We were the generation who had no purpose in life, who were materialistic and unmotivated, who took abstract privileges, such as liberty, for granted. Wasn't that an awful thing to say?
Challenging the Notion that Economic and Social Advancement Requires a Big Government
Today, one of my progressively-minded academic peers was asked to defend his support of big government. "Society has changed significantly since the signing of the Constitution," he remarked. "The Founding Fathers never imagined how large and complex our nation would become, and we need a large government to help manage the needs of a large and complex society." His sophistry continued, "Events that led us to the necessary growth of government include: the Industrial Revolution, Great Depression, World Wars, Iron Curtain, Recession, Information Technology boom, and 9/11, just to name a few. These events could only be addressed with a very large government, and have even made us realize that government should be even larger to help protect us from repeat incidents."
Alas, Stalin would be proud.
I understand that many believe that economic and social evolution mandated the emergence of big government in the US, and that the state has enlarged its scope of influence over time in relative proportion to increasing social complexities. But, think about it for a moment. On what basis is the belief that this alleged dynamic symbiosis between big government and complex society known to be true, or more importantly, productive? I understand that people believe it, but I don't understand why they believe it.
We know that government started growing in the 30's, but how do we know that growth was essential to the health of the nation? How do we know that progress would not have still occurred in the absence of a big government? Further, how do we know that big government did not actually slow progress and weaken our nation? What evidence exists to support the assumption that our nation is better off with a big government, and is it possible that big government has done irreparable harm to our country?
Perhaps, one would argue that no evidence exists to the contrary, that our nation has never weathered periods of precipitous change in the absence of a big government, to which I would earnestly object. Was America significantly more complex in 1930, than it was in 1790? Indeed, it was infinitely more complex in 1930. Was social and economic progress made in that 140 year period prior to 1930? Without a doubt, it was.
It is true that we are more complex in 2010 than we were in 1930. But at the same time, we were more complex in 1930 than we were in 1790. Yet, the social complexities and industrial quickening that characterized the 1800's were all managed with a very small government that consumed less than 5% of GDP.
Some argue that the depression forced the growth of government in the 1930's. But, they fail to remember the depression of 1873, which was a major global economic crisis that America navigated with a very small government that never exceeded 5% of GDP. Moreover, the 1873 depression ended in 1879, and was about 5 years shorter than Roosevelt's depression of the 1930's. (I might point out that Roosevelt's depression was managed by a big government, and lasted significantly longer.)
Some cite the industrial revolution as an impetus for bigger government. But does that really makes sense, considering the industrial revolution ended in 1850, eighty years prior to the government's leap toward societal dominance beginning in 1930?
To say that contemporary events are somehow special and different from the historical events of our forefathers, different to the point that they require the adoption of a big government with which to manage them, is an odd notion to me. Although I would never personally suggest this, others might even be inclined to label such a belief as a bit arrogant. Truly, each generation of people view the historical events of their lives, and of the decades preceding their lives, as unique and of greater importance than the more distant events of previous centuries. But in reality, the invention of the wheel had no greater impact on the Neanderthals than did the invention of the steam engine on the Early Modernists. The steam engine had no greater impact on the Early Modernists than did the invention of the microchip on Generation X. The invention of the microchip may feel more momentous in its impact on society because we have personally seen its influence on our nation, our economy, and our culture. But in reality, the wheel, the steam engine and the microchip have all impacted their respective societies equally, and the introduction of one into historical currents required no greater scope of bureaucratic governance than did the other.
So, why do people believe that economic and social advancement and growth is predicated on the existence of big government? What evidence exists that leads one to believe that big government is necessary now, but was unnecessary in 1790 when the Constitution was signed?
Well, no one will ever be able to provide such evidence, because it does not exist. And although there is a much more compelling body of evidence to support a small government, the system will go on perpetuating the false idea that big government is necessary to manage the nation's growth and change, which is a load of malarkey.
Oil Has Made Norway Rich, Not Its Socialist Economic Model
I recently overheard a couple of acquaintances discussing the pros and cons of health care reform. In an attempt to sway the other's opinion on the matter, I overheard one of the woman exalting Norway for its stellar, near perfect socialized health care system. She went on praising the frozen utopian paradise for its high standard of living, free secondary education, and other cradle to grave subsidies. "The people in Noway," she said excitedly, "they pay 60% in personal income taxes, but look what they get in return!"
It was the hardest thing I've ever done, but I managed to keep my mouth shut.
I never cease to be amazed at how people get suckered into believing this stuff. We've all seen supporters of the welfare state point to the Norwegian model as an example of a successful mixed economy. But, when you peel the onion, so to speak, you find that Norway is actually in big trouble economically speaking. Do a little digging, and you'll find that it is one of the most unfair and economically repressive nations in the world due to government profiteering and extremely high prices.
First of all, everyone needs to understand that the U.S. could never copy Norway's economic model, because they have something we don't: the North Sea Oil Reserves. Right now, Norway is benefiting in an enormous way from their oil, and is sort of the "Jed Clampet" of Europe. To give you an idea of the enormity of their jackpot oil production, the national oil company, Statoil, took in over $600 billion in revenues in 2008. The GDP of Norway was $247 billion. So, the revenues of the government-owned oil company were almost 3 times the output of the entire Norwegian economy. Imagine; what if the U.S. government had an income source that was 3 times larger than the total economic output of our economy? Of course, we could buy every citizen (and maybe even our 20 million illegal immigrants too) a Porshe and a McMansion, and provide every American a sizable stipend for the rest of their lives, and still have money left over.
See the chart below (Figure 1). Oil is the number one source of revenue for the Norwegian government. Look at the top two bars on the graph. The U.S. does not have this revenue source.
(Figure 1 - Click on Image to Enlarge)
What is unimaginable is that the government of Norway continues to tax their people at one of the highest tax rates in the world, even though this huge windfall of money exists. Think about this for a moment: the government of Norway took in $226 billion ('07 est) in total revenue (income taxes, oil profits, fees, etc.), but it only spent a total of $159 billion for the same time period. That is a $69 billion profit or a 42% revenue surplus, all made on the backs of the average Norwegian who pays 60% of their income to the government in taxes and $16 to McDonald's for a Happy Meal! And what has the government of Norway done with their 42% profit? Well, it's done what any good, responsible, liberal government would do; it created a slush fund.
