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

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!

10 Steps to Preserving American Liberty

In the ten days leading up to Independence Day I wrote a series of posts that listed 10 steps that are needed in order to preserve our liberty.  These 10 steps were taken from my book, Liberty Inherited, and are followed by some additional comments.  Since each post was an individual post the reader had to search each one out.  It was suggested that I create a post linking the series together.  So, by demand, here is the list of the blog posts that made up the series.  

Click on the title to read the entire post. 

1. Do not take the way things are for granted

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.

2. Always remember that America is based on an idea

To do otherwise would be to just hasten the destruction of the principles that have made America exceptional.

3. English must be the language of the United States

By not learning English individuals are limiting their ability to become Americans in their hearts and minds.

4. Understand what America means to people around the world

There is no other country that can match the United States’ history of liberating oppressed people all over the world.

5. Be proud of being an American

I urge each of you to hold your head up and proudly proclaim that you are an American.

6. Respect individual sovereignty

The first is that an individual receives those rights and the second is that other individuals are obligated not to trample on the rights of others.

7. Continue to educate yourself

It is not enough to rely on the history you were taught in school, even if you were one of the few who paid attention.

 

8. Understand America’s classical liberal philosophy

Classical liberalism was the basic philosophy of this country until the turn of the 20th century.
 

9. Return America’s exceptionalism to the schools

Instead of educating our students on European political philosophies we need to be teaching first and foremost the philosophy that was at the heart of this country’s foundation.

 

10. Vote responsibly

As individuals in a representative democracy the biggest weapon we have is our right to vote.

Countdown to Independence: #7 Continue to educate yourself

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 #7.  I recommend reading the previous posts for step #1 through 6.  Please note that any additional comments that I add to the original text will be in italics.

 

7. Continue to educate yourself

Remember that ignorance and neglect are one of the causes of the rotting that is afflicting the roots of the Liberty Tree. As James Madison wrote in a letter he penned in 1822, “What spectacle can be more edifying or more seasonable, than that of Liberty and Learning, each leaning on the other for their mutual & surest support?” This is what this book attempts to achieve. It was designed to be an introductory course to a part of history that many have been deprived of. Its purpose was to provide an informative and educational book that is easy to read. It is by no means an exhaustive piece of work. Therefore, I urge you not to take everything you read within these pages at face value. Instead I ask you to start your own journey of discovery. In doing so, I believe you will discover that the arguments I put forth within these pages are true and accurate. 

With that said, the biggest fear people have with studying history is trusting the accuracy of the facts they are reviewing. To this I reply, “If you read one book on a topic you get one opinion, the author’s. But if you read four books on the same topic you get five opinions - those of the four authors and then your own. Once your opinion is established, you will be able to discern what rings true and what rings false.”  This is the reason why it is not enough to rely on the history you were taught in school, even if you were one of the few who paid attention.  In many cases it is nothing but the point of view of the teacher and, as Daniel Hannan told me, “When history is taught, it is taught badly.” So go out and educate yourself!

Queen's Jubilee: Why Americans should care

Like most Americans, my view of monarchy is that it is a political system that instills fancy despots who are above the law and who arbitrarily rule over their subjects.  This is compounded by the tradition of producing spoiled despots (many of them sick- physically and mentally- from centuries of inbreeding) to replace themselves.   The product of this hereditary and absolute rule is a system that allowed generations of monarchs to lord over everything within their realms, trample the rights of individuals, and treat people in general as nothing more than beast of burden. 

But as I started doing research for my book, Liberty Inherited, I soon discovered the English (British after the Acts of Union) monarchy was different, special, and exceptional among the monarchies of the world. 

As Sir William Young explained it:

The word king in Great Britain means not the same thing as king elsewhere; as formerly in France, or as actually in Prussia, Hungary, or Spain. It means a person invested with the executive power, as to the people individually to administer the laws, but under the control of the laws; and as to the people as a nation, to administer the government, but under the control of the nation. As to the persons and property of individuals, the king has no power or authority, but what the people by their representatives have veiled in him by laws made for the public peace and advantage of all.

