"A Common Culture?"

 We are less than two weeks from the Inauguration. Like some of you, I look forward to a change in leadership, not only because I am conservative, but, more important, because we will know who is in the driver’s seat. I should not be surprised – though I will not be around to witness their assessments – that when historians consider the last four years from the vantage of a few decades the focus will be, who was in charge? President Biden’s sad cognitive decline was obvious from the beginning. But what was really wrong was that his advisors and the press did their best to keep the public ignorant of his deteriorating condition. Living with an Administration with which we disagree is part of democracy. But having a government run by those we don’t know violates the very essence of a democracy.

 

Sydney M. Williams

https://swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“A Common Culture?”

January 8, 2025

 

“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 Declaration of Independence

                                                                                                                                July 4, 1776

 

Many Americans bemoan a decline in culture. But what do we mean by culture? Are we speaking of the arts, religion, traditions, or a shared history? Are we referring to behavior? In a review of Eliot Stein’s Custodians of Wonder, Brandy Schillace wrote in The Wall Street Journal: “Our lives are connected to the land and the animals. Yet we are also threads in the tapestry that stretches back into prehistory, a part of a superorganism that is culture itself.”

 

So, what is culture? Definitions have changed. Noah Webster, in his 1828 dictionary, defined the word according to its etymological roots: “The act of tilling and preparing the earth for crops.” Forty-three years later, Edward Burnett Tyler, in Primitive Culture, defined the term in words we better understand today: “Culture…is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.” From the Oxford English Dictionary: “Culture –The arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.” In 1952, U.S. anthropologists A.L. Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn, in Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions, cited 164 definitions of culture. I think of culture, first as a system of shared beliefs, values, behavior and practices – based on our Judeo-Christian heritage and embedded in our founding documents – and second as works of art, literature and music. 

 

For most of our nation’s history differences ruled. Rural and immigrant communities were often distinct entities. Until the mid-19^th Century, most Americans never ventured far from their homes. But from the mid 19^th Century on, technological advances unified us in a way unknown to earlier Americans. First we had steam ships, trains and then, later, the automobile, which allowed people to experience the size of our country. Radio then television brought other parts of the country and the world into our lives. The number of newspapers began to shrink. So that by my generation, people read the same news, listened to the same music, watched the same TV shows, saw the same movies, and heard the same nightly newscasts. In 1956 (in a country half the size it is today), Elvis Presley sold 10 million copies of a single song, “Hound Dog.” According to Pew Research, every evening during the 1960s between 27 and 29 million people listened to Walter Cronkite’s news on CBS, an audience greater than today’s combined daily audiences for ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News and MSNBC.

 

While we had differences back then – the McCarthy era of the early 1950s, the Civil Rights movement of the late 1950s and early ‘60s and the anti-War protests of the late 1960s and early ‘70s – the country was, generally, unified, at least in terms of what we read, listened to, and watched. That has changed. The expansion of social media posts, podcasts, YouTube and other platforms have meant we listen to and watch entertainment and news that fits our biases.  A Pew research study from last September suggests 91% of Americans aged 18-49 get their news, “at least some of the time,” from digital devices.

 

While it is estimated that more than 350 languages are spoken in the U.S. today, English is our common language. To be successful, one must adopt it. Even in colonial America a variety of languages and dialects were spoken, including German, Dutch, French, Spanish, Swedish, Hebrew, Irish and Welch, along with myriad variations. The roughly 450,000 African slaves then in America spoke numerous languages. As well, the estimated 250,000 Native Americans spoke approximately 300 different languages. Because of an anti-British sense, a few founding fathers preferred adopting German as the new nation’s language. But English prevailed and Webster’s Speller was published in 1783. In The Forgotten Founding Father, Joshua Kendall quoted Noah Webster: “Our political harmony is therefore concerned in the uniformity of language.”

