FederalRepublic.net

It’s a cartoon, but it speaks the truth:

For regular readers of this blog, I haven’t written for some time. Yes, moving from Colorado to Virginia probably played a large part of why I haven’t really blogged lately. But another part is that I’ve simply gotten tired of politics in the type of environment America finds itself in today. I could rant about Obama, but I won’t. I could make the case for how wrong the GOP is, but I won’t. I could rail even more about the Democratic socialists in Congress and how they could care less about taking my money; I won’t.

The truth of the matter is this: my freedom is dying. Your freedom is dying. Our children’s freedom, quite possibly, is already dead. Perpetual debt, fiat money, central management of a $14 trillion economy, millions upon millions of pages of regulation, and ultimately, the usurpation of our Constitution, is killing this Republic and the liberty it once protected. For those on left, government and collectivism are the great arbiters in solving humanity’s problems; for those on the right, civic virtue trumps reason and individual rights. No longer are rights and immunities guaranteed to you as a member of the human race, but are given to you by government instead. Complacency brought about by pretended prosperity and an ill-educated populace have transformed the middle and upper classes into slaves of government and the poor. This is our modern America, a far cry from what the founders intended and the good-natured Republic built to perfect our Union.

What I am flabbergasted about are many things, but not so many as this: this Republic will always be a debter nation and will endure the pain and agony of being a slave to the rest of the world. As perpetual debt and unfunded liabilities continue to skyrocket, government will be forced to take drastic measures to pay for what it has already consumed. These measures most obviously, include higher taxes, more “management” of the economy, and a trampling of individual rights. The left call themselves progressives - what is progressive about taking away the fruits of my labor? What is progressive about stomping on my economic freedoms? What is progressive about casting my children’s future into the den of government slavery? The right call themselves conservatives - what is conservative about trampling the Constitution for the sake of security? What is conservative about usurping states’ sovereignty and favoring civic virtue over property and contract rights?

The ramblings of this discontent are of course, normative. They look to the ideal and wish to conform reality to the ideal. I know that is not entirely possible. Nor is it possible to tame human nature, to curb the excesses of those who would wish to control the masses. But perhaps it is quite possible to make small strides to return to the American ideal and what this Union could have been…a more perfect one. Freedom lost is not easily gained, and sometimes it takes a revolution to return it. This is not out of the realm of possibility. Intellect and reason, coupled with constitutional resistance to unconstitutional action can help reverse some of the damage past generations have brought upon this one.

Many states have already enacted resolutions declaring sovereignty under the 10th Amendment; it is now time to take the next step - to nullify unconstitutional federal laws, to reject federal monies, to reassert the power of the state and locality. Central planning and massive debt must be rejected by lawmakers as a means to increase freedom and prosperity. They (and we) must remember this Union did not create the states; the states created this Union. And if necessary, the states may act as sovereign and independent political entities in order to dissolve it.

It is a bittersweet feeling to know the sovereignty of the United States rests with its people. Whether or not the people will act to bring themselves out of slavery is another story. Even the Isrealites wished to go back to Egypt when Moses delivered them out. Time will tell whether the American people have the testicular fortitude to rise to the occasion and accept that exceptionalism that America could portray again.

I’d like to offer my congrats to the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama on his swearing-in today. While I agree with next to none of Obama’s policy proposals, today is a day to be proud of America’s long tradition of welcoming peaceful transition from one government to another. Today’s commentary from the media is almost exactly what I expected; liberals rejoiced in a Democrat becoming president on the wings of unity, while conservatives trashed Obama’s policy proposals and questioned his character. Those who know me understand I cannot stand the rhetorical back and forth between liberal and conservative pundits and tend to take a more academic approach to events like these. Today was no different; looking through the rhetoric and seeing the enormity of today’s events however, I found myself proud of my country. Not because of the “change” Obama represents, but for this Union’s tradition of peaceful transition of power from one party to the next.

