Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.–George Washington

In 1930s Germany, a unitary leader plead for sufficient power to make his homeland safe from the threats faced by his nation.

The German people and their parliament, in the name of security, allowed him to assume virtually unlimited power to make them safe.

The draconian measures implemented to prevent terrorism were soon turned upon the citizens of Germany and they, along with millions of others, lost their freedom.

Who could have imagined how terribly wrong it would go?

In our day, Americans are being asked to trust the head of the Executive Branch to exercise unprecedented power for the purpose of securing the homeland against the threat of terrorism.

Draconian powers including indefinite detention and extra-judicial executions are being authorized against foreigners and Americans alike in a worldwide war against terror that we’re told will last for generations.

It’s no exaggeration to say that the increasing parallels between the former Weimar Republic and modern America are becoming difficult to ignore.

Disturbing as that realization may be, it’s not half as unsettling as the raucous cheers and applause of those who actually celebrate the emerging authoritarian state inflicting harm on others without recognizing the corresponding damage being done to their own liberties.

Like the Germans of the 1930s, Americans appear to be afflicted with a nationalistic short-sightedness that seeks to excuse virtually any abuse of government powers, so long as those powers are directed at others for the stated purpose of making us safe.

As a nation, we stand at a crossroads with the choice of restoring limited government that keeps us free by safeguarding our inalienable rights, or creating an unlimited police state that will promise us security even as it fits us for our restraints.

How our experience with unchecked government power will end is anybody’s guess.

The passage of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) with its provisions for indefinite military detention at home and abroad represents an unmistakable departure from the concept of limited government in America.

With the open assertion of executive power to detain anyone anywhere without evidence, trial or due process the bill heralds the approach of a presidential dictatorship legally authorized to use the U.S. military to impose its will domestically.

The 2012 NDAA follows hot on the heels of the extra-judicial assassination in September of an American-born radical Muslim cleric named Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen.

The cleric’s death by Predator drone missile was ordered by the president after a secret panel within the Executive branch labeled al-Awlaki an “enemy combatant.”

No indictment was issued.

No evidence presented.

No proof required.

The president simply ordered the snuffing out of an individual (as well as a few innocent bystanders) based on his word alone.

This wasn’t the first time such extra-judicial killings have been authorized by the Executive branch, but it’s the first time that the power to do so was openly and brazenly acknowledged.

How could such a naked abuse of government power stand virtually unchallenged?

Attorney Glen Greenwald explains:

“What’s most striking about this is not that the U.S. Government has seized and exercised exactly the power the Fifth Amendment was designed to bar (“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law”), and did so in a way that almost certainly violates core First Amendment protections (questions that will now never be decided in a court of law). What’s most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the U.S. Government’s new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process from the U.S. Government.”

In our haste to embrace absolute security at the cost of proper government and our essential liberties, we’re making the same mistake many Germans made in the 1930s of mistaking patriotism for its belligerent counterfeit: nationalism.

Orwell addressed this phenomenon beautifully in his Notes on Nationalism written in 1945.  He makes a clear distinction between patriotism and nationalism as follows:

“By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.”

The desire to dominate others has been an observable part of human nature throughout the history of mankind.

Writer Christopher Manion notes that St. Augustine, in his work City of God, identified libido dominandi or the lust for power in the very first page.

Manion goes on to point out that, “these lusts are more powerful than simple physical appetites. And they tempt us all.”

A perfect example of this mindset can be found in the ongoing Republican presidential debates.

Of the seven candidates still in the running, six of them are seeking to solidify their voter base by promising to expand government powers to secure America.  Most say they would engage in more aggressive, unconstitutional wars abroad.

They have affirmed their support of torture, indefinite detentions, and continued expansion of the global War on Terror.

They are united in their belief that American exceptionalism justifies the projection of military power around the globe out of the fear that “If we don’t dominate the world–someone else will.”

Concern about the proper role of government has no place in their dialogue; only the desire to see American military might continue as the dominant force globally.

Warmongering, exploiting fear and creating enemies to vanquish is a key to maintaining their power.  It’s no coincidence that the more we send our military abroad to police the world, the less free we become here at home.

One solitary candidate has proven the exception by advocating fidelity to the principles of limited government and strict adherence to the Constitution.

This approach would mean less intrusive government and greater freedom at home and less meddling and interventionism abroad.

Too often, this candidate’s message is met with anger and derision by those whose lust for power over others would be checked by such reforms.

For freedom to be maintained, three things are required.

We must be an educated, independent-minded, clear-thinking people.

This can only occur when we have inoculated ourselves intellectually against the daily onslaught of propaganda that beats against us on all sides.

Mass media in America today does not serve to inform and enlighten the public so much as it exists to sell us the agenda of those in power.

To counter this manipulation of public opinion, there is simply no substitute for the power of a good old fashioned liberal arts education.

A classical education enables us to more clearly see the world as it is.  It also leaves us better equipped to speak with clarity and power while persuading others across a broad spectrum of beliefs and viewpoints.

We must be capable of practicing public and private virtue.

Public virtue means that we are willing to step up and do things that will benefit others generally without thought of recognition or personal reward for ourselves.  Public service used to actually include a degree of public virtue.

It can take forms other than public office, but it requires a willingness to serve others to the best of our abilities.

Private virtue means that we rectify our own hearts and minds, as Confucius suggested, before we set out to correct others. It’s not enough to insist that others be good, we must be willing to govern ourselves first.

By setting our selves and our homes in order, our communities and states will follow.

We must be willing to love liberty more than we hate our enemies.

We must have correct forms in our government and our personal lives. 

A form is what gives wet concrete its structure, limits and purpose.

Without a proper form, the concrete would flow uncontrollably and become useless.

In a similar sense, correct forms in government are what define its proper role and upper limits.

They are what allow the powers of the state to be used wisely and humanely for securing our natural rights rather than for simple domination or mischief.

In our personal lives, correct forms include strong marriages and families and sound personal financial practices as well as greater self-sufficiency.

When these elements are widespread throughout a society, self government and freedom flourish.  When they are generally lacking, even well-schooled, highly technologically advanced societies can be led into the abyss.

Military might and domination alone cannot make us or keep us a great nation.

Abiding by correct principles and doing the right things for the right reasons–regardless of circumstances–can.

********************

Bryan Hyde is a radio host, husband, father, graduate student at George Wythe University, and seeker of truth. He does professional voice work through his company One Clear Voice.

Bryan blogs at The White Rose Society and writes firearm reviews for The Truth About Guns. He and his wife Becky are raising their six children in Cedar City, Utah.

Connect With Bryan:

“We’re not going to bail our way out of this crisis, we’re not going to stimulate our way out of this crisis, we are only going to educate, ultimately, and imagine and invent our way out of this crisis.”
—Thomas L. Friedman, Meet the Press

 

“By 2020, the U.S. will be spending $1 trillion a year just to pay the interest on the national debt.
Sometime between now and then the catastrophe will come. It will come with amazing swiftness.”
—David Brooks, The New York Times

On the same week[i] the White House released its prediction that unemployment will get even worse every year in 2012, 2013 and 2014, Friedman and Mandlebaum’s book entitled That Used to Be Us focused the national dialogue on the deepening decline of the United States.

Fortunately, Freidman and Mandlebaum also outline a plan for how America can come back soon.

Harry S. Dent’s newest book, The Great Crash Ahead, further elaborates on this topic.

Friedman and Mandelbaum’s argument goes something like this: the United States is in serious trouble because of four great trends that are bringing massive change.

Our decline didn’t start with the housing crisis in 2008, but back in the late 1980s at the end of the Cold War.

Four Trends

First, according to Freidman,[ii]

“We made the worst mistake a country or species can make, at the end of the Cold War, when we misread our environment. We interpreted the end of the Cold War as victory…not understanding that it was actually the onset of one of the biggest challenges we’ve ever faced as a country.