 

We will not return to a time when we all listened to the same music, read the same newspapers, and watched the same television programs. As Americans we are not hindered by a class system that is integral to Europe’s and many other societies’ history and traditions. We are a nation of immigrants, born of multicultural parents. We are beneficiaries of a unique government and society, birthed during the Enlightenment, one that cares more about the individual than who her or his parents were. In his 1931 history, The Epic of America, historian James Truslow Adams wrote of what we all yearn: “The American dream is that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement.” In August 1790 President George Washington visited Newport, Rhode Island. Afterwards he wrote a letter to Newport’s Hebrew Congregation, founded in 1763: “For happily the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean[1] themselves as good citizens.” 

 

In my opinion, the answer to the question posed in the title is yes, the United States does have a common culture. Besides our Judeo-Christian heritage, we have a common language, rooted in the words so eloquently expressed in The Declaration of Independence; it is fostered by a government elected by the people, which secures those rights, and operates under the rule of law. It is reflected in a society that promotes tolerance and respect for others, and that allows for the accommodation of differences. It is a culture that depends on personal responsibility and accountability, a culture built on individual freedom.

 

Our culture requires we be governed by our peers, with a government, as Lincoln said at Gettysburg, of, by and for the people. Our culture does not shy from dissent but reflects an undefinable something that draws us together in time of strife when commonalities rise above differences. It is a culture that is, however, always at risk of being lost; so it cannot be abandoned to self-serving, ephemeral policies like DEI, identity politics, or promoting a lifestyle that permits men to compete against women in sports or encourages gender alteration among prepubescent children and teenagers.

 

In 1919, Henry Cabot Lodge wrote President Woodrow Wilson words that echo today: “I can never be anything else but an American, and I must think of the United States first, and when I think of the United States first…I am thinking of what is best for the world, for if the United States fails, the best hopes of mankind fail with it.” Does anyone believe that if China were to become the global hegemon the world would be better off? We cherish this unique culture that is ours. It is not transient. It is embedded in our unique origins. It is our culture that draws to these shores the industrious and aspirant, because they know that it offers an environment in which they will be free to thrive. 

 

---

[1] The word demean was defined then as “to behave; to carry, to conduct.”

"A Conspiracy of Silence"

 Apologies for two of these essays in three days. This one, however, had been started before the extraordinary events of the past ten days – the assassination attempt on Mr. Trump and the decision by Mr. Biden to not seek a second term. With these developments, the future always unclear has become further obscured.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtottd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“A Conspiracy of Silence”

July 24, 2024

 

“Secrecy, being an instrument of conspiracy, ought

never to be the system of a regular government.”

                                                                                                                    Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

                                                                                                                    British Philosopher and Social Reformer

                                                                                                                    The Works of Jeremy Bentham, 1839

 

In many social settings, silence is the better alternative. As my mother would say: “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.” Or my father: “Better to remain silent and have people think you a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.” And my mother-in-law would quote the ancient proverb: “Speech is silver, silence is golden.” 

 

Yet silence does not always contain the remedies its fans claim. In The Trumpet of Conscience, published posthumously, Martin Luther King wrote: “In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”  Accepting the Nobel Peace Prize on December 10, 1986, Elie Wiesel spoke: “I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever humans endure suffering and humiliation. We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

 

The silence of which I write does not bear the evil of which King and Wiesel wrote and spoke, nor is it the silence of my late in-laws and parents that leads to worried looks and shaking heads in social gatherings. My concern is the Omeretà, the code of silence of politicians and their accommodating friends in the media – it is the silence that deprives people of the facts necessary to make informed decisions. As the British Parliamentarian Rory Stewart wrote in the prologue of his recent book How Not to be a Politician, “The public see the appearance that someone else chooses to share.” 

 

A conspiracy of silence was responsible for a refusal to publicly debate the origin of COVID-19. It could be seen over the past three and a half years in the refusal of the media to expose the horrific effects of an open southern border; in the dire ramifications of federal debt that exceeds one hundred percent of GDP; and in the potentially disastrous repercussions of allowing Iran to build an Atomic bomb.

