The ObamaState vs. the United States: Part I

The ObamaState vs. the United States
Part I
By Mike Pearce

Liberals greatly despise being called “unpatriotic”. To them, it rings of the McCarthy era, and what they saw as a deviant campaign to impugn free thinking and to quell the free speech of those who had a more “progressive” view [read dissimilar to those of the Founders] of what America should look like. The declassified Venona Intercepts, which almost completely vindicated Joseph McCarthy’s concerns about communist “security risks” within the ranks of the US Government, seem to mean absolutely nothing to America’s left. And why is that the case? Because to a leftist, the Constitution’s greatest weakness is the God-given rights that it outlines. The “purity” of free speech means the right to undermine freedom itself, and therefore the line of patriotism is indistinct, if not relative.

Benjamin Franklin suggested immediately after the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention that we had “A Republic, if [we] could keep it.” With all of the writings that proceeded from Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike, Franklin’s short statement is as pertinent today as any quote pulled from any of the Framers. The very complex Dr. Franklin was giving a simple warning that the greatest threat to the United States was the very thing that created it: We the People. Could Americans, he wondered, accept the responsibilities of a limited government whose function was to free people from the bonds of future tyranny, or would they one day choose to cuff themselves with the same shackles they fought so valiantly to shed during the American Revolution? Just prior to the adoption of the Constitution, Franklin expressed his affinity for the document that he helped mold, but also expressed a recognition that men were an unpredictable bunch who one day could bring the nation full circle. Franklin asserted, “…I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.” And that begs the question as to where we are today? I would argue that we have become so corrupt, through the introduction of the type of unabridged democracy (as opposed to republicanism) that some feel a need for “despotic” government. Madison, of course, referred to this as the “factioning” of America, where, “… a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, …are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

And here we are. Though some would call my assertion “reactionary”, I sincerely believe that we are on the doorstep of despotism. Is it any surprise that the author of the Audacity of Hope would be so audacious as to give his tacit blessing to legislative tactics never seen for a bill of the enormity of the Democrats' pending health care legislation; tactics, he only 5 years before, condemned as reckless when he said, “The TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) program affects millions of American children and families and deserves a full and fair debate. Under the rules, the reconciliation process does not permit that debate. Reconciliation is therefore the wrong place for policy changes and the wrong place for the proposed changes to the TANF program. In short, the reconciliation process appears to have lost its proper meaning. A vehicle designed for deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility has been hijacked to facilitate reckless deficits and unsustainable debt.” [1]

All honest Americans now recognize that Barack Obama’s call to arms in the fight for “Hope and Change” and for “fundamentally transforming America” as being far more than political rhetoric. In fact, one merely needs to look at his disdain for the basic function of the Constitution (the preservation of life, liberty and property). To Obama, this is a fundamental flaw in American government, as he believes the “negative rights” outlined by the Framers constitutes something that requires “transformation”. He has publicly argued that the 'missing concepts' of wealth redistribution and economic justice are short fallings of the Constitution, and he is decidedly disappointed that more has not been done legislatively to correct drastic inequalities that he believes need to be reconciled. In his own words, he has declared his disappointment that the Constitution does not outline what the government “must do on [our] behalf” [2] . This philosophy turns on its head Jefferson’s famous argument, "That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves." Instead, Obama argues, "That government is best which governs the most, because its people are incapable." To a degree, he may be correct, but only in the fact that so many Americans bow to a culture of dependency wrought upon it by the wretched policies of the New Deal and the Great Society, which eradicated the discipline to which Jefferson referred.

And that brings me to my initial point. What does it mean to be unpatriotic? I think most patriotic Americans agree that dissent is a healthy and often patriotic thing; but dissent that undoes the fundamental precepts of our Constitution—ideas that would “fundamentally transform” the intent of the Framers and bring to bear a new nation with far differing values -- is far from healthy. So, do I argue that “patriotic Americans” are those who think monolithically on all matters? No. But, I boldly affirm that one must embrace a form of “classical liberalism” to be considered a true patriot and I encourage those who hold similar positions to be bold enough to say so as well. How does one use the freedoms brought to bear in America, through the writings of the likes of John Locke and Adam Smith, to merely turn our nation into something that is unrecognizable, yet call themselves “patriots”? I suppose that they could be so apoplectic about not getting “what’s theirs” that they believe that to be a patriot is to “reinvent” America (90’s flashback, anyone?).

According to most scholars, a classical liberal holds to the following [3]:

• an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,
• the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,
• the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and
• the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions.

We have unquestionably had challenges to the Constitution all the way back to the first big government statist, Alexander Hamilton, who brought us a national bank, the Alien and Sedition Acts, corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs, public debt, high taxation, and general distrust of “the common man”. Hamilton’s rationale for “big government” was not very different from that of Obama, Pelosi, or Reid. He argued that we needed government because, “…the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.” In other words, big government knows what you need… whether it is popular or not(sound familiar?). Jefferson was the savior of America, whose presidency, which began in 1801, brought the US its real first exposure to living under the theories of Locke, Smith, and Hume. This era of limited government, which more greatly embraced laissez faire capitalism, was appealing to most Americans and brought about victories for the Democratic-Republican Party until 1824, when the election was stolen during the "corrupt bargain" by John Quincy Adams (whose agenda was higher taxes, higher tariffs, a national university, and federal support for the arts and sciences) and Henry Clay.

So in sum, one could not honestly argue that there are patriots among “socialist-Americans”, “fascist-Americans”, or any American who seeks to "fundamentally transform" our nation in a direction that petitions for a more active governmental role in our lives. I would call these people “neo-Americans”, as they call for a "new" and paternal nation that seeks not to bring about a government which defends their liberties so they can meet their needs, but which meets their needs through edicts which redistribute wealth at the expense of liberty. Many call these neo-Americans “progressives”. But to a progressive, “progress” comes not through the innovation of man, but by the legislative whims of the elite in government. Progressivism, is therefore, the opposite of classical liberalism, as one requires men to embrace a social contract and govern themselves, and the other demands that man submit to what is “deemed” good for him. Indeed, this is a nation of liberties which rightfully grants the freedom to publicly voice dissent and allow men to even vociferously attack the foundations of our liberties. Many great men have argued that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, but it is difficult to argue that the Constitution, in its generous respect for free men and it’s disdain for the despotism of which Franklin spoke, makes its destruction possible… and ironically and most notably, by those who enjoy such liberties. I accept that the “true” classical liberal is becoming a creature close to extinction. But, all that I desire is that Americans begin to recognize that we are not the nation we once were or should have become. As a former history teacher, I find myself celebrating Independence Day with more nostalgia and greater fear. The United States is (or was) far more than a nation, but an idea that stemmed from St. Augustine’s argument that out of evil can come good; out of tyranny can come justice; out of slavery can come freedom. And all of this out of the wisdom of our Framers, based on their righteous indignation which was planted by their personal experiences with despotism.

More to come…

Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. – Barry Goldwater