Please explain how this is an ethical model for governance of a democratic people?
The embarrassingly high taxes have caused Norway to rank as one of the top 5 most expensive countries in the world in terms of cost of living, which is more than double that of the U.S.
See the table below, which shows a comparison of prices between the U.S. and Norway. By the way, keep in mind that the average Norwegian's after-tax income is roughly the same as that of an American. So, imagine how you would feel going to McDonald's and paying $16 for a hamburger on your present income. Not good, I'd guess.
Is this really what we want our nation to look like: $111 for a grilled chicken at Chili's and a 60% income tax rate to boot?
The prohibitive cost of living trend is directly caused by the astronomically high tax rates as business compensates for the cost of high taxes by increasing prices. To illustrate this inflationary effect, let's look at an average McDonald's employee as example. If a McDonald employee in Norway pays 50% of their income in taxes, and the employee earns $8.00 per hour (that's about the average for McDonald's in the US), then they take home only $4.00 per hour. Well, no one is going to work for $4.00 per hour. If presented with such a measly wage, most people would probably figure it is better to stay at home, and opt out of work altogether. So, because labor is a mandatory component of business, McDonald's must pay $17.00 per hour to sufficiently remunerate labor at a level that attracts and retains employees. This way, the employee actually takes home $8.50 after taxes. People are willing to work for $8.50, but not $4.00 per hour. McDonald's then passes the cost of their sky-high labor on to the consumers who buy the burgers, which is why a Big Mac in Norway is $16.00. This is repeated all throughout the economy across virtually every sector, and confiscatory taxation is the core impetus of the present inflationary price trends that afflict, and will someday cripple, the Norwegian economy.
So, not only do Norwegians have the illustrious honor of surrendering 50 - 60% of their income to the government, they also get to pay double for everything they purchase.
Many economists predict that Norway is so overly dependent on the oil sector, that once world demand for oil drops, the nation could be thrown into a severe economic crisis. Business growth outside of the oil industry is virtually non-existent, and shrinking. Companies would rather do business on the moon than in Norway. Think about it. Have you heard of any companies flocking to set up shop in Norway lately? The high taxes, burdensome regulations, and cost of living have totally killed business development. When the Norwegians lose their oil revenues, and they will eventually, they will lose their present state of prosperity, and Norway as it is known today will slowly decline as their slush fund is exhausted over a 5 - 10 year period.
This is not what we want for our nation.
So, the next time you overhear someone singing the praises of European socialism, think twice before you believe them. Either they do not know the whole story, or they are intentionally leaving you in the dark to make socialism appear better than it really is. The latter is right out of Lenin's propaganda playbook.
Suppose one of the Founding Fathers, let’s say Madison, were suddenly thrust from the grave, full of life, into present-day America with the sole task of assessing whether or not the size and scope of government within contemporary society was in conformance to the founder’s original intent when our nation was born.Would he view the nation’s founding documents, which he helped to author, as having successfully and sufficiently restrained the growth of government over time?Would his assessment of personal liberties in the present be that their preservation has been maintained in accordance to his intent of the past?Would he return to the afterlife satisfied that America had, over the long-haul, lived up to his dreams and aspirations for the fledgling republic he helped to birth?Or, would his assessment leave him with the feeling that he, and the founding fathers, had failed to create a nation that would stand the test of time by remaining free of an intrusive, unwieldy, and overbearing government?
Sadly, the evidence suggests that Madison would be disappointed in the evolution of the nation.His assessment, I suspect, would leave him with a distinct feeling of failure upon concluding that federalism had escaped the bounds, limits, checks and balances that he and others had worked so diligently to integrate into our nation’s framework.He would likely think back to the discourse of his day and conclude that he was wrong, and that in fact, the anti-federalists were correct in their prediction that federalism would eventually fail to contain the growth of the federal government.1
Where did we go wrong?
According to Dr. Ronald Pestritto, the era of big government, or the “administrative state” as he calls it, came to be in the 1930’s. 2(Kirkpatrick Reader, p 203) Prior to the ascension of Franklin Roosevelt to the presidency following the defeat of Herbert Hoover, government spending had remained low, almost insignificant, for well over 200 years. 3(See Fig. 1)also(Rachut, p 83) Following the Civil War, sentiment in America began to reject the founder’s key beliefs: the belief in the natural law of human equality at birth; the belief that the sole purpose of government is to secure personal liberty; the belief that people enter society through a social compact, which is the agreement of all to obey society’s laws; the belief in a limited government, powerful private sector, and capitalist economic model; the belief in a domestic agenda that protects personal liberties, strengthens the rule of law, and promotes a moral climate that respects traditional Protestant values; the belief that foreign policy should be focused on a defensive, versus offensive or imperialistic, approach to national defense; the belief that policy must be driven by and originate from locally elected officials working as representatives of their constituencies. 4(Kirkpatrick, p 249 – 253)
The size of government started growing in the 1930’s.Beginning in 1975, following the passage of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs, government consistently consumed 20% of the nation’s total GDP, which represents a quadrupling in the size of government over the years preceding Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency.(See Fig. 1) The General Welfare and Commerce Clauses have been radically reinterpreted by the courts, and in conjunction with the Sixteenth Amendment, allow for confiscatory taxation of personal wealth, and the redistribution of money based on the whims of federal bureaucrats, all in contravention of the constitution’s right to private property, not to mention natural law. 5(Kirkpatrick, p 267) If we believe that the preservation of property is “the end of government”, as Locke wrote, then we can only believe that government has failed, and has itself now become a detriment to the right of private property rather than its protector. 6(Kirkpatrick, p 274)Even though collectivism has failed the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba, progressives advocate for the nationalization of private industry, not on the basis of its proven superiority (which does not exist), but rather merely on its advancement of utopian ideals. 7, 8(Kirkpatrick, p 297) The federal government has taken over major privately owned automotive and financial corporations, and a minority of progressives and socialists are advocating the nationalization of the entire healthcare industry, which makes up 1/6 (16% of GDP) of the U.S. economy. 9Progressivism engenders a rapacious entitlement mentality with an incrementally larger and more ravenous appetite for the wealth of others, and as government becomes the nation’s primary philanthropic arm, personal benevolence and altruism withers in the aloofness of the welfare state. 10(Kirkpatrick, p 243)