 

Silence has kept people ignorant of the consequences of a partisan federal bureaucracy that employs 2.7 million people in two thousand agencies – 95% of whom give money to the Democratic Party. The growth of the administrative state is usually ignored by mainstream media, as it serves their progressive goals. Considered by some the “fourth branch” of government – and unlike the other three branches, which have swung between Republican and Democratic control – it has remained reliably Democratic. 

 

This Omeretà between the media and their favored politicians is not new. The American people were kept in the dark when President Woodrow Wilson, in October 1919, suffered a severe stroke that left him incapacitated. On March 28 1944, shortly after returning from the Tehran Conference, Franklin Roosevelt, at the urging of his daughter Anna, visited his doctor, cardiologist Dr. Harold G. Bruenn at Bethesda Medical Naval Hospital. He was diagnosed with reduced lung capacity, hypertension, acute bronchitis and acute congestive heart failure. Again, his condition was kept secret from the American public.

 

Recently, a conspiracy of silence surrounded the cognitive decline of President Biden, before it was witnessed by 50 million people in his debate with Donald Trump.  Mr. Biden’s behavior exposed what most people already knew, or suspected, or at least those whose reading is not limited to The New York Times and the Washington Post and whose viewing is not bounded by MSNBC and CNN. Barton Swaim wrote in last Monday’s Wall Street Journal: “Elected Democrats, with the eager compliance of their allies in the media, dismissed any expression of concern about the president’s acuity.”  As for the debate, it was telling to read and listen to mainstream media’s analysis of what a cold or sleep-deprivation could do to an individual, otherwise in command of his faculties. Most of us who had watched with alarm Mr. Biden’s decline over the past three-and-a-half years felt like Chico Marx in the 1933 film Duck Soup: “Who ya gonna believe? Me or your own eyes?” In The Spectator on July 22, Freddy Gray wrote that Biden’s health cover-up “may well go down as one of the greatest scandals in modern American politics.”

 

Silence, when it suppresses knowledge, is a dangerous stratagem, especially in a democracy where an informed electorate is critical; for voters hold power. Politicians of all stripes play loose with the truth. It is in their DNA, so it is left for the media to uncover the truth, without bias or prejudice. Their responsibility should always be to the public, to keep people informed. Candor on the part of politicians and accurate reporting by the media might have kept at bay the hatred and distrust that infests today’s politics.

"Age and the Passing of the Torch"

 

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Age and the Passing of the Torch”

September 23, 2023

 

“At twenty a man is a peacock, at thirty a lion, at forty a camel,

at fifty a serpent, at sixty a dog, at seventy an ape, at eighty a nothing at all.”

                                                                                                                                Baltasar Gracián (1601-1658)

                                                                                                                                Spanish writer and philosopher

                                                                                                                                The Art of Worldly Wisdom, 1647

 

For Queen Elizabeth, 1992 was her annus horribilis. I had my own – far less significant – diem horribilis last Sunday. Unlike Elizabeth’s year, some of what happened to me was, surely, age related. I had tested positive for Covid that morning. Then, feeling groggy and with slurred speech, I fell twice. Apart from a bumped head, bruised hip and ego, no damage was done. Nevertheless after the second fall, we called health services. Shortly thereafter I was taken by ambulance to a clinic and later to Middlesex Hospital. Tests showed no signs of a stroke or brain injury, and on Tuesday I came home, with a cane but that was because of the bruised hip.

