Looking Left and Right

Today, Congress had the chance to preserve the constitution, but failed to do so.  The Smith-Amash Amendment to H.R. 4310 would have prohibited the indefinite detention of American citizens suspected of planning terrorism on U.S. soil.  As a result of its defeat, the government will have the power to detain American citizens for as long as they want without ever granting them their constitutional right to a trial.  Again, this is only on suspicion, which can be determined just on hearsay.  If you are an America, your right to being "secure in your person" has just been greatly reduced.

What is even more disturbing is that the defeat of this amendment was only possible with support from both parties, right and left.  It makes one ask, "Is either party, on the right or left, interested in preserving the constitution?"  The answer is clearly NO.

But this does not surprise me. After a lifetime of studying history, especially in the modern era (16^th century-present), I have come to understand that there are two threats to liberty, freedom and democracy.  These two threats are:

Busybodies on the Right 

Collectivists on the Left

By Busybodies, I mean the people—often religious, often well-intentioned—that want to mold society into their vision of it.  They want the government to limit or prohibit activities they find objectionable, such as prostitution, gambling, smoking, obesity, etc.  Their objection to any given activity is usually moral based, but can also be the result of outright animosity.  For example, many who want to restrict or limit alcohol consumption are those who have dealt with (or seen loved ones deal with) the terrible affects of alcoholism.  They often become so passionate in combating what they see as the cause of pain and suffering that they are willing to remove other people’s right to responsibly enjoy alcohol.

For the collectivist on the left, it is “social injustice” that motivates their destruction of freedom.  They see inequality, especially material inequality, as the great evil.  That one person should have so much while many have so little is very disturbing to them.  Additionally, they see everyone as part of a group and inequality between groups is equally as, if not more, disturbing than the disparity between individuals.  These are injustices that must be rectified.  They demand that the government create regulations and policies that will eliminate the injustices.  This usually takes to form of redistributing of wealth, affirmative action programs, “social justice” initiatives, regulations, and restrictions on freedoms.

Whether a person is a Busybody on the Right or a Collectivist on the left is not important.  What is important is to recognize that both are a threat to freedom, liberty, and democracy.  They are both progressive state-based ideologies that want to use the coercive power of government to enforce their will on the American people.  

It is also important to recognize that neither view is representative of the values that this nation has been built on; limited government, individual freedom, private property, and free market economics.  (For details of the 1600 year evolution of these values see my bestselling book: Liberty Inherited )

I argue that to refer to these groups as the Right and Left end of the American political spectrum is either a product of intellectual dishonesty or lack of understanding of this nation’s political history.  They are, in reality, the two faces of Progressive-ism, which is based on the idea that man can achieve a utopian world.  One leads to fascism and the other communism.  They both use the same means, governmental coerciveness.  What they differ on is their vision of the utopian world they so desperately desire to impose on us.

It is only natural to look at the threat that those who we oppose pose to our freedoms, liberty, and rights.  But this “we good, you bad” approach leaves us blind to the danger from our ‘own side.’

[A historical example of this is Hitler’s SA.  The SA (Sturm Abteilung) was the infamous “brown shirts” of the Nazi party.  Its membership was mostly made up of radical socialists and they believed that they were fighting for the elimination of inequality and to return law and order (morality) to Germany.  Once in power, Hitler no longer needed this army of “useful idiots” –as Lenin called such people—and in June/July 1934 ordered a purge of the whole organization.  This purge, known as “The Night of the Long Knives,” resulted in the death of hundreds of the SA’s leaders and imprisonment of thousand of its members.  In the end, it was their own side that made Germany into one of the bloodiest authoritarian regimes of the 20^th century (only surpassed by Communist Russia and Mao’s China).]

The truth is that there are elements within both the Republican and Democratic parties that threaten our freedom.  Some claim to be Conservative while others declare themselves Liberals.  Sometime they are religious, but just as often they are secular.  But the titles do not matter.  What is important—what we must ask ourselves- is, “Are they furthering liberty for all or are they just using specific issues to manipulate me into being a ‘useful idiot?’

Lastly, we need to accept the reality that we have greater influence over our friends than our enemies.  This means that we have a better chance of protecting our rights and freedoms from the threats within our own side.  This does not mean that we ignore threats from our opponents or that we assume that they are policing themselves.  It does mean that we have two eyes and all liberty loving Americans need both wide-open, one looking left while the other looks right.

Generations: What a Difference a Century Makes!

I am currently reading “Doughboy War: The American Expeditionary Force in World War I” by James Hallas.  The book, which covers the war years of 1917-1918, is a collection of passages taken from journals, diaries, letters, personal narratives and unit histories.   I was struck by differences in attitudes of Americans then as compared to now. 

 

The following two passages are prime examples.

The first was written by a young American who was killed in the battle for the Ourcq River, fought in France late July 1918.  

America shall win the war.

Therefore I will work,

I will save,

I will sacrifice,

I will endure,

I will fight cheerfully and do my utmost,

As if the whole issue of the struggle

depended on me alone.

While I know that this does not represent the sentiment of every American, I do believe that it is indicative of the American people at the time.  Is it any wonder the people of this generation would start what would be called the “American Century?”  Or that they would go on to produce the generation of Americans that would come of age during the Great Depression and then go on to defeat the Marxist ideologies of Nazism, fascism, and communism?

It is striking when one compares this to the young people currently taking part in the Occupy Wall Street protest.  To them the above words are so foreign, the concepts so alien, that they might as well have been written by a Martian.  Unfortunately, a half century of entitlement propaganda, has ensured that these people will never be able to produce more than ever increasing demands.

The second passage highlights the difference in how we defined ourselves as Americans. It was taken from a German intelligence report in 1917.  This report was written shortly after the initial engagements were fought between the untested Americans and the veterans of the Imperial German Army. 

Only a few of the troops are of pure American origin; the majority is of German, Dutch, and Italian parentage, but these semi-Americans, almost all of whom were born in America and never have been to Europe before, fully feel themselves to be true born sons of their country. [Emphasis added by author of post]

 After decades of multiculturalism this too has become something of a lost sentiment or attitude.  Today first generation Americans are more likely to identify themselves by their heritage than as “true born sons of their country.”  

This forces me to ask, “Do we even know what it is to be American or has the concept become so diluted by hyphens that we that first generation Americans can no longer fully feel themselves to be true born sons of their country?”  

Oh, what a difference a century makes!                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

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.”