Countdown to Independence Day: #4 Understand what America means to people around the world

Over the next several days leading up to Independence Day I will be posting the 10 steps that must be taken to preserve our great nation and the principles it was established on.  Each day will cover one of the steps as they appear in my book Liberty Inherited.  It is my hope that, in some small way, I can get Americans to start thinking of what they are on the verge of throwing away.  Today's posting covers step number #4.  I recommend reading the previous posts for step #1 through 3.  Please note that any additional comments that I add to the original text will be in italics.

4. Understand what America means to people around the world

If you were to pay much attention to the mass media or believe the anti-American rhetoric of so-called experts you may think that America is no longer admired in the world. This may be true for the elites and those who follow them but for the majority of people – the silent majority – America is still a special place. Just the amount of people that want to come to this country is evidence of this being true. Of even greater significance is the popularity of American culture around the world. The anti-Americans complain about its influence on their culture but the reality is that American culture would not have the influence it has if it was not for the common people embracing it. And the reason they embrace it is because they are trying to capture a little bit of America’s exceptionalism for themselves.

More significantly we need to note how important America is for the oppressed people of the world. It is no coincidence that the first countries to support the United States in its war on Iraq were the Eastern European countries that were recently liberated from the oppressive rule of Soviet communism. This is because for oppressed people the United States has always inspired hope and faith. If anybody can rescue them from their desperate lives it will be the Americans. Who else is there? The Germans? The French? The Chinese? The fact is that there is no other country that can match the United States’ history of liberating oppressed people all over the world. It is these oppressed people who truly recognize that America is indeed exceptional and they know that if America were to stop being that “shining city on the hill” a dark and sinister shadow would cover the globe. But we must believe this ourselves for as Hannan points out, “as long as Americans believe in themselves, others will believe them, too.”

Ever since 1776, oppressed people have attempted to recreate the American Revolution for themselves.  This was the case for the French in 1789, the Russians in 1917, and the Cubans in 1953.  It is also the dream of many who are taking part in the revolutions that are currently spreading throughout the Middle East.  While all those revolutions ended in tyranny (and the current Middle East revolutions appear to heading the same way) it is important to note that there were/are significant segments of those societies that believe in America and what it stands for.  It is for these people that America must stay exceptional, must stay the 'shining light on the hill.' For without the USA and what it symbolizes any hope of freedom that these people have will be forever extinguished. It is these people, and not the American-haters, that we must keep in our hearts and our minds.  

Countdown to Independence Day: #3 English must be the official language of the USA

Over the next several days leading up to Independence Day I will be posting the 10 steps that must be taken to preserve our great nation and the principles it was established on.  Each day will cover one of the steps as they appear in my book Liberty Inherited.  It is my hope that, in some small way, I can get Americans to start thinking of what they are on the verge of throwing away.  Today's posting covers step number #3.  I recommend reading the previous posts for step #1 and 2.  Please note that any additional comments that I add to the original text will be in italics.

3. English must be the language of the United States

I have always thought 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 a result as these children grow up they become susceptible to the philosophies of radicalism or extremism. Yes, it would be difficult for some of them 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.

Bomber Command and Moral Equivalency

Today Queen Elizabeth II unveiled the World War II Bomber Command Memorial.  This long overdo tribute takes me back to 2008 when my son and I visited London.  One of the many museums we visited was the RAF Museum in Hendon (on the outskirts of London).  While there we witnessed a television interview with Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Michael Beetham GCB CBE DFC AFC DL FRAeS.  The purpose of the interview was to drum up support for the Bomber Command Memorial that the Queen unveiled today.

As I watched the interview I was shocked to learn that while all the other branches of the military, including Fighter Command, had memorials for their dead, Bomber Command did not. 

Once the interview was over—and being the imprudent American—I walked up to the distinguished gentleman and started to engage him in conversation.  By the reactions of everyone present, including the television crew, I immediately realized that I had committed some breach of propriety.  This fact was driven home by the stunned look on the Marshal’s face but he quickly recovered and he turned out to be a very nice man.  The burning question I had for him was why a memorial had not yet been dedicated to those in 55,000 who lost their lives serving in Bomber Command? 