 

The effects of age are not necessarily chronological, and they differ greatly from one individual to another. My father died at 58, while his father died one day shy of 90 and his mother at 92. While they became physically frail, both had their wits until they died. Cancer, heart disease, and senility are more common as one ages. Muscles lose tone and bones become brittle. But there are those like Henry Kissinger who are physically able and mentally alert at 100. Many people don’t let age stop them.  The Wall Street Journal, last June 25^th, published an article, “Why High-Powered People are Working in Their 80s.” In it they quoted data from the Census Bureau that roughly 650,000 Americans over 80 were working last year. My younger brother who turns 81 in October continues to work as a partner in an investment firm. My father-in-law went to work most every day as an admiralty lawyer, until he died at 77. Old age, mental acuity, and employment are not incompatible. For some, but not for all.

 

While Republicans have been vocal about the President’s physical and mental failings – based on visible evidence of dementia – the question of age has now been raised by Independents and Democrats. An August CNN poll conducted by SSRS found that “roughly three-quarters of Americans say they’re seriously concerned that Biden’s age might negatively affect his current level of physical and mental competence…” On the other hand, Alex Keyssar of the Harvard Kennedy School takes a more nuanced view. According to the July 17, 2023 issue of the Harvard Gazette, he “believes Democrats who cite age as a major election concern are probably really expressing ‘a desire for energetic leadership, a force for new ideas, new spirit, and new energy.’” Perhaps. But it seems more likely that the Democrat leadership is concerned that fibs, gaffes, and stumbles now define Mr. Biden – not good for his re-election chances, especially when his Vice President’s approval numbers are lower than his.

 

With Donald Trump currently leading the battle for his Party’s nomination, Republicans are caught in the same vise; thus a rising, bipartisan, interest in younger leaders. At his January 21, 1960 inauguration, John F. Kennedy spoke of “passing the torch” to a new generation. That happened. Eisenhower was the last President born in the 19^th Century. Franklin Roosevelt was fifty when he was elected in 1932, the first President younger than my grandfather. Kennedy was elected at age forty-three, the first President younger than my father. Bill Clinton was the first President elected younger than me. My grandfather, father and I were all in our 50s when the nation first elected Presidents younger than we were. Today, our three children are all in their 50s.  It is time to pass the torch. Following a recent TV interview in which President Biden touted his ‘wisdom’ and ‘experience’ as reasons to vote for him, Bonnie Wong, director of the neuropsychology program at Mass. General, allowed that there is some validity to the idea that with age comes wisdom. On the other hand, there are those who feel differently: H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) wrote in his 1919 book Prejudices: Third Series, “The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom.” Age does bring perspective, but drifting minds are not compatible with wisdom. Nevertheless, it now appears that the 2024 election will consist of two, deeply flawed, old men, both accused of corruption and neither wise. We can picture them “yodeling,” as Lance Morrow wrote in Thursday’s The Wall Street Journal, “across the valley at one another: ‘Not guilty! Not guilty!’” Or, as P.G. Wodehouse more colorfully put it in The Inimitable Jeeves, the prospect resembles “…when Aunt is calling Aunt, like mastodons bellowing across primeval swamps...” This is not a prospect most Americans want.

 

It is not just the last two Presidents – both running for re-election – who are old. The average age in the U.S. Senate today is 65. Political leadership in Washington resembles the Soviet Union’s Politburo of 1982 when the average age was 70. But age, alone, is not the issue. We all know octogenarians and even nonagenarians who are mentally alert and physically spry. While he was writing of women, Ralph Waldo Emerson’s words are universally applicable: “The best tunes are played on the oldest fiddles.” Having cognizant-alert, elderly advisors has merit, as they can provide a sense of continuity and, despite Mencken’s warning, offer wisdom to new generations of more energetic politicians who will listen to, respond to and be honest with the people.

 

We who are older must adapt to life’s challenges. As J. Alfred Prufrock says, in T.S. Eliot’s eponymous poem: “I grow old…I grow old. / I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.” But that does not mean that our political parties should make the American people choose between one old man who is riven by an oversized personal ego and who speaks hatefully of those who cross him, and a second, even older man who trips boarding airplanes, who cannot speak without a teleprompter, and who utters non sequiturs that baffle his audience and his advisors.

