The American Evolution, not Revolution!

Since 1776, there have a many attempts by other countries to replicate what the Americans did that fateful year.  The French were the first in 1789, followed by others, including the Mexicans (1810), the Russians (1917), the Chinese (1949), and the Cubans (1959).  Unfortunately, rather than providing those nations with leaders such as Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison, these revolutions ended with tyrants such as Napoleon, Santa Anna, Stalin, Mao, and Castro.  In more recent times, as the former authoritarian regimes are replaced with totalitarian ones, the democratically inspired revolts in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Syria seem destined to share the same fate as the above mentioned revolutions.  

This begs the question, “Why did the American Revolution succeed where so many have failed?”

As I illustrate in my book, Liberty Inherited, the American Revolution was not really a revolution.  It was actually the next step in the development of a socio-political-economic system that evolved over the previous 1200 years in England.   As George Washington would write in 1783, the British Empire “was not laid in the gloomy age of ignorance and suspicion but in an epoch when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined, than at any former period.” 

And he was not alone.  In 1763, John Adams wrote in Novanglus No. VII:

[T]he British constitution is much more like a republic than an empire. They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men. If this definition be just, the British constitution is nothing more nor less than a republic, in which the king is first magistrate. This office being hereditary, and being possessed of such ample and splendid prerogatives, is no objection to the government’s being a republic, as long as it is bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend. An empire is a despotism, and an emperor a despot, bound by no law or limitation but his own will; it is a stretch of tyranny beyond absolute monarchy.

And, as late as March 1775, Benjamin Franklin was hopeful that British America could remain part of the Empire, even to the point of offering his entire net worth to pay for the tea spilt in the Boston Tea Party if London would only address the colonists’ grievances.

It is clear from these few examples (and there are many more) that the Founding Fathers of this nation considered the British system of government—with its limited government and respect for the rights of the individual—the best in the world.  They did not consider it tyrannical, despotic, or authoritarian.  Even after the defeat of the Empire by the American colonists Washington still maintained a positive opinion of the system.  

Furthermore, through the colonial assemblies and the hands-off approach of London, the colonists had over 150 years of semi self-rule.  Each colony had an assembly based on the English Parliament (either unicameral or bicameral) with the now familiar executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.  The most common shape of a colonial government had the executive in the form of the colony’s governor appointed by London, a legislature in the form of an assembly elected by the colonists, and a judicial with locally elected judges and the Governor’s Counsel acting as a supreme court.  The colonies, with few exceptions, were free to create their own laws as long as the laws did not violate English Common Law.  These 150 years of experience created political traditions, customs, and culture that the colonies of the other colonial powers (mainly Spain and France) lacked.  

While it is true that the Founding Fathers established a congress rather than a parliament, an elected president rather than a hereditary monarch, and a federal republic rather than a constitutional monarchy, the American Revolution is less of a revolution than it initially appears to be.  The truth is that when the time came for British America to become America and establish its own government the Founding Fathers took the system they knew, respected, and envied and made it their own.  They used the Glorious Revolution of 1688 to justify their own actions; kept English Common Law as the basis of their legal system; and used the Declaration of Rights of 1689 (which guaranteed in writing the ‘rights of all Englishmen’) as the model and basis for the founding documents (the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights).  So, while the mechanics of government were changed, the basic political principles and values of the English system—mainly limited government, individual rights, private property, and free market economics—remained at the heart of the system.  The ‘rights of freeborn Englishmen’ became the ‘rights and liberties of Americans.’

This is why the American Revolution was really more of an evolution than a revolution.  It is also why the Americans were able to succeed where so many others have tragically failed, often with great bloodshed and loss of life.  Real revolutions attempt to fundamentally change a society by imposing an unfamiliar political system (including values and principles) on the people.  This is traumatic for the society and results in the blood-thirsty tyrannies that often come out of the chaos they create. The Founding Fathers did not try to impose a system of government that was alien or offensive to the majority of the people.  In fact, the principles on which the new government was based on were quite familiar to most of the colonists because it was, in reality, an Americanized version of the British system. 

This does not take away from the fact that the American form of government was not a leap forward in the idea that the common man is capable of ruling himself.  But this idea did not develop out of thin air.  It developed out of the British system, which—just as the American system was leap forward from the British system—was a leap forward from the absolutism that condemned the common man to a life of poverty and servitude.  

This is what made it evolutionary, not revolutionary, and why the Americans succeeded where so many have failed.

Related posts:

No 1776 without 1688

The Greatest Myth of the American Revolution

7 reasons why Rio 2016 may suffer the same fate as Tokyo 1940

The Closing Ceremonies of the Olympic Games are similar to presidential elections in that they both provide moments when one stops and considers whether things had gotten better or worse over the last four years.  Likewise, they force us to examine the next four years and to determine if they will be years that promise hope or trepidation.  I can say that when I watched the Closing Ceremony of the Olympic Games in Beijing I felt hope.  But this year, as I watched the Olympic flag pass from London to Rio de Janeiro, I did so with trepidation.  I wondered if Rio 2016 will realize its dream of being the first South American city to host the games or will it share the same fate as Tokyo did in 1940. 