Marshal Beetham and I

He explained that the since the end of the war there had been a growing sentiment that the bombing of German cities were immoral.  In more recent times it had even been referred to as a war crime on par with the crimes of the Nazis and no one had the will to support a memorial dedicated to war criminals.  I finished our brief chat by thanking him for his time and his service.  I also wished him the best in achieving his lifelong goal of establishing a memorial to the men who lost their lives taking the ‘battle to the Nazis.”

Today, I am very pleased to see that Marshal Beetham has indeed achieved his goal and I am delighted that the Queen herself is doing the dedication.  But I am disturbed by the moral equivalency I am reading in some of the stories and in the comments to the stories.  As one commenter wrote:

Unfortunately, force is also its own justification. Had the Nazis won the war, they would have, over the years, poured out reams upon reams of justifications for what they did. Anyone who questioned them would be sick and wrong and guilty of ignoring their obvious truth.

In other words, the Allies were morally no different than the Nazis.  Like all proponents of moral equivalency this commenter only looks at the event while completely ignoring the motivation behind the action.  Unlike the Nazis, who used force to subjugate “inferior peoples” the Allies, including Bombing Command, were using force in defense of liberty and freedom.  In defense of liberal democracy and the rights of man.  This creates a big distinction.  It separates the use of force for self-defense from plain outright murder.  Yet, moral equivalency sees them as being equal.  The use of force is immoral regardless of the situation.  

But there is a difference on the individual level and the national level.  This is a distinction that Rudyard Kipling recognized when, as the 18^th century gave way to the 19^th, he gazed upon the hundreds of masts creating an artificial forest on the Thames River.  These masts belonged to the frigates of the most powerful navy in the world, the Royal Navy.  Recognizing the power they represented, Kipling would write: 

Any other people or nation would have unleashed that terrible force long ago, for their own gain and glory, and brought a horrible Holocaust on humanity. But not England, not Great Britain.

Of course, Kipling came from a period when people’s moral compasses allowed them to distinguish right from wrong, good from evil.  Unfortunately, today too many of us are lost in a type of moral Bermuda Triangle.  Our moral compasses spinning and gyrating in all directions.  As a result, we are so morally lost that we can no longer discern the hero from the villain, the liberator from the oppressor, the freedom fighter from the terrorist.  

The Bomber Command Memorial is more than a symbol of those who lost their lives defending freedom.  It is a symbol that maybe—just maybe—we are regaining our bearing and can once again accept the fact that not all societies are equal.

Well done, Marshal Beetham, well done!  It was an honor and a privilege to have met you.

Countdown to Independence Day: #2 America is based on an idea

Over the next several days leading up to Independence Day I will be posting the 10 steps that must be taken to preserve our great nation and the principles it was established on.  Each day will cover one of the steps as they appear in my book Liberty Inherited.  It is my hope that, in some small way, I can get Americans to start thinking of what they are on the verge of throwing away.  Today's posting covers step number #2.  I recommend reading the previous post for step #1.  Please note that any additional comments that I add to the original text will be in italics. 

 

2. Always remember that America is based on an idea

In 1701 Daniel Defoe, author of Robinson Crusoe, wrote a poem titled "True-born Englishman."  In that poem Defoe uses satire to demonstrate that there is no such thing as a “true-born Englishmen” because at that time Englishmen were a mix of Anglo, Saxon, Roman, Norman, and Celtic blood.   He finalized his poem putting forth the argument that being English has nothing to do with blood but everything to do with accepting a given set of principles and ideas. 

This rings even more true for Americans. The previous chapter explains that being American is a choice. Choosing to accept American values is what makes you an American. This is regardless of skin color, religion, bloodline, or even where one was born. The biggest tragedy to befall the country that was established on the principle of all men being created equal is that we have allowed ourselves to be divided. It is true that this tragedy was started at the very founding of this nation but that does not mean that we have to continue to perpetuate it. There is no longer a place within the United States for racial bigotry. 

We can no longer allow ourselves to be divided into subgroups and then pitted against each other. 

We must as Americans stand-up to the hate-mongers and the practitioners of racial and gender politics, regardless of what side of the racial issue they may be on.   

We need to reject and refuse to be seen as nothing more than Americans. It should be what is in a person’s heart and mind that counts and not the color of his skin or his bloodline. 