“We had…unleashed two billion people just like us. But the nineties turned out to be quite a party thanks to the peace dividend, thanks to the massive productivity boost of the Internet and thanks, most importantly in many ways, to the collapse in oil prices, which was like a huge tax cut.”

Second,

“9/11 set us on a really bad course. We spent the last decade—in many ways necessarily, in many ways excessively—chasing the losers from globalization rather than the winners.

“And we made up for a lot of the fall behind…by basically injecting ourselves with steroids. Just as baseball players did it to hit home runs, we injected ourselves with credit steroids, creating a huge housing boom and construction boom to create jobs.”

Third,

“The number of people who can compete, connect and collaborate exploded in the last decade. You know,”

Freidman continued,

“I wrote a book in 2004 called The World is Flat, which was about this connecting of the world. We’ve gone from connected to hyper-connected…. When we sat down to write this book, I actually went back to The World is Flat, I looked in the index, and I realized that Facebook wasn’t in it.

“When I said ‘the world is flat,’ Facebook didn’t exist, or for most people it didn’t exist, Twitter was a sound, the Cloud was in the sky, 4G was a parking place, Linked In was a prison, Applications were what you sent to college, and for most people Skype was a typo…

“That all happened in just the last seven years. And what it’s done is taken the world from connected to hyper-connected. And that’s been a huge opportunity, and a huge challenge.”

Fourth, we’ve witnessed a huge generational shift.

“We went from the Greatest Generation, whose philosophy was basically to save and invest, and we are still living off their saving and investing, to basically the Baby Boomer generation, whose philosophy turned out to be ‘borrow and spend.’

“And we’ve really shifted from a generation born in the Depression, World War II and the Cold War—these were serious people, they wouldn’t think of shutting down the government for a minute—to a generation…that is much less serious.

“We’ve gone from basically the values of the Greatest Generation…to a Baby Boomer generation whose values are situational….

“You put them all together, and I think you really account for a lot of the hole we’re in right now…”[iii]

The book goes in more depth on each of these themes. More importantly, the book outlines some well-considered solutions.

For example, major employers, according to Friedman, are “all looking for the same kind of employee now: Someone who can do critical reasoning and thinking…who can adapt, invent, and reinvent the job, because in this hyper-connected world change is happening so fast. You know, there are companies now in Silicon Valley that do quarterly employer reviews…because their product cycle is changing so fast. You can’t wait until the end of the year to find out you have a bad team manager.”[iv]

Clearly, Freidman argues, education has got to change—it’s been too rote, and now it needs to prepare thinkers, leaders and innovators.

This is a hard job for an industry made up of mostly non-entrepreneurial, deeply security-minded types.

“What we argue in the book…going forward there really are just going to be two kinds of countries in the world: HIEs and LIEs: High-Imagination-Enabling countries and Low-Imagination-Enabling countries.

“Forget Developed and Developing….

“We’re not going to bail our way out of this crisis, we’re not going to stimulate our way out of this crisis, we are only going to educate, ultimately, and imagine and invent our way out of this crisis.”[v]

Friedman and Mandelbaum’s analysis is much needed in our current nation.

We train our youth not to take risks, and to get the “right” answer rather than the wise answer.

These two big problems are a serious challenge.

Without wise risk, prosperity and leadership are impossible.

Friedman’s 5 Pillars

The authors of That Used To Be Us note that the United States won at every major historical turn because we followed what Friedman called “the 5 Pillars”:

1-“Educate our people up to and beyond whatever the level of technology is…

2-“Immigration. Attract the world’s most talented and energetic people…

3-“Have the world’s best infrastructure…

4-“Have the right rules for incenting, capital formation and risk taking…

5-“Government-funded research.”[vi]

Note that these five form a powerful private society where the government maintains the right rules and incentivizes free enterprise.

All five have significantly decreased since the year 2000, really since 1989, and today the Right is strongly against 2 and 5 while the Left is adamantly against 4.

Both are caught in the trap of trying to accomplish 1 and 3 using the same old methods that haven’t worked for over two decades.

No wonder we’re in decline.

We’ve stopped doing the most important things that brought America’s original and lasting successes.

The Left pushes too strongly for government-only solutions while the Right rejects any government role.

As journalist Paul Gigot noted,

“The irony is, of the past thirty, forty years, that the prestige of government has collapsed most rapidly when government has tried to do…far more than it is capable of doing.

“Government prestige increased under Ronald Reagan, the great supposed enemy of government, because he showed when you focused on a couple of things and did it well, and got the economy growing, that people said, ‘You know what, they’re competent there. It’s working.’”[vii]

We need government.

We need it to protect equal rights for everyone and maintain a system where all are treated equally before the law.

This encourages free enterprise, economic growth and improved prosperity.

Societies without such governments have little freedom.

Of course, the danger is that good government can become overbearing and put a damper on economic growth and success.

Today we have government that has clearly over-reached in a number of ways, and a backlash from the Right that wants little or no government.

We need to adopt a middle approach, good government that is, in a phrase used in the American founding, “strong and limited.”

Actually, in The Federalist Papers the term was frequently “vigorous and limited.”

We want a strong government, and at the same time we want a limited government. That is what good constitutional government is all about.

Many from the Right may consider the Friedman/Mandlebaum book a push for too much government just as many from the Left will wonder that it doesn’t push for more government solutions.

American citizens should take a step back and consider the proposals on their merits, however.

I don’t agree with every suggestion in this book, but I find a number of them to be well considered.

On the big topic, the broad concept that both government and the private sector must work together in their proper roles in order to get our nation back on track, I think the book is right on.

On the subject of education, this book is especially valuable. In truth, as the authors affirm, bailouts and stimulus packages—as necessary as they may be in certain crisis situations—will not solve America’s problems.

Real solutions depend on wise policy from government and mostly from innovation and leadership in the private sector.

Indeed, the best government can do is remove the current regulatory pressure on small business and allow the entrepreneurial American spirit to get our economy growing again.

Another recent book addresses these same issues from a different perspective.

Doom-and-Gloomers

I have long been a fan of the work of Harry S. Dent because his predictions, like those of John Naisbitt and Alvin Toffler, have been strikingly accurate even though they have been more specific, and therefore more likely to fall short, than those from most other forecasters.

Dent argues in his latest book, The Great Crash Ahead, that “the great economic crisis of 2008 will likely return in 2012, or 2013 at the latest, and will be even worse.”

His analysis is alarming, but interesting. Note that Dent is not a doom-and-gloomer.

Remember, when multiple authors in the mid-1990s were predicting a major crash ahead, Dent published The Roaring 2000s, which forecast that the stock market would boom for the next decade.

He also said that the boom would increase until a shock and downturn in 2008.

For most of his career, Dent has taken on the doomsayers and offered a counter-intuitive forecast of economic boom ahead.

The fact that he said the cycles would turn in the other direction in 2008, and that now he says they’ll get even worse, should concern every American.

Dent wrote:

• “Debt and stimulus is like any drug: it takes more to create less effect.”
• “Deflation is the only possible scenario in the decade ahead.”
• “The U.S. Dollar will appreciate and be the safe haven—not gold, silver, the Euro or the Swiss Franc.”
• “Home prices will fall by 55% to 65% from the top before this crisis is over.”
• “Stock [will] crash to between 3,300 and 5,600 on the Dow by the end of 2013, or 2014 at the latest.”
• “Also, the crash will be worldwide, not just in the United States and Europe, as the dramatic China bubble comes to an end.”
• “The trends for the coming decade are crystal clear: we are going to experience a deeper downturn and deflation in prices, not inflation. We call this the Winter season; it comes predictably once in a lifetime, currently every 80 years, which means that very few people will understand what is happening.”[viii]

Whether we face massive inflation ahead, as Ken Kurson has argued,[ix] or the deflation Dent predicts, the economic future promises to be challenging.

As Dent notes, from 1775 to the year 2000 Americans accumulated $20 trillion in private debt.

