they could have avoided four long centuries of suffering. But history is history and cannot be changed.

What history can do, though, is to provide lessons. One of those lessons is that nothing decent comes to a country that does not value its sovereignty.  In most cases, the results have been disastrous for the established culture and society.  Along with the indigenous peoples of North America we can add the Meso-Americans of Mexico, the Incas of Peru, the Aborigines of Australia and New Zealand, the Indians of India, the Pampa Indians of Argentina, and the inhabitants of just about all of Africa. In all these cases, the multicultural, open-border approach ended with the original inhabitants losing their cultural identities and forced off their lands, enslaved, or even exterminated. It was not uncommon for many of these cultures to endure all of the above at the hands of the newcomers.

I know some are thinking, “The newcomers where from the great European imperialist powers. The indigenous people were kind and loving people who were one with the earth and everyone in it. There was no way they could have defended themselves from such aggressive and barbaric people like the Europeans. Besides, we are a more advanced and enlightened society. That could never happen today. This is the reason multiculturalism now works.”

 Unfortunately, this is totally inaccurate and is dangerous to believe. First of all, the dominant European countries did not have colonies because they were powerful. They became powerful because of they had colonies. They did not do D-Day style amphibious assaults on the beaches. They arrived in small groups of explorers and settlers.  (In 1620, only 120 colonists, 40% women and children, established The Plymouth Rock colony). Contrarily, the indigenous populations significantly outnumbered the Europeans and were perfectly capable of eliminating the settlements. Additionally, the cultures of these people were often warrior based and fully capable of defending themselves from the newcomers. In the case of the Aztecs, their civilization rivaled that of Rome and Tenochtitlan, the Aztecs’ principle city, was larger than London was. Technology wise, both were about equal. Although the Europeans did have firearms they were extremely inaccurate, lacked range, and took time to reload. The typical soldier would get one shot off before resorting to his sword.  On the other hand, a skilled warrior could launch multiple arrows within a short amount of time.

 What did allow the Europeans to gain a foothold and then control was that they had help from people like Pocahontas and Malinche (a native woman who helped Cortez in his conquest of the Aztecs). These people helped to convince the indigenous leaders and people that the new arrivals were not a threat. That, by bringing new knowledge, the newcomers would add to the existing culture. These Native Multiculturalists were convincing enough that their leaders quickly established alliances with the Europeans. Contrary to the narrative that PC history teaches, it was these alliances that allowed the Europeans, whose numbers were still relatively small, to overcome the hostile, but maybe wiser, tribes and nations.

As for the last part, that today “we are too sophisticated for that to happen”, it is the most dangerous misconception (or dare I say lie) that we tell ourselves. The truth is that colonization and imperialism is going on today, albeit still in its early unorganized stages. Being in its early stages does not make it less of a threat to western civilization. It is wise to remember that only 120 colonists started the Plymouth Rock colony. The fact is that today’s colonization is occurring in a place we would not even consider possible: Europe. Like last time, it is from east to west. Unlike last time, it is not Christians from Europe, but Muslims from the Middle East. They may not be arriving on sailing ships and wearing pilgrim clothes, but it is colonization nonetheless.

As in the previous examples, the multiculturalists (modern day versions of Pocahontas and Malinche) started telling everyone that there was nothing to be afraid of; that the newcomers would bring the richness, diversity, and a cosmopolitan flair that the society lacked. Like the leaders of old, the new leaders saw an opportunity to align themselves with the newcomers and to use them to crush their opponents. So they created plans and programs to reduce the requirements that prevented or limited the influx of their new found friends. They embraced the multicultural ideology that destroyed any chance of their national character and identity to survive. Sadly, like so many self-serving leaders of history, they never realized that they were sowing the seeds of not only their demise, but also that of their country.

Today Western Europe is no longer the bastion of liberal democracy it once was. 600 years after the renaissance it is now slipping back into a dark age. This time, driven by uncontrolled immigration and multiculturalism, these once formidable freedom loving nations are turning into pseudo-Islamic states. As Sharia (Islamic Law based on Medieval principles) takes hold, well established freedoms are being eliminated…societies changed and not for the better.  This is recognized by the leaders of Germany, France, and Britain who all have claimed multiculturalism a “complete failure.” 

Remember, it took until the 1880s (about 250 years) before the Native Americans were entirely subdued. Europe has only been experiencing its colonization for about 40 years. It will be amusing to see how well the “Christian” Europeans are faring in 2260.

 The questions before us are:

·         Are we going to follow their example?

·         Are we going to let the Pocahontases and Malinches of today convince us that there is no real threat to our way of life?