This bodes the same for people who have immigrated from other countries or practice different religions. As long as they accept American values we should welcome them as Americans. To do otherwise would be to just hasten the destruction of the principles that have made America exceptional.

Sadly, this is the one step that many Americans, regardless of their politics, forget about.  That is why I point out the hate-mongers and the practitioners of racial and gender politics.  Individuals of both of these groups ignore the essential fact that America is an idea and not a paradise for WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) nor a purgatory for non-WASPs.  As I point out in the book, this idea was in its infancy at the time of the founding of this great nation and that infancy is reflected in the policies and attitudes of the time.  Enlightened men were forced to compromise with the less wise and we ended up with policies such as the 3/5 compromise in the Constitution.  Fortunately, the adherents of Classical Liberalism realized that it would take time for the idea to fully develop and over the last 200 plus years we, as a nation, have evolved closer to achieving what those men could only dream of.  But that dream will never be truly realized as long as people, especially those in position of influence, continue to use race, gender, immigration, etc for personal and political gain.  Until that vile practice stops, E pluribus unum will remain nothing more than an inspirational slogan.

Countdown to Independence Day: Saving our Liberty #1

Over the next several days leading up to Independence Day I will be posting the 10 steps that must be taken to preserve our great nation and the principles it was established on.  Each day will cover one of the steps as they appear in my book Liberty Inherited.  It is my hope that, in some small way, I can get Americans to start thinking of what they are on the verge of throwing away.  Please note that any additional comments that I add to the original text will be in italics.  

1. Do not take the way things are for granted

“It is,” as Daniel Hannan says, “human nature to take for granted institutions that you have known throughout your life.” Growing up in a world where constitutional democracy is the norm it is incomprehensible to imagine mankind returning to a state of servitude. But it must be remembered that the classical liberal principles that the United States was built on and which has now spread around the world is not the norm. Until the end of World War II the world was dominated by tyrannical, autocratic, and absolutist rulers. The result of this was that the life of the average man was one of poverty, servitude, and desperation. When we consider that men have been forming civilizations as long ago as 4500 BC it becomes clear that 60 years of liberty and freedom does not guarantee the world will continue to embrace those principles.

In Europe there is already a move away from constitutional democracy. As explained in previous chapters liberal democracy is fairly new to the countries of Europe. As we can see from the chart, they have relatively little experience with it at all.

 

With the majority of them having less than 60 years of experience it is uncertain if their democratic institutions can resist a serious crises or challenge. History and current trends indicate that the answer is no. The first attempt with widespread democracy in Europe occurred after World War I. Except for Russia, which turned to communism, all of the large countries and many of the smaller ones attempted to establish a democratic form of government. These newly formed democracies were tested by the depression of the 1930s and most of them failed miserably. By the start of World War II, totalitarianism had replaced democracy in almost all of Europe. Even today, with the European Union, the IMF, the World Bank, and United Nations, we are seeing democratically established governments subordinating themselves to transnational and international organizations governed by bureaucratic elites. This does not bode well for a country founded and developed on classical liberal principles. 

Since the publishing of Liberty Inherited, the Euro crisis has deepened and as a result, representative democracy has suffered.  In both Greece and Italy popularly elected leaders have been replaced by those who will serve the best interest of the European Union even if it is at the expense of their nation and its citizens.  As the crisis deepens, it will be interesting to watch how quickly continental Europe sacrifices democracy and liberty for order and security.

Interview with African-American Conservatives 19 June 2012

Obama: The James II of the 21st century

President Obama’s recent use of Executive Order to bypass congress and change immigration law has reminded me how much history is full of parallels.  As I discovered during my research for Liberty Inherited: The untold story of America’s exceptionalism, it is not difficult to find past events comparable to current ones.  I could not miss the similarities between the events leading up to England’s Glorious Revolution of 1688 and what is currently happening in America.  Furthermore, I was stunned at how similar the actions of President Obama and King James II are. 

Both set out to transform the societies they were leaders of and both did it with a single-mindedness that bordered on zealotry.  President Obama has stated that his goal is to “fundamentally transform” America by moving it towards a secular society based on the model of European socialism.  James II, a catholic, attempted to transform England’s society by returning the country to the dominance of the Church of Rome. James planned to do this by severing England from its protestant principles and reducing the influence of the Anglican Church, thus eliminating potential resistance to the supremacy of the monarchy.  Similarly, Obama is attempting to accomplish his goal of state supremacy by disconnecting America from its Christian values and capitalist past. 