When looking at the “big picture” of human history, we find that peaceful transition of power is a relatively new concept. While many leaders throughout history handpicked their successors or ruled on the side of strong, standing armies, America took a different approach. Its people decided to take a new course, a course based not on the will of a king or the sovereignty of Parliament, but a path based upon the liberty of republican virtue and self-government. This experiment is still ongoing, an experiment pitting a fixed constitutional justice against man’s own self-interested nature. Though this Union has not always interpreted its constitution as it should, and though it has committed injustices in the name of liberty, this compact of states composing the United States of America has shown its resilience to renew itself time and again. For all that disturbs me about the loss of our liberties, I am truly proud this Union has transitioned and started anew.

While we should work tirelessly to bring about real change in terms of conservative and libertarian ideals, we should remember we still live in the best nation on earth. We must remember that though we differ about politics, we Americans have more that unites us than divides us. It’s back to work tomorrow, but tonight, let us celebrate our powerful tradition of peaceful transition.

I don’t usually post up movie trailers, but this one got my attention. Take a look:

Don't Tell Me What to Think TRAILER (Wilkow Majority)

First off, I want to say this post is not about Barack Obama and his victory November 4. It was an historic victory, though ripe with leftist propaganda and rhetoric. Post-election, I’m attempting to be an optimist, hoping Obama will keep his promise for a centrist “politics of pragmatism.” That’s for another post altogether though. What I really want to talk about is what I see as the conservative movement’s uphill battle in the future.

We’ve all heard the inner ramblings of the conservative movement post-election - the self-exploration and the desire to make up the losses the GOP has endured the last two election cycles. We’ve heard Rush Limbaugh advise true conservatism wins elections every time. We’re heard many more like Laura Ingraham or Sean Hannity advise conservatism needs to get back to its roots. That’s all fine and dandy, but I think the problem is much deeper than any of the so-called “experts” realize.

My belief is that, as a nation, we’ve become too complacent. We’ve taken our liberties and the overwhelming success of free market capitalism for granted. When a nation no longer believes it must work to protect its liberties or becomes complacent in their protection, a nation does not realize what it has lost when it actually does lose it. We’ve become a culture that, instead of asking “Is what the government doing unconstitutional?” instead asks “What can the government do for me?”

In my opinion, this is a disturbing trend, not only from a pro-liberty viewpoint, but from a conservative viewpoint as well. Conservatism tends to stress a self-reliance and personal responsibility. When a government is limited to what it can do, people are left to fend for themselves. Negative rights are the backdrop of any conservative philosophy, that is, government protects the liberty of the individual and is limited in what it may govern. When you have a nation that has become complacent and starts asking what the government can do for it, then liberty falls by the wayside and the people accept a government that takes rights away or limits one’s freedom de facto . Personal responsibility and self-reliance is thrown away because the people consistently ask for help from a proactive government.

In my opinion, our nation’s situation is exactly what Tocqueville talked about in his great work “Democracy in America.” Soft despotism has injected itself into society through regulations that dictate what people may or may not do with their land or themselves. The people have accepted more equality at the expense of individual liberty; the collective nation is valued over the individual who’s rights the Constitution protects. This principle does not bode well for the conservative movement. As more people accept a proactive government in their lives, the less attractive a self-reliant conservatism becomes. Conservatism just didn’t lose because it become something other than what it should have been (increased spending, corruption, etc.) It became less attractive to the populace at large because it was seen as a system that would not help a complacent “What can government do for me?” people.

For conservatism to make a comeback, America needs a new education in self-reliance and the supremacy of the individual over the collective. Without a new focus, conservatism will be unable to build a new political base and will no longer have the power it once did. For a complacent populace, the era of big government hasn’t ended as President Clinton said it would; it has really just begun.

We’ve all heard pundits on both the left and right call this election the most negative in history. Well apparently, they haven’t actually read their history (or have any idea about what history actually is). Take for example, the election of 1800 pitting John Adams against Thomas Jefferson.