·         Or are we going to let history be our guide?

  

 It may be too late for Europe, but it is not too late for America.

We are all Classical Liberals Now

In 2008 elections the Democratic Party, lead by its leftist members, swept into the White House and took control of both chambers of congress.  The MSM eagerly and giddily pronounced Conservatism dead.  Shortly after Obama’s inauguration Newsweek went so far as to do a cover proclaiming, “We are all Socialists now.”

In the mid-term elections of 2010 Conservative Republicans returned to congress in-force.  They took back control of the House of Representatives and all but eliminated the Democrat majority in the Senate.  The American people had put the brakes on the Socialist schemes of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi.

This swift shifting of the pendulum left the liberal elites confused and dazed.  I can recall one commentator observing that, “In 2008, they elected Liberals.  Now they elected Conservatives.  This just shows that the American people do not know what they want.” 

At the time, I remember thinking, “No, the American people know what they want.  The problem is that neither party is offering it to them.”  

It has been my experience that the majority of Americans are neither 100% Conservative nor 100% Liberal.  But we tend to take these titles because they are the only two of three options from which we have to choose.  Or we go with the third option of being an independent.  

This does not mean that the American people do not have a political foundation.  They do. It is the uniquely American form of Classical Liberalism.   Although we may argue over implementation, most Americans support the classical liberal principles of: 

·         Limited Government

·         Individual Rights

·         Private Property

·         Free-market Economics

The first two guarantees political freedom while the latter two provide the opportunity for economic freedom.

This was the “Great American” experiment.  It was these principles of classical liberalism on which this nation was founded and remained its basic political philosophy for over 100 years.  Millions of immigrants from all corners of the globe, seeking freedom, were drawn by the hope that classical liberalism offered.   More significantly, it resulted in America becoming the most prosperous and powerful country in history.  A country that, when true to these principles, is truly the “shining light on the hill.” 

Unfortunately, since the early 1900s, there has been an aggressive campaign to eradicate this nation’s Classical Liberal roots.  This campaign has been so successful that most people have never heard of Classical Liberalism.  It is no longer taught in school.  Even political science or history classes, if it is taught, it is done so as a long lost political philosophy from the Enlightenment Age of Europe. 

It is remarkable that its principles still exist.  But they do.  They are in the heart of every American who believes that America is an exceptional country, which, I believe, is the majority of us.

No, Newsweek, the American people are not Socialist. They are not even Liberal or Conservative.  They are what they always have been; Classical Liberals! 

English Must be the Language of the United States

In this month's issue of Townhall magazine is an article on the failure of Multiculturalism. This includes not requiring immigrants to learn the language of their new country.  Since I had written on this subject in my upcoming book Liberty Inherited: The Untold Story of America's Exceptionalism I understand how harmful not having an official language is to a nation and its society.  What follows is an excerpt from my book.  Please let me know what you think. JLH

 I have always thought it interesting that Winston Churchill would name one of his greatest works The History of the English-Speaking Peoples. The book could have easily been called "The History of the English Peoples" or even "The History the English Race," which would have been perfectly acceptable when it was written in the 1930s. But Churchill, who was a famed orator and had won a Nobel peace prize for literature, understood the power of words. I believe that he chose the term “English-speaking peoples” because he understood that principles, values, and ideas must be communicated for them to have any significance. For Churchill the English language was the media by which English principles have been spread around the world. He understood that this goes beyond skin color and bloodline and directly into the hearts and minds of the recipients. Recent history proves him to be correct as countries such as India, Singapore, and Hong Kong, all of which have retained English as their language, have prospered even though the British no longer govern them.

 This does not mean that speaking another language, especially of one’s heritage, should be discouraged. On the contrary it should be encouraged but not at the expense of learning to effectively communicate in the English language. This will not only be beneficial to America but also to the individual. In regards to the Turkish population in Germany Turkish President Abdullah Gul commented, “When one doesn’t speak the language of the country in which one lives it doesn’t serve anyone, neither the person concerned, the country, nor the society.” This is especially true in for a country that is based on an idea. By not learning English individuals are limiting their ability to become Americans in their hearts and minds. This can lead to a crisis of identity in which the body is physically in one country while the heart and mind are in another. Interestingly, this identity crisis often afflicts the children of immigrants who have had difficulty adjusting to living in the new country.  As these children grow up they become susceptible to the philosophies of radicalism or extremism. Yes, it will be difficult for some immigrants to learn Englsih and a few of them will never become competent in the language. But for those who do the reward of becoming an American in body and soul will be well worth the struggle.