In other words, unlike the rest of the world, the British subjects did not serve the King, he served them. 

What is amazing is that Young scribed those words over 200 year ago (1793) while the French Revolution was just starting and the “American Experiment” was in its infancy.  One ended with the establishment of a tyrant named Napoleon Bonaparte while the other became a symbol of liberty and freedom.  The reason for this differential of outcome is that although both believed in liberty and justice, only one, the United States, was based on the “rights of Englishmen.”   It is these rights which evolved under the English system of limited monarchy that provided the principles that would make the United States into the great nation it has become.

This would not have happened if the original colonies had the misfortune of being colonized by one of the continental powers.  As I explain in Liberty Inherited:

Due to the absolutist beliefs of the French and Spanish such a [limited government] system of ruling colonies could not even be imagined. People living in the French and Spanish empires were never given autonomy over the affairs of their colony. Governors and Captaincies were usually minor nobles sent from the mother country. They ruled with the authority of the king, which gave them dictatorial powers over their subjects.

The result would be that the United States would not have had the political principles that have been the foundation of its success.  Instead, it and the other English-speaking nations (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc) would be nothing more than the political basket cases that many of the former French and Spanish colonies are.  

Additionally, we must wonder if the American Revolution would have been possible if the colonies were those of Spain or France.  It must be recognized that in an era when rebellion was met with ruthless and often bloody suppression the British government showed remarkable restraint.  A restraint the Empire did not always show to those it viewed as non-English.  If not for their rights as Englishmen, the instigators of the revolution would have been rounded up long before shots were fired at Concord and Lexington.  In a French or Spanish colony, at the first utterance of a rebellious word, they would have been summarily arrested and shot, their property confiscated, their families left destitute.

Even the prosecution of the war by the British army, while at times marked by abuses, was very civil for the period.  The local populace was mostly left unmolested and even treated cordially.  Lord Cornwallis, the commander of the British army, had numerous opportunities to pursue the defeated Continental Army but failed to do so.  Thus allowing Washington to slip away and fight another day.  Most American history books explain his lack of aggressiveness as plain ineptitude but Cornwallis went on to go down in history as a great British general.  He had notable successes in India and Ireland, both of which showcased his military and political abilities. 

So why was he unable to do the same in Britain’s American colonies? Maybe the answer lies in that the rebellious colonists were seen and treated more as misguided Englishmen than warring enemies.  As such, they were entitled to receive the rights and benefits of being Englishmen.  If so, that would be the greatest irony of the American Revolution, that while fighting for their “rights as Englishmen” they were being shielded by those rights.

It is only natural that in the intervening years the United States and the United Kingdom would come together to defend freedom and liberty throughout the world.  It was with aid from the United States that Britain was able to resist Nazi tyranny and it was predominately Anglo-American forces that ultimately put an end to Hitler’s reign of death and oppression.  This blow for liberty and freedom was followed up with both nations containing and then defeating the equally bloody and oppressive ideology of communism. 

Britain’s support to America after the attacks on 9/11 demonstrates that this special relationship is alive and well in the 21^st century.   As Dennis Murphy (former adviser to Prime Minister Tony Blair) explained it: 

He [PM Blair] would speak for all of us who value democracy and freedom when he committed Britain to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the USA in their darkest hour of the early years of the 21st Century, as they had done for us, twice, during ours in the 20th Century. They'd always been there for Europe when we needed them.  They needed us now.

A recent CNN/ORC poll shows that 82% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Queen.  I believe this positive view to be well deserved.  Not because of who she is or her individual appeal, but because of principles she and the British monarchy symbolizes.  For, without these principles, the United States would not be the nation it is today.

This is why the Queen’s Jubilee should matter to Americans.  It is a time when we need to reflect on the good fortune of the thirteen original colonies being English/British, that the great men who founded this nation were “freeborn Englishmen” and that we inherited the English principles for freedom, liberty, and justice for all.

Therefore, I say, “God Save the Queen and the great traditions she stands for.”

