Romney, the Anglo-Saxons, and the Misinformed

The recent hullabaloo over a Romney adviser stating that Romney understands better than President Obama the special relationship between Britain and the United States demonstrates a total lack of historical understanding of what the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ means.

What uninformed people do not realize is that long before the term was usurped by ignorant racists such as the KKK, it was used to describe a political system that is the basis of the English-speaking world.  

 As I explain in my book, Liberty Inherited, Britain, and specifically England as an island nation, developed much differently than mainland Europe. As early as 500 A.D., with the Anglo-Saxon invasion led by the Germanic brothers Hengist and Horsa, we can identify the beginning of a cultural--not racial--character that continues to this day. As Churchill explains in the History of the English-Speaking Peoples, the Saxons created a “strong strain of individualism based upon land-ownership [private property]” that was to “play a persistent part in the politics of England.” In The English Constitution and Legal History Colin Rhys-Lovell explains that as early as 800AD the Anglo-Saxons considered themselves a commonwealth of freemen.  This was reflected in their laws and government, which established that

• All decisions in the selection of leaders had to be with the consent of the people, preferably by full consensus, not just the majority.
• The laws by which they were governed were considered natural laws given by divine dispensation.
• Power was disbursed among the people and never allowed to concentrate in any one person or group. 
• Primary responsibility for resolving problems rested first of all with the individual, then the family, then the tribe or community, then the region, and finally, the nation.
• They were organized into small, manageable groups where every adult had a voice and a vote.
•  They believed the rights of the individual were considered unalienable and could not be violated without risking the wrath of divine justice as well as civil retribution by the people’s judges. (Incredibly, as early as 800AD the Anglo-Saxons had the legal practice of trial by jury)

This highlights what Walter Russell Mead writes in God and Gold: Britain, America and the Making of the Modern World, “The Anglo-Saxons in the seventh and eighth centuries were free people, and that England owed its liberty and its most important institutions to these ancient traditions.” 

Thus, based on its Anglo-Saxon heritage, England became the birthplace of the principles that are (or were) the foundation of liberty—liberty the English-speaking world now takes for granted.  Additionally, it is the foundation of what was to become known as ‘Liberal Democracy.’

In fact, I argue that there would be no such thing as human rights if not for the Anglo-Saxons since their principles of individual rights, rule of law, and the limited power of government were alien to the system of government that developed on the continent or anywhere else in the world. It must be noted that at the time the system of government that was established on continental Europe evolved from the absolute rule that the Roman Emperors enjoyed. Under that system an all-powerful prince owned everything including all the land and the people within his realm.  (Note: this is why England (Britain after the unification of 1707) never has had a Napoleon, a Hitler, a Mussolini, a Franco or a Stalin.  It is contrary to their culture.)

Additionally, which may surprise many of us in the English-speaking world, much of the non-English speaking world sees the glaring similarities rather than subtle differences between our countries.  In the 19^th and 20^th centuries, the United States and the British Empire were often jointly referred to as the “Liberal Democracies” or the “Anglo-Saxon powers.” (Note: Liberal in this case refers to the authentic Classical Liberalism, not the faux-modern liberalism of today)  Even as late the 1960s, French President and World War II hero Charles de Gaulle always referred to the United States and Britain jointly as “les pays Anglo-Saxonnes” (the Anglo-Saxon countries) and the term is still used by such enemies of liberty as Iran’s Ahmadinejad.

So, in it original form, “Anglo-Saxon” is a political—and not racial—term that describes nations that are based on the Anglo-Saxon principles of limited government, individual rights, private property, and free-market economics.  With President Obama’s contempt for most, if not all, of these principles and his scorn for the anything remotely English it is hard to believe that he would have a deep understanding of the special relationship that exist not only between the U.S. and the U.K., but also between all the English-speaking nations that comprise the Anglosphere. 

It is regrettable that the Romney adviser stated that Romney’s understanding of the ‘special relationship’ was due to his “Anglo-Saxon heritage” (as opposed to his worldview) since it denotes the commonly, yet ill-informed, understanding of the term as being racial.  Otherwise, what he said was 100% on target!

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. 

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.