 To the intellectually honest observer it is clear that the individual immigrant will benefit from learning the language of his host nation.  It is equally clear that the nation suffers from a lack of one.  The national identities of most countries have evolved over hundreds, even thousands, of years.  Germany is a prime example.  It started off as a collection of tribes that spoke a common language, had similar traditions, and shared similar values.  As these tribes grew, they developed into the nation-state of modern Germany.

 America has no such foundation.  At its foundation is the simplistic, but fragile, idea of liberty.  The basis of this liberty is the Classical Liberal principles of limited government, individual rights, private property, and free-market economics.  Many parts of the world do not value or practice these principles.  While immigrants from those areas appreciate the life that American liberty provides, they do not have the understanding of the principles that create the liberty. This lack of understanding leaves them to be susceptible to manipulation and exploitation.  Over time, as we have seen in Europe, the culture that provided immigrants with opportunities they could only dream of in their native countries slowly disappears in the Multicultural cesspool.

 In Europe, the 40 year experiment with multiculturalism has been a complete failure.  Their national identities are almost all but lost.  In an attempt to save themselves, as the Townhall article points out, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, France, and Britain have or are considering changes to their immigration laws that will require immigrants to know or learn the language of their host countries.  If these countries, with centuries of established and solid national identities, are threatened by an immigrant class that does not learn or accept their values, what chance does America, based on nothing but values, have?

Back to School History Lesson

Last month my daughter returned to school.  As a high-school junior, she is required to take American History.  When I asked her about the class, she told me that they were starting from the beginning.  “Christopher Columbus and all that” is how she put it.  She then handed me the class outline.  The sections leading up to the American Revolution was the same story that most Americans learn.  It essentially starts with the discovery of America by Columbus and then progresses through the settlement of Jamestown, the French and Indian War, and terminates with the events immediately preceding the Revolutionary War, such as the various tax acts, the Boston Massacre, and the Boston Tea Party.  It confers on the student the impression that nothing of importance was transpiring in Mother England during that time.  That England was asleep until one day George III wakes up and exclaims, “My God, I have colonies.  Let’s tax them!”

The reality is that there were many events that transpired in the mother country that profoundly influenced the development of the American colonies.  In 1707, for example, the union of England and Scotland meant that although the colonies started off as English they fought Britain for their independence.  The most notable and significant of those events was the Glorious Revolution of 1688.  Although the Glorious Revolution took place almost 100 years before America’s struggle for independence, it did more to bring about the American Revolution than any other event in America’s pre-independence history.  It could be argued that if the Glorious Revolution of 1688 did not occur or had the outcome been different the American Revolution probably would not have happened at all.  Additionally, the success of the thirteen colonies forming into one constitutional republic would not have been possible without the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

The events surrounding the Glorious Revolution are so vital to the creation and development of the United States that in “Liberty Inherited: The untold story of America’s exceptionalism” I dedicate over a quarter of the book to the subject.  In summary, the road to revolution started when James II wanted to return England to the absolutism that the monarchies on the continent enjoyed.  In this system, the king has absolute power over everything in his realm including its people.  In England, this form of servitude was restricted by a series of covenants or contracts, including the Magna Carta (1215).  Upon seeing this threat to their liberty, the English rose up and through a series of events replaced James II with the Dutch ruler the Prince of Orange and his wife Mary.  But before the Prince of Orange could become William III, King of England, he had to accept what became known as the Declaration of Rights.

This declaration ensured that England would continue on its path to developing the tradition of limited government, of parliamentary supremacy, of personal freedom and of the common law.  The limitations placed on the monarchy by this document meant that the king could not act without the consent of the people as represented by parliament.  Additionally, it ensured the rights and liberties of individual Englishmen.   It guaranteed his right to bear arms, to a speedy trial, to due process, to be safe and secure in his life and property.  Like all good Englishmen, the Founding Fathers believed these to be their God-given rights and made sure that, in one form or another, they were included in the Bill of Rights.  The fact is that the framers of the constitution used the declaration, the system of limited government it established, and the rights it protected as the template for establishing the United States of America.

Additionally, I believe that if James II had not been removed from the throne of England the United States would not exist today, at least in its democratic form.  Once he assumed the throne James set out to reform the colonies along the same authoritarian format used by France and Spain.  His plan was to form the thirteen colonies into four captaincies.  This would be followed by the elimination of the colonial assemblies and an appointment of a Royal Governor with absolute authority and answerable only to the king.  At that time, many of the colonies were just beginning to enjoy representative democracy.  To eliminate it at this point would result in the colonies losing almost 100 years of the democratic experience they would need to establish the new nation.  Under those conditions, it is highly unlikely that the American Revolution would have been fought, much less won.  The events immediately following a victory by the Patriots would certainly have been different.  The probability of establishing the liberty based country we have today would certainly have been almost zero.  Instead, the liberty focused revolution would probably have resulted, not in a Washington, but in an American version of Napoleon, Santa Anna, Lenin, Stalin, or Chavez. 

