olitics as a discussion topic in today’s USA meets with anything from confusion to indifference to angerbut it ought not be this way. While the media, academia, and even many politicians have contributed to the confusion and apathy of many Americans, burning off the fog isn’t as hard as it might seemin fact we’ll do it right here in a single article, or your money back! After tracing the series of historical transitions that got us where we are today, we’ll have a clearer “Joe Citizen’s” picture of what’s at stake in today’s American political arena...
How It All Started
To truly put today’s political scene in a proper perspective, we have to start with the beginning: Why there’s a USA in the first place. We’ve all been fed the clichéd soundbites of American history and told how grateful we should be to live in such a free countrybut it’s worthwhile to take a few moments to really consider what’s really been happening since the last half of the eighteenth century.
Before it all started, Europe & Britain underwent some big changes. The dignity of individual men and women, and their property, received greater recognition than before (or elsewhere), due in part to the Reformation, from which emerged the doctrine of Man as his Creator’s “image”-bearer (though degraded it may have since become), and the doctrine of vocation—that a productive blacksmith is as much a ‘calling’ as being a priest—which infused human labor with meaning and value. This contributed to social and civil changes that began in Europe and developed further in America—including the core concepts of individual liberty, personal property, and self-government.
Remember the classic “thirteen colonies” that became the first of the United States? They were originally merely extensions of the British kingdom on the continent of North America, under the rule of King George III and the British government. These early American colonists were actually British citizens, entitled to the full rights and protection of British law, just as any other British citizen anywhere else in the world. (For a while, anyway...)
There was a lot to be said for being British in those days. Britain’s army and navy comprised the most powerful military force around. British power, influence, and commerce were known throughout the globe, and the average British citizen enjoyed enviable prestige and liberty both at home and abroad. In this sense, the American colonists certainly seemed to be in a valuable and advantageous position.
So what big deal happened to make the American colonists want “freedom” from all the benefits of British citizenship? What got their shorts in such a bind that they would not only give up the prestige of their British heritage, but take up arms against their own government’s army in a war for independence?
Well, I’ll tell you...
Americans fire on British soldiers at Lexington
As the new Americans flourished and prospered in their colonies, their own government (largely on the other side of the Atlantic ocean) gradually imposed heavier and heavier taxes on them, and gradually took away many of the liberties the colonists had been enjoying. When this heavy-handed government control and excessive taxation seemed to already be at its worst, the government went another step—one too far—by sending army troops to disarm the American colonists. Why? So they couldn’t do anything about all the tyranny King George and his government were imposing on the colonists(!).
Back then, British citizens had a right to keep and bear arms, so when the government sent troops to take away their guns and ammunition, the American colonists had to choose between shooting at their own government’s troops, or allowing themselves to be forcibly disarmed (i.e., rendered defenseless) by—and against—the same government that had already been imposing excessive taxes and burdensome limitations for years.
By the time those first shots were fired by the American colonists at Lexington (shots said to be “heard around the world” because much of the world was watching to see whether these people would succeed in their fight for liberty and independence), many Americans were already resolved that the only remaining solution to their problem was to break off from Britain and form a new and entirely independent government of their own. (You can read the colonists’ reasons for doing so, in their own words, in the Declaration of Independence.)
The ‘American Experiment’
What did the Americans gain by winning a war against their own government, against the most powerful military force of the dayand against all odds? They won for themselves and (they hoped) for their posterity the freedom to establish a new and independent system of government of their own. One where certain “big rules” applied to make sure the government couldn’t grow to become as tyrannical as the one it replaced, by keeping it accountable to the very people it governed. That’s what’s known as the “Rule of Law”—specifically legitimized and empowered by the consent of the governedand the “big rules” were written into the U.S. Constitution.
The American concept of government was fairly simple. It was centered on the principles of individual liberty and self-government. Liberty is the freedom to do what you want, when and where you want, as long as it doesn’t do harm to someone else’s liberty or property. Self-government is doing what you know is right and exercising the common sense, common courtesy, and deliberate self-restraint to stop short of doing injustice to the liberty or property of others. The natural outcome of a community founded on this principal is a greatly reduced need for civil government structure.
“The government which governs least, governs best.”
Self-government moves from the individual to the family, household, community, county, state, and finally, the national level. The arrangement established by the founders insisted that the least amount of government should be necessary at the national (federal) level, with the most government taking place at the other, more localized and accessible, end of the spectrum.
To make sure the federal government didn’t get too big for its britches, the Constitution was designed to restrain and limit its powers to only certain specific things. Anything else was off limits. As long as the American people made sure all the public servants (i.e., elected representatives) at the federal level obeyed the Constitution, things should go fairly smoothly, and folks would keep most of their own self-governing power closer to homeat the state level or below. This “Rule of Law” arrangement was meant to guarantee that the Constitution would always dictate and limit how things would be done, with neither the citizens, nor their elected representatives, being free to change the rules.
And it actually worked, for a while...
The Changes Begin
Unfortunately, ours isn’t a “happily ever after” story. There have always been those who thought they were better at ruling The People than The People themselves, tending to naturally view the principles of self-government and the Rule of Law with contempt, since these were frustrating obstacles to their totalitarian and collectivist goals.
The Spectre of Nationalism
Even before (and ever since) the Constitutional Convention at which the current U.S. Constitution was drafted, there were folks who envisioned a powerful central government for America. Among them were the likes of Alexander Hamilton — men who wanted the states (and through them, the people) to cede their sovereignty to a powerful national government, sovereign in its own right, which in turn could expand an American empire of prestige, power, and influence.