President Obama would use “social justice” as moral justification for this transformation.  This philosophy argues that the current system is unfair and creates inequality, especially economic inequality.  By correcting this inequality, the ills of society could be reduced or even eliminated.  America could then take its place among the “progressive” democracies of the world and participate as an equal in the new world order.  In very much the same way, James II used what could be called “religious justice.”  He believed that the system of forbidding non-Anglicans from serving in government was unjust and created political inequality.  If this political inequality could be rectified then England could return to its rightful place among the foremost catholic nations of Europe, namely France and Spain.

Both realized that “fundamental change” of the society would require fundamental changes to the political, governmental, and economic systems that affect the countries.  Both nations are based on the distinctly protestant principle that individual rights are derived from God.  This belief is the foundation of liberty and is contrary to the systems desired by Obama and James.  In order to achieve the social justice desired by Obama, the central government would need to be enlarged and empowered.  Rights and liberties would, necessarily, need to be determined by the government.  Likewise, in 1688 the Church of Rome still advocated the principles of “divine right” and “absolute rule.”  Combined, they meant that a king was chosen by God to rule and that the king had absolute control over his subjects.  The results are the same in both cases; more government-less individual liberty.

Both leaders have shown a disregard for laws and customs.  James routinely removed non-compliant officials who he had no jurisdiction over.  One clear violation of law was when James removed the President of the University of Oxford and replaced him with someone who would be supportive of the King’s agenda. In a similar move, Obama replaced the CEO of General Motors and replaced him with one more pliant to the president’s wishes.   Furthermore, James violated property rights by confiscating and transferring land legally owned by Protestants to Catholics.  During the GM bailout, Obama showed the same disregard for private property when he, contrary to law and practice, put the union’s claim before that of the bondholders.  In both cases, the leaders succeeded in increasing the power of the state at the expense of the individual.

Both leaders have also shown contempt for the parliamentary and legislative processes of their respective countries.  James used what was called the king’s “Dispensing Powers.”  These were powers that allowed the king to make certain rules and policy changes without the consent of parliament.  Until James, they were limited in their usage and never to overrule the desire of parliament.  This restriction did not stop James.  Believing in the absolute authority of the monarchy, he claimed it was his right as King to override the will of parliament, thus making it irrelevant.  Obama has shown a similar opinion as to the supremacy of the executive branch.  He claims that, through the use of Executive Orders, he has the power to do what Congress is not willing to do.  Obama’s recent use of Executive Order to bypass congress and change immigration law is a prime example of this disregard of the legislative process.  

James also established governmental entities that are outside of traditional governmental oversight or control.  The main one was the Ecclesiastical Commission.  Its purpose was to stop what we call today “hate-speech” against Catholics.  In effect, it increased the power of the monarchy by giving it control over what was said in protestant churches.  Obama has increased the power of the executive branch by increasing the regulative authority of several federal agencies.   This includes the EPA which is implementing some of the provisions of the Cap & Trade bill that the congress refuses to pass.

Finally, in their single-mindedness and determination in achieving their goals they both pursued the most destructive strategy that a country’s leader could follow; divisive politics.  For me this marks the true sign of a zealot since this form of politics does so much damage to the country.  It creates divisions within the populace and an animosity that could linger for decades, if not generations.  By manipulating and exploiting the ambitions and prejudices within the favored group or class it creates a sense of hope.  But, in the end it delivers very little of what it promises.  The only one who stands to win is the politician who, by lack of foresight and wisdom, is kept blind to the damage this vile and contemptible practice does to the nation. 

Through this immoral practice James pitted Liberal Whig against Conservative Tory, Catholic against Protestant, Anglican against Dissenter (Methodist, Calvinist, Puritan, Quaker), English against Irish, and rich against poor. On several occasions it pushed the country to the brink of civil war.  The bloody consequences of which could only be imagined.  Over 300 years later, Obama is repeating history.  Since becoming president in 2008 he has ceaselessly used divisiveness that goes beyond that of party politics.  His demonizing of conservatives, the wealthy, the Evangelicals, the Tea Party and others who disagree with his policies is just as vile as it was when James practiced it.   The political advantages he receives from creating divisiveness among the American people may help increase his power, but it will be short-lived.  Unfortunately, the American people will suffer the divides, either created or exploited, for many years after Obama and his policies have taken their place in the history books. 