Madison’s assessment would be grim.The turn to progressivism in the 1930’s, he would certainly agree, has cost Americans their liberties and rights.The ‘new’ republic in which we now live is closer in reality to the utopian vision of Plato than the refuge of liberty envisioned by our nation’s founders. 11(Kirkpatrick, p 277 – 289) The Machiavellian approach to defense, which holds government’s highest priority to be the protection of liberty through deterrent munitions accumulation and aggression response readiness, has largely been exchanged for priorities of appeasement, disarmament and the downsizing of the military, all of which expose the nation to harm at the hands of aggressors. 12(Kirkpatrick, p 225 – 226)
It is hard to believe that the founders ever imagined a federal government that would consume more than 5% of GDP.During Madison’s posthumous and hypothetical assessment of present-day America, when he would learn that current federal spending is in excess of 20% of GDP, he would be concerned, I believe, that the nation was on a trajectory toward failure.If the size of the federal government can quadruple in 70 years, Madison’s logical conclusion would be that it could again quadruple over the next 70 years.In 1797, Madison thought it inconceivable that federal spending would ever routinely surpass 20% of GDP, within the framework of checks and balances he had helped to create.Is it inconceivable to think, then, that government spending could equal 80% of GDP by 2080, and would we still be able to call ourselves free people?
Heckler - On Capitalism, Business and the Free Market
I'm aware of the suspicion that many have of big business, and the general disenchantment with the influence that business can have on the cogs and wheels of government.It’s puzzling to me. Why would one believe that business should not have representation and advocates in our government? In my view, businesses, both small and big, are a vital part of our nation, and the interests of business should have representation in government.
So many people draw an imaginary line of distinction when they think of business, as if it is somehow separate from all of us.There are only two ingredients in a society: the people and the government, and nothing else.But sometimes, you almost get the feeling that people see our society in three parts: the people, the government, and business.This perception is not true, at any level, when you think about it.
We are business.We are big business and small business.Business is how we use our skills and talents to turn our work into income and private property.Business is the means through which we self-actualize.Business is the conduit over which we channel our creative energies to produce wealth for ourselves.We own and operate the businesses in this country; business is not a separate force within society.Granted, many people may not directly own a controlling interest in a business, but they do most likely work for a private company.Even if you work in a corporation, you will probably have a 401k or other retirement fund.By owning stock in a 401k, you are a business owner and your returns depend directly on strong private sector business performance.Business is what makes it possible for us to dream, and then combine a great idea with hard work to realize our dreams.
In the last 2 years, ‘profits’ have been demonized in the media as something sinister and evil.I’ll never forget Hillary Clinton standing before the American people, berating the oil companies for their supposed greed and profiteering.She went on to say, “We’re going to take those profits!”Frankly, that has to be one of the most frightening statements I’ve ever heard coming out of Washington.Her strange, bold threat sounds a lot like something that would come from the likes of Kim Il Sung, Erich Honecker or Hugo Chavez, and not a prominent American presidential candidate.
Sure, the oil companies made record profits over the past decade.No one is denying that.Circumstances within the free market evolved to give the oil companies in this nation an advantage, and an opportunity to earn money.They did what responsible businesses do – they maximized their bottom lines.Where was Hillary Clinton is the early 80’s, during the oil bust, when the oil companies were facing bankruptcy?Throughout much of the 80’s, many of those ‘evil’ oil companies operated in the red.Where was Hillary Clinton when CITGO, Hugo Chavez’s Venezuelan oil cartel, walked away with billions in corporate profits?America is Chavez’s number one customer of Venezuelan oil, and this nation has poured billions upon billions into Chavez’s evil coffers, coffers that have largely supported his dictatorship, thuggery, and systematic destruction of the Venezuelan economy.You mean to tell me that Clinton would rather tax an American-owned enterprise than one controlled by our arch-enemy, Hugo Chavez?How dare a politician threaten to confiscate the profits of a legitimate American enterprise?It’s disgusting.
What floors me is that people cry out in opposition to corporate tax breaks, corporate profits, etc.Then, when those tax breaks don't pass, or profits are soft, the very people who complained about corporate profits then complain about losing their job because their employer could no longer afford to keep them on the payroll.It just makes no sense.But so often, populist currents rarely ever make sense.
I have personally witnessed the power of tax breaks.Several years ago, a company that I am intimately familiar with decided to expand.There were several cities on the short list, and the location that was ultimately chosen won because of a very attractive tax incentive package.The area was blighted with high unemployment, and the company was able to go in to that community and put over 1,000 people to work.Today, they are the second largest private employer in the city.
Every year in fourth quarter, companies often go into a hiring and capital expenditure freeze.Whether or not this happens is often directly related to the overall financial health of the company.If revenues and margins are strong throughout the year, then business can hire and make capital investments as necessary to support growth.If profits are bad, no hiring will be done and no money will be spent on growth and expansion.
If we want to do something about our nation’s unemployment problem, then we need to hope that business is making a profit and planning for future growth and expansion.We all rely on business for our livelihoods, and we should be looking for ways to make sure business in this country remains strong and thriving.If a corporation gets tax incentives, who cares if hundreds of people get the opportunity to work?When profits are strong, businesses will expand and hire new people to support the expansion, and our retirement funds will resume growing.If they're operating at a loss on the other hand, they lay people off and our 401k funds continue to tank.We need to get government out of the affairs of private enterprise, because my investments and job security decrease with every tax hike and regulation the government imposes on business.