The national empire these men envisioned met with strong opposition from liberty-minded Americans who favored instead a confederation of sovereign states (hence the original “Articles of Confederation” which the Constitution was crafted to replace). But nationalists have persisted in their efforts to shift and press the balance away from states’ rights, limited national government, and individual liberty, and towards an ever-expanding (and ever more taxing) national empire run by a power-hungry supreme national state.
During the first century of the “American Experiment” the nationalists were largely held at bay by the people and/or principled presidents. But eventually the public memory was sufficiently fogged, and popular sentiment sufficiently enticed by politicians’ promises of “free” government solutions to so many perennial problems.
What follows is a series of selected events and trends that accelerated the historical establishment of the nationalist agenda in the American public mind and body politic. While not exhaustive, it should sufficiently acquaint the reader with enough facts to discern the history of the nationalist trend.
The Civil War
Slavery was Abolished without military conflict in several other western nations around the same time as the Civil War, bringing into question the popular myth that ending slavery required—and was the primary cause of—this bloody conflict among the American states.
During the 19th century, slavery was abolished (without civil war) in Argentina (1813), Colombia (1814), Chile (1823), Central America (1824), Mexico (1829), Bolivia (1831), British colonies (1840), Uruguay (1842), French colonies (1848), Danish colonies (1848), Ecuador (1851), Peru (1854), Venezuela (1854), Dutch colonies (1863), Puerto Rico (1873), Brazil (1878) and Cuba (1886).
The American Civil War—popularly portrayed as “the war to end slavery”—was in fact caused by much more significant matters than slavery alone. Having voluntarily formed and joined the union of the United States, the individual sovereign states were not prohibited by the Constitution from likewise voluntarily withdrawing from the union, should their citizens resolve to do so. While slavery was certainly a controversial issue in the years leading up to the war (there were proponents and opponents throughout both North and South), the states of the “South” chose to secede primarily because they were being manipulated into an economic disadvantage by the more industrialized northern states, via an already overreaching federal government apparatus. The (mainly agricultural) southern states were being saddled with inequitable tariffs, and their right to sovereign self-determination—both individually and collectively—was being directly challenged by the conduct of dominant northern states. This situation was brought to a head with the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln, who took office vowing to increase those same tarifs and use military action against any state that failed to comply.
The Civil War, then, was fought primarily over the issue of states’ rights—that is, whether the individual, sovereign states that form the union of the United States still retain the rights reserved to them by the Constitution. Unfortunately for all Americans, because the “South” lost, the concept of “states’ rights” has been pretty much laid to waste. Slavery was destined to be abolished in any case, but the most significant, enduring, and ultimately negative outcome of the Civil War was an increase of centralized power in the federal government over the states and The People—which was only the beginning of an unfortunate and wholly unconstitutional trend in American federal government that has grown in ever increasing increments ever since.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
-Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution
It’s no myth that “the victors get to write the history books,” and although our government school textbooks, the media, higher academia, and the government itself all persist in simplistically portraying the Civil War as “the war to end slavery,” in doing so, they turn a blind eye to critical facts of history, and the more impactful and critical principles at play in the “War Between the States”—leaving the average American to believe that slavery was the only issue, and that the war’s outcome was nothing but good—both of which are historically and politically false.
The end of the Civil War very much marked an unfortunate turning point in U.S. history. From that time forward, the federal government (dominated intially by opportunist Republicans, but joined in due time by enthusiastic Democrats) has increased its power over the states and the citizens, doing more and more things that the Constitution prohibits it from doing. By using military force to disallow states to choose economic and political liberty and independence, the federal government established a pattern that has continued to be used (and abused) to this day. The “lesson learned” from the Civil War was that the federal government was intent on transforming itself from its constitutionally designated role as servant of The People and their states to an emerging master—as long as The People did not have the presence of mind to object.
In the Founders’ words...
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.”
—James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 45
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated.”
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...”
“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”
“On every unauthoritative exercise of power by the legislature must the people rise in rebellion or their silence be construed into a surrender of that power to them? If so, how many rebellions should we have had already?”
The federal government’s persistent and ever-increasing disregard of the U.S. Constitution has been so gradual over the years that most folks have scarcely noticedor even cared. Prohibition was another significant step in this process.
Prohibition was an attempt by the federal government, under the influence of many well-meaning moralists, to dictate the behavior of all American citizens. So self-important and powerful was the federal government that emerged from the Civil War era, that neither the citizens, their communities, nor the individual (supposedly sovereign) states of the Union were free to decide for themselves how they would conduct themselves with regard to alcoholic beverages. All production and consumption of alcohol was forbidden.
The “War On Drugs” differs little from Prohibition: 1) Production, possession, and distribution are criminalized; 2) Costly, marginally effective federal enforcement taxes the citizens and diverts local law enforcement resources; 3) Other-wise law-abiding citizens, now branded as criminals & threatened with prison, resort to violence for survival; 4) Neither casual use, nor abuse, of the outlawed goods are significantly reduced—let alone eliminated; 5) A federal “police state” threatens liberty in general.
The lesson to be learned from the generation that survived Prohibition is that The People had the final say in the matter. Even though the federal law demanded penalties and punishment for those involved in producing, distributing and possessing outlawed alcoholic beverages, no jury was (or is) legally or constitutionally required to abide by a law they find unreasonable.
The People finally got tired of the overbearing ways of the federal agents and their enlistment of local law enforcement to do their dirty work, and the juries stopped convicting the government’s victims as criminals. Instead, they acquitted them, showing their disapproval of the law itself, and the heavy-handed federal government that insisted on enforcing it. (For more on “jury nullification” see the Fully Informed Jury Association [FIJA].)