Until a few years ago I, like most Americans, was ignorant of the Glorious Revolution.  This ignorance was not out of a lack of interest but a result of the way American history is taught.  This is not a partisan issue since both sides have benefited from keeping Americans uneducated.  Conservatives do so because it supports the myth that the establishment of this nation was miraculous.  Liberals do it because if the American people understood the origins of their liberties they would realize what a threat an ever-increasing and powerful government is to those liberties.  Therefore, much to the chagrin of our British cousins, Americans are not informed of the struggles that made this country possible.  This limited education has had dire consequences for our country.  Without this part of our history, we do not have a context to put the American experience into.  We lose the sense of what it means to be an American and clarity as what type of nation the United States was established to be.  We fail to recognize the implication of being an English colony had for the development of the United States.  More tragically we fail to recognize the dangers that threaten to eliminate our liberties forever.

As I explain in “Liberty Inherited: The untold story of America’s exceptionalism,” the founders of this extraordinary nation did not accidently stumble onto the system of government they established in 1789.  It was developed over several centuries and, while I still think that America is based on a miracle, I now realize that that miracle took place several hundred years earlier in a place called England.  In fact, the more I study the origins and history of our liberty the more I marvel at its existence.  The more I learn the more I appreciate the improbability of its survival.  This becomes strikingly clear especially when compared to what was going on in the rest of the world at the time, which, for the common man, was slavery and servitude.  This leads me to ponder a couple of questions:

If schools did not omit the tremendous struggles for liberty that were occurring in England at a time when the United States was nothing more than scattering of fledgling colonies, would we, as Americans, feel or think differently about our country?

Would we still be having the political debate that is currently dividing this nation?  

What do you think?  Leave your comments and thoughts below.

The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions

In a previous article, “Alternatives to Capitalism”, I offered the proposition that Socialism and the welfare state it produces eventually destroys the wealth of the society.  The reason for this is that the Marxism it is based on creates a situation where citizens become dependent on the government.  With each generation, that dependency grows and ever greater demands on placed on political leaders.  The result is that even if the government can create the ideal mix of capitalism and Marxism the redistribution of the wealth will eventually overcome the production of that wealth.  This can be clearly seen in the economic decline of Western Europe since the introduction of the welfare state 50 plus years ago, which has left most of those countries on the verge on economic collapse.

Unfortunately, we no longer need to look so far away to find further proof how even limited Marxism, in the form of the welfare state, grows uncontrollably until it threatens to destroy its host economy.  In a highly informative article called “The Road to a Downgrade” (July 28,2011) the Wall Street Journal details how Marxist-inspired programs, once introduced into America’s predominantly capitalist economy, grow beyond all expectations and projections.  Two examples are Medicare and Medicaid.

·         When Medicare was established in 1965, it was projected that the program would cost $12 billion in 1990.  The actual cost was $110 billion or almost 1000% more than projected.

·         In 1966, the cost of the Medicaid program was $4 billion or just over one-half of 1% of GDP.  By 1986, it had grown to $41 billion (just under 1% of GDP); last year it was $243 billion (1.67% of GDP).

As the article points out, it is more than rising medical costs that have increased the price tag of these programs.  Just like in Europe, Marxism has resulted in an increasing number of Americans becoming more dependent on government.  They demanded more benefits or entitlements and politicians, willing to trade taxpayer money for votes, were more than eager to oblige.  Over the years, the programs were expanded way beyond their original intents.  Even Social Security, initially designed to provide a safety net for those few seniors who were unable to provide for their own retirement, became a pension plan for all seniors.  In 1960, the cost of the plan was approximately 2% of GDP; in 2008, it had doubled to just over 4%. 

In 1965 total spending on entitlement programs made up about 35% of the federal budget.  Forty years later they have grown to be about 60% of the budget.  This clearly shows that if, by a miracle, politicians are able to create the perfect economy by introducing the ideal amount of Marxism into capitalism it does not stay that way for long.  Marxism will grow and slowly deplete the wealth of the society.  Now America, like its European counterparts, is facing an economic meltdown as Marxism takes its toll.  The question is do we, as Americans, continue to go down the Marxist road to perdition or do we return to the economic system that, for 700 years, has created wealth for its societies?