If you want high unemployment and significant losses in your retirement fund, then stand around and complain about corporate profits, demand higher business taxes, and advocate for more federal regulation on business.If you do, however, I have one request.Please don’t whine and complain when you end up standing in the unemployment line with your pink slip in hand.
In 1973 and 1974, Michael Bakke applied to the University of California, DavisMedicalSchool.Bakke was twice denied enrollment, not due to poor qualifications, but due to his Caucasian ethnicity. 12The university had implemented a program designed to increase the number of minority students enrolled in its medical school. 13Effectively, race or ethnicity was the only factor used to determine student admission to the medical school via the diversity program, thus creating an illegal quota system to drive minority admissions practices. 14
Bakke’s case reached the Supreme Court in October of 1977, and the decision was read in June of 1978. 15Justice Lewis Powell(pictured above right) wrote the opinion of the Court in The University of California v. Bakke, which effectively gave institutions the right to use race or ethnicity, as long as they are taken into consideration with other applicant attributes, to approve or deny individuals entry into the institution. 16Powell faults the University of California for using race alone in its admissions process. 17Powell writes, “In summary, it is evident that the Davis special admissions program involves the use of an explicit racial classification never before countenanced by this Court. It tells applicants who are not Negro, Asian, or Chicano that they are totally excluded from a specific percentage of the seats in an entering class.” 18
Though Powell cites the University for implementing an unconstitutional quota system, he does not completely prohibit the use of an applicant’s race or ethnicity by admissions boards to grant or deny an individual admission to the institution. 19In the opinion, Powell establishes a precedent of justifiable discrimination, “In enjoining petitioner from ever considering the race of any applicant, however, the courts below failed to recognize that the State has a substantial interest that legitimately may be served by a properly devised admissions program involving the competitive consideration of race and ethnic origin. For this reason, so much of the California court's judgment as enjoins petitioner from any consideration of the race of any applicant must be reversed.”20In other words, race or ethnicity cannot be the only personal attribute used by admissions boards to accept students into its programs, nor could institutions establish quotas for minority enrollment.Powell’s ruling paved the way for modern affirmative action policies.
What is affirmative action policy?According to Elizabeth Anderson, Professor of Woman’s Studies at the University of Michigan, “Affirmative action policies include any policies that (a) attempt to actively dismantle institutionalized or informal cultural norms and systems of ascriptive group-based disadvantage, and the inequalities historically resulting from them, and/or that (b) attempt to promote an ideal of inclusive community, as in ideals of democracy, integration, and pluralism (multiculturalism), (c) by means that classify people according to their ascriptive identities (race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.) and select people for participation in institutions using these classifications as criteria.” 21Crystal clear, isn't it? To summarize, affirmative action policies give preferential treatment of individuals based on their race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, or gender.
Affirmative action policies attempt to redress disproportionate populations of minority individuals within organizations and institutions. 22Today, discrimination in America is not the overtly racist bigotry that plagued the South through the 1960’s.In those days, blacks were forced to sit in areas of theatres and restaurants that were separate from the areas where whites were seated, and water fountains were labeled “whites only” or “blacks only.”Such conspicuous and frankly idiotic behavior is thankfully a thing of the past.Although we no longer contend with obvious race-based segregation, white only cafes, and signs that read “no coloreds allowed,” discrimination still exists, though in isolation and subtlety within our society.It is this silent, near imperceptible form of discrimination that affirmative action aims to attack. 23
There is an image of a man standing behind a podium in WashingtonDC before thousands of adoring supporters.The image is certainly burned into the memory of every American, and the words of Martin Luther King Jr. will forever echo in our ears, “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” 24Sadly, the dream that King conceived during his short time on earth has been aborted, its life drawn from the womb of our collective consciousness by the very people who claim to protect it.
If a university selection process has narrowed down the candidate pool to two prospects, one white and one black, with both possessing desirable qualities, affirmative action would mandate selection of the minority candidate and rejection of the white candidate.Logical alternatives to affirmative action exist that would enable the university to choose candidates exclusively based on factors other than race or ethnicity.For example, a higher level assessment could be given to both candidates to identify exceptional talent or giftedness that previous screening may have failed to reveal.But, rather than administering further evaluation to expose academic exceptionalities, such as mathematical or scientific inclinations, affirmative action policy would, in essence, be the academic ‘tie breaker’.
If a colorblind society is truly our objective, then, as a nation, we will never achieve it as long as affirmative action remains entrenched in our organizations and institutions.Powell’s ruling, which allows organizations to select or deny opportunity to individuals based on race, either with or without consideration of other personal attributes, is a ruling that legalizes racial discrimination.Progressives put forth long and often convoluted arguments about the legitimacy of affirmative action, and similarly assert that affirmative action is not racial discrimination, or that race-based selection is somehow morally, socially, and legally justified.But if institutions are allowed to choose (discriminate) based on ethnicity (race), how can it be said that such policies are anything less than racial discrimination?
Powell’s error was in his interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides the right to equal treatment under the equal protection clause of Section One.The clause explicitly states that the state cannot “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” 25(See Amendment XIV of the Constituion)Referring to the equal protection clause, Powell writes, “Such rights are not absolute.” 26He later continues, “Race or ethnic background may be deemed a "plus" in a particular applicant's file, yet it does not insulate the individual from comparison with all other candidates for the available seats.” 27Powell’s argument asserts that the Fourteenth Amendment protections are only partially protective, and race may be legally used in conjunction with other factors if the state has a compelling reason to allow such discriminatory policies.What Powell fails to realize is that admissions policies could be structured in such a way as to still allow or deny persons admission based on race.If race can be a “plus factor” 28 when stack ranking candidate qualifications, then a minority student will obtain an advantage over a nonminority student by virtue of their race alone.Such a circumstance would violate the right to equal protection of the nonminority applicant, because their nonminority status comparatively disadvantaged them, even though both applicants shared the same academic qualifications.Powell did not eliminate reverse discrimination with his ruling; he simply cloaked it, hiding it from the purview of moral and legal dissent.Today, discrimination is rampant in our private and public organizations and institutions of higher learning, yet it is shrouded in convoluted arguments, complex and circular justifications, and illogical reason, which all render its diagnostication an onerous task. But peel the onion, and you will see it for what it truly is.