In the end, the federal law mandating Prohibition—a Constitutional Amendment, in fact—was repealed, largely because the citizens rejected the self-important and meddling role that the federal bureaucracy had assumed. This was one of the last times in American history when The People stood up to a heavy-handed, power-grabbing federal government. Our subsequent performance, in the defense of individuals’ and state’s rights vis-à-vis an ever more bloated and power-hungry federal bureaucracy bent on evolving into a police state, has been less than stellar.
The Changes Continue
The transformation of the public and political landscape from its original form to the modern version has been facilitated by several additional processes and events deserving of at least some attention and analysis. Below are a few significant examples.
Further changes have served to bring the United States ever further away from the ideals and principles of the founding generation—always so subtly that the majority of each succeeding generation has scarcely detected any “problem” with the changes.
In the 1800s and early 1900s, Americans were among the best-educated people in the western world. Most Americans were educated at home and/or in small community schools. This pattern began to change—and the downward spiral in American education began—when self-styled education elitists introduced the Prussian education model to America. The Prussians had embraced a national education system in which every student was molded to be a model citizen/servant of the State. It was an early form of state socialism, and American socialists, presenting themselves as experts on the matter, have heralded it ever since as somehow essential to America’s survival.
By now, the true product of a centrally-controlled, taxpayer-funded, government operated socialist “education” system is becoming obvious to all. Even though most Americans don’t recognize the collectivist indoctrination present the typical “public” school system curriculum, they’ve been figuring out for years that all those tax dollars aren’t resulting in much of an education. Instead, “public” schools have infused generation after generation of the American public with ever increasing numbers of undisciplined, undereducated candidates for ever more tax-funded welfare “programs”—i.e., state socialism (see below).
Collectivism—and its close relative, political/idealogical globalism—have thus emerged as dominant threads in the American psyche during the past century. Cast aside as dimly perceived and obsolete artifacts of a bygone and essentially irrelevant era are such concepts as liberty, self-determination, and limited-government. Tax-funded, politically managed, government “education” has been instrumental in achieving this change, along with ever lower academic standards, higher levels of illiteracy, and a popular lack of critical thinking skills.
Neither the Federal Reserve, nor the Federal Income Tax (as currently “administrated” by the federal government), nor the Federal/National Debt are authorized by the U.S. Constitution—and none of them can be said to have ever reflected the will of the American People—yet during the last century they have become accepted by the American public as essential “institutions” of the U.S. government and the American way of life. A few voices persist in questioning the legitimacy of these devices and their role in robbing a nation of its wealth and sovereignty, but they go largely unheeded by the masses, which are content to be herded along in their daily routines, blindly self-assured that if anything were really wrong somebody would surely be doing something to fix it (and it must be the other political party’s fault).
By establishing the Federal Reserve, America’s politicians transferred control of the nation’s financial backbone (and future) to unelected, profit-driven, private interests, instead of an accountable servant-government. What positive benefit to the American People does the Federal Reserve (which is neither “federal,” nor a “reserve” of The People’s resources) provide? (Hint: none.) Yet Americans by and large have been duped into thinking “the Fed” is a necessary and constitutionally viable part of American government. (In reality, The People would be better off if control of American fiscal policy were returned to an accountable role directly tied to the representative government itself.)
The Constitution explicitly prohibits the U.S. government from directly taxing U.S. citizens. The 16th Amendment (questionably ratified in 1913) is sometimes cited as “proof” (to the naïve) that Congress has the power to directly tax the property and earnings of the average American, yet the Supreme Court has ruled -- multiple times -- that the amendment neither created, nor authorized, any “new” taxing power for Congress. But its original meaning has subsequently been unlawfully reinterpreted by Congress, the IRS, and lower courts to render Americans’ wages and property directly taxable by the U.S. government.
There is a significant reason why the founders chose to prohibit direct taxation: They knew it would lead to a bloated and largely unaccountable—if not downright tyrannical—federal government. (Sound familiar?) They knew direct taxation of The People by a federal government would put too great a distance between those being taxed and the government collecting the tax, risking the very runaway “taxation without representation” against which the colonists had revolted. Hence the prohibition of a direct federal tax on The People in the Constitution.
The Federal Income Tax’s true lawful nature has been misrepresented to the American public by the IRS and the Justice Department for decades. This is meticulously documented in Peter Hendrickson’s book “Cracking the Code,” an eye-opening, fact-filled study on what federal tax law really says, as well as Phil Hart’s “Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?,” which documents in detail the motivation and intent of The People in ratifying the 16th Amendment, and how the Supreme Court has affirmed the same.
America’s politicians have foisted unconstitutional direct taxation on the citizens for nearly a century now, and proven with stark clarity how justified the founders’ fears were. Not only has the American public meekly acquiesced to this milking of their property to fuel the transition from liberty and self-determination to collectivist totalitarianism, but they’ve allowed the same politicians to spend, year after year, so much more than that for which they were already being bilked, resulting in today’s astronomical national debt—owed in large part (conveniently) to the private banks which comprise the Federal Reserve!
Collectivism as a Norm
Beginning as a “solution” to the Great Depression in the 1930s, collectivism—or socialism—soon stood as a permanent and ever more prominent feature on the landscape of American “normalcy.” Generation after generation of compliant citizens, suckled at the teat of public “education,” acquiesces to the notion that tax-funded big government can and should do for The People more and more of the things that they once did more effectively and efficiently for themselves. The result has swelled to an endless list of on-going government “projects” and agencies established to control ever more aspects of people’s lives and activities.