From the year 2000 to 2008 (latest numbers), we accumulated $22 trillion more—for a total of $42 trillion.[x]

No doubt this trajectory has increased since 2008.

Since the economic difficulties ahead follow patterns that we haven’t witnessed since the 1930s, most of the current common wisdom on economics is lacking or just plain wrong.

“Unlearning is the key to times of change and transition,” Dent wrote. “What worked in a boom does not work in a downturn.”[xi]

Here are some of the things which have changed:[xii]

• “It is your father’s economy”!
• Don’t buy a bunch of new stuff—get out of the spending habit.
• Make do with what you have.
• Expect lower wages and lower prices.
• Realize that debt is going to get a lot more expensive than it used to be.
• Realize that assets and savings will be worth more over time.
• Start thinking in terms of multiple streams of income.
• “In the new world, management is the problem, not the solution.”
• Entrepreneurship is in: “the coming decades and century will be seen as the age of the individual and the entrepreneur.”
• Keep your business “lean and mean.”

Dent’s charts, arguments and analyses are a great read.

Add to this view the following thoughts from Friedman and Mandelbaum’s book, and we have an important look at the probable future in the years just ahead:

“No one should ever have to say ‘I am moving from America to Singapore because it is more hospitable to innovation and entrepreneurship.’ Just the opposite should be true. ‘You will know you’re successful,’ said PV Kannau, the India outsourcing entrepreneur, ‘if new companies in China and Brazil say, ‘We want to move our headquarters to America because that is the best place in the world to do business.’’

That’s not happening right now, because our regulatory and tax scheme is far from the best in the world….

“Twenty years ago, even ten years ago, a report such as this one would never have been commissioned. The United States was the best country in the world for business of any kind, the one with the largest and most open market, the most transparent legal system with the strongest property rights, the biggest and most efficient financial system, the most modern infrastructure, and the most dynamic ongoing research and development in almost every field. It was a magnet for capital and talent. No company of any size, indeed no company that merely aspired to international growth, could afford not to operate there, and none needed a consultant to tell it that.

“Now, alas, things are different. Over the past decade especially, American has changed, and not for the better.”[xiii]

How many more voices need to say the same thing before Washington listens?

Until we free up the American economy, reduce the red-tape and taxes on small business, and become the most inviting economy on earth, our economic problems will continue.

Many believe they will get worse—much worse.

The real tragedy is that all this is avoidable.

Free enterprise works.

America knows how to incentivize and encourage business growth. It’s time to get serious about restoring our free-enterprise economy—and soon!

The United States has one of the highest business tax rates in the developed world, and one of the most burdensome regulatory schemes.

Of course we can’t compete in such circumstances.

The question every American should ask is simply, why?

Why would the country that stands most for freedom in all world history now turn its back on the principles of freedom that made it great?

Why would we put our trust in bureaucracy, regulation and government rather than the proven dynamism of American enterprise?

We Can Only Ask, “Why?”

Whatever the answer, unless we make changes quickly the economic forecast ahead is dismal.

Friedman said America is like a nation turned upside down.

At the bottom is an enterprising people passionately seeking to overcome economic challenges with innovation, ingenuity and tenacity, while at the top is a government consistently blocking the entrepreneurial efforts of its people.[xiv]

Again, we can only ask, “Why?”

When Paul Kennedy wrote The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers over two decades ago, many scoffed at his prediction that American hubris was leading to our eventual downfall—in the way so many great nations and empires of history have declined.

Even the leading voice of anti-decline, Joseph S. Nye, has suggested that many of Washington’s policies are making it difficult for the U.S. to remain the world’s economic leader.

Hopefully the solution won’t be as drastic as Friedman, Mandelbaum and Dent predict.

“Shock therapy,” they suggest, may now be the only effective way to change our country.

If this is true, we are in for rocky times ahead.

One thing is certain.

Friedman and Mandelbaum rightly argue that the best way out of this is not so much to study the fall of Rome, the Ottoman Empire, or other historical examples of what not to do, but to make a national focus of studying what worked best in our own American history.[xv]

We know the answers, because they are part of our national heritage.

It is time to put aside our modernist sense of superiority and admit that we want what past generations had economically and learn what worked for them.

It will work again, if we are willing to learn and make the needed changes, because the principles of freedom are timeless and powerful.

Decline is not inevitable, but only a wise people well-studied in the principles of historical success can avoid it.

We must become such a people.

[i] September 1-7, 2011

[ii] Meet the Press, September 4, 2011

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Ibid.

[v] Ibid.

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] From Harry S. Dent, The Great Crash Ahead.

[ix] See Ken Kurson, “Let Them Eat iPads,” Esquire, May 2011.

[x] Op. Cit., Dent.

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] Ibid.

[xiii] Thomas L. Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum, That Used to Be Us.

[xiv] Op. Cit., Meet the Press.

[xv] Op. Cit., Freidman and Mandelbaum.

***********************************

Oliver DeMille is the founder and former president of George Wythe University, a co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd Online.

He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.

Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.

Connect With Oliver:

Read Part One Here

Must an education be limited to completing a checklist of courses in order to receive a certificate of conformance to present as evidence to a prospective employer of having met a minimum standard of proficiency in practical, productive job skills?

Is an education limited to passing through a “liberal arts” program at a name brand institution in order to gain entrance into the power circles standing guard and carefully bestowing limited access to positions of power in government, business, and law?

Or is an education limited to the fine art of intellect-building, culling knowledge from the great ideas of the past and the present, simply for the sake of knowledge?

What is an education, and what is its purpose?

The study of languages offers a portal into the exploration of at least a partial answer to such a worthy question.

Learning begins with an awakening to something previously unknown—a glimpse of the view from a different vantage point—an expanded perception of the world.

Right learning takes our perceived reality a step closer to actuality.

The true language of math trains our minds to recognize patterns, think in the abstract, and logically reason.

The true language of science increases our capacities to observe, to measure, to think in the concrete, and to make and test theories.

The true language of art teaches us to both appreciate and express beauty, symmetry, elegance, emotion, and feeling.

The study of foreign languages introduces us to human cultures and worldviews distinct from our own, allows us to recapture nuances once lost in translation, and offers a gesture of respect to others with whom we want to seek common ground and understanding.

A personal worldview may be likened to peering through a monocle.

Depending on the quality of the lens, the view can be clear and magnified or in places it may be somewhat clouded and distorted.

With only a single eye, the view is inherently limited in scope and depth.

Learning another language is much like adding another monocle, thus creating binocular vision.

It adds another vantage point that in many ways complements, enriches, and completes the original picture.

Of course, in another sense, the new monocle may also compete to be fitted to the dominant eye.

The challenger may present alternative values and goals that, by definition, are incompatible with the status quo.

A hearing will be demanded and a choice must be made.

The virtue of Hebrew is that it offers both a completing and a competing lens to consider.

Completing Features I live in a western world that is highly influenced by our Greek and Roman heritage.

The Greeks teach me the static nature of things at rest.

Things simply are.

They are fixed and inflexible, ordered, calculated, reasoned, planned, and rational.

Ideally, life is peaceful and harmonious; it is meant to be lived in moderation—a virtuous compromise centered between the vices of the extreme.

The Hebrews offer me a distinct, yet complementary, alternative.

Theirs is a verb-oriented language.

The foundation of nearly all ancient Hebrew words is a three-letter root whose basic meaning expresses movement or activity.

Other letters are then added as prefixes, infixes, and suffixes to derive the other grammatical forms: verb conjugations, nouns, adjectives, etc.

Thus, the very construction of the Hebrew language emphasizes the dynamic and active nature of things.

They are changeable and in motion.

Take, for example, a mountain, a decidedly static object to my Greek eye.

Point at it.

Declare it a noun.

“But wait…” interrupts the Hebrew. “Do you see ‘that which looms’ in the distance?”

The primitive root for mountain is a verb meaning to rise up or loom.

In the same sense, a door is that which opens wide.