John Locke, prophetically recognizes the implications of sanctioned institutional discrimination in his Second Treatise on Government.“In transgressing the law of nature," Locke writes, "the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men, for their mutual security; and so he becomes dangerous to mankind, the tie, which is to secure them from injury and violence, being slighted and broken by him.” 29 Perhaps it is men like Justice Powell that Locke describes, men who have proven themselves “dangerous to mankind” by upholding discriminatory practices in our society.
Affirmative action is not only unconstitutional, it is immoral.Further, it does tremendous harm to race reparations in America, the advancement of equal access, and the realization of Dr. King’s colorblind society.As each new generation enters society, our nation has the opportunity to take a step forward toward true equality.Children are not born to discriminate; they learn to discriminate from each preceding generation.In the absence of legal discrimination, as generational distance from the transgressions of racist America in the 1960’s grows, the propensity to inflict racism, and other incarnations of bigotry, would incrementally fade, and society would evolve into the one described in Dr. King’s dream.But for now, the dream is elusive.Social policies such as affirmative action whisper bigotry into the collective ear of each successive generation.They tell a lie to each new class of Americans graduating into society, that they are innately and secretly intolerant and prejudiced, and then we all scratch our heads and wonder why prejudices persist.Our children, and our children’s children, will merely live up to the expectation we have set for them in the foundational premise of affirmative action policies, which is the expectation that each person is intrinsically and secretly racist, bigoted and chauvinistic.Indeed, we will never truly live in a colorblind society as long as social policies exist to keep our eyes focused on color.Until we can summon the courage to strike down legal discriminatory practices, affirmative action will continue to counterproductively perpetuate discrimination in our society, and the dream of a nation wherein, “little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers” 30 will sadly remain dead.
On April 22, 1996, a young woman by the name of Giana Jessen testified before the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. “I am happy to be alive. I almost died. Every day I thank God for life. I do not consider myself a by-product of conception, a clump of tissue, or any other of the titles given to a child in the womb. I do not consider any person conceived to be any of those things.”1
Giana is one of many in our society whose life was almost lost to abortion.On the morning of April 6, 1977, Giana’s 17 year-old mother had been administered the drugs that precipitate the abortion process.As is often the practice, the chemical was administered ahead of time since several hours are required before the unborn child will respond and subsequently abort.The abortionist was not scheduled to arrive in the clinic until 9 am, but to the surprise, and perhaps horror, of everyone present that morning, Giana’s mother gave birth at 6 am, before the abortionist had arrived, and before the life of the child could be snuffed out by the abortionist. 2
Today, Giana, who is plagued with cerebral palsy as a result of the saline used in the abortion process, advocates against the barbarity of the practice in our society. 3She is by all measures a very special person, one who defied a death-wish christened upon her by her mother, and fully sanctioned by law, and society by extension.
Her very existence raises many questions.But the most troubling question is: how can life occur from a procedure justified on the premise that life does not exist in the ‘clump of tissue’ that is being aborted?If the object of the abortion is devoid of life, as many claim, how is it that a living, breathing child, an ‘aborted’ baby, laid helplessly crying in an abortion clinic in 1977?The answer, in short, is that Jessen’s existence proves beyond doubt that a fetus is full of life.Further, to arrive at the conclusion that a child within her mother’s womb does not possess life requires deductive fantasia and the willing suspension of disbelief.
The historical pathway leading us to such an inconceivable place was long and winding, and society knew it had arrived on January 22, 1973 when the Supreme Court of the United States issued its landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade, which essentially legalized a woman’s decision to abort by protecting it as a right to privacy under the fourteenth amendment. 4The consequences of the decision have been severe and far-reaching.The practice has not only destroyed millions of lives full of potential, but it has also devastated the lives of hundreds of thousands of woman who are silently afflicted with an oppressive and debilitating burden of guilt.
An understanding of philosophical ideas can often be found in the most unusual places.Oddly enough, one such place is the effulgence of a lamp, or, for that matter, any source of luminosity that brightens the world around us.There, under illuminant rays, clarity of sight occurs.The text of a book or subtle nuance of art is perceived with ease.In contrast, when the light ceases, the absence of luminosity gives way to darkness, wherein nothing is perceptible.Then, there is a middle space, a place that is neither brightly lit, nor utterly dark.Here, things are visible, but only partially so.Objects are seen, but details are imperceptible.We can see that a book is there, but cannot read its title.We can see that art is there, but cannot determine its subject.This space that exists away from the direct luminosity of light, yet not engulfed in darkness, where things are seen in the dimness, but not fully known, is called the penumbra. 5
Such areas of diminished visibility exist not only rooms, halls, and streets, away from lamps and streetlights, but also in the interpretation of the law.When a law lacks clarity on the existence of rights, and the interpreting judiciary is consequently unable to render judgment based on the text of the law alone, she may conclude a right is implied by other rights which are clearly stated in the text of the law.These unstated rights are said to exist in the penumbra of those rights that are textually explicit. 6
For example, let’s say that the text of a hypothetical constitutional amendment guarantees the right of a person to sing.The state of Colorado passes a law that prohibits humming.A person living in Colorado challenges the law against humming, and the case goes to the Supreme Court.The ruling of the court would likely protect humming as a constitutional right that exists in the penumbra of the right to sing, even though the right to hum is not explicit in the text of the constitution.
Justice Harry Blackman wrote in the opinion of the court in Roe v. Wade, “Appellant would discover this right [of privacy] in the concept of personal ‘liberty’ embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras.” 7In other words, Justice Blackman concluded that a woman’s right to an abortion was in the penumbra of the right to privacy, which is in the penumbra of the right to personal liberty as explicitly provided for in the Fourteenth Amendment.That’s right.Justice Blackman ruled that the right to abort a baby is in the penumbra of a penumbra, and that this right, which exists in the penumbra of a penumbra, supersedes an unborn baby’s right to life.