Collectivism emerged simultaneously in both the U.S. and Nazi Germany, but in subtly different ways. German national socialism was their brand of collectivism, in which the Nation/State took first place over everything else. Private industry remained private, but was nonetheless strictly subservient to the needs of the State. In the U.S., collectivism has been introduced much more gradually, with support from both major political parties, lending a misleading measure of ‘democratic’ credibility to the trans-formation process. In each case, however, the end result is the same: the erosion of liberty, the rise of a powerful central government that controls ever greater measures of property and activity, and the estab-lishment of a national collectivist ideology, departures from which are dismissed (if not prosecuted) as not in the best interest of the “common good” (as defined by that ideology).
Blaming this phenomenon on either of the two dominant political parties is futile, since neither of them ever offered much significant resistance to the process. Instead, “pork barrel politics” helped solidify the change, as politicians, preoccupied with their careers, and allegiance to the two parties of the monopoly, supported federal spending on one project or agency after another, with little consideration as to whether such a burgeoning and inefficient federal bureaucracy—and the ever heavier and irreversible tax burden required to fund it—was in the best interest of The People whom they profess to represent.
Many Americans have come to not only acquiesce to the collectivist “norm” perpetuated by today’s politicians and the dominant voices in the popular news media, but they believe it is better than the founders’ framework, as reflected in the Constitution (which now goes largely ignored by both the government and the governed). They embrace the notion of a government plundering the property of certain citizens to fund bloated, inefficient, and ineffective projects and agencies to “help” certain other citizens.
These same Americans consider the steady erosion of personal liberty and/or genuine personal security to be a reasonable sacrifice for some semblance of perceived “security” supplied by “the government”—whether it be “freedom” from disease, from the risk of financial hardship, from personally facing responsibility for one’s various actions, etc. When their faith in big-government is questioned or meets with challenging historical facts system, they tend to produce a string of what-if arguments (no matter how empirically and logically unsound) supposedly proving how much we need a huge federal government, its requisite national debt, inefficient, power-hungry bureaucracies, etc.—in short, endless pleas that collectivism is somehow necessary!
Sadly, this doctrinaire mentality pervades many sectors of contemporary American society and culture, regardless of race, gender, age, or (in some cases) political perspective, causing many to not only fail to question the rightness of the way things are, but to actually defend the sacrifice of Americans’ personal liberty on the altar of collectivist serfdom. With each succeeding generation, while the federal government claims a right to control yet more of The People’s activity and property, this army of compliant “model citizens” marches through time, mocking the constitutional republic America once was, and pretending collectivism and “democracy” are synonymous terms for what has always made America “great” country. Such historical revisionism has also played a role in the emergence of such popular and politically charged (but simplistically misguided) trends as “political correctness,” “multi-culturalism,” and “tolerance.”
The notion that many must sacrifice for the good of all has certainly seemed appropriate at various times of crisis in American history, not the least of which was the United States’ initial fight against Britain for independence. But collectivism and its side-kick, utilitarianism, combine to demand that individuals, their liberty, and their property must be constantly sacrificed for the “greater good” of the “greater number” (i.e., the all-powerful State and those who control it) as a matter of routine. Few ideas are more directly opposed to the principles from which the United States forged their original charter.
‘Freedom’ at Liberty’s Expense
Popular contemporary American thought blurs the distinction between “freedom” and “liberty” as they were once understood—even charging “freedom” with the political power of “right” and entitlement of some citizens, regardless of the cost to others. Let’s look at just some of the results of this misguided mentality.
The 1960s and 1970s witnessed a popular “liberation” from what had once been a moral anchor for American culture: the so-called sexual “revolution” introduced a series of ultimately harmful trends, destined to rip the very fabric of American society and culture. Increasing the spread of venereal disease, out-of-wedlock (especially teen) pregnancies, divorce, infidelity, broken and dysfunctional families, the perceived “right” to “free” and allegedly inconsequential sex only “liberated” a few generations from the very customs and institutions capable of nurturing (and preserving) lives, relationships, and families with relational stability and moral substance.
The media, academia, and politicians have largely treated these trends matter-of-factly, as inevitable and normal, ignoring their inescapable nature as direct consequences of moral indifference. The so-called “freedom” to engage in any sexual behavior at any time continues to tear at the moral confidence of American society, while it continues to be heralded as a sacred cow of popular culture.
The injury done to many individuals, mostly (but not exclusively) the young, and the many lives they touch throughout their subsequent years, may be no less measurable than the violence done to those wishing to preserve for themselves and their progeny a morally, sexually, and emotionally stable and encouraging framework in which to function. By so denying any responsibility for their actions, many Americans have unwittingly unleashed and perpetuated a growing propensity towards personal irresponsibility in their own children. The degrading effect on American culture and social structure is an observable phenomenon to them, yet one for which they—again—accept no responsibility.
While personal liberty was—and should remain—paramount in the American psyche, no less important should be the inescapable principle of personal responsibility (self-government)—that thoughts (and the choices they yield) have consequences. Such consequences are often largely irrevocable, and promise to reverberate for generations into the future. Casual, self-centered, and morally bankrupt attitudes towards society, family, and personal sexuality have proven to inevitably and irrevocably degrade the very fabric of society in numerous ways.
‘Multiculturalism,’ ‘Tolerance,’ and Hemorrhaging Borders
One of today’s politically correct catchwords is ‘multiculturalism’—the notion that traditional American culture and customs merit no special consideration in America because all cultures and customs are of equal merit. That premise is belied by the tremendous number of people worldwide eager to take up residency within American borders: If all cultures and customs were truly of equal merit, those masses would be content with the cultures and customs — and the associated civil and economic traditions — of their homelands.
