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! 

English Must be the Language of the United States

In this month's issue of Townhall magazine is an article on the failure of Multiculturalism. This includes not requiring immigrants to learn the language of their new country.  Since I had written on this subject in my upcoming book Liberty Inherited: The Untold Story of America's Exceptionalism I understand how harmful not having an official language is to a nation and its society.  What follows is an excerpt from my book.  Please let me know what you think. JLH

 I have always thought it interesting that Winston Churchill would name one of his greatest works The History of the English-Speaking Peoples. The book could have easily been called "The History of the English Peoples" or even "The History the English Race," which would have been perfectly acceptable when it was written in the 1930s. But Churchill, who was a famed orator and had won a Nobel peace prize for literature, understood the power of words. I believe that he chose the term “English-speaking peoples” because he understood that principles, values, and ideas must be communicated for them to have any significance. For Churchill the English language was the media by which English principles have been spread around the world. He understood that this goes beyond skin color and bloodline and directly into the hearts and minds of the recipients. Recent history proves him to be correct as countries such as India, Singapore, and Hong Kong, all of which have retained English as their language, have prospered even though the British no longer govern them.

 This does not mean that speaking another language, especially of one’s heritage, should be discouraged. On the contrary it should be encouraged but not at the expense of learning to effectively communicate in the English language. This will not only be beneficial to America but also to the individual. In regards to the Turkish population in Germany Turkish President Abdullah Gul commented, “When one doesn’t speak the language of the country in which one lives it doesn’t serve anyone, neither the person concerned, the country, nor the society.” This is especially true in for a country that is based on an idea. By not learning English individuals are limiting their ability to become Americans in their hearts and minds. This can lead to a crisis of identity in which the body is physically in one country while the heart and mind are in another. Interestingly, this identity crisis often afflicts the children of immigrants who have had difficulty adjusting to living in the new country.  As these children grow up they become susceptible to the philosophies of radicalism or extremism. Yes, it will be difficult for some immigrants to learn Englsih and a few of them will never become competent in the language. But for those who do the reward of becoming an American in body and soul will be well worth the struggle.

 To the intellectually honest observer it is clear that the individual immigrant will benefit from learning the language of his host nation.  It is equally clear that the nation suffers from a lack of one.  The national identities of most countries have evolved over hundreds, even thousands, of years.  Germany is a prime example.  It started off as a collection of tribes that spoke a common language, had similar traditions, and shared similar values.  As these tribes grew, they developed into the nation-state of modern Germany.

 America has no such foundation.  At its foundation is the simplistic, but fragile, idea of liberty.  The basis of this liberty is the Classical Liberal principles of limited government, individual rights, private property, and free-market economics.  Many parts of the world do not value or practice these principles.  While immigrants from those areas appreciate the life that American liberty provides, they do not have the understanding of the principles that create the liberty. This lack of understanding leaves them to be susceptible to manipulation and exploitation.  Over time, as we have seen in Europe, the culture that provided immigrants with opportunities they could only dream of in their native countries slowly disappears in the Multicultural cesspool.

 In Europe, the 40 year experiment with multiculturalism has been a complete failure.  Their national identities are almost all but lost.  In an attempt to save themselves, as the Townhall article points out, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, France, and Britain have or are considering changes to their immigration laws that will require immigrants to know or learn the language of their host countries.  If these countries, with centuries of established and solid national identities, are threatened by an immigrant class that does not learn or accept their values, what chance does America, based on nothing but values, have?

Back to School History Lesson

Last month my daughter returned to school.  As a high-school junior, she is required to take American History.  When I asked her about the class, she told me that they were starting from the beginning.  “Christopher Columbus and all that” is how she put it.  She then handed me the class outline.  The sections leading up to the American Revolution was the same story that most Americans learn.  It essentially starts with the discovery of America by Columbus and then progresses through the settlement of Jamestown, the French and Indian War, and terminates with the events immediately preceding the Revolutionary War, such as the various tax acts, the Boston Massacre, and the Boston Tea Party.  It confers on the student the impression that nothing of importance was transpiring in Mother England during that time.  That England was asleep until one day George III wakes up and exclaims, “My God, I have colonies.  Let’s tax them!”