American liberty? Think again!

The Cause

If the American Revolution was not about independence, what was it about?

The Greatest Myth about the American Revolution

Most people accept as fact that the goal of the American Revolution was to achieve independence from Britain. While this myth may have some truth to it, and the ultimate outcome of the conflict was independence, it was not the motivation for starting the war. Independence did not even become a stated goal of the patriots until the signing of the Declaration of Independence in July 1776: more than a year after the initial battles of Lexington and Concord.  A review of these 14 crucial months demonstrates that the American Revolution was more than a war for independence.

  

While it is true that men like Samuel Adams actively pursued independence from the beginning, they were a small minority. The fact is that there was considerable opposition to independence.  In early sessions of the 2nd Continental Congress delegates voted 2 to 1 against resolutions for independence. Even King George III declaring treason to be a crime punishable by death was not enough to persuade congress to pass a resolution for independence.  In the summer of 1776, independence was still far from being a certainty.  Only after intense days of heated debate, political arm-twisting, and behind the scenes dealings did a resolution pass on July 2, 1776. It is telling that, at this late juncture of the conflict, the New York delegation abstained rather than vote for independence.  This clearly shows that at the start of the revolution independence was not the intention.

Nevertheless, during that pre- Declaration of Independence period there were 19 military engagements, including the siege of Boston, the battle of Bunker Hill, and the capture of Fort Ticonderoga. The engagements occurred on land and at sea. Battles raged in several of the colonies and as far north as Canada and as far south as Barbados.  Altogether they involved tens of thousands of combatants and caused over 2500 casualties.  

This begs the question, if it was not independence, then what was it that drove the early patriots to take up arms against the mightiest power the world had seen to date; against people who they had previously regarded as fellow countrymen; against a sovereign to whom they had, until recently, considered themselves loyal subjects of?

The reply to that question is more complex and profound than the superficial “independence” answer most students learn. As John Adams and his nemesis Mr. Dickinson would both say, it was their “natural rights as Englishmen" that they were fighting for. Whether they were for or against independence, it is the one point that most colonists could agree. Only the staunchest Tory or loyalist did not believe that the government of King George III was no longer respecting and protecting those rights. It was the violation of these rights and their restoration that filled the petitions that the 2nd Continental Congress sent to King George III and Parliament. It was the King’s and his government’s refusal to address these grievances that raised the question of what to do next.  This would be resolved in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence.

In the meantime, men were dying to defend their rights as Englishmen. Even though it is more complex and profound than just the simple goal of independence the "rights of Englishmen" is an extremely natural concept to understand.  They are the very same rights that we take for granted today. In fact, they are the basis of what we commonly refer to as fundamental human rights.  However, back in the 17^th and 18^th centuries they were unique to England (Britain after the unification of 1707). Thus, in a world where the common people were nothing more than chattel these rights were exceptionally uncommon. In fact, they were so contrary to the way of the world that the English believed that the rights they enjoyed could only have originated from one source; God. Hence, we have the origins of our "God-given rights."

At the foundation of these rights, is the supremacy and sovereignty of the individual over that of the state. It is this supremacy that is the basis of the four fundamental principles of limited government, individual rights, private property, and free market economics.  The first two represents political freedom. This freedom limits the power of government while maximizing the rights of the individual. Since they realized that true freedom can never be achieved without economic freedom, the last two principles became an integral part of the "rights of Englishmen." Only when there is respect for private property and people are able to deal with each other openly and without government interference, are they truly free.

These principles can be seen throughout the founding documents of this nation. With its emphasis on “unalienable rights” and references to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” the Declaration of Independence is a restatement of the rights that each Englishman, whether in London or Boston, assumed he had.  Thomas Jefferson provided additional evidence of this when he included:

He (King George III) combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution… 

Since he penned this eleven years before the drafting of the Constitution of the United States, Jefferson must have been referring to another constitution: one that every colonist residing in British America would have recognized.  This leaves only one possible choice: the English constitution.  Unlike the Constitution of the United States, the English constitution was not a written document.  Instead, like English common law, it evolved over 1200 years of precedence, tradition, customs, and a series of charters that included the Magna Carta. It was this constitution and the principles of liberty that would allow England, which is the size of Alabama, to become a superpower that would dominate three quarters of the world.

