Today, President Bush addressed the National Governor’s Association, mostly talking about keeping competitive in a global marketplace, lowering our dependence of foreign sources of oil, and the ongoing War on Terrorism. However, at the end of the speech, the President said something that I know will be overlooked by our liberal press in the morning.
And I believe this country has got to be aggressive in our pursuit of democracy and liberty, based upon our firm belief that there are such things as the natural rights of men and women. After all, that’s what caused our founding, that there is universality to liberty. And we shouldn’t be surprised when 11 million Iraqis go to the polls and demand freedom in the face of unbelievable terrorist attacks. That shouldn’t surprise America. We ought to say we recognize that spirit, and it is that spirit that’s ultimately going to be able to say we’ve kept the peace for our children and grandchildren.
“…based upon our firm belief that there are such things as the natural rights of men and women.” It’s very interesting to see President Bush pointing out something many of us take for granted. The founders especially pointed out these “unalienable rights” in the Declaration of Independence, but I think we’ve lost view of this important point of view.
Samual Adams, in a report to the Committee of Correspondence in Boston in 1772, communicated natural rights in this way:
Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.
All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.
When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and previous limitations as form an equitable original compact.
Every natural right not expressly given up, or, from the nature of a social compact, necessarily ceded, remains.
All positive and civil laws should conform, as far as possible, to the law of natural reason and equity.
As neither reason requires nor religion permits the contrary, every man living in or out of a state of civil society has a right peaceably and quietly to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience.
In conclusion, it’s nice to see a President of the United States getting back to the basics, explaining what liberty and representative government are all about - protecting the natural rights of people.
“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”
The Pledge of Allegiance was first created in 1892 as a celebratory remark used throughout public schools in celebration of the 400th anniversary of Columbus discovering the New World. Since then, it has become a national motto of unity and a defense of the American way of life. As I’ve always loved the Pledge of Allegiance, I’d like to analyze each passage of the Pledge, determining what its real meaning is. Let us begin.
1.
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America…
Let us break down the first phrase of the Pledge, “I pledge allegiance…” The word “I” emphasizes the individual, having one’s own opinions, views, and experiences. “Pledge” by definition means a solumn, binding promise or the act of guaranteeing something. The word “allegiance” is a word meaning love, devotion, or loyalty toward something. In other words, the first part of the above phrase “I pledge allegiance” means for an individual to promise devotion. But what is the individual promising devotion to?
To finish the phrase, the individual promises devotion “to the Flag of the United States of America.” Flags have always been used as sysmbols of objects, countries, or people. They have been used to represent a certain way of life or a specific cause. Thus, an individual promises devotion and loyalty to the United States’ way of life or the specific purposes of the United States. Specific purposes would include those laid down by the Constitution of the United States - “In order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity…” Thus, “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America” means to promise devotion and loyalty to the American way of life and the promise and purpose of America.
2.
…and to the Republic for which it stands…
This phrase is indeed a powerful phrase in that it emphasizes what the American flag stands for. Again, flags have been used as symbols for near all recorded history. In this case, the flag stands for the American Republic. The founders of this country first determined that the United States ought to be a Republic. In Federalist #39, James Madison explained,
If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.
Abraham Lincoln also described our Republic as a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people…”
3.
…one nation under God…
In 1954, then President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved the words “under God” in the Pledge in order to differentiate the United States from the officially atheist Soviet Union. President Eisenhower remarked, “In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource in peace and war.” This phrase also helps to emphasize another American motto, “In God We Trust.”
4.
…indivisible…
“Indivisible” means to be united. The founders of this country knew it was in our best interest for the several states to be united into one federal republic to protect the common interests of all the states, including foreign policy, commerce, and defense. As John Jay remarked in Federalist #2,
With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.
5.
…with Liberty and Justice for all.
To explore this last phrase, we must turn to the Declaration of Independence, written and ratified by the Continental Congress in 1776. The Declaration declares, “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.” The founders clearly understood that government was not a grantor of rights, but that rights were given by God. They also understood all people are created equal and that the rights to life, liberty, and happiness are not negotiable.
In conclusion, what does the Pledge of Allegiance really mean? It means an individual promises to be loyal to America’s purpose and promise, understanding we must be united as a country, accept our spiritual heritage and deep traditions, and know that as Americans, we have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and happiness.
In order to really understand the basis of our government and in general, western political thought, we must distinguish between the so-called Democracy and the Republic. Yes, our society does often refer to both terms interchangeably; however, I believe we must distinguish the differences if we are to understand the founding principles of the United States.James Madison in Federalist #10 stated,
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
Here, Madison implies that in a democracy, there is no legal protection for the weaker party, or the unpopular group. We can see there may be no unalienable rights for the weaker group if the majority wills it. This is the first undeniable difference between a democracy and a republic.
An article by Walter E. Williams writing for World Net Daily describes the difference this way:
So what’s the difference between republican and democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.” Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights…
Contrast the framers’ vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.
We turn to the former United States War Department for further investigation in the differences between a republic and a democracy. A democracy, as stated by Training Manual 2000-25 is:
A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of “direct” expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic–negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
A republic, on the other hand is defined as:
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
Purely, the basis of law in a republic as defined above is the “administration of justice in accord with fixed principles.”
So, how does a republic differ from a democracy? A republic offers representative government with sovereignty established by the people, either by group or individual with a fixed principle of justice (either written or otherwise). Government exists to protect the human rights of people and does not exist to exhibit and practice the principle of power. A democracy does not offer these things.
What is the purpose of government? This question is not so easily answered by the uneducated or the common man. In today’s drastically changing world, responses to this question would vary from person to person and country to country. Some would say, government is here to protect us. Others would say, government is here to provide social services or protect private property. While those potential answers may help us to see individual areas of an overall mission, we must look closer at the underlying principles of government to really answer the question.
John Locke, an early seventeenth century political theorist first referred to a principle known as the “State of Nature.” The State of Nature is a condition in which there is no government. It is a condition of an environment without law. Furthermore, Thomas Hobbes, the original “Social Contract” theorist, advised that human beings in the State of Nature would behave badly, as that state would lead to a “war of every man against every man” and would make life “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
The inherent problem with the State of Nature is that people do not have a device to protect their liberty, estate, or life from others. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the people to unite and form a device or government, to protect their rights as human beings. This theory is further explained by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #15. He states, “Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.”
We can further elaborate on this principle. John Locke in his Second Treatise on Government explains that civil society was created for the purpose of protecting property. In this principle, he examines the origin of the word “property,” which when translated into Latin, means “one’s own” or “oneself.” In this, Locke concluded the purpose of government was to protect life, liberty, and property.
Welcome to the newest right-wing blog on the web, FederalRepublic.net! As you can see, I’m just starting on this site, but I hope those who view my work will be able to learn and educate themselves about the principles of American government and politics in terms of the United States Constitution. Today’s political world is rapidly changing and those who wish to make a difference or change the minds of socialists and liberals must educate and immerse themselves in the issues at hand. Again, welcome to my website!