 

Watching President Biden makes one wonder what it would have been like to observe President Woodrow Wilson after his October 1919 stroke? That was not permitted, as his wife and doctor kept him hidden from prying reporters. That cannot be done today. However, the White House keeps the President’s appearances to a minimum, and mainstream media, out of deference to the office, remains mute about Mr. Biden’s deteriorating mental capabilities. But our allies and enemies are aware of what is happening. Not a good look for the most powerful nation on earth. Age matters, but what is most important is how one ages. In the U.S. today, it is time to pass the porch.

"Who is Behind the Curtain?"

                                                                     Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Who is Behind the Curtain?”

May 12, 2022

 

“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”

                                                                                                                                The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, 1900

                                                                                                                                L. Frank Baum (1856-1919

 

Apart from the final seventeen months of the Woodrow Wilson Administration, when the President suffered a stroke, we have never had a President appear unable to carry out his responsibilities – until now. To be honest, that assessment of Mr. Biden, while I believe it to be true, is based on observation rather than empirical evidence. In the case of President Wilson, the cover-up of his infirmities was due to his doctor, Cary Grayson and his second wife, Edith Bolling Galt Wilson. Dr. Grayson did brief Wilson’s cabinet and the question of succession arose, but the doctor refused to sign any official notice of inability, so Vice President Thomas Marshall remains a footnote, and the Presidency was allegedly managed by Mrs. Wilson.

 

At 78, Mr. Biden became the oldest person to be inaugurated President, eight years older than Donald Trump and nine years older than Ronald Reagan. In both cases, political opponents called into question their mental acuity; so, it is unsurprising that concerns for Mr. Biden have been raised. Four years and ten months after leaving office, Mr. Reagan sent a letter to the American people telling them he was afflicted with Alzheimer’s. In the summer of 2018, eighteen months after taking office, Mr. Trump took (and passed) the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test. Thus far, Mr. Biden has refused to take a similar test.

 

Since Mr. Biden has not taken a cognitive test, comments that he has early signs of dementia are speculation. Nevertheless, concerns abound and not just among Republicans. A Politico Morning Consult poll in January 2022 found that 48% of those polled do not believe he is mentally fit. An ABC/The Washington Post poll, taken at the same time, indicated that Mr. Biden lacks the “mental sharpness” to be President. A Harvard Youth Poll showed a job approval rate of 41%, despite 57% of the correspondents having voted for him. Anecdotally, anyone who has watched his news conferences has noted his shuffling gait, his fumbling answers and his slurring of words. 

 

Again, none of this is proof of dementia, but enough questions have been raised that the White House should respond. After all, the U.S. Presidency is the most powerful position in the world, and if someone else (or some cabal) is making decisions in his name the people should know who that is.

 

My candidate for puppeteer is former President Barack Obama. In Columbia, Missouri on October 30, 2008, Mr. Obama boldly declared: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” While he later backed away from that assertion, that is what he said. The National Catholic Register, at the time, referred to the statement as “revolutionary” and “audacious.” 

 

As the son of a white mother and a black father, Mr. Obama had the unique opportunity to bridge the racial divide in the U.S. Instead, racism worsened, and political polarization intensified during his eight years. Perhaps we should not have been surprised. From an early age, Mr. Obama had had mentors who were anti-West and anti-American: Frank Marshall Davis in Hawaii, an anti-white and anti-American former member of the Communist Party; Professor Edward Said of Columbia, a spokesperson for Palestinian terrorists; Professor Derrick Bell of Harvard Law School, an early advocator of Critical Race Theory; Reverend Jeremiah Wright whose church, Trinity United Church of Christ, Mr. Obama attended for twenty years; and Bill Ayers, a domestic terrorist in whose Chicago home Mr. Obama held fundraisers.