But people aren’t flocking to India, Central & South America, Africa, or the Middle East, and instead come to the U.S. from those regions precisely because (what is left of) American culture — and the civil and economic framework it spawned — still offers greater liberty and opportunity than most places on earth. In direct contradiction to the plain facts (once again), collectivists persist in demanding that the false doctrines of ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘tolerance’ be used to minimize the values and principles in which American prosperity finds its deepest roots: individual liberty and responsibility, and limited government.
On the surface, the terms ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘tolerance’ sound positive and wholesome. But to the collectivist mindset, ‘multiculturalism’ doesn’t simply mean understanding the various cultures from which many Americans and American immigrants have come, or merely that various cultures have something of value to offer. Instead, it demands that ‘traditional’ American cultural elements (i.e., supposedly of European or ‘white’ origin) be all but displaced by a synthetic, politically correct culture, peppered (for political advantage) with gestures of tolerance towards religious the idiosyncrasies and linguistics of various immigrant groups (legal and otherwise).
American ‘culture’ by its very nature is bound to be in a state of perpetual flux, but the tendancy of ‘multiculturalists’ to elevate almost everything but that which is supposedly of European or ‘white’ origin, needlessly (but predictably) creates a backlash of contempt for the cultural effects introduced by many immigrants. This reaction is intensified by the perception (whether accurate or not) that many immigrants come only to benefit from the already largely socialist institutions that transfer the wealth of hard workers to those who manage to tap into the system — i.e., the welfare state.
By the same token, the concept of ‘tolerance’ has been stood on its head in mainstream American media, academia, and politics. It doesn’t simply mean being tolerant of those who are different from one’s self (whether in cultural background, ‘sexual orientation,’ etc.) — but, much like ‘multiculturalism,’ it means that all these diverse differences must be wholeheartedly embraced as equally valid — except for anything that seems remotely traditional (e.g., European or Christian in origin).
From the same political bent that spawned these double-standards has come a true cousin, cultural ‘group think’ — the mentality that seeks to further replace the traditional American principles of individual liberty, individual responsibility, individual achievement, etc., with ethnic, cultural, and — yes — racist and/or nationalist agendas, based on collectivist manipulation: We are continuously propagandized by their call for black, hispanics, Muslims, etc., to only think and act ‘with the herd’. Thinking, acting or (may it never be!) voting outside the proscribed statist, collectivist ‘box’ is frowned upon.
Immigration in the U.S. (just like the U.S. federal government that ignores it) has been out of control for some decades. The legal level of immigration was arbitrarily raised by the U.S. Congress in the 1970s, after which illegal immigration likewise erupted to levels which neither state nor federal governments were/are capable of handling or correcting. The long-term affect of this trend is likely to be the crumbling demise of a collectivist welfare-state economy handed down to future generations by their mindlessly ‘tolerant’ and ‘multiculturalist’ parents and grandparents.
This politically-motivated, continuously wide-open door will play a powerful role in the lives of your children, dear reader. The collectivist welfare-state economy that your politicians (of both parties of the bipartisan monopoly) have created cannot indefinitely sustain such an unbridled influx without eventually — and dramatically — altering the economic, cultural, social, and political landscape of the entire nation — not in the direction of individual liberty and responsibility, and limited government, but (through one ‘crisis’ after another) towards more statism, collectivism, and socialism — institutions the ends of which consistently proved to be dubious (at best) throughout the past century.
Liberty Bound & Gagged
The concept of freedom from religion has emerged in recent decades to turn the 1st Amendment on its head, all but outlawing Christianity and rendering the biblical Christian worldview illegal “hate” speech for adhering to a set of immutable moral standards and postulating absolute truth. What’s wrong with this picture? I’ll tell you: The same Americans invoking the 1st Amendment to censor and condemn the Christian worldview in the name of “tolerance” are simultaneously (and hypocritically) practicing a brand and measure of ideological intolerance equal to or greater than the alleged “intolerance” which they claim to be opposing. The principle of religious liberty embodied in the Bill of Rights is thus being violated for the advancement of multiple anti-Christian ideologies, including secular humanism.
“Gun Control” has become another misguided popular cause, fueled almost entirely by a careful blend of ignorance and leftist ideology, and the mindless emotionalism typically evoked by both. Throughout history, when law-abiding people had the liberty to defend themselves from the lawless and/or from a tyrannical government, crime and/or tyranny have been kept in check. The past century has proven unequivocally that “gun control” invariably has the opposite effect.
The facts of history are irrelevant to most “gun control” advocates, however, because their agenda (including the financing behind it) is much more important to them than embracing a truly constructive and helpful approach to problem-solving. Communities saddled with more “gun control” laws invariably have higher crime rates than communities with fewer “gun control” laws. There’s no getting around these facts.
Yet the liberty recognized and protected by the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (and affirmed in numerous Supreme Court rulings) remains constantly under siege by “gun control” proponents, who hype irrational fears and unquestioned “statistics” to advance an agenda much less concerned with public safety and liberty than with its own success. The principle of defensive liberty embodied in the Bill of Rights is thus being violated for the advancement of an ideology favoring an unarmed and defenseless citizenry.