Mountain and door—that which looms up and that which opens.

The nuance is dynamic, masterful, and energetic.

In contrast to the peaceful and harmonious, life is vigorous, passionate, and explosive.

Life in all its light, color, voice, sound, tone, smell, and taste is meant to be experienced, not spectated.

To my Greek mind, appearance holds highest priority.

It favors an objective, outsider’s point-of-view: observe beauty as displayed in the ideal form and symbol.

Consider, for example, the golden ratio and other optical refinements in the Parthenon and the vast architecture, sculptures, and paintings of Ancient Greece.

Hebrew, in contrast, teaches me to value impression, a subjective, experiencing, insider’s perspective: feel beauty as revealed in function—that which fulfills it purpose—that which lives in excitement and rhythm.

Rather than the architecture, the sculpture, or the painting, see the transformation of the stone, the clay, and the canvas in the master’s hand.

How is Noah’s ark to be constructed? Of what is the Tabernacle made?

Dimensions and materials are defined, but a visual image of these edifices does not come easily to mind.

Compare that to the much more visually descriptive cave in Plato’s allegory, or to the gods of Homer and Hesiod.

The Greeks argue that the power of the mind is measured in its capacity to think logically, to gather and synthesize, and to reason its way to truth.

Points, lines, and planes offer visual and spatial elements for working Euclid’s geometry.

Aristotle’s logic systematically reasons to a right-minded conclusion.

To know for the Greek is to see what is.

“Seek learning” in order to furnish a proof.

Hebrew, on the other hand, proposes to me that the power of the mind be measured in its capacity for psychological understanding, its ability to analyze by dismembering and separating.

Experience, rather than observation, is the primary path to knowing.

Truth is steady, faithful, sure, constant, trustworthy, and certain; and that certainty comes through recollection.

Time, rather than being expressed spatially—timeline, point in time, from time to time—is rhythmic.

It has a beginning and an end; but it alternates between light and darkness, warmth and cold.

Again, this notion is carried in the very construction of the language.

In English, verb tenses are related to time: past, present, and future.

“He spoke. He speaks. He will speak.” In Hebrew, verb tenses are related to action.

The action is either complete or incomplete.

“The speaking is finished. The speaking is not finished.”

To know for the Hebrew is to hear and feel what becomes.

“Seek learning” to find a point.

The challenge before me is to somehow attend equally to both of these heritages; to find a synthesis between what at first glance appears to be diametrically opposed biases—similar to resolving the dual-nature of light, which at times demonstrates a wave-like structure and at other times a particle nature.

Studying Hebrew is another monocle to awaken my awareness to other possibilities, offering a distinct, but complementary, vantage point—a more accurate perception and an expanded worldview.

**********************************

Shanon Brooks is the President of Monticello College, the Director of Education and Training for Humanitarian Visions International, S.A., and a founding partner of the Center for Social Leadership. He co-authored Thomas Jefferson Education for Teens.

Shanon and his wife Julia are raising their six children in Monticello, Utah.

Connect With Shanon:

According to Article V of the U.S. Constitution, a Constitutional Convention could be activated by the application of at least 34 states.

There are two strongly-held opinions regarding the advantages and disadvantages of such a convention.

One purports that such a move would likely put the nation and her 224 year-old charter in mortal jeopardy by risking a “runaway convention.”

The other claims that it is the right of the several sovereign states to exercise Article V and direct the actions of such a convention.

The truth is we will never really know what could happen in such a convention until it actually occurs.

The original Convention of Philadelphia was in fact a “runaway” convention. But by all accounts, that was actually a good thing.

It was a good thing because the members of that convention were for the most part, intelligent, moral, and wise men that were willing to put aside their egos and search for a solution of governance that promoted individual freedom, state sovereignty and national liberty.

Today we suffer morally and fiscally from a “runaway” congress.

Those who fear a “con-con” are actually reacting to the fact that there are few in congress that share the qualities of character and self-restraint epitomized by those august members of our first Constitutional Convention.

After all is said and done, what really matters is the character and wisdom of the individual members of Congress.

If a convention were called for by the application of the states, Congress would determine all of the details of the convention; its duration, location, membership and agenda.

Would you trust today’s Congress to establish the parameters for a Constitutional Convention that could have the power to alter or destroy our freedoms and our very way of life?  If the answer is no, then we are in worse shape than we imagine.

We don’t need a con-con to destroy the U.S Constitution, congress already wields such power and is currently passing legislation on a regular basis that destroys the very liberty they have sworn to uphold.

What Americans and America need is an infusion of patriotism and political virtue.

We need an opportunity, a critical moment, an instant of clarity that defines who we are and what it means to be Americans, to live in a Republic and to be responsible citizens supporting and engaging in our democratic republic. 

In a democratic republic, if the government fails, the people have no one to blame but themselves.

If 34 states were to call for the activation of Article V, there is no doubt that many issues could be addressed: a balanced federal budget, the banning  of abortion or flag burning, giving states the right to determine the apportionment of their legislative districts, term limits, and many others.

It is certain that many Americans who currently stand on the side-lines would be pulled into the debate by sheer gravitational force and take an active part in determining the outcome of the question.

How is this bad?  How could such a process of the people, by the people and for the people be any worse than the missteps Congress is currently making?

I don’t have all of the answers, but such a process would certainly drive me to look for them.

Regardless the outcome of a state initiated convention, 38 states would have to ratify any new amendments.

The citizens of 38 states or their representatives would have to ponder, discuss, debate, and argue until a majority in each of the 38 distinct and culturally diverse populations agreed on a single idea.

What would be the odds?

Worried that people are easily swayed? Then get out there and do some persuading yourself.

We can either die a slow death as congress whittles away at the original intent of the founders, or allow the pot to be stirred— actively trusting God and ourselves to guide us to a more promising future.

**********************************

Shanon Brooks is the President of Monticello College, the Director of Education and Training for Humanitarian Visions International, S.A., and a founding partner of the Center for Social Leadership. He co-authored Thomas Jefferson Education for Teens.

Shanon and his wife Julia are raising their six children in Monticello, Utah.

Connect With Shanon:

I recently watched a televised debate on whether America’s two-party system is making our nation ungovernable.

During the debate, New York Times columnist David Brooks said something fascinating.

He mentioned that political scientists keep track of how much cooperation there is between the two parties in Congress, and that while there have been periods of major party fighting such as the 1860s and 1960s, we are at an all-time low in partisan cooperation to get deals done.

Then he noted that the major difference in our current party system is that always before each party included a wide variety of viewpoints.

Within the same tent of the Democratic Party, for instance, many views and policies were suggested, debated and decided.

The same diversity existed within the Republican Party.

Today, however, this is not the case—at least not when it comes to policy proposals.

Brooks said:

“The problem is that each party has become more rigid in my own lifetime of covering this. When I came to Washington in the early 1980s, I could go to back ventures like Jack Kemp or Newt Gingrich on the Republican side. They had all these weird ideas they were trying to push on leadership. That doesn’t happen [anymore] — the leaders control everything now. The nature of the parties has changed.”

In their drive to win, the party leaders have organized around single, central themes and strongly demanded that congressmen stay within the accepted partisan bounds on nearly all topics.

Most of our elected officials are reasonable and dedicated, and if we put a group of them in a room without party labels and the goal of solving a given issue — say debt, deficits, immigration, or health care — they would almost certainly be able to propose sensible and plausible solutions in a relatively short time.

But attach a party label to each person in the room, especially with the historical baggage now attached to the parties, and the cost, timeline and likelihood of success would suddenly and permanently change.

This is a serious problem for modern America.

Racism of Red and Blue

Calling someone a Democrat or a Republican today is fraught with danger — they may well take offense.

I once watched a man stand at a public meeting and make a suggestion on how to solve the problem before the group.

The officials at the front of the room asked him several questions, and he answered them with common sense and a clear understanding of the situation.