It is not by chance that Britain would become the defender of the free-world; to be the only nation in the world to standalone against the tyrannies of Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler; to lead the fight against slavery; to end piracy and open the sea lanes to all. It is also no coincidence that as the power of Britain waned the United States rose to take its place. For it would be "the rights of Englishmen" that would be the basis of the classical liberal ideas that would make the United States, like Britain before it, an extraordinary and exceptional nation. It would be these principles that would guide men like Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and even Lincoln into prominence.

There are various reasons why this aspect of the founding of our nation has been ignored, untaught. Initially it was due to the anti-British sentiment that was prevalent in this country and the desire to establish a national identity that is distinctly American. This was so successful that Americans came to believe that these principles are uniquely American. Unfortunately, this has had a decidedly undesirable impact on our nation. The lack of understanding of the true origins of the principles that established this nation has led us to be blinded to the erosion of those principles. 

This is the reason I wrote Liberty Inherited: the Untold Story of America's Exceptionalism. The book tells the story of the roots of our liberty. By reading the book, you will gain a clarity and understanding of the founding of this nation that you have never had before. This awareness will provide you with a new and profound perception of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and other founding documents of this nation.  I challenge you to read the book. It will change your view of this nation, its place in the world, and the threats, both internal and external, to its existence.

Order your copy today at:

Amazon.com 

or order direct and save:

Liberty Inherited

We are all Classical Liberals Now

In 2008 elections the Democratic Party, lead by its leftist members, swept into the White House and took control of both chambers of congress.  The MSM eagerly and giddily pronounced Conservatism dead.  Shortly after Obama’s inauguration Newsweek went so far as to do a cover proclaiming, “We are all Socialists now.”

In the mid-term elections of 2010 Conservative Republicans returned to congress in-force.  They took back control of the House of Representatives and all but eliminated the Democrat majority in the Senate.  The American people had put the brakes on the Socialist schemes of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi.

This swift shifting of the pendulum left the liberal elites confused and dazed.  I can recall one commentator observing that, “In 2008, they elected Liberals.  Now they elected Conservatives.  This just shows that the American people do not know what they want.” 

At the time, I remember thinking, “No, the American people know what they want.  The problem is that neither party is offering it to them.”  

It has been my experience that the majority of Americans are neither 100% Conservative nor 100% Liberal.  But we tend to take these titles because they are the only two of three options from which we have to choose.  Or we go with the third option of being an independent.  

This does not mean that the American people do not have a political foundation.  They do. It is the uniquely American form of Classical Liberalism.   Although we may argue over implementation, most Americans support the classical liberal principles of: 

·         Limited Government

·         Individual Rights

·         Private Property

·         Free-market Economics

The first two guarantees political freedom while the latter two provide the opportunity for economic freedom.

This was the “Great American” experiment.  It was these principles of classical liberalism on which this nation was founded and remained its basic political philosophy for over 100 years.  Millions of immigrants from all corners of the globe, seeking freedom, were drawn by the hope that classical liberalism offered.   More significantly, it resulted in America becoming the most prosperous and powerful country in history.  A country that, when true to these principles, is truly the “shining light on the hill.” 

Unfortunately, since the early 1900s, there has been an aggressive campaign to eradicate this nation’s Classical Liberal roots.  This campaign has been so successful that most people have never heard of Classical Liberalism.  It is no longer taught in school.  Even political science or history classes, if it is taught, it is done so as a long lost political philosophy from the Enlightenment Age of Europe. 

It is remarkable that its principles still exist.  But they do.  They are in the heart of every American who believes that America is an exceptional country, which, I believe, is the majority of us.

No, Newsweek, the American people are not Socialist. They are not even Liberal or Conservative.  They are what they always have been; Classical Liberals!