 

The following is a list of seven very possible events or phenomenon that may turn Rio’s Olympic dream into nothing more than a wishful fantasy.

1)      Collapse of the Euro

Over the last few years the governments and central banks of Europe have attempted to prevent the collapse of the Euro.  With Greece no better off than before the bail out and the crisis spreading to Italy, Spain, and Portugal it appears that these attempts have done nothing but postpone the inevitable.  If a collapse should occur, its effects would be felt throughout the global economy, thus destabilizing an already unstable world. 

2)      Disintegration of the European Union and the rise of non-liberal forces

Either triggered by a collapse of the Euro or member nations just deciding that the union no longer serves their best interests, the disintegration of the European Union is appearing more likely every day.  Throughout the member nations anti-EU (and anti-German) sentiment is growing. 

Greece's Far-right 'Golden Dawn' Party

While the end of the E.U. is not in itself a threat to global stability, the form that it takes can be. If history is any indicator, we can expect to see an increase in the popularity of anti-democratic/anti-liberal political parties as the economic conditions worsen. This is what happened in the Great Depression of the 1930s, when totalitarianism replaced democracy as the most common form of government in Europe. And we all know what that led to.

3)      Muslim Extremism

Terrorism is no longer the only threat that Muslim extremism poses to the world.  As the Liberal Arab Spring turns into the Muslim Extremists Winter we can expect to see not only a less stable Middle East, but a less stable world.  Oil and Israel are the obvious two threats but we cannot discount the danger to Europe. With points 1 and 2 being real possibilities, there is a good chance that Europe may find itself politically fractured and economically weak. Although it is politically correct to highlight Christian European aggression against the Muslims (i.e. the Crusades) it needs to be remembered that Islam has attacked Christian Europe in just about every century and such an economically prostrate and politically disunited  Europe would present a very tempting target. A perusal of the rhetoric of many of the Muslim extremist fractions now obtaining power in formerly moderate Arab states clearly shows that this dream is not dead.

4)      Iran-Israeli War

With the rise of Muslim extremism comes a re-alignment of alliances in the Middle East. The once moderate Arab states, who were neutral on Israel, are now switching alliances.  We are seeing an aggressive and anti-Israel Iran gaining greater influence over the whole Middle East. With an ever growing number of her neighbors becoming hostile Israel cannot stand-by and let Iran become a nuclear power.  If the world is not willing to prevent this, then Israel will have to do it herself.  With oil being the life blood of the industrial world the resulting disruption—and the disruption of oil will be a prime target—would put the already weak global economy over the edge.  The instability this will cause cannot be understated.

5)      Militarized China

China's New Aircraft Carrier

For over two decades China has had the largest military on earth. But, as a recent article in The Economist points out, that military is now becoming a very large modern one capable of threatening the military power of the United States, which has served as a restraint on China’s expansionist desires.  As the power of this great nation grows will she feel emboldened enough to reclaim Taiwan or to return greater Asia to the hegemony of an Asian country? 

 6)     Decline in Anglosphere Influence

Whether we like it or not, we live in a world created by and in the image of the Anglosphere. During its 400 years of dominance the Anglosphere has spread the ideals and principles of the enlightenment, ushered in the industrial age, promoted free trade, opened the sea lanes for all, fought for democracy and championed human rights. It has defended the world against Napoleon’s tyrannical despotism, Hitler’s genocidal socialism, and Stalin's bloodthirsty communism. The unmatched power of the Anglosphere has been a stabilizing force in the world. Without the Anglosphere the world would have been a very dark and barbaric place.  Now, many are saying that we are witnessing the end of Anglosphere dominance.  If this is true, then we can definitely count on a very unstable world as the anti-liberal forces of authoritarian China and theocratic Islam make a bid to re-construct the world in their image.

7)      Global Economic Collapse

Although any one or combination of the above can trigger a collapse of the global economy, they are not required.  In fact, there may not be a need for a trigger at all.  The global economy may collapse on its own as central banks and governments experiment with theoretical and untested economic policies, which, as we have seen in point 1, have not been very effective.  Critics argue that these experimental policies have done nothing but postpone the inevitable and, by doing so, increased the impact of the collapse once it happens.  If they are correct then the world is headed for very dark and difficult times.

I know that this is a very gloomy view of our near future but I also know that I am not alone in sensing the danger the next four years may bring.  In a recent survey, 61% of Americans believe that there is a catastrophe of historical proportions lingering just beyond the horizon and I bet that a survey in other countries would produce similar results.  If, what they sense, does come to pass than I am afraid that Rio 2016 may not happen or, if the games do take place, it will do so in a world a lot less democratic and a lot more violent.

Modern Liberalism: The great deception

I remember that it was during the early part of the Clinton presidency when I first heard of ‘political correctness.’  Although I was still in my early twenties, I instantly recognized the term represented something to be despised for its wickedness.  My first instinct—and fear—was that it originated from my side of the political spectrum as I could not imagine anyone who consciously considered themselves as being ‘liberal’ embracing it, much less developing this contemptible concept.