No reasonable person would argue the right to life after birth, but there is no language that explicitly protects an unborn child’s right to life.Many argue that an unborn child does not possess life at all, while an equal or greater number argue that life is, without dispute, present in the womb.Simply put, the question of whether or not the unborn have life has no consensus, and thus remains unanswered by society.Even Justice Blackman acknowledges this inconclusiveness in Roe v. Wade, “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” 8This statement could arguably be the most significant ‘cop out’ in the history of mankind.
Justice Blackman, rather than doing his job and addressing the question of life in the womb, chose to ignore it altogether.If a room full of scientists were asked if life exists in the womb, the opinion would likely be split.Some would argue that life begins after the child is born, others would argue that life begins at conception, and others would likely argue that life begins at some arbitrary point during the pregnancy such as the beginning of the second trimester. But one thing is certain, none of the scientists in our hypothetical situation would unanimously agree. It tells us that there is a possibility life does not exist in the womb, bur it also tells us that there is a possibility that life does exist in the womb. The possibility alone that life exists in the womb substantiates its protection, even in the absence of consensus.What will the Court have to say if “those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology” 9 should one day arrive at the conclusion that the womb does in fact hold life?How will we explain the deaths of millions of babies to future generations?
In fact, this conclusion is beginning to become a reality, as medical professionals leave the abortion industry behind, and tell of harrowing eyewitness accounts of life and death in the abortion clinics.A former Planned Parenthood Director gave one such testimony, "The doctors would remove the fetus while performing hysterotomies and lay it on the table, where it would squirm until it died… They all had perfect forms and shapes. I couldn't take it. No nurse could." 10
Lifeless clumps of tissue do not squirm, nor do they die, and these facts no philosopher can deny.
John Locke said it best in 1690, “But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of license; though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it.” 11
Today, criminal law precludes capital punishment for convicted murderers if any doubt of guilt is present, but the same consideration is not extended to the unborn in the absence of certainty that life exists in the womb.Deference to life is provided for murderers if their guilt is in doubt, while deference to death is provided to unborn children because their life is in doubt.We err on the side of caution for guilty murderers, but not for the innocent unborn.At a bare minimum, is the unborn child’s right to life not ‘in the penumbra’ of the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution?No matter how it’s spun, the logic that led to the final ruling in Row v. Wade can only be described with one word: bizarre.
Dean’s flagrant denial of American capitalism is neither anomalous nor fringe.In fact, European communitarian panderers, such as Dean, are nothing new.The list of high-profile Americans appealing to the distinctly European ideals of appeasement, big government, high taxes, and collectivist social programs continues to grow.For example, in March of 2003, following the American invasion of Iraq, singer Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks announced from a London stage that, “we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas."2 In his political documentary Sicko, Michael Moore praised the publicly funded French healthcare system as near flawless, while simultaneously castigating private healthcare in the United States.3Barack Obama, in a bizarre and unprecedented move that made even Angela Merkel publicly scratch her head, shunned face-time with American voters during his 2008 presidential campaign to tour Germany, France, and Britain.4
Why do so many high-profile American eyes continue to peer yearningly at the values of our neighbors to the East?More importantly, are these values that seem to be held in such high esteem consistent with those of our founding fathers? To know the answers, it is necessary to gain a more comprehensive understanding of Europe, an understanding that is much broader in scope than that taught in the average social studies class.
Europe and European Statism
When we think of Europe, maybe we think of towering Gothic spires, Venetian Gondolas, or perhaps the art of Swiss yodeling.Europe is a culturally diverse and stunningly beautiful region, a swath of centuries old peoples and cultures dotting the landscape from the beaches of Normandy on the West, to the Alps on the East.But if we take only the land, the people and the culture into consideration when attempting to fully understand Europe, we will fall disappointingly short in our effort.Europe is much larger than the geographic and cultural boundaries that define it as a continent.Indeed, Europe is an ideology.
Today, most European economies have significant penetrations of socialism, with large economic segments under government control and frequent government intervention in those segments which still remain privatized.5Many European nations have evolved into cradle-to-grave welfare states.Single-payer health care systems, public pensions, anti-business regulations, and some of the highest individual income taxes in the developed world are idiosyncrasies common to the majority of European nations.6In summary, the present European ideology of governance emphasizes economic egalitarianism over individual risk and reward, with enormous and intrusive government serving as the means with which inequalities in income distribution are moderated or abolished.
It is important to point out that the paradigm of deference to big government has for centuries been present in European societies.Monarchism, feudalism, socialism all share two common traits: big, powerful institutions of governance and a pervasive presence throughout European history.7For ages, squabbling monarchs have ruled the European principalities with varying degrees of repression on individual liberties, often supported by the informal reciprocity agreements among the medieval lords, vassals and fiefs.8It was this perpetual subjugation of the masses to the whims of nobility and monarchs that ultimately led to the emergence of socialism in Europe.9
Socialism is a distinctly European invention.One needs only to read the first sentence of the Communist Manifesto to learn that Marx’s enigmatic specter certainly wasn’t haunting America.10In 1917, Marx’s ideas directly influenced the Russian Revolution, and socialism officially took hold as an economic and social system following the overthrow and execution of the Czar.11, 12The 1917 Bolshevik Revolution set off a chain reaction of revolutions that ultimately swept up most of Eastern Europe into a red dust bin.13The abolition of feudalism in the late eighteenth century, and the fall of monarchs and feeble republics in the early twentieth century bred several variants of Marxist philosophy that consequently gave us the likes of Lenin, Stalin, Pieck, Mussolini, Hitler and Morwaski, just to name a few.And sadly, much of Europe traded czar for dictator, king for despot, one tyrant for another.