 

Some might argue that criticism of Mr. Obama is based solely on racial prejudice. While that certainly is true of some, most of the criticism was (and is) directed at his policies, not at the person. Extremism exists in both parties but has been more prominent on the left. It was in 2013 that #Black Live Matter was formed, in response to the Trayvon Martin murder, and Antifa rose to prominence during the Obama years. Instead of following the example set by Martin Luther King of encouraging character development, Mr. Obama pursued identity politics. In doing so, his statements stood in contrast to those of black economist and scholar, Thomas Sowell: “If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today.”

 

The 2016 election was a surprise. Many people, but particularly Democrats, expected Hillary Clinton would win and further the progressive goals established by Mr. Obama. That was not to be. Four years later they had their chance. Covid derailed the Trump economy, which had lifted economic growth and allowed minority incomes to achieve record levels. The choice of Joe Biden as Democrat nominee was fortuitous for Mr. Obama. Mr. Biden was familiar with his agenda and was portrayed during the campaign as a moderate. However, Newsweek, on December 22, 2020, headlined an article: “Nearly 60% of Biden’s Cabinet Appointments So Far Are Obama Officials.” They include Janet Yellen, John Kerry, Susan Rice, Lloyd Austin, Alejandro Mayorkas, Denis McDonough, Avril Haines and Linda Thomas-Greenfield, among others.

 

What Democrats did not expect was the rapid decline in the Administration’s popularity – with job approval for Mr. Biden in the low 40s and the even lower ones for Vice President Kamala Harris. But how could they have been so blind? Did they not expect a surge of illegal immigrants when they loosened rules at the border? Why did they not anticipate inflation when they kept interest rates low, increased money supply, expanded government spending and tightened regulations regarding fossil fuels? Did they not realize that their calls to defund the police would result in a surge in crime? Did they not consider the consequences of a too-hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan? Did they expect parents to docilely accept the teachings of “woke” ideologies in public schools? With a military more focused on social justice, why were they so surprised at our relative unpreparedness for conflicts with Russia and China?

 

Democrats must realize that the odds favor them losing majorities in the Senate and possibly in the House in the midterms. Prospects for 2024 don’t look great either, putting their progressive agenda further at risk. Mr. Biden will be 82 in January 2025, and his cognitive infirmities will have worsened. Ms. Harris comes across as a cackling incompetent; thus, with her low polling numbers, she seems an unlikely candidate for President in 2024. It is fear that they may lose their soap box that explains the recent creation of the dystopian Disinformation Governance Board, a proposal called for by Mr. Obama that would effectively shut down free speech.

 

The risk of losing our democratic republic has always been there. Freedom is difficult to attain, but easy to lose. Elected officials and unelected bureaucrats must be held accountable. That cannot be if the people don’t know who is in charge. We’re not in Kansas anymore; we should know who is behind the curtain.

"Purpose of Government and the Downside of Dependency"

Sydney M. Williams

Thought of the Day

“Purpose of Government and the Downside of Dependency”

November 14, 2018

“The purpose of government is to enable the people to live in safety and happiness.

 Government exists for the interests of the people, not the governors.”

                                                                                    Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

                                                                                    Letter to Pierre Samuel DuPont de Nemours, 1813

Last weeks’ election was a manifestation of the fortune that is ours to live in this country. Forty-seven percent of the electorate (110 million people) cast ballots. That would compare with 36.7% in 2014 and 41% in 2010. While results were not as I would have liked, especially here in Connecticut where voters are in denial as to the fiscal situation, they were a reminder of the first two parts of Lincoln’s famous sentence uttered at Gettysburg, “…a government of the people, by the people…” Now, it is incumbent on those elected to ensure it is “…for the people…”

It is important to remember that, while our government was forged from a cauldron of revolution, the Founders understood the need for order – for government – for without it a liberal, civil society cannot function. Its antithesis is either anarchy or tyranny. And the Founders, despite combatting the British, knew that what they sought was based on a philosophy derived from, among others, such British figures of the enlightenment as John Locke, David Hume and Thomas Hobbes and precedents drawn from English common law. As well, the Founders would have been familiar with Adam Smith through his Theory of Moral Sentiments, and a few may have read The Wealth of Nations, published in March 1776. While desirous of a country where people might pray as they choose, they recognized that the principles embedded in their Christian-Judeo heritage were fundamental to the morality and virtue they espoused and that they expected of those elected to serve.