The reality is that there were many events that transpired in the mother country that profoundly influenced the development of the American colonies.  In 1707, for example, the union of England and Scotland meant that although the colonies started off as English they fought Britain for their independence.  The most notable and significant of those events was the Glorious Revolution of 1688.  Although the Glorious Revolution took place almost 100 years before America’s struggle for independence, it did more to bring about the American Revolution than any other event in America’s pre-independence history.  It could be argued that if the Glorious Revolution of 1688 did not occur or had the outcome been different the American Revolution probably would not have happened at all.  Additionally, the success of the thirteen colonies forming into one constitutional republic would not have been possible without the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

The events surrounding the Glorious Revolution are so vital to the creation and development of the United States that in “Liberty Inherited: The untold story of America’s exceptionalism” I dedicate over a quarter of the book to the subject.  In summary, the road to revolution started when James II wanted to return England to the absolutism that the monarchies on the continent enjoyed.  In this system, the king has absolute power over everything in his realm including its people.  In England, this form of servitude was restricted by a series of covenants or contracts, including the Magna Carta (1215).  Upon seeing this threat to their liberty, the English rose up and through a series of events replaced James II with the Dutch ruler the Prince of Orange and his wife Mary.  But before the Prince of Orange could become William III, King of England, he had to accept what became known as the Declaration of Rights.

This declaration ensured that England would continue on its path to developing the tradition of limited government, of parliamentary supremacy, of personal freedom and of the common law.  The limitations placed on the monarchy by this document meant that the king could not act without the consent of the people as represented by parliament.  Additionally, it ensured the rights and liberties of individual Englishmen.   It guaranteed his right to bear arms, to a speedy trial, to due process, to be safe and secure in his life and property.  Like all good Englishmen, the Founding Fathers believed these to be their God-given rights and made sure that, in one form or another, they were included in the Bill of Rights.  The fact is that the framers of the constitution used the declaration, the system of limited government it established, and the rights it protected as the template for establishing the United States of America.

Additionally, I believe that if James II had not been removed from the throne of England the United States would not exist today, at least in its democratic form.  Once he assumed the throne James set out to reform the colonies along the same authoritarian format used by France and Spain.  His plan was to form the thirteen colonies into four captaincies.  This would be followed by the elimination of the colonial assemblies and an appointment of a Royal Governor with absolute authority and answerable only to the king.  At that time, many of the colonies were just beginning to enjoy representative democracy.  To eliminate it at this point would result in the colonies losing almost 100 years of the democratic experience they would need to establish the new nation.  Under those conditions, it is highly unlikely that the American Revolution would have been fought, much less won.  The events immediately following a victory by the Patriots would certainly have been different.  The probability of establishing the liberty based country we have today would certainly have been almost zero.  Instead, the liberty focused revolution would probably have resulted, not in a Washington, but in an American version of Napoleon, Santa Anna, Lenin, Stalin, or Chavez. 

Until a few years ago I, like most Americans, was ignorant of the Glorious Revolution.  This ignorance was not out of a lack of interest but a result of the way American history is taught.  This is not a partisan issue since both sides have benefited from keeping Americans uneducated.  Conservatives do so because it supports the myth that the establishment of this nation was miraculous.  Liberals do it because if the American people understood the origins of their liberties they would realize what a threat an ever-increasing and powerful government is to those liberties.  Therefore, much to the chagrin of our British cousins, Americans are not informed of the struggles that made this country possible.  This limited education has had dire consequences for our country.  Without this part of our history, we do not have a context to put the American experience into.  We lose the sense of what it means to be an American and clarity as what type of nation the United States was established to be.  We fail to recognize the implication of being an English colony had for the development of the United States.  More tragically we fail to recognize the dangers that threaten to eliminate our liberties forever.

As I explain in “Liberty Inherited: The untold story of America’s exceptionalism,” the founders of this extraordinary nation did not accidently stumble onto the system of government they established in 1789.  It was developed over several centuries and, while I still think that America is based on a miracle, I now realize that that miracle took place several hundred years earlier in a place called England.  In fact, the more I study the origins and history of our liberty the more I marvel at its existence.  The more I learn the more I appreciate the improbability of its survival.  This becomes strikingly clear especially when compared to what was going on in the rest of the world at the time, which, for the common man, was slavery and servitude.  This leads me to ponder a couple of questions:

If schools did not omit the tremendous struggles for liberty that were occurring in England at a time when the United States was nothing more than scattering of fledgling colonies, would we, as Americans, feel or think differently about our country?

Would we still be having the political debate that is currently dividing this nation?  

What do you think?  Leave your comments and thoughts below.

