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 Day: #8 Understand America's Classical Liberal philosophy

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

8. Understand America’s classical liberal philosophy

As mentioned previously, classical liberalism was the basic philosophy of this country until the turn of the 20th century when progressivism started to pervert the term “liberal” for its own agenda. It is essential that every American understand what true classical liberalism is and why it was so important in the development of the United States of America. The truth is that classical liberalism has been completely removed from modern America’s political discourse. Most people have never heard of it and are unfamiliar with how it led to America’s exceptionalism. As a result of this ignorance and unfamiliarity, most Americans  continue to allow themselves to have to choose between faux liberalism or conservatism, neither one of which truly fits the American character.

This is a topic that I discuss throughout Liberty Inherited and, as I explain in the introduction to these posts, the above is copied directly from the book.  Thus, being taken out of context, I feel it helpful to explain its meaning.   

It is clear from its founding documents that America is based on a philosophy and principles that evolved in England.  That philosophy is called Classical Liberalism and I believe it to be the apex of the enlightenment that started with the Renaissance.  Lacking an aristocracy, the United States was able to take this philosophy and its principles of limited government, individual rights, private property, and free-market economics to a level not possible in 18th century Britain.  

It may come as a surprise to many Americans that Classical Liberalism not only guided the founding of this incredible nation, but was the the nation's basic political philosophy up to the late 1800s/early 1900s.  Since then it has slowly been erased from America's political conscientiousness to the point that most Americans are completely ignorant of it and its significance for the country.  But I believe that, at heart, the majority of Americans are still Classical Liberals.  After all, it is in their political genes and remains part of America's psyche.  This is why so many are not comfortable with what both political parties have been doing over the last 100 years.

This is what the Progressives understood when, after years of failed policies, the Progressive title became unpopular and they rebranded themselves as 'Liberals.'  But, as I explain in the book, their policies had and still have nothing to do with the principles of Classical Liberalism.  In fact, they envision the opposite.  They are, in reality, wolves in sheep's clothing.  That is why I call their version of  Liberalism 'FAUX LIBERALISM.'  It is nothing but a fraud....a very dangerous fraud.

Now, 236 years after the Declaration of Independence, America is on the verge of losing its political identity, its political soul.  I strongly believe that only by reconnecting to our political roots can this country be saved and that is why I wrote "Liberty Inherited: The untold story of America's exceptionalism."  It is my attempt to play my part in saving this great, and ,yes, exceptional country.

Countdown to Independence Day: #2 America is based on an idea

Over the next several days leading up to Independence Day I will be posting the 10 steps that must be taken to preserve our great nation and the principles it was established on.  Each day will cover one of the steps as they appear in my book Liberty Inherited.  It is my hope that, in some small way, I can get Americans to start thinking of what they are on the verge of throwing away.  Today's posting covers step number #2.  I recommend reading the previous post for step #1.  Please note that any additional comments that I add to the original text will be in italics. 

 

2. Always remember that America is based on an idea

In 1701 Daniel Defoe, author of Robinson Crusoe, wrote a poem titled "True-born Englishman."  In that poem Defoe uses satire to demonstrate that there is no such thing as a “true-born Englishmen” because at that time Englishmen were a mix of Anglo, Saxon, Roman, Norman, and Celtic blood.   He finalized his poem putting forth the argument that being English has nothing to do with blood but everything to do with accepting a given set of principles and ideas. 

This rings even more true for Americans. The previous chapter explains that being American is a choice. Choosing to accept American values is what makes you an American. This is regardless of skin color, religion, bloodline, or even where one was born. The biggest tragedy to befall the country that was established on the principle of all men being created equal is that we have allowed ourselves to be divided. It is true that this tragedy was started at the very founding of this nation but that does not mean that we have to continue to perpetuate it. There is no longer a place within the United States for racial bigotry. 

We can no longer allow ourselves to be divided into subgroups and then pitted against each other. 

We must as Americans stand-up to the hate-mongers and the practitioners of racial and gender politics, regardless of what side of the racial issue they may be on.   

We need to reject and refuse to be seen as nothing more than Americans. It should be what is in a person’s heart and mind that counts and not the color of his skin or his bloodline. 

This bodes the same for people who have immigrated from other countries or practice different religions. As long as they accept American values we should welcome them as Americans. To do otherwise would be to just hasten the destruction of the principles that have made America exceptional.

Sadly, this is the one step that many Americans, regardless of their politics, forget about.  That is why I point out the hate-mongers and the practitioners of racial and gender politics.  Individuals of both of these groups ignore the essential fact that America is an idea and not a paradise for WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) nor a purgatory for non-WASPs.  As I point out in the book, this idea was in its infancy at the time of the founding of this great nation and that infancy is reflected in the policies and attitudes of the time.  Enlightened men were forced to compromise with the less wise and we ended up with policies such as the 3/5 compromise in the Constitution.  Fortunately, the adherents of Classical Liberalism realized that it would take time for the idea to fully develop and over the last 200 plus years we, as a nation, have evolved closer to achieving what those men could only dream of.  But that dream will never be truly realized as long as people, especially those in position of influence, continue to use race, gender, immigration, etc for personal and political gain.  Until that vile practice stops, E pluribus unum will remain nothing more than an inspirational slogan.

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.