The difference between James II and Obama is that one was a king for life while the other is elected for a four year term.  In the end, as I detail in my book Liberty Inherited, the English had to rise up in revolution to rid themselves of James’ tyranny.  Fortunately, Americans do not need to go to such extremes.  They only need to vote. 

An Amazon success story!

For six (6) straight weeks the Kindle version of Liberty Inherited has been an Amazon bestseller.  This week the paperback has also made its way onto the bestseller's list. 

 

 Liberty Inherited in paperwork

An Englishman’s Dire Prophesy: Why Democratic Republics Fail (Are we there yet?)

In 1793, William Young, then a Member of Parliament, wrote:

Ingenious and able men will then soon hit on the various paths to authority which the temper of society opens to them: they will feed the ambition of one with promises, the vanity of another with praise, the avarice of a third with gifts. But even in the simplest state of manners, it is not pure virtue that commands, for pure virtue is then no distinction; it is ability that commands. The stronger minds of the few must ever command the weaker minds of the generality. The stronger mind feels a right as it were to command the weaker; and what it feels a right to, it will assume it can, and by what means it can.

At the time, the French Revolution was just entering into its ‘Reign of Terror’ phase and there was much talk among Britons of eliminating the monarchy and establishing their own republic.  Young was one of several who wrote essays in defense of the British system and the rights it granted to Englishman.  One aspect of this defense is the warning of where a democratic republic could lead.

With the first line, Young is explaining the fact that ‘ingenious and able’ men will exploit whatever paths society offers them.  If the society is wealth focused, as in a free-market based society, then these men will rise to the top of industry.  If the society is power focused, as in a socialist/Marxist state, then the same type of men will rise to the top of government.  In both cases they will use the weakness of others (i.e. ambition, vanity and greed) to gain their wealth and power. 

In the following sentence Young warns against the tendency of democratic republics to discard traditional values.  In time, he cautions, virtue ceases to exist and only one’s ability matters.  No longer will society value the noble, the good, and the pure.  Achievement, either materially or in fame (i.e. celebrity status), will be the sole measure of those who the society admires. 

He goes on to explain that the admiration—or even idolization—that develops within the society results in those of weaker minds turning to strong minded for leadership.  In return, the strong minded feel it their right and duty to command the weaker and less able members of the society.  Thus, for the sake and benefit of the weak, the strong-minded will empower themselves to implement rules, policies, and laws that protect society from the weak-minded and the weak-minded from themselves.

The result is that as the power of the strong-minded grows, liberty, the promised by-product of a democratic republic, shrinks.  This, Young writes in other parts of the essay, leads to the most terrible of all tyrannical governments; an empowered aristocracy comprised of  ‘ingenious and able’ men unrestrained by virtue. 

It is amazing to think that at a time when the bloodiest days of the French Revolution was still to come and the ‘American experiment’ was still in its infancy, a man could have such an understanding of democratic republics.  Yet, it is not that incredible when we realize that he is not discussing government, but human nature.  As Young explains it, “We must take men as they are…and not as the poets and artists describe them.” 

As much as we like to believe otherwise, human nature is still basically the same now as it was back when Young penned his essay.  ‘Ingenious and able’ people still pursue wealth and power.   They still exploit the weakness of others to gain such wealth and power.  This is done in both business and government.  Therefore, to empower one in an attempt to restrain the threat, perceived or real, of the other only increases the possibility of tyranny.

I believe the Founding Fathers recognized this weakness in democracy and the saw that the way to minimize its danger was not to limit liberty, but to limit power.  This is why the founding documents focus more on the limiting of government power than individual rights.  Unfortunately, over the last 100 years we have removed many of the protections they built into the system and, as a result, we risk the danger that Young so eloquently warned us of.

About the same time Young wrote his essay, Benjamin Franklin was asked what type of government the United States would have.  In response he replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Yes, Mr. Franklin, if we can keep it indeed.