The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions

In a previous article, “Alternatives to Capitalism”, I offered the proposition that Socialism and the welfare state it produces eventually destroys the wealth of the society.  The reason for this is that the Marxism it is based on creates a situation where citizens become dependent on the government.  With each generation, that dependency grows and ever greater demands on placed on political leaders.  The result is that even if the government can create the ideal mix of capitalism and Marxism the redistribution of the wealth will eventually overcome the production of that wealth.  This can be clearly seen in the economic decline of Western Europe since the introduction of the welfare state 50 plus years ago, which has left most of those countries on the verge on economic collapse.

Unfortunately, we no longer need to look so far away to find further proof how even limited Marxism, in the form of the welfare state, grows uncontrollably until it threatens to destroy its host economy.  In a highly informative article called “The Road to a Downgrade” (July 28,2011) the Wall Street Journal details how Marxist-inspired programs, once introduced into America’s predominantly capitalist economy, grow beyond all expectations and projections.  Two examples are Medicare and Medicaid.

·         When Medicare was established in 1965, it was projected that the program would cost $12 billion in 1990.  The actual cost was $110 billion or almost 1000% more than projected.

·         In 1966, the cost of the Medicaid program was $4 billion or just over one-half of 1% of GDP.  By 1986, it had grown to $41 billion (just under 1% of GDP); last year it was $243 billion (1.67% of GDP).

As the article points out, it is more than rising medical costs that have increased the price tag of these programs.  Just like in Europe, Marxism has resulted in an increasing number of Americans becoming more dependent on government.  They demanded more benefits or entitlements and politicians, willing to trade taxpayer money for votes, were more than eager to oblige.  Over the years, the programs were expanded way beyond their original intents.  Even Social Security, initially designed to provide a safety net for those few seniors who were unable to provide for their own retirement, became a pension plan for all seniors.  In 1960, the cost of the plan was approximately 2% of GDP; in 2008, it had doubled to just over 4%. 

In 1965 total spending on entitlement programs made up about 35% of the federal budget.  Forty years later they have grown to be about 60% of the budget.  This clearly shows that if, by a miracle, politicians are able to create the perfect economy by introducing the ideal amount of Marxism into capitalism it does not stay that way for long.  Marxism will grow and slowly deplete the wealth of the society.  Now America, like its European counterparts, is facing an economic meltdown as Marxism takes its toll.  The question is do we, as Americans, continue to go down the Marxist road to perdition or do we return to the economic system that, for 700 years, has created wealth for its societies?

A Historical Argument for Capitalism Part 2: The Alternatives

In part 1, I covered the criticism that capitalism is a flawed system because it creates economic inequality within the society.  But the analogy that the capitalist “tide does not raise all boats equally” actually has two parts; one expressed and the other implied.  By not going beyond the initial critique of capitalism, the opponent of the system is silently implying that the alternative he is proposing will address this flaw.  In this article, I will examine the past performance of the alternative systems to determine if they can produce the implied result of creating wealth for all.

To do this, we need to understand that all the alternative economic systems that are being pursued have their roots in Marxism.  This in itself does not make it good or bad.  It only means that we have about a 150 year track record to assess.  To some it may seem unfair to make a determination on the effectiveness of these alternatives, much less compare them to a system that has had 700 years to develop, but in those 150 years, the Marxist-based philosophies of communism, fascism, Nazism, and socialism have left an indelible mark.  Furthermore, that mark has been extraordinarily consistent in the results that are produced.

Last century marked the high point of the experiment with Marxism.  By the early 1900s, progressives around the world were aggressively promoting their versions of the Marxist dream.  Russia was their first success and after the Revolution of 1917 full-blown communism was established.  This was followed by success in Italy, which established the fascist version in 1922.  The depression of the 1930s offered the critics of capitalism a crisis to exploit and a chance to spread the Marxist philosophy to other countries.  They successfully convinced the people of many countries that capitalism was flawed and that their system was better by being more scientific, more enlightened, more perfect.   Although their greatest success was in Germany, with its own version called Nazism, many other countries of the world fell for the claims and embraced or adapted Marxist alternatives, including France which adopted the milder socialism. 

