I Wonder What They Thought Would Happen?

Around about four-hundred years ago refugees, castaways, and a few members of the lower European nobility began getting shuttled off to America to get them out of the way.  They were usually those who had little potential for advancement, had differences with the organized Church, or were criminals the kings and queens wanted to get rid of without the mess of a beheading.

While this lot was not predominately criminal, as was the case with the settlement of Australia, the American migration did have its fair share.  From this pool of refugees, we somehow became a nation unlike any before us.  We took the strength, determination, and resilience of the common man and woman to forge a nation from a continent whose scope was unimaginable to those who remained in Europe. 

Along the way, as we expanded towards the great Pacific, we brought diseases that ravaged the natives.  In some cases, we learned to live together, but in many there was tremendous conflict as we came to dominate a land we viewed as our manifest destiny. 

Before that westward expansion could really get started we had to assert our independence from those who sought to rule from afar.  This began with the rebellious men and women in the Massachusetts colony who railed against the increasing taxes on imports from England and the troops necessary to enforce their collection.

I wonder if the men who made the decision to send their poor, their huddled masses, to the New World had any idea that within a hundred years or so we would grow to be a nation?

Now, some 241 years later, we are a mighty power who is struggling with the very problems we had in 1776.  What is the role of government, and can a government insulated from an increasingly polarized people rule effectively?

As we gather to celebrate our declaration to King George, and his Parliament, let us remember the words of Thomas Paine, whose work Common Sense helped fuel our rebellion in words the average man could understand.  In his work, The Age of Reason he offers advice I think worth your consideration on this holiday.

“I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.”   

Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

A Few Thoughts on Freedom.

“War is peace.  Freedom is slavery.  Ignorance is strength.”

George Orwell, 1984

We approach the celebration of our Independence, and in a couple of weeks there will be fireworks, parades, family cookouts, and a vast amount of political speech about the courage of our founders, and the greatness of our nation.  How much of this will actually have a meaningful impact to the average man or woman living in this land?

Our independence was gained through the blood and sacrifice of a people who fought to form their own union, not beholding to a far distant King and his Parliament.  We were not a perfect people, but our founders knew enough to understand unlimited government enslaved its people, just like the institution that ultimately led us to our great Civil War.  Therefore, from the beginnings we sought a limited central power.  After the failure of the Confederation of States, the leaders of the many states sat together in debate and compromise to write a new Constitution to ensure the limits of power, and safeguards to the individual.

Those original ten safeguards have been built upon, or in some cases reduced, through the passage of time, or the conscious act of the nation.  For example, at one point the political will of the vocal minority led us to prohibit the distillation of spirits and brewing of malt through the passage of the 18^th Amendment.  Of course this did not stop the demand for them, it just made it illegal.  The by-product of this decision was to create an underground industry to meet the demand.  Men like Al Capone and Joseph Kennedy made their fortunes though this enterprise.  Ultimately we repealed that decision with the passage of the 21^st Amendment.

Also, in this new endeavor the politicians and judges have had to feel their way through the framework to find the best solutions to the checks and balances the founders built into our nation.  Every President has sought to expand his power, the Judges of the Supreme Court have exerted their rights and have from time to time stepped into a leadership role in attempting to engineer the society to fit the model they like, the Congress has fought with the other two branches to exert itself.  Of course there have been times when the Court and the Congress have willingly ceded power to the President, but always with consequence.

So here we are on this 23^rd day of June in the year 2016 on the Gregorian calendar.  And my question is how much of our liberty are we willing to surrender to secure the illusion of safety?  This seems to be a recurring theme for me as it was pointed out I wrote a similar piece three years ago (Ben Franklin Had it Right).

Again, as in the past, we have had some calamitous event and everyone wants to do something to ensure it won’t happen again.  As much as we would like to live in a perfect and safe world that is an impossibility so maybe we should consider that as we debate what to do?  Alas we won’t.

On the one hand we have those who favor increasing controls of the guns proposing additional restrictions on the purchase of those weapons.  That makes sense, doesn’t it?  We had a terrorist legally buy a rifle and a lot of ammunition and kill 49 people in Orlando.  If we had those additional restrictions this would not have happened.  As my Senator, Bill Nelson, wrote me. 

“Earlier today, I spoke with CNN’s Alisyn Camerota about the new bipartisan gun bill Sen. Susan Collins and I recently introduced to prevent anyone who is on the No-Fly List from buying a gun. To me, it’s common sense — if we don’t let someone on a plane because the FBI thinks they may have ties to terrorism, then we shouldn’t let that person buy a gun.

Another provision included in the bill is one I introduced last week to ensure that the FBI is notified if someone who was once on the terrorist watch list purchases a gun.

We’re not saying: don’t sell guns to someone just because they were investigated. But having a system in place that alerts the FBI if someone they once investigated is suddenly trying to purchase multiple assault weapons is just common sense.”

Call me a skeptic but I always worry when the phase “just common sense” is thrown around as a justification.

In opposition we have those who would like nothing to change at all, offering little in the way of options.