Insults and slander were often flung at both candidates in the newspapers of the day. For instance, the Gazette of the United States is quoted as exclaiming:

THE GRAND QUESTION STATED
As the present solemn and momentous epoch, the
only question to be asked by every American, laying his
hand on his heart, is “shall I continue in allegiance to
GOD-AND A RELIGIOUS
PRESIDENT;
Or impiously declare for
JEFFERSON-AND NO GOD!!!

There were many other instances of such venom. Should Jefferson be elected President, said the New England Palladium, “the seal of death is that moment set on our holy religion, our church will be prostrated, and some infamous prostitute, under the title of the Goddess of Reason, will preside in the in the Sanctuaries now devoted to the Most High.” In fact, many Federalist-backed newspapers described Jefferson as an atheist who would burn the people’s bibles and destroy Christianity. Others actually hoped to help Adams be reelected to a second term by pronouncing Jefferson had died. While this was later refuted, Federalists pounced on Jefferson with vitriol.

These were not one-sided smears however; Jeffersonian Republicans did fight back. Of John Adams, Thomas Paine declared “It has been the political career of this man to begin with hypocrisy, proceed with arrogance, and finish with contempt.” Others accused Adams of being a closet monarchist, a man who wished to become a king of America. One newspaper accused Adams of wishing to start an American aristocracy by marrying one of his sons to a daughter of George III. And making fun of his baldness and weight, some in the Republican press dubbed Adams “His Rotundancy.”

While some in today’s media have described the current presidential campaign as “fiercely negative,” it seems the election of 1800 was quite worse. Journalists, writers, and historians have forgotten the early days of the American press and how insults and untrue rumors were commonplace. You think McCain v. Obama is a negative campaign? Think again, and learn your history!

*For more on early American journalism, check out Eric Burns’ “Infamous Scribblers.” It’s a great book.

It has been said that Scottish historian and philosopher Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee, contributed this quote as he watched the creation of the new American Republic from across the sea:

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.

While controversy surrounds the issue of whether or not Tytler actually uttered these words, it is no less troubling the advancement of societies the quote has illustrated. It illustrates the truth about American democracy - that liberty has led to abundance, and abundance to complacency. We have become used to material wealth and abundance; we’ve become used to prosperity. And now as the economy tanks, we forget that our abundance was built upon a principle many no longer cherish - personal responsibility and sacrifice. Instead of looking to ourselves to be more careful with our money, to consider the risks we take in buying a house with an income that can’t afford it, to realize credit is not preferable to saving for the things we want, we have turned to the government to solve our problems. We have turned to the government, and turned to dependence on government, to solve economic troubles.

Another commentator on the American Republic was Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville. Writing “Democracy in America” in the 1840s, Tocqueville foresaw the coming of a “soft despotism” ; that is, an America in which the people would turn to government for their happiness and welfare:

For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?…After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd…It is indeed difficult to conceive how men who have entirely given up the habit of self-government should succeed in making a proper choice of those by whom they are to be governed; and no one will ever believe that a liberal, wise, and energetic government can spring from the suffrages of a subservient people.

If Tocqueville has not illustrated what has become the United States of America, I’m not sure we can really describe what our Republic has become. We are a country obsessed with freedom and opportunity, yet freedom and opportunity have been destroyed by the “arm” of government. We have become a nation based not on freedom or the rights of man, but regulation of our lives. Government touches every aspect of our lives, from the clothes we wear, to the food we eat, to the land which we live, to the money we make. Almost everything we own has been influenced by government directly or indirectly, via sales taxes or regulations on production.

The point I am trying to make is this: If we Americans do not force our control upon the government, the government will force its control upon us. It is my ultimate fear that 50 years from now, the United States of America will no longer resemble the freedom-based Republic I grew up in. Now is the time for a true political revolution. Now is the time to act. Now is the time to declare we want our freedom back.

Wish the Pledge was taught like this in schools today…