These Marxist-based, big government systems initially had some extremely remarkable success.  This was especially true of Nazism, which created what was hailed as the “German Miracle.”  At the height of the depression, Germany had almost 11 million unemployed; by 1938, unemployment was almost nonexistent.  Similar, though less dramatic, results were being achieved in Communist Russia (renamed the Soviet Union) and Fascist Italy.  This brought worldwide acclaim, especially from celebrities, academics, and media elites.  Many, jumping onto the Marxist bandwagon, flocked to view for themselves the new “workers’ paradise and utopias.”  They eagerly claimed that man had created the ideal economic system and that the antiquated, flawed, and cold-hearted Capitalism was dead.  The enthusiasm was so widespread that even the stalwarts of free-market economics, Britain and the Unites States, incorporated aspects of Marxism into their economies.

The fact is that the admirers of Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler had been thoroughly duped.  These ruthless leaders understood that their admirers (or “useful idiots” as Lenin would call them) would see only what they wanted to see. This voluntary blindness meant that those praising these dictators refused to recognize that the immense economic achievements of communism, fascism, and Nazism had more to do with the tyrannical practices of the government than it did with their economic systems.  In Germany, for example, women and Jews were excluded from employment and were replaced by male, non-Jewish workers.  Furthermore, since they were prevented from working, women and Jews were excluded from the unemployment count.  Soviet Russia’s success relied heavily on the slave labor of its Gulag system, and Stalin’s collectivization and industrialization programs resulted in the death of tens of millions of people.  Although it did result in a better standard of living for those who survived the “Great Terror,” that prosperity was paid for with the blood of its victims.

Winston Churchill was one of the few who were not blinded by the charade.  From the very beginning, he wailed against and warned of the dangers these systems posed to the world.  He recognized what insiders, such as the architect of the Nazi economic plan, Dr. Hjalmer Schacht, knew; that the Marxist economies could not be sustained since they could not generate the required wealth.  Once all the current wealth had been redistributed the society would begin to descend economically.  The only way to stave off such an outcome was to find new sources of wealth.  This set these three countries, plus fascist Japan, upon a course of imperialism and exploitation that makes capitalist imperialism look benign.  Within a decade, Marxist-based imperialism would kill, enslave, exploit, and pillage more people than the British Empire ever did in its almost 400 year history.  By the end of fascist Italy in 1944, Nazi Germany and fascist Japan in 1945, and Soviet Russia in 1989 over 100 million individuals would lose their lives to the wars, starvation, deprivation, and genocide these economic-political philosophies caused.

With such a conclusion, one would think that Marxism would be discredited and discarded forever.  But its supporters were quick to point out that the problem with communism, fascism, and Nazism is that they took Marxism too far to the extreme.  What was needed was capitalism mixed with the perfect amount of Marxism.  This hybrid system, called socialism, would use capitalism to create wealth and Marxism to distribute it.  In other words, capitalism would create the “tide” and Marxism would ensure that the tide “raised all the boats equally.”  It was perfect since it incorporated the best of both systems while eliminating their flaws. 

After the deprivations of the Second World War, the democracies of Western Europe were eager to restart their war-torn economies and Socialism appeared to be the ideal system.  By the 1950s, every country in non-communist Europe, from Spain to Sweden and Italy to Britain was socialist to one degree or another.  Once again, the new system showed promise.  In quick time, the war savaged economies rebounded and had growth rates on par with the United States.  The prosperity of these countries was considered proof of what could be accomplished with Socialism. 

Unfortunately, once again, the system demonstrated that it was not the panacea it promised to be.  The main flaw was that if the perfect combination of capitalism and Marxism could be found it could not be maintained.  One of the by-products of socialism is that the people became dependent on the government.  As that dependency grows the people feel more and more entitled to government services.  This sense of entitlement results in people placing more demands on the government.  In turn, the government feels compelled to meet the demands of its citizens, and the perfect balance between capitalism and Marxism is lost.  Additionally, the dependency on government means that once the balance is lost it is almost impossible regain.  (This last point is painfully evidenced by the riots and civil disturbances that have recently rocked Britain, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and, of course, Greece.)