If the Court, the Congress, the President, and a significant number of individuals feel strongly we should not have guns for protection from others, or the state, then why are they taking halfway measures to address the problem?  Why isn’t the President calling for a Constitutional Amendment to repeal or rewrite to the Second Amendment?  This is a rhetorical question, for the answer is obvious.  There would be significant opposition, and there is much more political capital to be made in keeping the issue alive with supporters and vilifying the opposition.

But at the end of the day we come back to the question.  How powerful do we want the central government, and how much of our individual freedom are we willing to surrender to have it?  As our founding fathers understood; freedom is not an absolute and if power rests with the few they will exercise it at the expense of the many.  Think about that as we remember our founding.

Independence Day

As the parades march down the roads of towns and villages across the county, as we prepare cookouts, and then wander down to our parks for the fireworks it is easy to get caught up in the festivities, our families, and our communities.  We may sing some songs, we will drink some beer, and we will wave some flags, but will we spend any time considering how we became a nation and the courage the founding fathers showed?

We get all caught up in the politics of today with distinctions between liberal, progressive and conservative.  I am not sure the meanings we use today would match the definitions used in the past, but I think one thing is unmistakable.  The men who joined together to alter the path of empire, and the individuals in the country who joined with them were bound by a vision of the future we can only envy today.  They were progressive beyond anything we are willing to accept in their willingness to challenge the norm.  They were liberal in a way we cannot conceive where the ideas a new way were debated.  Where tolerance for opposing ideas was shown in every debate and everything was challenged and minds changed in debate as we faced a common hardship.  

 The one thing they were not was conservative in their views of government, but they bent to accommodate those who were, recognizing that change is only institutionalized if the majority agrees.  The religious differences were as strong then as today, but they recognized that to survive and prosper civil government and the church must be separate.

Today those have issues with the churches seek to use the government as a bludgeon against those institutions.

So what do we celebrate this Independence Day?  Is it a time to reflect on our commonality, or demand we recognize our differences?  If we focus on the latter, then I am afraid the number of future Independence Day celebrations will be limited.

These United States

In the summer of 1776 representatives from the 13 English colonies assembled to address the grievances of the land holders against a King increasingly burdened by debt and seeking to wring whatever profit he could from the colonies.  This document was to have far reaching consequences for both England, the colonies and eventually the entire world.  In today’s political climate I think it worth reviewing a couple of central theme’s found in the Declaration of Independence.

 “When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.”

The declaration cites about 27 grievances to document and rationalize this course of action.  What I would like to consider is the relevance of this document to today’ America; as our government becomes increasingly disconnected from an alarmingly polarized population.

In the 18th century the European political world was just coming to grips with the realization that Monarchies were not divinely inspired and sanctioned.  The English nobility had, with the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, begun the regulation of the English monarchy to insure at least the nobilities right be outlined.  Now the one constant with change is those most affected were not too keen about new ideas.  The monarchies were not eager to give up their autonomy, power (and associated weatlth) so the change came fairly gradually and was unique to each affected monarch.  In our case, the Congress chose the words “All men are created equal” to reflect their belief the monarch was not commissioned by a divine being but rather received his authority by those he ruled.  So the first theme in the Declaration is that a Monarch’s powers are limited and held for the benefit of the governed.  I find it hard to translate this into a universal  statement that all men are born to be equal.  What has made the United States different from the other great nations is our class structure has historically been based on individual accomplishment, individual risk and reward, and an individuals desire to succeed.

It is unfashionable today to discuss the behavior of the founding fathers of the great families of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but none of these originals came from great wealth, none came from privilege.  What they accomplished was based on their visions and their drive.  At the time the government’s role was much more limited and with the power of wealth the vices of the individuals would lead to the great men bending whatever laws stood in their way.  In dealing with these abuses the idea it was role of the government to regulate big business was born.  It has been  rather natural on the part of some to extend this into ever more control of our lives.

I think you can see this in the Cornelius Vanderbilt story, where a young man drops out of school to work on his father’s ferry.   From that humble start he built a transportation empire that was estimated at $100 million at the time of his death.  Interestingly Vanderbilt was involved in breaking a government sponsored steamboat and ferry business monopoly granted by the NY legislature for a politically influential patrician.

How about Andrew Carnegie, who came to America with his parents and went on found U.S. Steel?  He rose from humble beginnings as a worker in a bobbin factory to sell his share of U.S. Steel for $480 million in 1901.

Of course there are some of the great families whose fortune were made not on innovation and industry but on the speculation of stock with perhaps a little bootlegging thrown in.

These type of stories abound and are, supposedly what makes America great.  Today we have only to look at the software and internet to see the next generation of million and billionaires.

My question is, what happens to America when our government sets out to reward sloth, mediocrity and just being?  When the government says to those who’ve succeeded, your success must pay for the care and feeding of those who’ve made no effort.  When the government says to its people all wealth is ours and we will decide how it should be spent? 

Do you come to this statement?

... The history of the present administration is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states.