A few members of the audience stood to add their support and small suggestions to improve his idea.

The room was moving toward consensus, when another participant asked if the speaker was a Republican.

When he answered that he was a registered Democrat, the mood in the room changed.

A few argued with him (making the point that they were Republicans, which literally had nothing to do with the topic at hand).

This fueled anger among Democrats and within minutes the room was deeply divided.

The official running the meeting took the floor and pointed out to everyone that the man’s idea had been almost universally supported before his political affiliation was mentioned, and tried to get the group back to discussing the merits of the idea.

But it was too late: the Republicans in the room now disliked his idea and the Democrats supported it.

Many had to change their minds to get to this point, but it seems that was easy once they knew which party he belonged to.

This kind of divisiveness is all too common.

Even online, many, perhaps most, American citizens who engage in political conversation limit themselves to groups where the other people agree with their views.

Few discussions on political topics are inclusive or open to learning from diverse perspectives.

Squabbles and Solutions

Fortunately, the solution to this starts at the ground level.

Each of us can listen to the views of people who disagree with us on politics.

I don’t know when the idea that discussing politics is impolite came into vogue, but it has only hurt our freedom and prosperity.

Right now, today, we can learn from other political views, not to debunk them immediately and angrily like most people do, but rather to really understand their point.

This is not the same as forgetting one’s beliefs — it is in fact the opposite process of strengthening one’s most important beliefs by increasing your understanding of the world.

A move to a European-style multiparty system is not the answer, since this would create a structure where the winner still runs the whole government but is usually a lot more extreme than moderate.

Ideally, America could adopt a non-partisan model like that suggested by many of the American framers.

The Constitution is actually designed for a nonparty system.

In the absence of a major shift to a nonpartisan model, the best reform to our system would be for more American citizens to ignore party spin and think independently — and openly listen to and learn from others who do the same, even if they disagree with your ideas.

We all have more to learn, and in fact significant political learning is more likely when we are listening to those whose views differ from the thoughts we’ve already had.

New ideas spark increased thinking, even when you disagree with the details.

Of course, people shouldn’t simply accept ideas they find problematic or wrong, but free citizens need to be good listeners and open-minded thinkers.

Such maturity is needed in any free society, and especially in one where ideological political parties dominate the discussion.

Our leaders, deeply mired in partisan squabbles, are unlikely to make this change, so it is up to regular Americans to take the lead in discussing and promoting needed solutions for many of our biggest challenges.

***********************************

Oliver DeMille is the founder and former president of George Wythe University, a co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd Online.

He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.

Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.

Connect With Oliver:

“Of course I’ll still respect you in the morning.”

“We know exactly where the WMD are located.”

“This election is the most important election of our lifetimes.”

Of all the lies we choose to believe, that last one is the most pathetic.

We hear it repeated ad nauseum during every single election cycle.

It’s a manipulative platitude, calculated to keep us confined within the ideological boundaries of a thoroughly corrupt two party system.

The only folks to whom this revelation might come as a surprise are those who believe our nation’s future hangs on the election of a single candidate rather than on following its Constitution.

Why do so many good-hearted people choose to believe this particular falsehood?

The false dilemma of Republican vs. Democrat, it turns out, is an easy sell to people who have yet to recognize that, on the question of liberty, the real battle has always been the State vs. the People.

Both of the two ruling parties have clearly shown by their actions that they are equally committed to growing governmental power, spending without limits, and expanding the state’s control over the people at the expense of individual liberty.

Yet there are still plenty of voters who foolishly buy into the notion that somehow, this time, those same parties’ candidates might conceivably alter the collectivist course they’ve been steering for generations.

Sadder still are the individuals who recognize, to some degree, just how hostile both parties have been about liberty, but who justify holding their noses to vote for someone who they hope will make the ongoing removal of freedom a bit more gentle.

They fail to recognize that they are merely validating a rigged system that, while giving the voters a sense of participation, carefully denies them any possibility of affecting actual change.

Ron Paul: The Non-candidate

A good example of this can be found in the way that Congressman Ron Paul is portrayed by both the mass media and the power brokers in his own Republican Party.

The recent Ames Straw Poll in Iowa was described by writer Don Rasmussen as the ultimate damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation for Paul:

If Paul polls fourth or fifth at Ames, it will feed the existing narrative that he is a second-tier candidate with a devoted but small legion of fans.

Ames will be, at best, a wash. If, on the other hand, Paul finishes first or second, it will feed the narrative that he’s a straw-poll paper tiger with a small but devoted legion of fans that swamped Ames from around the country.

The media will give itself permission to ignore the result and instead focus on the “serious” candidates.

As LRC contributor Justin T.P. Quinn explains:

The Ames Straw Poll is very important, but only if Ron Paul doesn’t win. It doesn’t matter whether or not Ron wins, or even how many percentage points he wins by.

The Iowa Straw Poll can help every other candidate, but it can only hurt Ron Paul.

The voters at Ames can have no bearing whatsoever on Ron Paul’s viability as a candidate. A vote for Ron Paul ipso facto makes it irrelevant.

You see, Ron Paul supporters don’t count, even though they are the paragon of what the ideal political activist would be. They are arguably the only true grassroots activists in existence right now.

They don’t wait for direction or leadership from Ron Paul himself. Rather, inspired by Paul’s ideals, they act on their own. Nothing else in history comes close to what they’ve accomplished.

Sure enough, Paul finished second in the Ames Straw Poll, less than 200 votes behind winner Michelle Bachmann.

The media, predictably, are choosing to ignore him.  But check out some of the comments regarding his 2nd place finish in Iowa from self-described Republican voters on KSL.com:

• No he is not, he is coming in 3rd or worse in every poll, that is real.  He is buying straw polls, and internet polls are getting trolled by his trolls.And in the end, he still gets 14% of the vote.
• He’s no longer a fringe candidate. But he’s definitely still a nutcase.
• If nothing else, support of his views are an indication that the American people are looking to the Right this election cycle.

Fellow brother in liberty Jason Smith posted this comment on his Facebook page after visiting with Republican staffers at his county fair:

Had several interesting conversations with the “tea party and Republican” groups at booths today at the Washington County fair.

I asked them if they are supporting the Republican front runner Ron Paul- not surprisingly I got looks of hate and anger when I mentioned Paul, but not one said they were supporting Ron.

They sure hate to have someone rock the status quo.

If this really is the “most important election of our lifetimes” wouldn’t it make sense that we’d be as studied and  well-versed as possible in the actual principles that are at stake?  Wouldn’t we be exerting ourselves to know which candidates stand on principle and which are merely giving lip service?

Not if we’ve chosen to believe the lie that voting for a principled candidate somehow equals throwing our votes away.

Pragmatists like to chide those of us who are recovering two party system voters, telling us that in the real world it comes down to choosing the lesser of two evils and standing on principle is to commit political suicide.

Some go so far as to justify their actions by claiming that even though they recognize that both major parties are in the process of driving our nation over a cliff, they’d rather vote for the party that is doing so at the posted speed limit.

Our essential freedoms are being bargained away in the name of security.

Government spending continues to grow at record levels and the separation of government powers is being ignored for the purpose of consolidating influence.

Those who refuse to vote their principles refuse to admit that the two major parties only differ in the speed with which they act to centralize their power.

So what are our options?

Voters who have come to recognize the futility of voting the “lesser of two evils” are faced with a dilemma.

They can stubbornly abstain from voting in defiance of the conventional wisdom that views the privilege of voting as the highest expression of democratic government.

They can vote for a third party candidate to show their displeasure with the statist two party system as Congressman Ron Paul suggested in 2008.

Or they may wish to consider a third option offered by attorney Sandra Hamilton that not only allows one to vote his or her conscience, but also forces the state to show its cards and reveals just how rigged the game really is.

The key to this third option is to either write-in candidates who actually reflect the values and principles of the voter or simply write in “none of the above.”

The catch here is that many states will not recognize a write in vote unless certain conditions are met.