American businesses have widely varying track records in terms of their care for their employees, their customers, the public, the environment, taxes, etc. Nevertheless, the collectivist ideology popularized by the media, academia, and left-leaning politicos falsely generalizes all “business”—conveniently blurring any distinction between “business” and “big business”—as inherently big and evil. Such concepts as free enterprise, capitalism, and even private property are simplistically (and falsely) cast as the tools of “big corporations” and a privileged, wealthy, upper class, used to victimize the “little guy” via economic oppression. The principles of liberty in commerce and private property embodied in the Declaration of Independence are thus being violated for the advancement of an ideology favoring collectivist (if not outright communist) concepts.
Having replaced public discourse with an addiction to entertainment, the American public has largely fulfilled the prophecies of none other than Aldous Huxley, who suggested that people would grow to so loathe knowledge that book-banning would be unnecessary, that people would become so consumed with self-gratification and feeling good that truth would become irrelevant—in short, that our pre-occupation with ourselves would lead to our undoing. What began as a nation established on the principles of liberty and self-government (self-control), has been transformed into a nation of “victims,” finger-pointers, presumed entitlements, etc., etc., drowning the meaning of true liberty in a swollen sea of state-sponsored, greed- and laziness-motivated welfare programs.
The “Bipartisan” Political Monopoly
Most Americans have been conditioned to think politically in terms of a “two-party system” in which the Republicans and Democrats are in a permanent face-off over the destiny of the U.S. “Conventional wisdom” (whatever that is) says these two parties represent the only two viable (and often opposite) “mainstream” positions on any relevant issue. Anything else is an irrelevant “fringe” point of view.
Operating under the above assumption year after year, voters choose between the two “major” parties, seldom giving pause to ask why there are only two choices — or whether the agendas of both parties could be possibly unacceptable in terms consitutional legality (i.e., in conflict with the principles and legal foundation on which the national government was established in the first place [e.g., personal liberty and responsibility, limited government, fiscal responsibility, etc.]).
“Conventional wisdom” suggests that no other parties are needed, that the two parties monopolizing the U.S. political system are all we need “to preserve democracy” — any other parties being free to join the contest, yet none having a sufficiently compelling or popular platform to merit public consideration. The government itself, along with the major media outlets, concur with this approach, further reinforcing popular belief in the “two-party system” as the American way.
What’s wrong with this picture?
First, it is instructive to observe not only the differences, but also the many profound similarities, between these two parties.
For example, throughout the many decades of their shared monopoly of U.S. politics, both parties have increased the size of the federal government; both have increased federal taxation; both have increased the size of the federal budget, the federal deficit, and the national debt; both have actively fostered the expansion of federal bureaucracies and police agencies to tell people what to do, how, and when, to generate innumerable arbitrary regulations and penalties, and to control private commerce and himder free enterprise; both have also been heavily engaged in the practice of “pork barrel” (tax-and-spend favoritism) politics, including corporate welfare when and where it suited their agendas (i.e., getting or keeping power).
[These are facts, folks. I know it’s not pretty, but the truth isn’t always a thing of beauty. And please don’t make the common mistake of confusing the walk with the talk. Most politicians will say whatever they think will keep them in office. But it’s not the talk that matters — it’s the walk. “You will know them by their fruits,” was spoken in wisdom many centuries ago. The same simply cannot be said of “thier words.”]
Presidents of both parties have repeatedly used “executive orders” and “emergency powers” to wage costly, unconstitutional, undeclared wars abroad against opponents that posed no direct threat to U.S. security or sovereignty. Likewise, these same presidents, often with no opposition from Congress, have given away billions in “free” aid and “loans” to foreign governments, much of which has never benefited the people over whom they rule. In these practices, presidential administrations of both parties have incurred an ever greater national debt, the ultimate liability for which rests not with any president, nor any other elected federal official, but with the people themselves — who are invariably given no opportunity to speak (or vote) on the matter.
In these and other constitutionally unlawful actions, presidents going as far back as Lincoln (see above) have arbitrarily suspended the Law of the Land in order to centralize and increase the power of the federal government, often abusing that same power (especially since World War II) to engage in unwarranted imperialistic military actions abroad.
No matter what their popularly touted campaign slogans and platforms might have been, both the Democrats and the Republicans have had various turns controlling the White House and one or both Houses of Congress. Yet at no time did either party actually take substantial steps to reverse any of the above trends. Instead, both have “pushed the envelope” in disregarding the legal limitations imposed by the U.S. Constitution, resulting in today’s bloated, power-hungry federal government.
Second, this enormous and complex federal government that has been nurtured by both parties of America’s political monopoly has, together with the parties themselves and much of the media, have concurrently hindered other voices from reaching the ears of the American public. While giving lip service to the Constitution and parroting phrases like “rule of law” (which carry little meaningful weight amidst a plethora of consistently unlawful actions), proponents and protectors of the bipartisan monopoly (both the deliberate and the unwitting) largely exclude “third party” challenges from serious public consideration.
A highly instructive example of this practice involves the “presidential debates” in which the two parties (and only the two parties[ 1 ]) participate every four years. It’s no secret (though they don’t publicize it themselves) that these carefully staged events are heavily controlled and protected by the two parties, shielding both parties’ candidates from issues for which neither party wants to be held accountable.
Sound like another “conspiracy theory” to you? The whole sordid scam is thoroughly documented at the website of Open Debates[ 2 ], an organization dedicated to exposing this farce and getting the voices of the “third parties” heard. I urge you to take the time to study their coverage, and make your own informed assessment of the matter.
||State[ 3 ]
Details of the 2004 presidential election (and “debates”) provide further insight into the perpetuation of the bipartisan monopoly of what should be an entirely non-partisan event. By mid-October, the “third party” candidates were on the ballots of U.S. states with potential electoral votes as indicated in the table at left.
