[I'm going to repeat, with very little modification, what I posted here a year ago for Independence Day.]
Revolutions. History is strewn with them, including a minor one in Ecuador while I was there as a missionary. That revolution threw out a military junta but in so doing improved the situation of the citizens only a little. The same has happened repeatedly in this world. All too often overthrowing a tyrant only allows another to take his place, sometimes a worse one. Czarist Russia was replaced by the horror of Stalinist Communism. The French replaced their king with the excesses of the French Revolution. My friends in Ecuador overthrew the junta, then elected a demagogue. Yet tomorrow we celebrate the revolution that created these United States, probably the freest country in the world. Why was ours so successful while so many others failed?
The reason is that it is easier to destroy a bad government than to create a good one. Most revolutionaries concentrated on the revolution, not on the aftermath. That left the way open for new tyrants to take over. Our founders did not make that mistake; they went to great lengths to prevent government from becoming too powerful. They defined their principles in two remarkable documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I believe that every Independence Day we should review those documents and see what we should do to defend the principles described therein.
Ours was a revolution not just of armies and government, but of ideas and a way of thinking about government. The Declaration of Independence was shocking at the time it was written. Its statement that all men are created equal must have been a shock to believers in the divine right of kings. Yet that simple statement contains the basis of our belief that we are all born with equal rights (though not, of course, equal abilities).
The next idea from the Declaration was perhaps even more radical. We are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Herein is the germ of limited government. If we have inalienable rights then no government can in justice take those rights away from us except as punishment for crime. That was an unheard of idea in a time when kings and aristocrats demanded obedience from those regarded as of less worth. It took decades, a civil war, and a civil rights movement to free the slaves and remove official racism. That only underscores how radical those statements were.
Next in the Declaration comes a line that is often ignored but is of supreme importance. “That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” This stood previous ideas of government on their heads. The government existed for and at the pleasure of the banker, the farmer, the garbage hauler, etc. collectively. It was an idea so radical as to be beyond the conception of most of the world at the time.
Of course if government exists at the pleasure of the governed that implies that the governed must take responsibility for how that government operates. The Constitution describes how that is to be done and again includes some ideas that were unheard of when it was written.
First was the idea that government was to be limited. Herein lies the genius of our founders. Democracies had existed before, but our founders added the idea that even a democracy cannot go beyond certain bounds. Based on the statement that all people have inalienable rights, the founders deliberately built restrictions into the Constitution. Certain laws are prohibited, no matter how many voters want them.
A bill of attainder was prohibited at the outset, as was any ex post facto law. Congress cannot just decide that you are a bad person and declare that you are a criminal. That would have the effect of making you illegal. A person cannot be illegal, though his actions may be. Nor can they decide that an action you committed yesterday was illegal because of a law passed today. Those restrictions allow citizen freedom from arbitrary government action.
The Bill of Rights was added soon after constitutional ratification and provides even more protection. Short of actual threats, you are free to say anything you want about the president, congress, or other government officials. Even if all the voters in the country want to outlaw certain forms of speech, they are prohibited from doing so. We have an inalienable right to our ideas and the free dissemination thereof.
Other rights of course have similar constitutional protections. That was the great legacy our founders gave us and for which we should be forever grateful to them.
However gratitude alone is inadequate. It has been wisely said that freedom is not free. We are constantly faced with politicians who love power and who would like to increase the power they have. The price of freedom is therefore eternal vigilance. We must consider wisely those for whom we vote and the type of government we support. We must resist demagoguery and the attempt of charismatic politicians to reduce those restrictions on government. We must also express our views to our hired representatives, not just send them off to do as they please.
We must also resist the temptation to vote benefits for ourselves at the expense of others. Those others whom we would tax to help ourselves should have the inalienable right to their liberty. That includes the right to decide how their property is used, subject only to the most necessary restrictions.
Most of all, we must realize that government can be a good servant but is a fearful master. We must keep it down as a servant and not allow it to become a master. Sadly, many politicians tend to think of themselves as an elite, above the ordinary citizen who should defer to their “superior wisdom.” That is a dangerous attitude and those people should not be elected.
Some politicians have also claimed, “We’re for the people, they’re for the powerful.”* I regard that as demagoguery, it detracts from the fact that government is the powerful, the most powerful entity in the country. That is a power that must be controlled and restricted.
Let us, this and every Independence Day, review the blessings of our limited, constitutional government and consider how we can best defend that constitutional government.
*The Gore campaign used that slogan in the 2000 presidential election.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don’t like it, please tell me.
Showing posts with label revolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label revolution. Show all posts
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Monday, July 20, 2009
Identity Politics, Part 3, A Polarized Society
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
Yugoslavia. When it existed as a country it was in the Balkan region, an area known for ethnic and religious strife and for fomenting violence. That violence too often spread to other countries and even triggered World War I. Yugoslavia itself was composed of diverse groups with historical animosities. Yet for a time under Tito the country was relatively peaceful. Whatever Tito’s faults, he kept ethnic tensions under control by not allowing demagogues to stir up old hatreds. That all ended after his death. Slobodan Milosevic re-ignited the historical mistrust and tensions. He undoubtedly saw political gain for himself by use of “divide and conquer” rhetoric. The result was that the country disintegrated, but not before thousands died in internecine violence.
Sri Lanka is another example. The Tamil and Sinhalese generally got along peacefully for decades. Then the newly independent government decided to make Sinhalese the official language and to institute an affirmative action plan, ostensibly to make up for past discrimination against the Sinhalese majority. The result was 25 years of nasty civil war and terrorist actions, even now only partly settled.