Some states simply refuse to allow write-ins of any sort or disallow candidates who ran but lost in the primary election while only a handful of states actually count all write-in votes as legitimate.

The beauty of this approach is that those states who unceremoniously round-file their write-in votes are demonstrating exactly how undemocratic the voting process has become.

The state makes a great show of the election process by pretending that we actually have a choice when they know full well that the game has been carefully rigged in favor of the two party system.

It’s a system that refuses to acknowledge anyone’s dissatisfaction with the false choice they’ve been given.

By forcing the state to show its true colors as it throws votes in the trash, the voter is essentially demonstrating that, despite its lofty rhetoric about the importance of getting out the vote, the state is too threatened by his or her dissent from the state’s “choices” to allow the vote to stand.

This approach is far preferable to the apathy of simply staying home or holding one’s nose in that it encourages the voter to exercise the precious right to vote according to his or her principles, albeit in a way that exposes the hypocrisy of a system that increasingly seeks only to protect the franchise of those who are already a part of it.

It takes courage to refuse to run with the herd, but real change requires individual acts of boldness.

When we deliberately vote the “lesser of two evils” we lend legitimacy to a rigged system that needs willing participants if it is to give the appearance of democratic principles while actively stifling those votes that may challenge the status quo.

With enough voters forcing the state’s hand to reject their right to vote their consciences, the public may finally begin to recognize the emperor’s nakedness and the carefully maintained illusion of our “right to vote.”

There is much we can do outside of the voting booth.

Those who are truly interested in the well-being of our nation and their liberty will find that their efforts are far better spent by developing their influence within their own homes, neighborhoods, congregations, and communities as opposed to expecting solutions to come from some party-assimilated Borg member they helped send to D.C.

The current system is too insular to allow us to make meaningful change from the top down by working within it, but it is powerless to stop us from starting at the individual level and working our way up.

Just as it has taken us generations to drift away from our founding principles, it will likely take generations of serious effort at a level where the state’s corruption has not yet taken hold to bring our nation back on course.

It is extremely unlikely for this to happen at virtually any level of government,  but that shouldn’t hinder our efforts to educate ourselves politically, economically, spiritually and philosophically and by so doing, inspiring our children, family members and friends to do the same.

Impatience sometimes compels us to try to reach everyone in one fell swoop, but the masses are already too distracted by the spin doctors and pundits.

In the same way that it’s difficult to fill a row of milk bottles with a fire hose, a more methodical, one on one approach is likely to produce far better results.

The key is to begin right now, where we are and to refuse to defer our personal responsibility to others—especially to politicians.

When each of us has honestly developed and refined our personal character, we will no longer choose to believe the lies by which others control us.

For some it will enable us to recognize and elect those candidates who embody the principles necessary for good governance. 

For others it will enable us to be the candidates who embody those principles.  If we wish to reap a better harvest, we must sow better seeds.

********************

Bryan Hyde is a radio host, husband, father, graduate student at George Wythe University, and seeker of truth. He does professional voice work through his company One Clear Voice.

Bryan blogs at Hydeologue.com. He and his wife Becky are raising their six children in Cedar City, Utah.

Connect With Bryan:

]]> http://www.thesocialleader.com/2011/08/lies-choose/feed/ 1 http://www.thesocialleader.com/2011/08/government-broken/ http://www.thesocialleader.com/2011/08/government-broken/#comments Fri, 12 Aug 2011 10:00:41 +0000 Oliver DeMille http://www.thesocialleader.com/?p=7222 by Oliver DeMille

Our government isn’t broken.

It is just caught in the past.

Specifically, the current divide between the parties is a mirror image of the country.

Politics is a reflection of society, and the bickering right now in Washington is a direct projection of the nation.

There is one big exception.

The nation is divided into three major political camps.

The problem is that the two smallest camps (Democrats and Republicans) have party representation in Washington while the largest camp (independents) does not.

In short, it’s not that our government is broken, but rather that we are stuck in a twentieth-century structural model even though the society has fundamentally changed.

Instead of a two-party nation sending its representatives to Washington, we now have a three-party society where the biggest “party” must divide its representation between the two smaller parties.

It’s not broken, it just acts like it.

The Great Fall

This situation began to develop when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989.

Up to that point, the two-party model was a natural reflection of a nation engaged in a long-term Cold War with an enemy capable of destroying our entire civilization.

This omnipresent reality colored all policy for over four decades.

Having sacrificed greatly to overcome major conflicts in WWI and WWII, the large majority of citizens from both parties stood firmly together against the Soviet threat.

When the Cold War menace significantly decreased, Americans took a long sigh of relief, and then they reassessed their priorities for government.

Some felt that the needs of big business were the top priority, others considered moral issues the lead concern, while still others deemed an increase in social justice the major challenge.

The first two pooled resources in the Republican Party, while social liberals and those emphasizing social justice combined in the Democratic Party.

The largest group of Americans rejected both of these extremes, feeling that government should indeed fulfill its role to corporations, societal values, and social justice, but also to a number of other vital priorities including national security, education, and fiscal responsibility.

But, because independents come from many viewpoints and also because they have no official party apparatus in Washington, the biggest political group in our nation today has little direct political power except during elections.

The consequence is that subsequent elections tend to sway widely in opposite directions.

When independents put Republicans in power, they are naturally (because they are not Republicans) frustrated with how the Republicans use that power.

When, in contrast, they vote for Democrats, they find themselves discouraged with what Democrats do in office.

This is a structural problem.

When Democrats elect a Democrat, the elected official can swing to the center once in office because while supporters may dislike their Democratic official’s actions they will almost always still vote for him/her in the next election—after all, in their view the Republican would be worse.

The same applies to Republicans electing a Republican.

All of this changes when independents put a Democrat, or a Republican, in office. Naturally, the elected official will disappoint supporters in some way, and independents are as likely as not to believe that a candidate from the other party will do better.

Historical Realignments

When similar historical realignments of politics with cultural shifts have occurred, a major new political group in society reformed one of the big parties to fit its new views.

For example, when the Declaration of Independence and hostilities with Britain changed the old Tory versus Whig debate, the Loyalists mostly joined the new Federalists while the Whigs split between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

When the new U.S. Constitution changed the makeup of society and made the Federalist versus Anti-Federalist debate obsolete, most of the Anti-Federalists joined the Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans while the Federalists split between the Democratic Republicans and the Federalists.

Other such changes have happened several times in American history, most notably in the 1830s, 1850s, 1910s, 1930s and 1960s.

Note that in the twentieth-century shifts the names of the parties (Democrat and Republican) did not change even though political philosophies were significantly altered during these periods of realignment.

The current repositioning may or may not adopt a new name for one of the parties, but a philosophical shift is occurring nonetheless.

Some believe that this shift is fundamentally rooted in social concerns, from issues of gender and sexual preference to values debates and immigration.

But this is a view left over from the twentieth-century style Democrat-Republican argument.

The rise of independents is not a morality-driven movement.

It’s mostly about the economy.

The New Party

The new party of the twenty-first century will emphasize economic growth and getting our financial house in order.

Many independents will flock to this party, whatever its name—Democratic, Republican, or something else.

This is the party of the future.

And while analysts say that independents are not joiners, it is likely that many would join such a party.

Note that a real three-party system is not likely to last.

A third party may arise, as Thomas L. Friedman and others have suggested, but history suggests that t will eventually take the place of one of the top two parties.

There is an important reason for this.

The American framers did not want the U.S. President to be elected by a plurality of the nation, so they wisely structured the Electoral College in a way that the President can only be elected by a majority of electoral votes.

This means that any third party will eventually have to gain the support of one of the other parties in order to win the White House.

This constitutional reality is one of the most important things keeping America strong.

Without it, any extreme party might win a given election and take the nation in even more drastic directions than we’ve witnessed to date.

To sum it up, the frustration with two-party infighting is a positive thing.

