Countdown to Independence Day: Saving our Liberty #1

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.  Please note that any additional comments that I add to the original text will be in italics.  

1. Do not take the way things are for granted

“It is,” as Daniel Hannan says, “human nature to take for granted institutions that you have known throughout your life.” Growing up in a world where constitutional democracy is the norm it is incomprehensible to imagine mankind returning to a state of servitude. But it must be remembered that the classical liberal principles that the United States was built on and which has now spread around the world is not the norm. Until the end of World War II the world was dominated by tyrannical, autocratic, and absolutist rulers. The result of this was that the life of the average man was one of poverty, servitude, and desperation. 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.

In Europe there is already a move away from constitutional democracy. As explained in previous chapters liberal democracy is fairly new to the countries of Europe. As we can see from the chart, they have relatively little experience with it at all.

 

With the majority of them having less than 60 years of experience it is uncertain if their democratic institutions can resist a serious crises or challenge. History and current trends indicate that the answer is no. The first attempt with widespread democracy in Europe occurred after World War I. Except for Russia, which turned to communism, all of the large countries and many of the smaller ones attempted to establish a democratic form of government. These newly formed democracies were tested by the depression of the 1930s and most of them failed miserably. By the start of World War II, totalitarianism had replaced democracy in almost all of Europe. Even today, with the European Union, the IMF, the World Bank, and United Nations, we are seeing democratically established governments subordinating themselves to transnational and international organizations governed by bureaucratic elites. This does not bode well for a country founded and developed on classical liberal principles. 

Since the publishing of Liberty Inherited, the Euro crisis has deepened and as a result, representative democracy has suffered.  In both Greece and Italy popularly elected leaders have been replaced by those who will serve the best interest of the European Union even if it is at the expense of their nation and its citizens.  As the crisis deepens, it will be interesting to watch how quickly continental Europe sacrifices democracy and liberty for order and security.

Interview with African-American Conservatives 19 June 2012

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. 

An Amazon success story!

For six (6) straight weeks the Kindle version of Liberty Inherited has been an Amazon bestseller.  This week the paperback has also made its way onto the bestseller's list. 

 

 Liberty Inherited in paperwork

An Englishman’s Dire Prophesy: Why Democratic Republics Fail (Are we there yet?)

In 1793, William Young, then a Member of Parliament, wrote:

Ingenious and able men will then soon hit on the various paths to authority which the temper of society opens to them: they will feed the ambition of one with promises, the vanity of another with praise, the avarice of a third with gifts. But even in the simplest state of manners, it is not pure virtue that commands, for pure virtue is then no distinction; it is ability that commands. The stronger minds of the few must ever command the weaker minds of the generality. The stronger mind feels a right as it were to command the weaker; and what it feels a right to, it will assume it can, and by what means it can.

At the time, the French Revolution was just entering into its ‘Reign of Terror’ phase and there was much talk among Britons of eliminating the monarchy and establishing their own republic.  Young was one of several who wrote essays in defense of the British system and the rights it granted to Englishman.  One aspect of this defense is the warning of where a democratic republic could lead.

With the first line, Young is explaining the fact that ‘ingenious and able’ men will exploit whatever paths society offers them.  If the society is wealth focused, as in a free-market based society, then these men will rise to the top of industry.  If the society is power focused, as in a socialist/Marxist state, then the same type of men will rise to the top of government.  In both cases they will use the weakness of others (i.e. ambition, vanity and greed) to gain their wealth and power. 

In the following sentence Young warns against the tendency of democratic republics to discard traditional values.  In time, he cautions, virtue ceases to exist and only one’s ability matters.  No longer will society value the noble, the good, and the pure.  Achievement, either materially or in fame (i.e. celebrity status), will be the sole measure of those who the society admires. 

He goes on to explain that the admiration—or even idolization—that develops within the society results in those of weaker minds turning to strong minded for leadership.  In return, the strong minded feel it their right and duty to command the weaker and less able members of the society.  Thus, for the sake and benefit of the weak, the strong-minded will empower themselves to implement rules, policies, and laws that protect society from the weak-minded and the weak-minded from themselves.

The result is that as the power of the strong-minded grows, liberty, the promised by-product of a democratic republic, shrinks.  This, Young writes in other parts of the essay, leads to the most terrible of all tyrannical governments; an empowered aristocracy comprised of  ‘ingenious and able’ men unrestrained by virtue. 

It is amazing to think that at a time when the bloodiest days of the French Revolution was still to come and the ‘American experiment’ was still in its infancy, a man could have such an understanding of democratic republics.  Yet, it is not that incredible when we realize that he is not discussing government, but human nature.  As Young explains it, “We must take men as they are…and not as the poets and artists describe them.” 

As much as we like to believe otherwise, human nature is still basically the same now as it was back when Young penned his essay.  ‘Ingenious and able’ people still pursue wealth and power.   They still exploit the weakness of others to gain such wealth and power.  This is done in both business and government.  Therefore, to empower one in an attempt to restrain the threat, perceived or real, of the other only increases the possibility of tyranny.

I believe the Founding Fathers recognized this weakness in democracy and the saw that the way to minimize its danger was not to limit liberty, but to limit power.  This is why the founding documents focus more on the limiting of government power than individual rights.  Unfortunately, over the last 100 years we have removed many of the protections they built into the system and, as a result, we risk the danger that Young so eloquently warned us of.

About the same time Young wrote his essay, Benjamin Franklin was asked what type of government the United States would have.  In response he replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Yes, Mr. Franklin, if we can keep it indeed.

D-Day: The Anglosphere Victory

Amphibious assaults are one of the most difficult military operations to perform, even for one united army. But on D-day, there were two unique and very different armies, the US and the British/Canadians.

While the Brits and Canadians had the same equipment, training, and structure, the US Army was very different. American divisions were larger and organized differently. The individual soldiers were trained differently and the Army as a whole had a doctrine that reflected its unique experiences. Although some equipment was shared, such as the M4 Sherman tank, most of the American equipment was different from their British and Canadian counterparts.  Attempting a complex military operation such as 'Overlord' with such divergent forces greatly reduced its chances for success. But succeed it did.

The fact that the Anglo-American forces could overcome these differences and form a cohesive fighting force is a reflection of how much similarity there is between the nations of the Anglosphere. During the war the Germans and Italians could not do it and the allies never attempted to do it with the Russians.  It is very difficult to find anything similar to it in history.  Whenever battles were fought with multiple allies, they tended to fight as separate forces.  There was never a joint command and if there was cooperation it was because one force was subordinate to the other.  This was not the case on D-Day.  Both the British and Americans shared the same level of authority and one was not subordinate to the other.  Only the Anglo-American Combined Staff could create such effective unity from such a divergent force. 

So for me, D-day is not only a symbol of the Anglosphere's fight against tyranny, but also what can be achieved when English-speaking nations put aside their differences and unite for the betterment of mankind. Then miracles, like D-Day, can happen.

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.”