The number of electoral votes needed to win a presidential election in 2004 was 270, so every candidate shown in the table would have technically been capable of winning the presidency, if it hadn’t been for the fact that all but the first two were virtually ignored by the U.S. government, both major parties, and the media in general. (How many times have you seen the “other four” viable candidates and their positions on any issues even mentioned (in any form) in the media [let alone on what are supposed to be non-partisan “debates”]?)
Suffice it to say that there is something terribly wrong when both public (taxes) and private funding are used to give the two largest parties additional, unnecessary and free advertising and exposure under the guise of “public debate,” to the deliberate exclusion of four viable, officially registered, and politically competitive platforms. The “news” media ought especially to be ashamed, since they pretend to offer balanced treatment of presidential elections, yet they largely ignore the presence and platforms of the “third parties,” as well as the injustice done to them via such charades as the “presidential debates.”
Today’s Terms and What They Mean
The American political machinery and the media have effectively disinformed many generations of unwitting Americans, decorating the government’s real agendas with deceptive labels.
Do yourself (and your progeny) a favor by shaking free from all the indoctrination. Amaze all your friends! Learn to recognize and apply the right labels to what they are doing, and stand up for truth — to the undoing of the parties and their collectivist agendas!
Our political language is a mess—and that’s no accident. The enemies of liberty are accustomed to redefining and blurring the distinctions between words, so as to confuse the public and make their own motives and goals less easily discerned.
“Enemies of Liberty?” Yes, for some decades a wide-spread and politically diverse popular movement has pervaded the American political realm—one that rejects the principles of liberty and self-government upon which the United States were founded. This loosely associated collection of individuals and organizations persists in disseminating their collectivist/globalist ideology as “normal” core values through the union-dominated government educational indoctrination systems and the popular media.
This is no “conspiracy theory”—indeed, no conspiracy is necessary. Americans have by and large submitted themselves and their children to be trained by their own tax-funded government education complex to adopt the collectivist/globalist mentality—a mindset (or worldview) that stands immovably contrary to several of the specific and fundamental principles held dear by America’s founders and at least a few of the generations that followed them.
The historical meaning and modern usage of many of these terms now overlap each other, and in some cases mean the opposite of what they once meant, causing abundant confusion and frustration. Liberal, leftist, conservative, libertarian, anarchist, socialism, communism, fascism, (all = collectivism), environmentalism, political correctness, obfuscation.
- anarchism n.
- a political ideology that opposes civil government of most any kind. Often erroneously and simplistically equated with libertarianism.
- aristocracy n.
- a system of government in which a special, privileged class of people rule over everyone else. For many decades, at the national level, American career politicians have endeavored to achieve and maintain what can fairly be called an aristocracy. This has chiefly been accomplished within the framework of a two-party monopoly of the election process, in which those who run for congressional offices are primarily affluent lawyers from the two parties sharing the monopoly over the U.S. political system, who willingly violate the Constitution to assure their re-election. See also oligarchy and despotism.
- collectivism n.
- a political ideology that promotes the subjugation of individual and popular liberty, needs and desires, as assessed by individuals and populations themselves, to the goals and demands of the state (government), which are determined by an elitist party that presumes to know what is best for the state, and therefore, the people. The term covers a broad collection of varieties, including socialism, fascism, and communism, all of which contain the core element of collectivism, and all of which tend to evolve, over time, into more totalitarian systems.
- communism n.
- a collectivist political ideology in which the state, its authority and goals (under the guise of “the workers”) are rendered the supreme guiding ideals by those in control. Communist government predominantly prohibits private ownership of commercial/production property. See collectivism.
- conservatism n.
- a political ideology that opposes change. This classic definition has become essentially obsolete, since many contemporary conservatives advocate change no more or less than their “liberal” counterparts. More accurately defined in the contemporary context, conservatism superficially represents a blend of traditional values, often combined with some measure of ostensible Christian beliefs and values, and opposition to taxpayer-funded government activities that threaten to erode any of these values. In practice, however, many (if not most) conservative politicians so readily compromise so-called “conservative” values (especially, but by no means only, at the federal level) that they could easily be mistaken for “liberals” apart from their rhetoric, and many of their deeds are collectivist in nature.
- democracy n.
- a form of government in which the people—particularly the majority of the people—presume to rule all of the people. The United States are not governed by a democracy, as is popularly believed, and heavily parroted by politians, the media, and academia. The U.S. Constitution plainly defines a republic as both the national and each independent State’s form of government (see Article IV, Section 4). John Adams said, “Democracy will soon degenerate into...such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure ...into a system of subordination of all...to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few.” One need only observe the direction in which America’s “democracy” advocates are marching to recognize that Mr. Adams knew what he was talking about.
- despotism n.
- a political ideology or arrangement in which national absolute power (or something closely resembling to it) is held by one person (or a very small group of persons). A despot is the person (or one of the people) wielding that power, or aspiring to do so. See also oligarchy and aristocracy.
- fascism n.
- a collectivist political ideology in which national pride, in combination with the state, its authority and goals are rendered the supreme guiding ideals by those in control. Fascist government typically permits private ownership of commercial/production property, as long as it remains readily available above all else for the needs of that government. See collectivism.
- jury nullification n.
- the right of a jury to judge the validity and morality of the law as well as the facts under which a defendant is being tried: U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury vs Madison 16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177 late 2nd, section 256: “No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.”
- leftist, left-wing, left-leaning adj.
- pertaining to a political ideology that is largely in line with liberalism, usually with some form of especially strong collectivist aspect.
