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.

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. 

Race and Culture are not synonymous

When I was growing up my best friend was named Brad.  His father was a Nissei (a second generation American of Japanese descent) and his mother was from Japan itself.  So racially Brad was 100% Japanese. But not once did it occur to me to think of him as anything other than an American because that is what he was culturally.  He was just another kid on the street who loved baseball, rock music, skateboarding, and all the other activities American kids enjoyed at the time.  

True, there were some Japanese influences but they were never strong enough to overcome the environmental influences of being born and raised in America.  The result is that although he could physically blend in on any street in Japan, he would be the proverbial fish out of water culturally.  This was clearly demonstrated when, in university, he minored in Japanese and failed.  Of course, he had no problem in the English-based classes and graduated with high honors.

Through this and similar experiences I learned that there is a huge difference between one’s race and one’s culture.  That one is a product of nature while the other is the result of nurture.  Furthermore, at an early age, I understood that there is no inherent connection between the two.  This is clearly shown in the definition of the words.  As Webster’s College Dictionary defines them:

Race refers to a group of persons related by common 

descent or heredity 

Culture is the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another [Author’s note: usually through language] 

From these definitions it is clear that neither one has anything to do with the other.  So you can imagine my surprise (make that shock) when I see people use the words as if they have the same meaning.  For example, when the French interior minister, Claude Gueant, recently declared some “civilizations superior” to others he was called a “cultural racist” by some political groups.  The racist label is also applied to anyone who opposes multiculturalism or supports an English-only agenda.  

I myself have been called a racist because I believe that there is a distinct American culture that needs to be cherished and protected.  I take this view because I understand that America was never based on race but on ideas and culture is what holds it all together.  Remember that culture is the “sum ways of living” and “transmitted from one generation to another” and language is the primary method of transmission.  Without a common culture and common language to transmit the culture there is no America, just pockets of distinct and separate groups trying to get along with each other.  (This is the destructiveness of multiculturalism and I hope I am not around to see the end result of such nonsense bred out of ignorance.)

Of course, it is not uncommon for those with political agendas to manipulate words in order to gain support from those who do not know any better.  But recently I have been seeing this misuse of the words 'culture' and 'race' from people who should know better.   

I am currently reading Why Nations Fail by two very highly educated and knowledgeable men.   Daron Acemoglu is a Professor of Economics at MIT, while James Robinson is a Professor of Government at Harvard.  Clearly, these men should know the definitions of words like race and culture.  Yet, they confuse the two.  In chapter 2 they discuss the Culture Hypothesis on why there is economic inequality in the world.  They use several examples to illustrate that this hypothesis does not work.  One example is the fact that people of Mexican descent live and dominate both the Mexican and American sides of Nogales, a city which straddles the border.  Yet, the Mexican side is impoverished while the American side is relatively prosperous.  From this they conclude that culture plays no role in the development (or lack of development) of either side.  

By using this logic, my friend Brad should have traditional Japanese values, attitudes, and behavior.  Yet, as I explained above, since he was raised and educated in the United States—and not Japan-- he was and is culturally American.  This is the same for most of those living in the American side of Nogales.  They may look like and share many cultural similarities with their neighbors to the south but they are not the same.  Their upbringing in the United States altered them culturally, even though they may remain racially intact.

In another example, the authors use the degree that Latin American countries still have indigenous populations (race) to discredit the Cultural Hypothesis.  They highlight the fact that Colombia has a small indigenous population relative to those of Bolivia and Ecuador, yet all have about the same per capita income level.  Therefore, they claim, culture cannot be a factor.  This argument is so faulty that I do not know where to begin.  It completely ignores the fact that, since all three were Spanish colonies, they all now have similar cultures.  The only other way this argument can work is if we assume that the indigenous population has remained unchanged by those colonial experiences.  But to accept this argument is to go to a place like central Mexico and expect the people there to be dressed in Aztec garb, waving obsidian swords, and making human sacrifices to the gods.  I have been there and this does not happen, except in the shows for tourists.  The cold truth is that, while many are racially indigenous, the indigenous culture has been completely eradicated and replaced (or modified) by the Spanish culture.

The inability to distinguish culture from race is very dangerous and it is disturbing that academics fail to recognize the differences.  On a macro level it destroys the bonds that hold the modern nation-state together.  On a micro level it is racism in its purist form since it forces us to see race as a determinant of behavior.  This misunderstanding has led to some very dark moments in history.  A victim of one of those moments was Brad’s dad.  He was forced to spend several years of his childhood in an internment camp because people could not discern between being racially Japanese and culturally American.  It is shocking and sad that over 60 years later we still suffer from the same ignorance.

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.