Over time, this results in the decline of prosperity and societal wealth.  At a recent lecture Nobel Laureate and economist Robert Lucas points out that, for the first 70 years of the 20^th century, the economies of Western Europe grew at nearly the same rate as the United States.  That changed in the 1970s when the negative effects of socialism started to be felt.  During that time, Socialist Europe’s GDP per person dropped 30 percent, thus resulting in a 20 to 40 percent income gap between it and the United States.  This coincides with what Daniel Hannan writes in his book, The New Road to Serfdom.  In the book, he notes that Western (Socialist-based) Europe’s share of the World’s GDP shrunk from 36 percent in 1969 to 26 percent in 2009 and is projected to be only 15 percent in 2020.  During the same period, the United States share had remained steady at around 26 percent.   Additionally, in 1970 the unemployment rate of Western Europe was just above 2 percent while in the United States it was about 5 percent.  By the end of the decade the rates flipped and, for the rest of the century, Europe’s unemployment rate ranged from 2 to 3 percent higher than that of the United States. Today, several of the socialist economies of Europe are on the verge of total economic collapse.  Any attempt dial back the Marxist component of their economies is met with resistance by their government-dependent populations.  This opposition is often expressed with violent protests, civil disturbances and rioting that threatens to undermine the society as a whole.  

History shows us that the claims of the critics of capitalism are valid.  That capitalism does not benefit all members of its society equally.  But there is nothing in history that indicates that their Marxist alternatives offer anything better.  The 20^th century experiment with Marxism ended as a complete and catastrophic failure.  The death, destruction, and deprivation it created resulted in the century being the most bloody and brutal in the history of man.  Even the socialist hybrid, by slow draining of wealth, has proved itself more of a bane than a boon for the societies that embrace it.  So, while the “tide” from the sea of wealth that capitalism creates does not “raise all boats equally,” it does raise all boats.  Whereas, the alternatives, rather than being oceans of wealth, create landlocked seas that, once drained, leave all boats stuck in the mire and muck.

A Historical Argument for Capitalism Part 1

The current economic crisis has intensified the fifty year assault on capitalism (also called free-market economics) to the point that even the average American is questioning if there is a better system.  He is beginning to wonder if the critics of capitalism are correct; that the free-market economy hurts the individual because it creates economic inequality by concentrating money in the hands of a few.  The common analogy that “a rising tide does not raise all boats equally” does seem to make sense.  After all, we are the wealthiest country in the world with people living in poverty.  It just does not seem fair! Something must be wrong! Maybe it is time to look for an alternative.  But where do we look? How do we know which alternative is the best?  As Americans, we would want a system that has a solid record of creating prosperity.  For that, we need to turn to history.  For, although past performance does not guarantee future results, it is an exceptionally reliable indicator.

Free-market economics has a track record of nearly 700 years.  During that span, it has proven itself to be the best economic system that humanity has ever conceived and a blessing for the average individual.  Although it is true that there are economic differences between individual members of a free-market society, history has proven that wherever it is practiced it produces a society that is as a whole much wealthier than that of any alternative system.  In his book, The Origins of English Individualism, anthropologist Alan Macfarlane details how by the mid-1300s England had developed a free-market economy.  He further notes that, around the same time, there was remarkably little evidence of a peasantry within England.  This does not mean that there was not a poor or servant class, which there was.  But that class differed from the typical peasant model found in the rest of the world.  Even in class conscientious England, there was a social and economic mobility that would not be seen on continental Europe for another 500 years.  In fact, traditional peasant societies, which lacked social and economic mobility, were still firmly in place up until the 19^th century in Western Europe (including France) and as late as the 20^th century in Eastern Europe.

History shows that this socioeconomic mobility benefitted the population as a whole.  Even the poorest individual in the society had the potential of changing his station in life or, at least, make preparations for his children to do so.  This was incentive enough for most individuals to work towards creating a better life for themselves.  Those who were ambitious found that with sacrifice and hard work they could move up from the son of a servant to being the master.  While such drastic leaps were not common, records of the time demonstrate that the upward mobility of individuals was the norm rather than the exception.  A family could move from the lower class through middle class and into upper-class within a couple of generations.  

While it is true that capitalism does create economic disparity, the less able, the less willing, and the less ambitious are not excluded from its benefits.  The system creates a societal wealth that allows even its poorest members to live reasonably well when compared to those in non-capitalistic societies. Between 1300 and 1600, the wealth of English society grew to the point that the lifestyle of the poorest Englander was vastly superior to that of his continental counterpart.   He ate more meat, had better dwellings, and, more importantly, had the ability (freedom) to change his lot in life.  Visiting foreigners would be amazed at how well the lower classes of England lived compared to that of their homeland. This is similar to what we experience in modern day America.  Americans living in “poverty” have a standard of living that is the envy of many living in non-capitalistic countries.  When referring to Britain Alexis De Tocqueville rhetorically asked, “Is there any single country in Europe, in which the national wealth is greater, private property is more extensive, more secure, more varied in character, society more settled and more wealthy?” This same question could be applied to 21^st century America.