- leviathan n.
- the term first introduced by political philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1697) to represent the collective unit of a commonwealth, or more specifically, the governing state that Hobbes saw as the inevitable and ‘sovereign’ outcome of individuals’ collective economic and social associations. Originally from a Hebrew word for a sea monster, it is often used to refer to the totalitarian-leaning, bureaucratic state found in most countries calling themselves democracies.
- liberalism n.
- a political ideology that advocates change, typically towards collectivist goals. This classic definition has become somewhat confusion to some, since many contemporary liberals advocate change no more or less than their “conservative” counterparts. More accurately defined in the contemporary context, liberalism represents a rejection of traditional values, often including any measure biblically accurate Christian beliefs and values, and advocates taxpayer-funded government activities promoting cultural/societal trends in line with these ideals within a predominantly collectivist framework.
- libertarianism n.
- a political ideology that promotes free market economics and individual and popular liberty over and above the authority and power granted to any governing authority. Often misconstrued as a form of anarchism, libertarian ideology’s considerable range of tenets chiefly center on government that is limited in power by—and held strictly accountable to—a population of primarily self-governing citizens. Summed up perhaps most succinctly by Thomas Jefferson: “The government which governs least, governs best.”
Generally, “libertarian” (lower case “l”) refers to libertariansim in general, while “Libertarian” (upper case “L”) refers to the Libertarian Party.
Caveat emptor! Unfortunately, a significant portion of the American libertarian movement, including the political party, fosters an “amoral”—sometimes anti-Christian—sentiment. Though things like rights and individual liberty ultimately depend on moral absolutes for their ultimate meaning, some self-styled intellectuals of the libertarian movement reject out-of-hand a moral cause or origin. Quick to deny any historical basis for an objective moral standard, they irrationally perpetuate historical fabrications to justify their exclusion (i.e., intolerance) of what might as well be called Christian Libertarianism. Libertarians who practice this hypocrisy include the likes of Vin Suprynowicz and L. Neil Smith.
- liberty n.
- the freedom to conduct the affairs of one’s person and property without external (particularly government) limitation, so long as another’s person or property is not infringed or harmed. While comprising a specific manifestation of combined political, civil, and personal freedom, “liberty” should not be confused or interchanged with the general term “freedom.”
- oligarchy n.
- a system of government in which a small number of people rule over everyone else. For many decades, at the national level, American career politicians have endeavored to achieve and maintain what can fairly be called an oligarchy. This has chiefly been accomplished within the framework of a two-party monopoly of the election process, in which those who run for congressional offices are primarily affluent lawyers from the two parties sharing the monopoly over U.S, politics, who willingly violate the Constitution to assure their re-election. See also aristocracy and despotism.
- republic n.
- a form of self-government in which: the citizens are the free and sovereign rulers; they are served by a limited government of elected representatives; the government is ever subject to the law and the citizens’ vigilant scrutiny; the rights of the minority may not be overturned by majority vote. “A government of laws and not of men”—John Adams. The founders understood an ideal republic to be one in which the rights and property of all citizens are uniformly protected, within which context the people rule themselves, and are not ruled by any government, or one another. (Contrast this with what the U.S. has become under the mythical ruse that “this is a democracy,” and you will soon see why the founders detested democracy.)
- socialism n.
- a collectivist political ideology in which the “good” of “society” is defined the supreme guiding ideal by those (usually a small minority) who rule over everyone else. See collectivism.
- state n.
- the political organization, institutions, and bureaucracies that purports (whether justifiably or not) to sovereignly represent and govern the population of a distinct and defined geographic area. Until the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Americans for the most part considered themselves sovereigns, not subjects of their respective States, and certainly not citizens of an American ‘nation’ or mega-state comprised of the several States (as the federal government has since come to be regarded). The United States of America were commonly regarded by their respective populations as distinct, sovereign, and independent entities. Socialist trends, from the institution of ‘The Pledge’ to numerous other actions advancing the ideology of collectivism, have since rendered the state (i.e., government) as equivalent to the People or the so-called singular nation of the United States in the popular mind.
- statism n.
- a collectivist political ideology in which the state itself, its authority and goals are rendered the supreme guiding ideals by those in control. See collectivism.
- totalitarian adj.
- having the characteristics of complete, centralized control by a powerful leader or group, making the individual citizen a subject/slave of the state/government, with strict control of all aspects of the life and available productive capacity, typically by coercive measures (censorship and/or police-state/military rule).
- utilitarianism n.
- a collectivist political ideology in which individual rights and liberty are subordinated to government-imposed actions and rules arbitrarily assumed by elitist power-holders to bring about the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people.
 The only exception to this exclusive practice was in 1992, when both parties consented to allow Ross Perot’s participation, each major party believing the other would be more harmed by his participation. Though he received 18% of the popular vote in 1992 and was entitled to federal election funding in 1996, Perot was excluded from the 1996 debates, as they were arbitrarily returned from being non-partisan to their previous bi-partisan nature — where they have remained ever since. [RETURN TO TEXT]
 Be sure to use the menu links on the left-hand side of the Open Debates page cited here, to more thoroughly examine the many aspects and details of the issue. [RETURN TO TEXT]
 To conserve space the term “state” has been used here in place of the more technically accurate term “jurisdiction,” accounting for the 51st ballot jurisdiction, Washington, D.C., which is not a state. [RETURN TO TEXT]
This document is a work in progress. Please check back periodically as new sections are added or updated periodically.
© DemocracyIsNotFreedom.com. All Rights Reserved. • Contact Us • Site Map
Powered by Lone Star Web Works