Yet, two decades later, the intolerant and illiberal ‘liberal’ reaction to a person expressing his personal opinion, as evidenced in the recent Dan Cathy/Chick-Fil-A uproar, did not surprise me at all.  

The difference in my reaction to these two events is that I have come to realize that what is termed ‘modern liberalism’ is not liberal at all and is one of the greatest deceptions perpetuated on the American electorate.

Before I can explain what I mean by this, we need to examine what real liberalism is.  

Real or true liberalism evolved out of the enlightenment period that swept Western Europe in the 16^th, 17^th, and 18^th centuries and is considered by many to be the zenith in the history of liberty and the governance of man.  It is based on the belief that the average man could rule or govern himself without the oversight of some aristocratic lord directing his behavior.  This belief found a welcome home among both the enlightened intellectuals and the common people of England.  Over those three centuries, the English developed a political system based on this conviction.  At the heart of this form of governance, which has been conveniently renamed ‘classical liberalism’ by leftist academics, are four basic principles.

• Limited Government
• Individual Rights
• Private Property
• Free Contract Economics

The first two preserved political freedom while the last two guarded economic freedom.  [I should note here that Free Contract Economics refer to the freedom that individuals have to willfully engage with each other without approval of an aristocratic overseer.  It is not a license to rob, cheat, swindle, defraud, or steal.]

It is this philosophy and these principles that are represented in the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States, and, especially, the Bill of Rights.  Hence, it is also referred to as ‘Jeffersonian Liberalism.’ It is also the version of liberalism that I understood when I first reacted to hearing of the non-liberal concept of ‘political correctness.’

[If you doubt this understanding of liberalism, then please read the platform of the Liberal Party of Australia, which, to their credit, has remained faithful to the principles of true liberalism.]

The Deception Begins

As I noted above, in the early part of the 20^th century true liberalism was renamed classical ‘liberalism.’ This allowed Marxist-based Progressivism to usurp the name and the great accomplishments of true or authentic liberalism.

Unfortunately, modern liberalism has none of the trust in the average man that true liberalism does.  In fact, at its core is the belief that the average man cannot be trusted to make the correct choices or decisions.  Like the serf of the Middle Ages, the average person must be guided, controlled, and tempered by the ‘wisdom’ of the more educated, cultured and civil members of society.  This is why Faux-Liberals (my term for illiberal modern liberals) can not only embrace but can also originate concepts that are, at their core, the anti-thesis to the principles of true liberalism. 

I do not make this accusation based on their words since the manipulation of the language is the basis of deception, and, as the redefining of liberalism illustrates, Faux Liberals are very competent in language manipulation.  It is their actions and the results of those actions that provide basis of my charge.  All one needs to do is to compare some of the core objectives and policies of Faux-liberalism to see that it has very little in common with being liberal and is more akin to ideologies that have lead to tyranny and despotism:

•  From the support and acceptance of ‘political correctness’ to the practice of silencing opposing opinion we see the disdain Faux Liberals have for the rights of the individual, including the freedoms of thought and expression.
• By using government as an instrument of change, often referred to as ‘social engineering,’ we see a complete disregard for the principle of limited government
• Through the redistribution of wealth schemes we witness complete contempt for private property. 
• The attempt to regulate all business and control economic activity violates the principle of Free Contract Economics

Now, I do not have a problem with people supporting or being in favor of these policies—after all, disagreement is the product of a free society—but I do take exception with people who are deceptive about their beliefs and ideology. This is exactly what Faux-liberalism does. It is an ideology claiming to be liberal when its actions are the complete opposite. Additionally, its adherents continue the deception by chastising others for lacking tolerance, understanding, and compassion when they continually fail demonstrate those values themselves.  This leads to some very interesting questions:

Why must a political ideology or movement use deception in order to gain support for its objectives?

Why must it feel compelled to usurp the title of a political philosophy that is the anti-thesis of everything it stands for?

Why did its adherents not choose a label that properly reflected the ideology’s true values and principles?

Why must it resort to language manipulation to get people to support its causes?

And, more importantly,

Why the deception?

What is it hiding?

I know at this point you may be thinking, “Well, conservatives are no better” and to a degree you are right since both sides have done an exceptional job of eliminating true liberalism from America’s political landscape. The difference is that conservatives did not take the term and redefine it to suit their needs or to mislead people. On the contrary, conservatives tend to use phrases, such as traditional values, American values, free market economics, etc to accurately reflect their ideology and beliefs. This is what makes modern or faux-liberalism the greater of the two evils.  Its use of language manipulation, which is designed to deceive a well-intentioned, although not well-informed, electorate, is by any measure loathsome and should generate the feeling of revulsion in anybody who truly values freedom, liberty, and individual rights.

References:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/what-is-classical-liberalism
http://www.whatisliberalism.com/
http://www.liberal.org.au/The-Party/Our-Beliefs.aspx#FederalDirector