Ronald Reagan once deadpanned that the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” Humorless and patronizing Leftists, who always portrayed Mr. Reagan as a dunce, repeated his words, but without the whimsey. Mr. Reagan’s point was that people cannot live freely when government becomes too big, that people lose their sense of self-reliance as dependency on “Big Brother” grows – and that autocracies can emerge from the left, from those who operate from gift-giving platforms. President Obama’s “Life of Julia” was an Orwellian (and frightening) indication of the direction he wanted to take the country. 

As I see it, the purpose of our federal government is:  

1)     To establish laws, so that a free people can live harmoniously in civil society under the rule of law, not men.

2)     To protect all citizens against any diminution of natural rights, rooted in the Constitution and that bear fruit in the Bill of Rights.

3)     To ensure that laws are obeyed, and to safe-guard the people against harm from home or abroad, (but not, as President Reagan once warned, to protect people against their own follies).

4)     To ensure that a balance is maintained between government’s three branches – executive, legislative and judiciary.

5)     To recognize that all citizens have equal rights – that the value of a vote is not determined by race, gender, religion, or the social and/or economic standing of the individual.

6)     To establish treaties with foreign nations.

7)     To enable interstate and international commerce through the building and maintaining of roads, bridges, tunnels, airports and sea ports, and to ensure that the skies and the seas remain free for the trade and transportation of goods and services.

8)     To maintain a postal service and sound currency.

9)     To promote the general welfare of the public.

a) To help provide for the elderly, the infirm and those unable to provide for themselves. 

b) To conserve and protect national forests and parks, for the enjoyment of all people.

c) To help re-build communities when they have been devastated by natural disasters.

d) To regulate foods and medicines and other consumable products that may be harmful.

e) To ensure that youth is provided a basic education, including knowledge of history and civics, but leaving details to states and local governments

Some will disagree with that list as too exclusive or too exhaustive. Regardless, it is important to understand governments’ limits and to know that an overly-pervasive government will suffocate the people it desires to help. In Civil Disobedience, Henry David Thoreau wrote, “That government is best which governs least.” There are things that government cannot and should not do. It cannot make all outcomes equal. It should not attempt equality in terms of incomes or wealth. It cannot change the aspiration, physical well-being or intelligence of individuals. It should not prevent personal failure. And, we must remember, apropos of Thoreau’s comment, that the more responsibilities we give government, the less we reserve for ourselves.   

When things go badly, we seek help. That once meant families, friends, the church or the community. Now, increasingly, it means we rely on government. Consider: Franklin Roosevelt’s “…freedom from want” and Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society;” George H.W. Bush’s “1000 points of light” and his son’s “compassionate conservativism;” Barack Obama’s “Pajama Boy” and Hillary Clinton’s “it takes a village to raise a child.” When government acts as savior, it becomes addictive to those it offers assistance. A subsequent lack of personal responsibility ensues. Helicopter parents hover over children. Universities issue trigger warnings. Students seek out, and are granted, safe places. Adults quiver before “hateful” language. “Dependency” is one of those words of which Humpty-Dumpty scornfully spoke. It is a word which means “…just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” Your dependency may not be mine; but we are all dependent, in varying degrees, on family, friends, jobs and, increasingly, government. However, we must be careful, lest we become, like H.G. Wells’ Eloi, victims of government’s Morlocks.