Capitalism has proven track record that spans almost seven centuries.  It has demonstrated over and over again to benefit any society that embraces it.  The common free-market heritage of America, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada are evidence of this.  Throughout the history of the countries, there was never a peasant class and, today, all of them are considered first-world nations whose citizens enjoy extremely high standards of living.  This cannot be said for any of the former colonies of France and Spain, both of which were countries that were antagonistic towards capitalism.  The Dutch had no such qualms and, in 16^th century, wisely adopted free-market economics.  By the 17^th century, their wealth made them the “bankers of the world.”  So, while the tide may not raise all the boats equally, it does raise all boats.  How high each boat rises depends on the individual in charge of it. 

But is there a better alternative to capitalism?  In A Historical Argument in Favor of Capitalism Part 2 I will analyze the historical record of alternative economic systems to see if they live up to the promise of creating wealth for all.

Blame the MSM, not the Tea Party

Sometimes we do not notice the subtle changes that occur over time but they are obvious to those who have not been here to experience them. This was the situation for friends of mine who had returned recently for a visit. For the past three years they have been living in Australia and the changing sentiment in America was, as they put it, “shocking and disturbing.” They cannot believe how much the United States has changed. As they noted, ”it is not a physical change that is easily recognizable, but a psychological one that reveals itself in conversation with others.” Yesterday’s attack on Congresswoman Giffords is evidence that we are no longer the country where freedom of thought and speech can be safely exercised. For those of us who have watched this develop over the last couple of years it is just another step on the road to self-destruction. For those who have not noticed it, it is a wake-up call.


The Main Stream Media (MSM) often claims that what is happening to our nation is the fault of the Tea Part-- that the Tea Party and its supporters are to blame for most if not all the “vitriol” that is consuming the political discourse in this country. They describe Tea Partiers as being white, old, Right-wing, religious zealots who are angry that America is no longer the country it use to be. They worried, even prophesized, that the Tea Party’s actions would lead to violence and, if you get your news from the MSM, yesterday’s attacks seems to bear this out.

Congresswoman Giffords is a democrat who supported ObamaCare and was against SB 1070 (the Arizona illegal immigration bill). Similar to many Tea Party supporters Jared Loughner, the shooter, had railed against the federal government, wants a return to the gold standard, and believes that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. For the MSM this clearly means that Loughner was motivated by the Tea Party’s rhetoric and Sara Palin’s failed efforts to have Giffords defeated in the last election.

The leap to this conclusion is not only superficial, it is also unprofessional. While Loughner is white he is, at 22, not old. He is a self-described atheist who was angry that he was given a Bible at a recruiting center and wrote that he “will not trust in god.” This goes directly against the caricature the MSM has been using to describe Tea Partiers. Furthermore he has posted that his favorite books are Mein Kampf, Communist Manifesto, Animal Farm, and Brave New World. I can safely say that these are not top reading material for Tea Partiers and Conservatives. Adolf Hitler and Karl Marx were both statists who saw a big all-powerful government as the solution to societal problems. In the1960’s and 70s George Orwell’s Animal Farm was a “must read” for any serious leftist radical and Aldous Huxley was a Humanist, pacifist, mystic who advocated the use of psychedelic drugs. Finally, Loughner was even described by a former classmate as being “left-wing, quite liberal.” This makes it very difficult to claim that Loughner was influenced by conservative ideology and Tea Party rhetoric.

But claim they do! Against all information to the contrary the MSM is still trying to paint the Tea Party with the blood spilt by Loughner. In my opinion this is done for one of two reasons: incompetence or outright bias. Either way, it is the actions of the MSM, and not the Tea Party, that has helped create the “vitriol” in American politics. People become angry when they are ignored and this is especially true in a democratic society that is use to having a responsive government and a professional unbiased media. By allying itself with politicians who are attempting to marginalize a large segment of the American people the MSM has created an environment which has forced people to find an alternative way to be heard. So it can be argued that the Tea Party is the unintended consequence of the MSM’s deplorable and unprofessional behavior. It can also be argued that the Tea Party, by providing a voice for the American people, has acted as a valve for the negative pressure being created by the MSM and politicians. But this cannot go on indefinitely and I am worried that the longer the MSM and politicians ignore significant segments of the American population the more acts of violence we will see. Of course, they will blame the Tea Party and the cycle of destruction will continue.