Throughout much of the twentieth century, the great socialist experiment was in progress in places like Russia, Germany, Poland, and Hungary.14Several decades and Perestroikas later, after years of economic decline, genocide, and diffusing poverty, Europe’s socialist regimes fell one by one following the dissolution of the USSR.Democracies have since sprung up from the rubble of fallen socialist governments, but rest assured that socialism is far from dead.15A red cloud still lingers ominously over the region, and socialist precepts are driving policy and governance across Europe to this very day.Granted, it is a well-tempered Marx whose ghost whispers collectivism in the ears of Europe’s progressively minded bourgeoisie, but the specter is still haunting Europe nonetheless.
And so it was, that amid the turmoil of European tyranny, a nation was born.It is commonly known that many of the colonists who fled Europe to present day New England in the seventeenth century did so to escape religious persecution, (among other transgressions against individual liberties committed at the hands of the dictator-monarchs).16While certainly this is true, a much broader view of their motives provokes yet another question.What caused religious persecution?The answer is larger than just the tyrannical rule of Charles I.In fact, the answer is big, unwieldy, and repressive institutions of governance.The millions of European immigrants that would subsequently sail the Atlantic did so for precisely the same reason.That is, to escape the tradition of big government in their homelands, a tradition that continues today.In their essay The Rise and Fall of Constitutional Government, West and Jeffrey point out that the European practice of governance was based on religion or class, and that rights were not assigned equally, nor are they created equally.17In other words, kings, queens, vassals, lords, priests, etc., are born to rule, or are endowed with divine rights to rule, over the affairs of other people.The inequality inherent in European governments should be considered the foundational value that led to centuries of dictators and their overbearing institutions of governance.In his book Liberty and Tyranny, Mark Levin accurately describes the ideology of deference to big government as statism.18Can it not therefore be said that America was founded principally out of a rejection of European statism?
Disgust in Action and a New Assertion of Liberty
The Declaration of Independence is often regarded as the instrument with which America severed its political and territorial ties to Britain.This is in fact true, but I would argue only partially so.The Declaration not only asserts territorial and political independence, but also independence from European ideology and statism.In The Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson stingingly rebukes King George III for “a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these states.”The ensuing indictments express a true sense of disgust at the repeated crimes of the King against the colonists, and reflect the burning sentiment of the people to be free from the statist who repressed them and the British statism, the extension and actualization of European ideology, that drove their repression.19
The nations of Europe are free to determine their approach to governing, and their choices are to be respected out of an appreciation for their national sovereignty.We love our European brothers and sisters, but today most Americans do not share the same values.Without question, the founders of our nation did not share European ideology, and their assertion of independence was the most severe act of rejection of it possible.
America’s Founding Beliefs, Principles and Values
What are the core beliefs and values that America was founded upon?There are many ways to articulate the intellectual paradigm that inspired the founders.Volumes could be and have been written on the subject, but our purposes would be best suited to summarize them into three manageable ideas that hopefully capture the main ideas.
Human nature is concupiscent.20
Today, progressive thought rejects that human nature is deviant, and that people are born concupiscent.As Dr. Rauchut points out in American Vision and Values, the Romantic, Existentialist, and Post-Modernist views of human nature acquiesce to the ideas that human nature is essentially good, or that one determines their own human nature, or even that human nature is merely a social construct that doesn’t really even exist at all.Those who subscribe to these ideas explain individual deviance as a product of society and its institutions. In other words, people are born good, but society makes them bad.Therefore, they believe the purpose of government to be an instrument that forces the correction of society’s ills.The Traditional view of human nature, as Dr Rauchut brilliantly illustrates, holds that human nature is “tainted by concupiscence – a distinctive tendency to do bad things.”21
Indeed, the American founders were without a doubt Traditionalists in their view of human nature.22This fundamental and most basic truth is the root from which our nation’s approach to governance grew. The founders had personally experienced the repression of their European rulers.They had personally witnessed how government evolves into a brutal and oppressive force when the power over a citizenry is ceded to a few.As Dr. Rauchut points out, “And individual liberty, as the Founders understood, is proportional to the size and scope of government.The bigger the government, the less freedom we enjoy.”23The model of limited government with multiple checks and balances is born out of the idea that government, if left unchecked and in the control of a few, will always be perverted by human nature’s tendency to do bad things.24
The founder’s intent for government to be limited in its scope and influence is documented repeatedly in our nation’s historical documents.The separation of powers, and the checks and balances inherent in the new government made it stronger by rendering it resistant to the penetration of corruption.25Perhaps it is most clear in Federalist No. 47.Madison writes, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”26There is no interpretation of this very candid declaration that could possibly lead anyone to believe that Madison viewed human nature as good.Had he believed, as the Romantics do, that human nature is essentially good, the object of his advocacy in the Federalist No. 47 would not have been to protect the people from tyranny at the hands of government by a few.
There is a just and loving God, and all people are divinely endowed by their Creator with natural rights and freedoms: freedom to dream and pursue happiness, freedom to innovate in the pursuit of one’s dreams, freedom to work, freedom to retain the fruit of one’s labor, freedom to worship based on one’s conscience, and freedom to abolish institutions of governance that inhibit these divinely endowed freedoms.
In his essay Independence Forever: Why America Celebrates the Fourth of July, Spalding points out that the Declaration of Independence is grounded on natural law, or law that is applicable to all people. Natural laws are truths that transcend time, physical location and are by nature universally applicable to every man, woman, and child.27West and Jeffrey, in The Rise and Fall of Constitutional Government in America, eloquently echo Spaulding by describing natural rights like this: “You are born with it, or you acquire it by means of something that is inherently yours, such as an effort of your mind or body.”28
Spaulding explains that the founding documents of other nations are not all constructed on natural law, thus making the U.S. Declaration infinitely more powerful when compared to those of most other nations.Further, because the principles upon which it is based are universally true, the Declaration of Independence is inherently timeless as a framework for the role of government in society.Because it is founded on natural laws, its basis as forever authoritative can never be undermined.29Its declarations were not only applicable 1776, but are also applicable and wholly relevant in 2009, and will continue to have immutable relevance as a blueprint for the role of government in American society indefinitely.