The framers rightly foresaw that the greatest danger to America would be an apathetic citizenry, and the Electoral College requirement for majority has caused a no-party or two-party structure and also incentivized citizens to stay informed and involved.

When a powerful third party arises in America, it has always come in response to a change in society and it has always worked to reform the two existing parties in ways that better reflected the desires of the people.

This is a huge positive, as chaotic as it may seem at times.

Seriously?

Today, it is independents that most dislike the party bickering, and as a result independents are more actively involved in government.

This is a powerful check on the aristocratic-political class, and shows once again the brilliance and inspired effectiveness of the U.S. Constitution as established by the framers.

Our government isn’t broken, but the current two-party system is outdated.

Neither party truly represents the views of the largest political “group” in America—independents.

Until this problem is fixed, the entire political system will look untenable and appear unable to solve major American problems.

But such realignment is already occurring, albeit slowly, and the future belongs to whichever party—Democrat, Republican or a third party—gets serious about three things:

1. A moderate view that government has an important role to play in society and that it must also be limited to the things it really should do like national security, schools and basic social justice
2. Actually getting our financial house in order
3. Creating the environment for widespread enterprise and a true growth economy

The party that effectively and consistently champions these things will be the leading political group in the years ahead.

In other words, some major shifts in the parties are ahead.

***********************************

Oliver DeMille is the founder and former president of George Wythe University, a co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd Online.

He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.

Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.

Connect With Oliver:

People don’t like to be told what to do.  Even children are not very receptive to instruction.

So when governments set out to take over peoples’ freedoms (which means, quite simply, government telling people what to do instead of people making their own choices) they have to get crafty.

Some serious skill is required. That’s where politicians come in. Politicians are educated in the arts of “creep.” Not to be confused with the derogatory word which, coincidentally, can accurately be applied to many bureaucrats, creep is a term used to describe a specific strategy nearly perfected by governments.

Here’s how it works.

Since people don’t like to be told what to do and will generally resist being bossed around, something must happen to convince them to allow what would normally and naturally be considered contrary to their best interest.

Although there are many ways to get the process started, usually a crisis of some sort is extremely useful. As one politician recently slipped up and stated publicly, “Never waste a good crisis.” A crisis causes fear. Fear inhibits clear thinking and causes all kinds of knee-jerk reactions.

One such reaction is to allow people in power to utilize that power to “do something.” Almost always, that “doing something” involves the growth of government through the creation of new agencies, bureaus, boards, committees, programs, expenditures, and the passing of new laws. This would all be fine and dandy, except for three little reasons:

1. they cost money and therefore create massive problems of their own,
2. they generally don’t work, and finally,
3. they generate secondary consequences (some would say “unintended” consequences, but given the power lust of many bureaucrats, one wonders).

With each new government creation the “creep” into our personal freedoms increases. Freedom shrinks as governmental interference grows. Many think it’s all okay as long as they are getting their pet programs, handouts, freebies, kickbacks, and power perks.

This is why a growing government is always accompanied by a growing “mooching class.” As this plays out, “experts” in government get to decide things we ought to be free to decide for ourselves. “They” are cock-sure that they know what is better for us than we do.

Programs and “Great Societies” and “fairer resource management” and “progress” are trumpeted as grand new foolproof ideas. But it is really the same old story of control over the many by the privileged few that litters the pages of every history book. Freedom bleeds to death on the altar of government worship.

There is a cute illustration often used to describe “creep,” and it goes like this.

Anyone who has ever spent any time around animals knows they are filthy. Camels, famously, are some of the nastiest and filthiest of all. Traveling in caravans across the sub-Saharan deserts for centuries, traders would tie up their camels a distance far enough from their tent to prevent the camels from trying to get in.

Nobody, no matter how dependent upon his camel for survival and transportation, would choose to lodge alongside his camel within the warmth and comfort of his tent. The camels, however, resisted this fact. No matter how unwanted they were within the confines of their owner’s tent, they still desired to partake in a little of that luxury themselves.

They would start their attempt by pushing only their nose under the tent flap. If this went successfully unnoticed, they would slide the full length of their head in. Gradually, little by little, they would stick their whole neck inside, and finally their whole body.

Suddenly, it would seem, the whole animal would be smugly inside the tent enjoying the shelter from the elements, entirely crowding out the tent’s rightful owner. Government can be seen to act in the same way. “It’s just a temporary expedient until the crisis is abated,” they say, sliding their nose under the flap. “Just a little while longer and we’ll have this problem licked,” they say, sliding in their entire head and neck. And on it goes.

As President Reagan said, “There is nothing quite so permanent as a temporary government program.”

The strangest fact, however, is that so many people seem intent on actually helping the camel sneak into the tent! But a little thought is all that’s required to explain this strange situation: they don’t want a camel in their own tent, they only want to help one get into yours!

However, if they really have bought so far into the blind dribble of our day to actually think they want a camel in their own tent, then, well, I suppose they deserve the flea bites they’ll receive.

*******************************

Chris Brady co-authored the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Business Weekly, USA Today, and Money Magazine best-seller Launching a Leadership Revolution.

He is also in the World’s Top 30 Leadership Gurus and among the Top 100 Authors to Follow on Twitter. He has spoken to audiences of thousands around the world about leadership, freedom, and success.

Mr. Brady contributes regularly to Networking Times magazine, and has been featured in special publications of Success and Success at Home. He also blogs regularly at Chris Brady.

He is an avid motorized adventurer, pilot, world traveler, humorist, community builder, soccer fan, and dad.

Connect With Chris:

By Oliver DeMille

-Free democracies protect the property of all.

-Socialist nations protect the property of none.

-Monarchies consider all property the estate of the king.

-Aristocracies have one set of property and investment laws for the very rich and a different one for the rest.*

-Free democracies assess tax money fairly from all the people to cover vital, limited government roles.

-Socialist societies take money from the rich and redistribute it to the poor.

-Dictatorial monarchies take money from everyone and give it to the dictator.

-Aristocracies take money from the middle and lower classes and give it to rich bankers, owners of big companies (“too big to fail”), and other powerful and wealthy special interests in bailouts and government contracts.*

-In free democracies it is legal for the people to withhold information from the government (e.g. U.S. Fifth Amendment, right to remain silent, etc.) but illegal for the government to withhold information from or lie to the people.

-In socialist societies, dictatorial monarchies, and aristocracies, it is legal for the government and government agents to lie to the people but illegal for the people to lie to the same government agents.*

-In free democracies, the measure of success and the popular goal of the people is to be good and positively contribute to society.

-In socialist societies, the measure of success and the popular goal of the people is to become government officials and receive the perks of office.

-In dictatorial monarchies, the measure of success and the popular goal of the people is to please the monarch.

-In aristocratic societies, the measure of success and the popular goal of the people is to obtain wealth and/or celebrity.*

-In free democracies all the people hold the right to bear arms.

-In socialist nations and monarchies, only government officials are allowed to have weapons.

-In aristocratic societies only the wealthy and government officials are allowed to have many kinds of weapons.*

-Free democracies open their borders to all, especially immigrants in great need.
-Socialist and dictatorial monarchies build fences to keep people in.

-Aristocracies build fences to keep people out, especially immigrants in great need.*

*The current United States

***********************************

Oliver DeMille is the founder and former president of George Wythe University, a co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd Online.

He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.

Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.

Connect With Oliver:

MODERN INTERPRETATIONS OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE

The major modern interpretations of the meaning behind the commerce clause come from two professors who wrote fifty eight and seventy four years ago, respectively.

The first was Walton Hamilton who in 1937 wrote “The Power to Govern; The Constitution – Then and Now.”

He argued the commerce clause must be reinterpreted to grant Congress authority to regulate the entire national economy. He was obviously pro-Roosevelt as his efforts were aimed at giving credence and legitimacy to what Roosevelt had already done and was continuing to do.