What we don’t know: Can a liberal society, such as our Republic, survive in a multi-cultural world where laws and traditions are borrowed from other cultures, many of which are anti-liberal? Democracy has been successful in Commonwealth countries, like Canada, Australia, India and South Africa. Why? Outside of western Europe, Japan and South Korea, it has not done well. Why not? Of the nineteen countries in Central and South America, the Democracy Index[1]only lists nine, and they are seen as “imperfect.” Of the fifty-four countries in Africa, only nine meet the standard of the Democracy Index. Israel is the only fully free country in the Middle East. Why? Democracy has succeeded in the two Axis powers of World War II, and in South Korea. All three were recipients of American money and influence, including U.S. Army troops still stationed in their countries. But it has not taken root in Vietnam, which we abruptly left in 1975. Is there a lesson in that? Democracy has not succeeded in Russia, despite a revolution a hundred years ago and the collapse of Soviet empire seventeen years ago, nor does it exist in China. It has not succeeded in Islamic countries – the Middle East, the Caucasians, nor in Central, South and Eastern Asia, with the exceptions noted above. Why not? While democracy exists in the Baltic states, it has been slow to develop in former Warsaw Pact countries. Why? Most people in the world do not live freely; but wherever they do, they must be vigilant. It is fragile and easy to lose.

Before we change our customs and laws to accommodate those who would have us do so, we should think carefully. We should seek opinions and debate issues. Benjamin Franklin, when asked what was being created in Independence Hall, allegedly replied “A Republic, if you can keep it.” His warning is being tested today. Education is key. If youth fail to learn and understand the role played by so many, in the founding of our Country – ancient Athenians and Romans, philosophers of the Enlightenment from across Europe, the role of English common law and the ethos of a Christian-Judeo culture – our Republic will notstand. If youth are not instructed in civics and the way our country works, our Republic will notstand. “Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, then, is education,” so spoke Franklin Roosevelt in 1938.  

The motto of the United States, e Pluribus Unum, does not mean immigrants should abandon their religions, traditions, cultures and language. What it does mean is that we are bound by the principles set forth in the Constitution, a document carefully debated over four months. We are nationalists, for we are Americans. The Constitution and the attached Bill of Rights are the foundation on which our Republic is built – a representative Congress that enacts laws that are carried out by the Executive and adjudicated by Courts. Understanding government, and its limits, is critical to the survival of our democratic Republic.Speaking before the New York Press club in September 1912, Woodrow Wilson said, “Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of the limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it.”

The threat to democracy comes from those who have abandoned the precepts of our Founders. It does not come from Mr. Trump, who crudely and wrongly singles out the press for “unfair” coverage – you will note that the media have never abandoned their criticism! The threat stems from progressives who, in the guise of doing good for self-identified groups, do harm through increasing personal dependency. It is not a rejection of globalism or multiculturalism or a rise in nationalism that risks democracy, it is the belief that government should provide cradle-to-grave protection. It can be seen in the socialistic beliefs of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Maxine Waters, Andrew Gillum and the newly elected New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, among others. It is the offer of “free” healthcare (estimated to cost $32 trillion over ten years) and “free” college tuition. It is out-of-control entitlement spending, which now accounts for about 65% of the federal budget. It is the threat embedded in President Obama’s “Life of Julia” that should concern lovers of liberty. Government is essential, else chaos, anarchy and tyranny reign, but too much government will take away the freedoms for which so many have fought and died. It is balance that is sought.

     

-->

---

[1]I accept the Democracy Index with a grain of salt. It is compiled by the UK-based Economic Intelligence Unit. Objecting to Mr. Trump, the Index ranks the U.S. as a “flawed” democracy. It ranks the U.S. behind Uruguay! Norway, Iceland and Sweden rank one, two and three. But, a question: If you were not Norwegian, Icelandic or Swedish, would you rather live in one of those countries or in the United States? A million legal immigrants choose every year to come to the United States.