Yugoslavia and Sri Lanka illustrate the dangers of identity politics. Sadly, they are not isolated examples. Sunni and Shiites in Iraq, Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, Armenians and Turks, etc. Wherever one group is pitted against another there will be strife, and it is not possible at the outset to know where that strife will lead. Favoritism in education, employment, and government benefits is nearly certain, but the problem often goes farther. It is common for both sides (or all sides when more than two groups are involved) to see themselves as victims and others as oppressors. That leads to a mob-like mentality, regarding the “oppressors” as a group of faceless enemies. This helps justify all manner of anti-social behavior, ranging from isolated attacks on individuals all the way up to armed revolution.
Where will the identity politics in the U.S. today take us? It is impossible to say. However we can know where it has taken us in the past. This country has seen Blacks lynched just because someone accused them of looking at white women. We have seen church burnings and bombings. We have seen race riots in which innocent shopkeepers were assaulted for the crime of being of a different ethnicity than the neighborhood majority. Fortunately at present we do not face overthrow of our government by armed revolutionaries, at least as far as I can foresee. However continued demagoguery can stir up strife in this country, including riots and other violence.
What can we do about this? First we must publicly and vociferously oppose the demagogues who try to pit one group against another. When a politician or other misleader advocates favoritism we must call it the bigotry it is.
Secondly we should emulate those parts of our society in which bias is most nearly eradicated. The most color-blind areas today are probably the military and professional sports. In those fields people are rewarded for performance, not for skin color. Few people care much about the color of LeBron James’ or Tom Brady’s skin. However both men have fans who care very much about their ability to get a basketball in a basket or a football into the hands of a receiver. Millions of young people work very hard to develop abilities similar to those of Brady and James.
What if we could spread the ethic of hard work and personnel qualification beyond sports and the military? What if we told the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world that they should encourage education and work instead of preference as the way to succeed (something Jackson used to do)? How would that change our society? Imagine millions of young people working as hard to learn math as some do to learn basketball. What would that do for them individually and for the country as a whole within a few years?
Let us tell the identity politics demagogues to crawl back under their rocks. Instead let’s encourage everybody to find enjoyable, fulfilling work and to become good at their work. And let’s reward them for performance, not for ethnicity or gender.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
Yugoslavia. When it existed as a country it was in the Balkan region, an area known for ethnic and religious strife and for fomenting violence. That violence too often spread to other countries and even triggered World War I. Yugoslavia itself was composed of diverse groups with historical animosities. Yet for a time under Tito the country was relatively peaceful. Whatever Tito’s faults, he kept ethnic tensions under control by not allowing demagogues to stir up old hatreds. That all ended after his death. Slobodan Milosevic re-ignited the historical mistrust and tensions. He undoubtedly saw political gain for himself by use of “divide and conquer” rhetoric. The result was that the country disintegrated, but not before thousands died in internecine violence.
Sri Lanka is another example. The Tamil and Sinhalese generally got along peacefully for decades. Then the newly independent government decided to make Sinhalese the official language and to institute an affirmative action plan, ostensibly to make up for past discrimination against the Sinhalese majority. The result was 25 years of nasty civil war and terrorist actions, even now only partly settled.
Yugoslavia and Sri Lanka illustrate the dangers of identity politics. Sadly, they are not isolated examples. Sunni and Shiites in Iraq, Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, Armenians and Turks, etc. Wherever one group is pitted against another there will be strife, and it is not possible at the outset to know where that strife will lead. Favoritism in education, employment, and government benefits is nearly certain, but the problem often goes farther. It is common for both sides (or all sides when more than two groups are involved) to see themselves as victims and others as oppressors. That leads to a mob-like mentality, regarding the “oppressors” as a group of faceless enemies. This helps justify all manner of anti-social behavior, ranging from isolated attacks on individuals all the way up to armed revolution.
Where will the identity politics in the U.S. today take us? It is impossible to say. However we can know where it has taken us in the past. This country has seen Blacks lynched just because someone accused them of looking at white women. We have seen church burnings and bombings. We have seen race riots in which innocent shopkeepers were assaulted for the crime of being of a different ethnicity than the neighborhood majority. Fortunately at present we do not face overthrow of our government by armed revolutionaries, at least as far as I can foresee. However continued demagoguery can stir up strife in this country, including riots and other violence.
What can we do about this? First we must publicly and vociferously oppose the demagogues who try to pit one group against another. When a politician or other misleader advocates favoritism we must call it the bigotry it is.
Secondly we should emulate those parts of our society in which bias is most nearly eradicated. The most color-blind areas today are probably the military and professional sports. In those fields people are rewarded for performance, not for skin color. Few people care much about the color of LeBron James’ or Tom Brady’s skin. However both men have fans who care very much about their ability to get a basketball in a basket or a football into the hands of a receiver. Millions of young people work very hard to develop abilities similar to those of Brady and James.
What if we could spread the ethic of hard work and personnel qualification beyond sports and the military? What if we told the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world that they should encourage education and work instead of preference as the way to succeed (something Jackson used to do)? How would that change our society? Imagine millions of young people working as hard to learn math as some do to learn basketball. What would that do for them individually and for the country as a whole within a few years?
Let us tell the identity politics demagogues to crawl back under their rocks. Instead let’s encourage everybody to find enjoyable, fulfilling work and to become good at their work. And let’s reward them for performance, not for ethnicity or gender.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