Progressive thought abandons the belief of natural rights for the idea that rights, and subsequently freedoms, are provided to people by government and not by God.In His Letter to Abigail Adams, John Adams writes of American independence, “It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty.”30How profound is this affirmation of natural rights?How clear is this declaration that human freedoms come from none other but God alone?How harshly does Adams deliver, from the cold of his grave, a rebuke of the progressive rejection of God as the Sole Divine Endower of Liberty?
Capitalism is the freedom to trade, build wealth and accumulate private property, and is therefore the only economic system under which individuals can most fully exercise their natural rights to pursue life, happiness, liberty and self-actualization.
American philosopher and personal hero, Dinesh D’souza, discusses the modern currents of thought on capitalism in his essay What’s Great About America.For so many, the thought of capitalism, work, risk, reward, etc., evoke negative feelings.D’Souza tells us that the thought of capitalism brings about a focus on the realities of the present world, and takes our focus off of death and the afterlife.D’Souza goes on to say that, “This ‘lowering of the sites’ convinces many that American capitalism is a base, degraded system and that the energies that drive it are crass and immoral.”31
Some believe that capitalism is a fluke of American society, one that sprung up as a result of the values described in our founding documents, and that it was not itself a founding value.Nothing could be further from the truth.In American Vision and Values, Dr. Rauchut recounts the story of William Bradford, the governor of the Plymouth Colony, who realized that his colony was on a trajectory toward starvation.Land was initially owned collectively by the inhabitants of the colony.Food that was produced communally was gathered and redistributed among the families evenly.The problem was that only about 25% of the men in the colony were actually engaged in the work required to cultivate the sustenance upon which the colonists depended for life.To solve the problem, the public land was divided up among the families in the colony, and each family was allowed to keep what they cultivated on their own land.History tells us that this decision permanently ended the problem of declining food production within the colony.But more importantly, it was proof and inspiration to our founders that capitalism would be intrinsic in the nation they were founding.32One could reasonably draw the conclusion that Dr. Howard Dean is unfamiliar with the history of the Plymouth colony, and their experiment in ‘communitarianism’.
The Great Deconstruction: Our Founding Beliefs, Principles and Values under Assault
Robert Royal, in his thought provoking essay Who Put the West in Western Civilization, describes how Western Civilization is under attack.From Greece where it originated, to the European, American and Oceanic nations of the present day that fall under the broad description of ‘Western’, Western culture is the object of perpetual criticism.As Royal points out, one cannot deny that the West has produced its share of maniacs, tyrants, and perverted practices.33Hitler, Stalin, slavery, and the holocaust are all products of Western Civilization.But there is another side, as Royal goes on to say.“Despite its many shortcomings and occasional atrocities, this Western dominance is providential.No better champion of justice, fairness, liberty, truth and human flourishing exists than the complex and poorly known entity we call Western Civilization.”34
America, in my view, though obviously an outgrowth and extension of Western Civilization, is separate and distinct from all that Western Civilization has produced.This distinction is evident based on in its upward evolution of virtue, its refinement of thought, and its pinnacle of achievement in the advancement of human equality, liberty, prosperity, freedom, love, compassion, and humility.No other society or nation in the history of mankind has ever attained the level of achievement, in these regards, that America has attained.This judgment is rendered on what America was intended to be, and not what it is presently, nor what it will become in the future.It is the framework of our nation that is the height of Western achievement, and it alone is not to be judged by the contemporary products of its perversion.
Speaking of which, Dr. Howard Dean, and a host of other liberally minded progressives continue to peer yearningly at the values of our European neighbors.The ideas and systems that are responsible for unprecedented prosperity, equal rights for all, and the societal and economic climates that allow all people to employ their resourcefulness and talents to make a better life, are inconvenient roadblocks to the progressive agenda.This leads us back to our original questions.Why do so many American eyes continue to peer yearningly at the values of our neighbors to the East?The answer, as we have discovered, is that Europe’s views are progressive views:the romantic and post-enlightenment views of human nature are the correct views, rights are endowed by government and not by God, society causes people to do bad things and not individuals, social responsibility is emphasized over personal responsibility, the purpose of government is to correct the shortcomings of society, economic egalitarianism must be achieved through government coercion, capitalism causes disparities in income and must be tempered or abolished.Are the views consistent with those of our founding fathers?Emphatically, they are not.
American liberals continue to look at modern Europe with envy, and with a strong desire to import European models for society into America.The most current attempt of this ideological importation is the recent movement to institute a healthcare system in this country that is funded with tax payer money and administered to all, just as the Plymouth colonists had once pooled their crops and redistributed them evenly among the inhabitants.35Government is confiscating the private property of individual citizens in the name of eminent domain, outside of the scope of what the constitution says is allowable.In the Kelo vs. The City of New London case, progressive Supreme Court Justices ruled in favor of the government in contravention of the constitution by deferring to legislative decisions over an individual’s natural right to own property.36The federal government recently purchased a controlling interest in private American automobile companies under the guise of protecting them from dissolution.37Higher tax rates are being proposed, and justified by their liberal supporters who insist the hikes are fair because of their progressive nature, even though progressive taxation penalizes a person disproportionately by taking a larger share of their earnings, which are private property.38Affirmative action requires some organizations to hire based on skin color, and not merit or qualifications.39The list of progressive policies that are presently in place, or under consideration, are the ideological equivalent of spitting on the Declaration of Independence and other documents that articulate the founder’s intent and define our freedoms.
Jeffrey and West remind us that our Republic is in decline, battered by liberalism and those who aim to undermine the constitution by constantly reinterpreting its meaning and forcing it to conform to a dynamic social agenda.40Have we not learned our lessons from Europe’s stormy past?Why do some continue to look across the Atlantic for inspiration in the ideals of nations that once held us captive?Is there no source of inspiration on our own shores? Do those who seek liberal ideologies over core American values not know that the blood of our revolutionaries was spilled to secure our nation as an eternal refuge of hope and freedom?
And so we are, as a nation, as a collection of individuals linked together by our common bonds, standing at a crossroads.There are two roads to choose from.One road is paved with progressive ideology, and the other road is paved by the virtuous principles of our founding fathers, and we know full well where both of them lead.