The second, writing in 1953, was William Crosskey. He was a law professor at the University of Chicago who wrote “Politics and The Constitution in The History of The United States.”

It was his arguments, more so than Hamilton’s, that drastically altered the legal landscape when interpreting the commerce clause.

He argued that:

[C]ommerce meant the whole economy, the whole system of exchange, the whole of interrelated gainful activities;
that “among the several states” did not mean ‘between’ but rather it meant ‘throughout’ the several states;
that the commerce clause authorized Congress to regulate all gainful activity throughout the nation – both inter-state and intra-state commerce.

It is these arguments that led to further arguments that flatly ignored not only the clause itself, but the legal understanding of commerce. The question was no longer is it a “commercial” interaction, but merely whether it was an economic “good.”

Modern healthcare and internet arguments fall in this line. If it is an economic “good” then it can be regulated. Therefore it should be regulated.

If the commerce clause grants Congress authority to regulate all gainful activity then the pivotal point truly is what are economic “goods” and what are not.

RULES OF CONSTRUCTION

But that is a flagrant departure from both the original understanding and the text itself.

The original understanding of commerce was briefly outlined above. (Other sources were cited to afford the reader opportunity to search it independently.)

Also noted is that this understanding was so clear it produced virtually no debate in the ratifying conventions. But for future generations, understanding proper interpretation is critical. (Thus ensuring laws made must be necessary and proper.)

Accordingly, there were numerous rules of construction by which a legal document in the eighteenth-century — in this case the Constitution — were both written and interpreted.

A few samples:

• It should be interpreted according to the intent of the makers – or the Ratifiers – this (rather than ambiguous statements before during or after the 1787 convention) is what is called the “Spirit” of the document.
• Every word must have meaning and force. There can be no large or small chunks of meaningless text. This means that the more excess words created by a particular interpretation, the less it could be relied on as accurate.
• If certain things are named, there can be no implication that unnamed things were included.

Of course there are others. Our inquiry concerns mostly the second bullet point. This is also called the Textual Surplus Rule. If a certain interpretation of any one clause renders any other clause unnecessary, then that interpretation is not valid.

(Also deserving of note is that the Common Law was entirely separate from the Lex Mercatoria – or the Law of Commerce. In general terms the Common Law was the law of the land; while the Law of Commerce was the law of water – or of the sea.)

Now to Crosskey and Hamilton. Both interpretations violate the Textual Surplus Rule: if a certain interpretation of any one clause renders any other clause unnecessary, then that interpretation is not valid.

The commerce clause specifically grants (which means it limits) congressional authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

If Commerce means “all gainful activity throughout the several states then what of the extra words and clauses: foreign nations, indian tribes, bankruptcy, patents and intellectual property, land regulation, coinage clause etc.

Surely if the framers meant and ratifiers understood commerce to mean all gainful activity why would they include these other clauses that directly relate to gainful activity?

Such a claim would render them ignorant and shortsighted indeed. The commerce clause alone would have covered these clauses. They would be unnecessary.

Yet they are present. And according to the rule, if any interpretation of the commerce clause renders these other clauses and words as surplus, or essentially negates or nullifies them, then that interpretation cannot be textually sound.

And any one caught consenting to such a doctrine might verifiably be accused of “ruling by whim” — or at minimum desiring to.

THE COMMERCE CLAUSE LIMITED POWER OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

To be totally accurate, the commerce clause — initially — increased the power of the federal government. The congress under the Articles of Confederation had no such power. It was the very idea of increases of power the anti-federalists fought against the Constitution and ratification for.

However, the grant of commercial regulation was not a plenary (or full) grant of unchecked power.

According to the Lex Mercatoria in the eighteenth-century commerce meant:

• Buying and selling of products made by others
• Associated finance and financial instruments
• Navigation and other carriage
• Intercourse across jurisdictional lines

(We have to remember that one of the most substantial reasons for calling the 1787 convention was to fix the glaring problems with inter-state commerce.)

From this rule of construction alone it is clear the clause did not give power to congress to regulate the entire national economy as Crosskey claimed, and many others claim today.

As we have seen, according to many today there may not be any powers the Constitution has not delegated to the federal government. Common legal recourse of our modern regulatory government is the ongoing interpretation by courts, precedent, and accommodating textual analysis.

In light of this, there are three questions that should dominate any rational and liberty minded individual.

Do the powers of the constitution, especially in view of amendments nine and ten, comprise all the powers the feds say it does?

What are those powers reserved to the states?

Is there a list or basic enumeration we can use as a guide?

Fortunately, as the federalists fought for ratification they left a detailed and remarkably consistent record of enumerated powers that would be reserved to the states respectively.

This was done to convince the anti-fed’s of constitutional limits of federal power and as a method to influence them to ratify.

There were many who contributed to this debate. Among whom were Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, James Wilson, Edmund Pendelton, James Iredell, John Marshall, Tenche Coxe, and several other anonymous authors.

Here is a comprehensive list of powers that would be reserved to the States. (This was done through writing and speaking.)

• Training militia and appointment of officers
• Local Government
• Regulation of Real Property
• Regulation of Personal Property outside of Commerce
• Domestic and Family Affairs
• Criminal Law
• Civil Justice
• Religion and Education
• Social Services
• Control of Agriculture
• Control of other Business Enterprise
• Supreme arbiter and interpreter (along with the people) of the Constitution
• Power to invalidate unconstitutional actions of any branch of the federal government

The real value of this enumeration is that it assists us to understand the dividing line between State and Federal power. It also helps us see clearly how much, and what kind, of “aid” the federal government should be doling out to states — or the states should be accepting.

It must be noted that this list does not necessarily reveal intent but it does help communicate the original understanding at the time.

To avoid unacceptable risks of centralization the founding generation decided to expressly reserve exclusive jurisdictional control over certain national concerns to the respective states.

The commerce clause, among others, secured this by limiting the regulatory power of Congress over commerce to foreign nations, among or between the several states, and with the indian tribes.

Therefore, there is no basis for the claim that commerce meant “all gainful activity throughout the nation.”

The commerce clause was designed to give Congress jurisdiction over the Law Merchant – Lex Mercatoria – as it pertained to inter-jurisdictional activities between the states.

This meaning was so clear it produced virtually no objection during the ratification debates – the records are almost silent on discussion over this clause.

In  UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. ALFONSO LOPEZ, Jr., Justice Thomas issued the most sound defense of the limiting nature of the commerce clause.

“The Constitution not only uses the word “commerce” in a narrower sense than our case law might suggest, it also does not support the proposition that Congress has authority over all activities that “substantially affect” interstate commerce.

The Commerce Clause does not state that Congress may “regulate matters that substantially affect commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” In contrast, the Constitution itself temporarily prohibited amendments that would “affect” Congress’ lack of authority to prohibit or restrict the slave trade or to enact unapportioned direct taxation.

U. S. Const., Art. V. Clearly, the Framers could have drafted a Constitution that contained a “substantially affects interstate commerce” clause had that been their objective…”

“Indeed, if Congress could regulate matters that substantially affect interstate commerce, there would have been no need to specify that Congress can regulate international trade and commerce with the Indians. As the Framers surely understood, these other branches of trade substantially affect interstate commerce.”

Now whenever any politician or power pundit claims carte blanche authority for action under the commerce clause, or just laughs and says “are you serious” when asked where authority for action comes from, you will have ample ammo to amend their aberrant claims.

For a more in-depth reading of the original understanding of the commerce clause see:

1.  Robert Natelson, The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said And Meant
2.  U.S. v Lopez 1995

*******************************

Kyle Roberts is a small business owner who has committed his life to the cause of freedom. He is dedicated to recreating strong local self-government in his community by creating, and helping others create, institutions that create and preserve freedom.

He teaches a four-part lecture series on the Original Understanding of the Constitution for free to the community.

Kyle and his wife Kim own and operate Prudent Living Food Storage. They live in Spanish Fork, Utah with their two children.

Connect With Kyle: