The Obama Administration's War Against Self Governance and Freedom of Assocation

To protect the fundamental right of families and individuals to live in any home and community that they desire and can afford is an affirmation of the American Way. One of the few instances in which federal authority should trump the rights of local self governance, is when communities actively bar individuals from exercising their constitutionally guaranteed liberties. But, when the federal government mandates that local communities take actions to ensure equal demographic outcomes, rather than equal housing opportunities, it violates the rights of self government to pursue self government and individuals to exercise their freedom of association.

More than any other American government, the Obama Administration has demonstrated a troubling penchant for disregarding the letter and spirit of carefully conceived limits on federal power, regarding the aforementioned rights. This was seen was the Administration demanded that Westchester County, under threat of a long and costly lawsuit to "spend more than $50 million of its own money, in addition to other funds, to build or acquire 750 homes or apartments, 630 of which must be provided in towns and villages where black residents constitute 3 percent or less of the population and Hispanic residents make up less than 7 percent. The 120 other spaces must meet different criteria for cost and ethnic concentration." To achieve this, the county will have to force local towns to rewrite their zoning laws, none of which have been deemed illegal. According to Ron Sims, the Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, “This is consistent with the president’s desire to see a fully integrated society." 

While I share the president's belief that integration is a social good and I would not want to live in a homogeneous community, I respect the rights of others to do so, as long as they are not depriving others of the opportunity to move to their community. There is no evidence that neither county, nor city governments, not any individuals have taken discriminatory measures. The only real barrier is the high cost of housing in the more homogeneous towns of Westchester and for the time being there does not exist a constitutional right to rent or purchase a home that exceeds your means. So, in effect, the federal government is pursuing social engineering to ensure equal outcomes, against the will of the local communities. And in effect this also intrudes on the freedom of individuals to enjoy the fruits of their labor, for most individuals have worked hard to be able to afford to live in desirable communities. Interestingly, upwardly mobile African-Americans are often the most critical of forced economic integration, because they worked the hardest to move into or build communities not beset by the problems that public housing often brings. 

An important aspect of this story is the flawed, underlying beliefs that drives the Obama Administration's efforts at social engineering, the first being that most African-Americans and Latinos want to live in majority white communities. Even in liberal, integrated high schools and universities, with no history of racial animosity, the majority of students self self segregate at lunch time and in their social activities. And when friendships form across racial lines, the individuals are almost always of a similar class and cultural background, so the chance of real social integration occurring through the government's efforts to import low income residents, is slim to none. 


More troubling, the actions of the Obama Administration implies that in order to thrive, African-Americans, unlike any other group, need to reside among other groups. A reader posted a response to this article that addresses this very point: "As a black American, I find this insulting...it sends a message that African-Americans need to be surrounded by rich white families to be happy and successful. Young black student's don't need to sit next to a white student to do good in school - we can do it on our own." You are correct; neither through "osmosis," nor through the mandates of the state can we as individuals and communities achieve happiness and good fortune. And real, enduring integration will never emerge through coercive social engineering, but through an affirmation of the principles of individual liberty (not group rights) and freedom of association.


On a side note, this affair begs the questions: Why should we view homogeneous white communities as being any more offensive than (let's say) equally exclusive Jewish, Chinese or Mexican-American neighborhoods? Why doesn't the federal government seek to diversify the said communities? Is there any real moral or legal difference between Americans of European descent seeking to congregate with their cultural compatriots, than (let's say) Arab Americans doing the same? Perhaps when European-Americans constituted the overwhelming majority of the nation, such behaviors could have been viewed as objectionable, but given that they now constitute a minority in a growing number of cities and states, there is no rational reason to single out their expressions of communal self interest. We cannot simultaneously encourage every group to promote their narrow ethno-political interests, while reprimanding the few European-Americans who do the same. Personally, I would like to see us travel in exactly the opposite direction and have all Americans promote the broad interests of their country and communities, rather than continue down the tried and failed path of balkanization.

A Classical Liberal (Libertarian) Approach To Fighting Racism

Pictured Above: The Great Martin Luther King JR.

As someone who detests the evils of racism and sexism, I very much looked forward to taking a pedagogy class which included an anti-bias curriculum. But, early on in the class I discovered that the curriculum was heavily ideological and used as a platform to promote other political and cultural agendas. Present in this vision was the belief that the American Way was innately racist and oppressive. The driving vision of this class was a multicultural ideology that indirectly encouraged teachers to view their students as members of groups, rather than unique individuals.Among the agendas that it promoted was a curricular transformation that encouraged teachers to de-emphasize "eurocentric literature" with a "white male perspective." While these view points are worthy of debate, one need not adopt them in order to live a life free of prejudice and discrimination. In fact, the strong vein of Cultural Marxism present in anti-bias curricula has done much to dissuade well meaning Americans from embracing its otherwise reasonable message.

Perhaps what I find most troubling about some university level anti-racist programs is their invasive focus on addressing "incorrect" private thoughts, attitudes and ideologies, rather than concrete behaviors. The University of Delaware's  resident life program  even bore resemble to a Maoist era struggle session, in which participants had to confess and atone for their prohibited thoughts. New students faced one-on-one interviews, in which they were questioned by their Resident Assistants (RA) on their views on race, gender, sexuality and the environment. The secession included deeply invasive questions like "when did you discover your sexual identity" and "race?" If the purpose of these invasive sessions were to facilitate open debate and exploration, perhaps they might have been acceptable, but their stated goals were for students to accept preordained conclusions like "systemic oppression exists in our society" and to "recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression." Even more troubling was the fact that RAs wrote up and delivered reports to their superiors, with one student even being written up for stating that she was "tired of having diversity shoved down her throat." 

An approach to anti-bias and anti-racism that is more effective with and attractive to Americans is one that invokes the spirit of Classical Liberalism (Libertarianism), which affirms the importance of individual (economic and social) liberty and rule of law. A key component in the success of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was his ability to present racism as a failure to realize the American Way; for what can be more Anti-American than preventing others from enjoying "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? The engine for progress in the treatment of African-Americans has not been radical efforts to reject or redefine the Great American Vision, but to fully realize it, so that all Americans can enjoy its spiritual and material fruits. And without invoking multiculturalism and other divisive ideologies, we can and should call upon our fellow Americans to reject racist behavior as an affront to civility, fairness and individualism. 

While the constitution protects individual liberty from state and private oppression, it also guarantees freedom of belief and freedom of expression, even for those who hold racist and "incorrect" beliefs. Accordingly, most classical liberals (libertarians) are not so focused on the beliefs that one may hold about groups, but in the manner in which they behave towards individuals. For example, I am not so concerned about the "improper" beliefs that some of my clients hold about my group (Jews), because they fairly treat me as an individual. How is this possible, you may ask? An observant and intellectually honest person can recognize trends that they may or may not like about any given group, while still affirming the uniqueness of each individual and treating them accordingly. When I posed this very question to a client of mine who engages in racist rants against virtually every group, yet has employed and even befriended: African-American, Puerto Rican, Mexican, Polish and Jewish individuals, his response was "I may be racist, but I am not Stupid!!!" This seemingly paradoxical view highlights the fact that participation in a competitive free market is a far more effective antidote to racist behavior than hours of indoctrination at the University of Delaware. 

I will close this post with a thoughtful speech by Dr. Ron Paul that elaborates on the hazards that even well meaning collectivist campaigns against racism hold and reaffirms the surest protection being an affirmation of individual liberty:

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity."

  

Why Shared Values & Visions Matter

Most nations are bound by blood and by a shared history of hundreds, if not thousands of years. For example, the vast majority of the population of Japan and Korea share the same genes, the same history and traditions. At the risk of stating the obvious; in its feudal, royal, imperial and democratic forms, Japan was and would always be Japan because it was populated by the Japanese people. But, the United States is, for good and for bad, exceptional. Early on in our history, we ceased being a nation bound by common blood and common history. What made us unique was that we, more than any other nation, were defined by a set of shared values and visions, which I refer to as the American Way.

Of course there always existed some differences in opinion in what the constituted this new creed was, but the majority of individuals and institutions believed in the interconnected values of: individualism, industry, self reliance, thrift, limited government, optimism and opportunity.

And in almost every generation, waves of increasingly culturally and (later) racially diverse immigrants poured in, whom we miraculously were able to integrate. Within a democratic framework, millions of newcomers assimilated the core of the American Way while (to varying degrees) maintaining elements of their traditions. While I, as a Jewish-American possess some distinct traditions from my Italian-American friends, we share fundamental values, so much so that we are more similar to each other than we are to our immigrant forefathers.

So many things that we take for granted are virtually unparallelled in world history. Millions of Protestants voted for a Catholic presidential candidate, when in other nations, they could not even live in the same neighborhood. Millions of European-Americans voted against a candidate of their own race for a man of (partial) African descent, while in Kenya, the majority of individuals would not vote a politician of another tribal affiliation. In fact, a Kenyan commentator noted with irony that Obama could not get elected in Kenya, because he was a member of the Luo minority. The reason this is possible is because of the general assimilation towards a common identity, towards a common creed that transcends blood and shared history.

So, I find it extremely troubling that the majority of our educational and bureaucratic has rejected the philosophy of assimilation in favor of multiculturalism. In fact, in the Masters in Education program that I partook in, not one of my teachers spoke in favor of promoting a shared identity to our students. All spoke of the merits of teaching our diverse students about their own traditions and historic figures. And beyond tolerance and diversity, we were not encouraged to promote (yet alone define) the American Creed to our students, be they native born or immigrant. A progressive associate of mine downplayed my concerns stating that these students were "listening to American music and eating American food." She is correct, however the American Creed is far more than just listening to Lady Gaga or eating Big Macs. And although democracy and tolerance are essential aspects of the American Creed, it would be a mistake to reduce our shared identity to these two values. And those who doubt the importance of shared identity, shared values and visions, should read about the Kenyan Election of 2007 or any of the countless other examples of ethno-political violence that continue to plague most other diverse nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenyan_presidential_election,_2007

Dismantling America by Dr. Thomas Sowell

I understand that temptation that leads many people to bend the clearly intended meaning of the constitution; we see vexing social and economic problems and we want to expand the power of the federal government to decisively and rapidly address them. To rely on the limited resources of state and local governments, of civil society and individual initiative to seems almost criminal when we have more powerful federal tools at our disposal. Most progressives and some conservatives are so convinced of the moral imperative of their positions that they cannot bear to allow "ignorant" states and localities the right to pursue contrary policies. So, they seek to use the power of the federal government to advance their agenda across the land. This is seen in issues as diverse as health care, the war on drugs, immigration and gay marriage. But, we must resist the temptation of bending the constitution in order to "achieve the greater good."

The authors of the constitution were aware that throughout the history of mankind, the tyranny of rulers over individuals and communities was the general rule. Even wisely governed republics and democracies had degenerated into anarchy or despotism. Accordingly, they placed clear
limits on the power of politicians and the power of the central (federal) government. And they understood that the expanded powers that you grant the federal government in order to achieve your "enlightened" policies, one day will be used to impose the "backwards" policies of your opponents on you and your community. So, even with its foibles and its frustrating pace of progress, we would be wise to accept limited, constitutional governance as the lesser of all evils.

Jewish World Review August 17, 2010 / 7 Elul, 5770

Dismantling America

By Thomas Sowell

"We the people" are the familiar opening words of the Constitution of the United States-- the framework for a self-governing people, free from the arbitrary edicts of rulers. It was the blueprint for America, and the success of America made that blueprint something that other nations sought to follow.

At the time when it was written, however, the Constitution was a radical departure from the autocratic governments of the 18th century. Since it was something so new and different, the reasons for the Constitution's provisions were spelled out in "The Federalist," a book written by three of the writers of the Constitution, as a sort of instruction guide to a new product.

The Constitution was not only a challenge to the despotic governments of its time, it has been a continuing challenge-- to this day-- to all those who think that ordinary people should be ruled by their betters, whether an elite of blood, or of books or of whatever else gives people a puffed-up sense of importance.

While the kings of old have faded into the mists of history, the principle of the divine rights of kings to impose whatever they wish on the masses lives on today in the rampaging presumptions of those who consider themselves anointed to impose their notions on others.

The Constitution of the United States is the biggest single obstacle to the carrying out of such rampaging presumptions, so it is not surprising that those with such presumptions have led the way in denigrating, undermining and evading the Constitution.

While various political leaders have, over the centuries, done things that violated either the spirit or the letter of the Constitution, few dared to openly say that the Constitution was wrong and that what they wanted was right.

It was the Progressives of a hundred years ago who began saying that the Constitution needed to be subordinated to whatever they chose to call "the needs of the times." Nor were they content to say that the Constitution needed more Amendments, for that would have meant that the much disdained masses would have something to say about whether, or what kind, of Amendments were needed.

The agenda then, as now, has been for our betters to decide among themselves which Constitutional safeguards against arbitrary government power should be disregarded, in the name of meeting "the needs of the times"-- as they choose to define those needs.

The first open attack on the Constitution by a President of the United States was made by our only president with a Ph.D., Woodrow Wilson. Virtually all the arguments as to why judges should not take the Constitution as meaning what its words plainly say, but "interpret" it to mean whatever it ought to mean, in order to meet "the needs of the times," were made by Woodrow Wilson.

It is no coincidence that those who imagine themselves so much wiser and nobler than the rest of us should be in the forefront of those who seek to erode Constitutional restrictions on the arbitrary powers of government. How can our betters impose their superior wisdom and virtue on us, when the Constitution gets in the way at every turn, with all its provisions to safeguard a system based on a self-governing people?

To get their way, the elites must erode or dismantle the Constitution, bit by bit, in one way or another. What that means is that they must dismantle America. This has been going on piecemeal over the years but now we have an administration in Washington that circumvents the Constitution wholesale, with its laws passed so fast that the public cannot know what is in them, its appointment of "czars" wielding greater power than Cabinet members, without having to be exposed to pubic scrutiny by going through the confirmation process prescribed by the Constitution for Cabinet members.

Now there is leaked news of plans to change the immigration laws by administrative fiat, rather than Congressional legislation, presumably because Congress might be unduly influenced by those pesky voters-- with their Constitutional rights-- who have shown clearly that they do not want amnesty and open borders, despite however much our betters do. If the Obama administration gets away with this, and can add a few million illegals to the voting rolls in time for the 2012 elections, that can mean reelection, and with it a continuing and accelerating dismantling of America.

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

Comment on JWR contributor Thomas Sowell's column by clicking here.

Thomas Sowell Archives


© 2006, Creators Syndicate


http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell081710.php3

On Individual & Group Rights

Fair Housing efforts reflected the spirit and goals of early civil rights efforts. It's focus was on expanding individual rights, equal opportunity, specifically the rights of individuals to have an equal opportunity toreside in the neighborhoods of their choice. Fair Housing proponents sought to overturn laws and covenants that restricted an individual's right to reside in the community of their choice. Such laws were also odious because they violated fundamental property rights by restricting the rights of an individual to sell or rent their property to the individual of their choosing. For these reasons, I consider the early fair housing crusaders as embodying the best of the American Way. As time went on the scope of these laws expanded to bar individual sellers, landlords and Realtors from discriminatory actions. This was more contentious because although it expanded opportunities for some, it did infringe on the property rights of others. But, most Americans view it as a net expansion of traditional American rights.

Over time, segments of the civil rights movement have shifted their focus towards group rights and equal outcomes. The vision that groups had the right to equal representation in neighborhoods or professions, represented a radical departure from the American Way. Unequal social and economic outcomes were viewed as a priori proofs of discrimination. This is seen in cases were the federal government intervened in local communities not to protect individuals from discrimination, but to ensure that selected racial and ethnic groups are "sufficiently represented." Such remedies often involve efforts to engineering demographic change. This is seen when the federal government mandated that Westchester County, NY spend $50 million in tax payer funds to build "affordable housing" in areas were Latinos and African-Americans were "underrepresented," even though no evidence of individual or systematic discrimination was present. Rather, the dominant factor was the economic self segregation that occurs more along economic and social lines. Favorable or unfavorable as this may be, it does not constitute the violation of individual civil rights. The collaboration of county with federal authorities prompted a backlash in which this historically liberal county threw out its its incumbent democratic county executive in favor of a Republican candidate, Rob Astorino.

On a broader level this represents a clash between those who view individuals and groups as passive agents and those who believe that individuals and groups determine the nature of their communities through the efforts that they undertake and the decisions that they make. The former envision positive social environments and community life as goods that are unfairly monopolized by some and should be redistributed to others. This implies that the means to address the social pathology and crime that are endemic in poor African-American and to a lesser extent Hispanic communities, is to have the government mandate their transfer to middle class and (predominantly) white communities. Although this improves the lives of some individuals, the overall rate of poverty, pathology and school performance of poor minorities placed by the state in stable communities does not significantly improve. Many critics of this approach point out that the state should focus its efforts and resources in improving the dismal schools and employment opportunities in low income communities. In addition, when a critical demographic mass is reached, the social pathology of the original communities are recreated and the flight of the original population ensues. This is seen when the gangs of Humboldt Park took root in large swaths of the previously safe and quiet Belmont-Cragin neighborhood.

But, on a positive note, the sociologist Herbert Gans documented that residential integration "can be achieved without problem when the two races are similar in socio-economic levels and in the visible cultural aspects of class." In other words when diverse middle and upper class families who share similar norms and values freely choose to live together, integration will proceed smoothly and community life will remain vibrant. Backwards bigots who fear change will always exist, but the reservations of most individuals will melt away when they are faced with the daily reality that their diverse neighbors share their commitment to maintaining a clean, quiet, safe and positive community for their families. Such positive integration can be strengthened by having the state protect the rights of individuals to live in the communities of their choosing. But, when the state engages in heavy handed social engineering and forces individuals with incompatible norms and behaviors to live together, it is a recipe for tension. These sentiments are even shared by some African-American residents of Westchester:

"As an African American, I am tired of the practice of placing government housing in otherwise middle class and affluent neighborhoods. . . . All it does is reinforce a stereotype that all African American are laggards when it comes to educating ourselves, rising socially and advancing economically."

Integration through the free movement of diverse individuals, through their own efforts and achievements should be strongly encouraged. To achieve this, equal opportunity for all individuals must be carefully guarded, but no where in the constitution are groups granted the right to equal outcomes. And no where in the constitution is the federal government granted the power to force social and demographic change on local communities.

Westchester Adds Housing to Desegregation Pact

By SAM ROBERTS

Published: August 10, 2009

Westchester County entered into a landmark desegregation agreement on Monday that would compel it to create hundreds of houses and apartments for moderate-income people in overwhelmingly white communities and aggressively market them to nonwhites in Westchester and New York City.

The agreement, if ratified by the county’s Board of Legislators, would settle a lawsuit filed by an antidiscrimination group and could become a template for increased scrutiny of local governments’ housing policies by the Obama administration.

“This is consistent with the president’s desire to see a fully integrated society,” said Ron Sims, the deputy secretary of housing and urban development, which helped broker the settlement along with the Justice Department. “Until now, we tended to lay dormant. This is historic, because we are going to hold people’s feet to the fire.”

The agreement calls for the county to spend more than $50 million of its own money, in addition to other funds, to build or acquire 750 homes or apartments, 630 of which must be provided in towns and villages where black residents constitute 3 percent or less of the population and Hispanic residents make up less than 7 percent. The 120 other spaces must meet different criteria for cost and ethnic concentration.

The county, one of the nation’s wealthiest suburbs, has seven years to complete the construction or acquisition of the affordable housing.

Affordable housing is defined by a complex formula, but generally it is meant to help working families keep from spending more than a third of their gross income on housing. A family of four could make up to $53,000 as a tenant and up to $75,000 as an owner and still qualify.

There is no minimum income level, “but it’s not going to be no-income,” said Craig Gurian, executive director of the Anti-Discrimination Center, which filed the lawsuit. “This agreement is not focused on facilitating housing for the poorest of the poor.” The center is a nonprofit anti-bias advocacy and litigation group based in New York City.

Mr. Gurian said that while black and Hispanic residents have a disproportionate need for affordable housing, “this is an opportunity-creating agreement, not a guarantee” that the homes would go to minority members.

“Residential segregation underlies virtually every racial disparity in America, from education to jobs to the delivery of health care,” said Mr. Gurian.

No communities have been chosen to receive the homes, officials said. But according to the Anti-Discrimination Center, more than two dozen predominantly white towns or villages are eligible, including Bedford, Bronxville, Eastchester, Hastings-on-Hudson, Harrison, Larchmont, Mamaroneck, New Castle, Pelham Manor, Rye and Scarsdale.

A federal monitor, James E. Johnson, has been appointed to ensure that the county abides by the settlement. Given that 120,000 acres in the county meet the criteria, the monitor “should have no difficulty making sure that Westchester ends its policy of allowing affordable housing to be off-limits in the most highly white neighborhoods in the county,” Mr. Gurian said.

The lawsuit, filed under the federal False Claims Act, argued that when Westchester applied for federal Community Development Block Grants for affordable housing and other projects, county officials treated part of the application as boilerplate — lying when they claimed to have complied with mandates to encourage fair housing.

A Westchester official originally dismissed the suit as “garbage.” But the county was largely repudiated in February when Judge Denise L. Cote ruled in Federal District Court that between 2000 and 2006 it had misrepresented its efforts to desegregate overwhelmingly white communities when it applied for the federal housing funds.

Judge Cote concluded that Westchester had made little or no effort to find out where low-income housing was being placed, or to finance homes and apartments in communities that opposed affordable housing.

As part of Monday’s agreement, the county admitted that it has the authority to challenge zoning rules in villages and towns that in many cases implicitly discourage affordable housing by setting minimum lot sizes, discouraging higher-density developments or appropriating vacant property for other purposes. Westchester agreed to “take legal action to compel compliance if municipalities hinder or impede the county” in complying with the agreement.

It was unclear Monday to what extent localities could thwart the agreement, if any chose to do so. Mary Beth Murphy, the town supervisor of Somers, which is among the possible locales for new housing, said that while she was unaware of the agreement, “we certainly are committed to affordable housing and have amended our zoning legislation in recent years to create more opportunities.”

The agreement could spark challenges to suburban county governments across the country that have resisted pressure to undo decades of residential segregation.

Andrew J. Spano, the Westchester County executive, attributed the settlement to “a historic shift of philosophy” by federal housing officials. He said he had signed the agreement to avoid further litigation and possible penalties.

The county admitted no wrongdoing, attributed the judge’s ruling to a technicality and argued that since it had previously invested in affordable housing, “what is different is the locations where the housing must be built.”

“We are settling the lawsuit because we have no choice,” Mr. Spano said.

The suit by the Anti-Discrimination Center applied to towns and villages in Westchester. The federal government deals directly with the county’s larger cities, among them Yonkers, which nearly went bankrupt before capitulating in a housing segregation case that began in 1980 and dragged on for years. That city, which had concentrated public housing in its southwest, was forced to build on the east side, where more whites lived.

The agreement is subject to approval within 45 days by the county’s Board of Legislators, which is also required to approve a $32.9 million bond sale to help finance the housing. Without legislative approval, the litigation would resume and the county would be faced with having to prove at trial that it did not knowingly file false claims.

Most of the homes would be new construction, although some existing houses and apartments could qualify if the county made them permanently affordable.

The case was litigated by Mr. Gurian and the center’s lawyer, John Relman, and supported by testimony from Andrew A. Beveridge, a sociologist at Queens College of the City University of New York.

Dr. Beveridge found that “racial isolation is increasing for blacks, falling slightly for whites” and that “income level has very little impact on the degree of residential racial segregation experienced by African-Americans.”

Mr. Gurian said that the 750 homes called for by the agreement “represents only a small percentage of need,” but that “it’s designed to be practical.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/11/nyregion/11settle.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2

http://www.city-journal.org/2009/eon1104wo.html

What Shall We Call the New Society?

Dr. Peter Breggin M.D.

Dr. Peter Breggin M.D. is a psychiatrist who offers interesting insights into the interconnected nexus of political, economic, philosophical, psychological and spiritual life in the United States.

To here an audio recording of this essay, click here: http://breggin.com/whatshallwecall.m3u

What Shall We Call the New Society?

Peter R. Breggin, M.D.

January 26, 2009

This is Dr. Peter Breggin. I am a psychiatrist and I want to help you to “Live Like an American!”

Today’s Subject: What shall we call the new society?

What name shall we give to the new society that’s being fashioned before our eyes by the so-called stimulus packages and bills? There has been a growing concern in recent decades about creating an Entitlement Society. I think we are becoming something much more deadly. We need a new name for it.

The Founding Fathers wanted to build a society where people have the opportunity to take charge of their lives and to pursue their own goals. Government would protect the freedom of individuals but offer no guarantee of their economic safety, security, or success. We began as a Responsibility Society.

Gradually the Responsibility Society has been eaten away by the Entitlement Society. People no longer have to compete—and to take the consequences. Now they have the right to be provided for—to be given certain benefits without being required to earn them through responsibility and hard work.

Various forms of welfare are probably the most obvious entitlements. Healthcare and even housing are now becoming entitlements.

Other government programs were originally presented as forms of insurance, such as unemployment insurance and social security—but they have also been transformed into entitlements. Future generations will pick up the bill in what has been called fiscal generation abuse.

Altruism, charity, fairness and perhaps even economic stability call for some means of helping people who are having difficulty providing the necessities of life. But as helpful and even necessary as some of these entitlements have become, there’s also an unintended effect—a problem—with them. Whenever people receive money for an activity, any kind of activity, the money rewards that activity.

Rewards reinforce or encourage behaviors. An otherwise dumb animal will learn an elaborate pattern of tapping on a button in response to receiving food pellets. Human beings have more volition or choice but in general they tend to behave in ways that lead to their being rewarded.

In contrast to reward, punishment tends to discourage or to stop the behaviors that led up to it.

This is psychology 101—and common sense. Reward responsibility and people will grow more responsible and succeed more often; reward irresponsibility and people will grow more irresponsible and become more likely to fail.

Like many of us, President Obama recently expressed outrage that executives in bailed out companies were taking huge bonuses for themselves? But why not? We are rewarding the companies that they have driven into the ground, so why wouldn’t we want to reward them as well? Why wouldn’t they be expected to be rewarded, no matter what?

Forty percent of American’s do not earn enough to pay taxes, and they will be benefiting from so-called tax breaks that spread the wealth to them. We are about to give a massive reward to people for not paying taxes. It won’t be long before 50% of Americans aren’t paying their taxes. After that, the sky’s the limit.

The current situation is much worse than simply rewarding failure. It’s a double whammy. We are also punishing successful people and institutions by withholding financial rewards from them and by taking money away from them in the form of higher taxes. Reward failure; punish success—it’s a prescription for societal disaster.

The homebuyer who pays his mortgage is now financially handicapped in comparison to the one who does not. The company that stays afloat on its own is now handicapped compared to the one that is sinking.

It’s as if the owner of a sports team started paying the largest salaries and bonuses to his worst and most irresponsible players, while cutting the benefits for the best and most hardworking players. One season would suffice to destroy his team and drive away its fans.

How long can a society prosper when it rewards failure and punishes success? In a mood of anger and frustration, President Obama told us that this is not the time for companies to be seeking big profits. But profits are the engine of the free market and hence the engine of progress. People making profits are the only people who can bring us out of the mess we’re in. Instead, President Obama’s programs are rewarding those who cannot make a profit and discouraging those who can.

Helping the unfortunate—those who have fallen onto hard times through no fault of their own—has become a good idea gone wild. It now threatens the integrity of our nation. It is an American tragedy. We must not let it happen.

America has moved from a Responsibility Society to an Entitlement Society, and now is well on its way to becoming a Failure Society. That’s the name for our new era—the Failure Society.

We must not let this continue to happen. Before it’s too late, we must stand up for our nation’s founding values of freedom and responsibility. The time is now. We must stop the government from rewarding failure and punishing success.

That brings us to what I call The Primary Principles—the refrain of my weekly report:

Protect freedom

Take responsibility at all times

Express gratitude for all your gifts and opportunities

Become a source of love

This is Dr. Peter Breggin urging you to “Live Like an American!” You can listen to all of these reports and obtain transcripts at Breggin.com.

http://breggin.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=214

Tocqueville's Warning...

I finished reading "Democracy in America," written in 1835 by Alexis De Tocqueville. This insightful work explores social, political and economic life in the United States and larger issues of the true significance of democracy. Not only is this work descriptive, it is predictive. Tocqueville was almost prophetic in his description of the hazards that democratic nations face, most of which are coming to fruition in the United States and in Western Europe in our very generation. In particular, he warned against the danger of tyranny slowly staking hold in democracies. He emphasized that this phenomena is without parallel in the annals of human a history: a softer, yet far more pervasive despotism that slowly comes to permeate every facet of economic, social and political life. We should pay careful heed of his warnings, because what makes this form of despotism unique is that those who are sowing its seeds are not open advocates of tyranny. They are not "jack booted fascists" and "red robed communist," in fact, most are well meaning, self described supporters of democracy and freedom. But, as history shows, actions carry consequences far beyond the intentions of their authors.

Tocqueville himself apologized for lacking a proper definition, because he believed that "the species of oppression by which democratic nations are menaced is unlike anything which ever before existed in the world: our contemporaries will find no prototype of it in their memories."

The despots of the past "possessed immense and unchecked powers," but "the range of their interests were limited." "Their tyranny was extremely onerous to the few (who opposed their power)," but "neglected the rest." But, "none ever attempted to subject all his subjects indiscriminately to strict uniformity of regulation, and personally to tutor and direct every member of the community" to the same extent as modern "progressive states." Even if he had conceived it "the imperfection of the administrative system....would speedily have checked the execution of such a design."

He hesitated to use the term "tyranny," because in his own words "The nature of despotic power in the democratic age is not to be fierce or cruel, but minute and meddling." Tocqueville describes the modern, interventionist state in the following verse:

"It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided: men are seldom forced by it to act, by they they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."

Clearly, Tocqueville is describing an energetic, interventionist state that seeks to regulate and control every facet of social and economic life, a bureaucracy that "is directly opposed to the genius of commerce and the pursuit of industry." This is especially true in a city like Chicago, where there is not a single productive endeavor that is not heavily taxed and regulated by the state. Before I go on I must strike down the predictable straw-man response of "oh yeah, without regulations doctors and electricians would harm the public." My critique is not directed against the handful of vital regulations that protect the lives and limbs of the public against genuine hazards. Rather I am referring to the bureaucrats in Louisiana who heavily fined an old lady for engaging in floral arrangements without a license and bureaucrats in Chicago who fined a West African immigrant for braiding hair without possessing a costly and time consuming license. Since no one ever died from a bad hair weave or ill-arranged bouquet, we can be certain that the driving spirit that animates these regulations is not "protecting vital public interests." Rather it is a world view that is based on the belief that individuals do not have inherent rights to pursue economic enterprises; they must seek the state's permission for all economic activity. And outside of what the state permits, consumers and communities alike do not have the right to determine what is in their best interest and accept the consequences of their choices.

One of many measures of the growth of the state is the Code of Federal Regulation which surged from 54,834 pages in 1970 to 145,816 in 2007, a 376% increase! And even under the "deregulatory administration" of GW Bush, the number of employees in regulatory agencies surged from 172,000 to 244,000 a 41% and spending increased from $27 billion to $44.9 billion, a 44% increase! Economists estimate the total cost of regulatory compliance at over $1.1 trillion dollars! The amount of time and money required to navigate through the winding bureaucratic labyrinths presents a burden that all but the largest corporate entities are able to navigate. And for those who believe that we are living in a state of "laissez faire capitalism," I refer you the literally hundreds of federal agencies managing every imaginable activity.

Tocqueville prophetically described the omnipresent nanny state that would come to dominate American life. Such a state would "undertake to guide and instruct" each citizen and "to secure their happiness quite independently of their own consent." In the follow verse he elaborates on the cultural and spiritual significance of such a state:

"That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its objects was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks on the contrary to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provide they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness: it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principle concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances - what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? Thus is every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumcises the will within a narrower range, and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principles of quality has prepared men for these things: it has predisposed men to endure them, and often times to look on the mas benefits."

Such a state encourages the its citizens to aggressively invent and pursue whole new entitlements, while simultaneously becoming increasingly passive in the face of state dictates, or as Tocqueville puts it "the very men, who from time to time upset a throne and trample on a race of kinds, bend more and more obsequiously to the slightest dictate of a clerk."

He correctly notes that in the course of caring for individuals and families, such a state will erode their independence, individuality and their very vitality. At first the tutelage of the nanny state was confined to welfare families that depended on the state for everything from food, shelter, medicine and guidance on child rearing. But, over time the spirit of entitlement has penetrated into the core of America's middle class, as seen in Obama's drive for national health care. The end result is that over 50% of a productive individual's labor is usurped through local, state and federal taxes, a burden that has surpassed that of the feudal ages. In addition these expenditures have led to national debt that will burden generations of Americans to come. And on a spiritual level, those who depend on the state are far, far more likely to tolerate its vexations.

In his writings, Tocqueville frequently marvelled at the vitality of civil society of the Americans. From charities, to churches, to not-for-profits, no other people on earth have so freely and energetically produced benevolent social organizations. And no other people have so freely volunteered their time, money and energy to freely pursue the betterment of their fellow men. Tocqueville warned that the interventionist state would diminish this capacity:

"The task of the governing power will therefore perpetually increase, and its very efforts will extend every day. The more it stands in the place of (free) associations, the more will individuals, losing the notion of combining together, require its assistance: these are causes and effects which unceasingly engender each other..."

Presumably he believe that a pervasive welfare state would diminish the necessity and ability of individuals to freely form energetic communities and civic organizations to address their social and economic needs.

Vigorous free associations are also cited as a fundamental check on the encroachment of the state. Not surprisingly governments look with ill favor upon these organizations, but surprisingly many citizens of democratic nations also do. As Tocqueville puts it "amongst democratic nations, the people themselves often entertain a secrete feeling of fear and jealous against these very associates..and the free use which each association makes of its natural powers is almost regarded as a dangerous privilege." The best example of this is the fear and disdain that many have expressed towards the Tea Parties, which represent the dissent and vigilance that are vital in democracies.

So, the question remains - what are the forces the drive the citizens of modern democracies to accept this soft tyranny? Tocqueville believed the a "dread of(economic and social) disturbance and the love of well being insensibly lead democratic nations to increase the functions of central government, as the only power which appears to be intrinsically sufficiently strong, enlightened and secure, to protect them from anarchy." The Obama administration skillfully played on this fear to quickly push through a trillion dollar stimulus plan and multi billion dollar bailouts with very little debate and oversight. Needless to say these actions resulted in a massive increase in the power of the state, at the expense of productive individuals and organizations.

In a someone cryptic remark, Tocqueville shows amazing insight about times of rapid economic, political and social change, in which most "imagine that mankind is about to fall into perpetual anarchy: if they looked to the final consequences of this revolution, their fears would perhaps assume a different shape." Think about this - throughout our brief recession experts and laymen alike declared that our primary danger was economic collapse, when in reality, as painful as they are, economic downturns are transient and the real long term danger is the massive debt and long term stagnation that Obama's expanded state will ensure.

Tocqueville repeatedly warned that "continuous warfare augments the democratic tendency which leads men unceasingly to multiply the privileges of the state, and to circumscribe the rights of private persons, in much more rapid and constant among those democratic nations which are exposed by their position to great and frequent wars, than among all others." In other words, whether by design or by circumstance, the end result of the constant warfare is that the Bush and Obama administrations have engaged in an expansion of the power of the state and a contraction of civil liberties. And more troubling in the name of security large segments of the populace has granted the government a carte blanche to circumvent constitutional rule.

Tocqueville also stressed that the egalitarian impulses found in democracies paradoxically allow rulers to expand their power at the expense of democracy. Whereas the pursuit of equality under the law and equal opportunity are the life blood of liberty and democracy, the pursuit of equal economic and social outcomes via state intervention is antithetical to liberty.

"The foremost, or indeed the sole condition which is required in order to succeed in centralizing the supreme power in a democratic community is to love equality, or to get men to believe you love it. Thus, the science of despotism, which was once so complex, is simplified, and reduced as it were to a single principle."

Envy and desire for economic equality drive individuals to seek the tyranny of socialism, which is based on arbitrarily usurping the wealth and liberty of enemy classes. In modern democracies this envious impulse exists in a muted forms and expressed within the confines of the rule of law. Rather than strip productive citizens of all their wealth, 50% of their income is usurped and redistributed. In the name of achieving equal social and economic outcomes, citizens accept an expansion of the power of the state at the expense of their own liberty, or as Tocqueville eloquently put it:

"...men accustom themselves to sacrifice private interests without scruple, and to trample on the rights of individuals in order more speedily to accomplish any public purpose." and "...the concentration of power and the subjection of individuals will increase among democratic nations, not only in the same proportion as their equality, but in the same portion of their ignorance."

The envious impulse of socialism is usually manifested in hostility towards successful groups. The state can arbitrarily seize the wealth and civil liberties of successful groups and transfer it to others. In relatively homogeneous societies this simply occurs across class lines, but in more diverse societies this almost always occurs across ethnic lines. The Vietnamese communists usurped the property of the entrepreneurial Chinese minority, the Ugandan socialists seized the property of Indians and Pakistani merchants and so on.

In democracies the drive to achieve equal social and economic outcomes among disparate groups is not achieved through outright tyranny, but through affirmative action and the threat of discrimination lawsuits, both of which drive the admission and hiring practices of universities, private firms and of course government agencies. Even if the outcome of such policies were positive, they are coercive and they infringe on the autonomy of individuals and organizations alike. But, perhaps the greatest harm is rendered upon the recipients of government redistributive efforts who in Tocqueville's own words are "falling, more and more, into the lowest stages of weakness and dependence." As I read this line, I could not help but think about the economic, social and spiritual ruin that has occurred in many previously vibrant African-American communities via the nearly complete dependence that entitlement programs have fostered in them.

Tocqueville also foresaw that democratic states would inevitably seek to control greater segments of the economy, as Obama has done in the automotive, financial, housing and health care sectors. Not only did he believe that this would be economically deleterious, but also "the morals and thew intelligence of a democratic people would be as much endangered as its business and manufacturing, if the government ever wholly usurped the place of private companies."

And contrary to most "progressives" he did not view powerful commercial and corporate interests as a threat to democracy, but as potential backwards against the encroachment of the state:

"An association for political, commercial, or manufacturing purposes, or even for those of sciences and literature, is a powerful and enlightened member of the community, which cannot be disposed of at pleasure, or oppressed without remonstrance; and which, by fending its own rights against the encroachments of the government, saves the common liberties of the country."

Whenever I express concern about the threat that the interventionist state poses to liberty and democracy, my "progressive" associates usually respond with the idea that policies and programs that "represent the will of the people" are inherently democratic. And coercive measures, such as the seizure of over half of a productive citizens wealth are not undemocratic, as long as they are enacted by freely elected representatives. Tocqueville was adamant in his belief that free elections did not equal a free society.

"By this system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master, and then relapse into it again. A great many person at the present day are quite contended with this sort of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people...They devise a sole, tutelary and all powerful from of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principles of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite; they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflecting that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be in leading strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of person, but the people at large that holds the end of his chains."

Tocqueville pointed out the irony of a state that implicitly holds that people are incapable of managing "those minor (personal) affairs in which good sense is all that is wanted," yet are invested with the immense choice of selecting their leaders.




A system that increasingly erodes individual choice and freedom, while simultaneously elevating elections to an almost sacred level, contributes to the erosion of the individual, social and cultural energy of a people:

"It is in vain to summon a people, which has been rendered so dependent on the central power, to choose from time to time the representatives of that power; this rare and brief exercise of their freed choice, however important it may be, will not prevent them from gradually losing the faculties of thinking, feeling and acting for themselves, and thus gradually falling below the level of humanity."

Tocqueville believe that excessive state intervention in social and economic life even eroded the ability of individuals and nations to wisely select their leaders:

"It is, indeed , difficult to conceive how men who have entirely given up the habit of self government should succeed in making a proper choice of those by whom they are to be government; and no one will ever believe that a liberal, wise, and energetic government can spring from the suffrage of a subservient people."

Clearly, the election of Barack Obama and other demagogues comes to mind. A vigorous and intelligent public would understand that wealth and welfare cannot be created by a state that usurps half of its citizenry's wealth, while simultaneously amassing a mind boggling debt. But individuals and communities who have been rendered dependent and lethargic fall prey to such empty rhetoric.

I leave you with these Tocquevillian sentiments: to a tremendous degree, a nation's economic, political and social life reflect the mores (values, visions, customs & culture) of its people. America's unparalleled social and economic prosperity would be impossible without its cultural capital - without the industriousness, energy and insight of its people. And the ability of individuals and institutions alike to lead free and vibrant existences is a product of the culture and spirit of a people. So perhaps the greatest danger of the growth of the nanny state is the development of an enfeebled, dependent population addicted to entitlement, seeking their salvation through a strong state. Because, as Toqueville correctly pointed out "...no form or combination of social polity has yet been devised to make an energetic people out of a community of pusillanimous and enfeebled citizens" and the "extreme centralization of government ultimately enervates society" and eventually "weakens the government itself." And history shows that when individuals and nations become weary of their representatives and doubtful of their capacity of self governance, they inevitably turn towards figures of strong and despotic authority.

http://www.heritage.org/research/regulation/bg2116.cfm#_ftn14

http://www.sba.gov/ADVO/research/rs264tot.pdf

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/221804.html

http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml

Waving Goodbye

Pictured Above: Obama Waving Goodbye

To Yet Another Core American Value.


The respect for the rule of law and the sanctity of contracts are two core American values that are missing in most nations. Obama's subversion of laws and contracts for perceived social and economic gain may be attractive in the short run, but in the long run it undermines America's economic and social foundation. By arbitrarily overturning legal contracts and obligations on behalf of his political allies, Obama is creating an environment in which investors will think twice before investing in the United States, which means less jobs for Americans. And even more ominously, it opens the door to more arbitrary, heavy handed exercise of power from Obama.


Chrysler and the Rule of Law

The Founders put the contracts clause in the Constitution for a reason.

By TODD J. ZYWICKI

The rule of law, not of men -- an ideal tracing back to the ancient Greeks and well-known to our Founding Fathers -- is the animating principle of the American experiment. While the rest of the world in 1787 was governed by the whims of kings and dukes, the U.S. Constitution was established to circumscribe arbitrary government power. It would do so by establishing clear rules, equally applied to the powerful and the weak.

Fleecing lenders to pay off politically powerful interests, or governmental threats to reputation and business from a failure to toe a political line? We might expect this behavior from a Hugo Chávez. But it would never happen here, right?

Until Chrysler.

The close relationship between the rule of law and the enforceability of contracts, especially credit contracts, was well understood by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. A primary reason they wanted it was the desire to escape the economic chaos spawned by debtor-friendly state laws during the period of the Articles of Confederation. Hence the Contracts Clause of Article V of the Constitution, which prohibited states from interfering with the obligation to pay debts. Hence also the Bankruptcy Clause of Article I, Section 8, which delegated to the federal government the sole authority to enact "uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies."

The Obama administration's behavior in the Chrysler bankruptcy is a profound challenge to the rule of law. Secured creditors -- entitled to first priority payment under the "absolute priority rule" -- have been browbeaten by an American president into accepting only 30 cents on the dollar of their claims. Meanwhile, the United Auto Workers union, holding junior creditor claims, will get about 50 cents on the dollar.

The absolute priority rule is a linchpin of bankruptcy law. By preserving the substantive property and contract rights of creditors, it ensures that bankruptcy is used primarily as a procedural mechanism for the efficient resolution of financial distress. Chapter 11 promotes economic efficiency by reorganizing viable but financially distressed firms, i.e., firms that are worth more alive than dead.

Violating absolute priority undermines this commitment by introducing questions of redistribution into the process. It enables the rights of senior creditors to be plundered in order to benefit the rights of junior creditors.

The U.S. government also wants to rush through what amounts to a sham sale of all of Chrysler's assets to Fiat. While speedy bankruptcy sales are not unheard of, they are usually reserved for situations involving a wasting or perishable asset (think of a truck of oranges) where delay might be fatal to the asset's, or in this case the company's, value. That's hardly the case with Chrysler. But in a Chapter 11 reorganization, creditors have the right to vote to approve or reject the plan. The Obama administration's asset-sale plan implements a de facto reorganization but denies to creditors the opportunity to vote on it.

By stepping over the bright line between the rule of law and the arbitrary behavior of men, President Obama may have created a thousand new failing businesses. That is, businesses that might have received financing before but that now will not, since lenders face the potential of future government confiscation. In other words, Mr. Obama may have helped save the jobs of thousands of union workers whose dues, in part, engineered his election. But what about the untold number of job losses in the future caused by trampling the sanctity of contracts today?

The value of the rule of law is not merely a matter of economic efficiency. It also provides a bulwark against arbitrary governmental action taken at the behest of politically influential interests at the expense of the politically unpopular. The government's threats and bare-knuckle tactics set an ominous precedent for the treatment of those considered insufficiently responsive to its desires. Certainly, holdout Chrysler creditors report that they felt little confidence that the White House would stop at informal strong-arming.

Chrysler -- or more accurately, its unionized workers -- may be helped in the short run. But we need to ask how eager lenders will be to offer new credit to General Motors knowing that the value of their investment could be diminished or destroyed by government to enrich a politically favored union. We also need to ask how eager hedge funds will be to participate in the government's Public-Private Investment Program to purchase banks' troubled assets.

And what if the next time it is a politically unpopular business -- such as a pharmaceutical company -- that's on the brink? Might the government force it to surrender a patent to get the White House's agreement to get financing for the bankruptcy plan?

Mr. Zywicki is a professor of law at George Mason University and the author of a book on consumer bankruptcy and consumer lending, forthcoming from Yale University Press.

The End of American Exceptionalism

In other words, "no, Obama does not believe in American Exceptionalism."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDuBpEYKCSA

Thomas Jefferson Arrested!

At a press conference, Janet Napolitano, the head of the Department of Homeland Security discussed the recent arrest of famed right wing radical Thomas Jefferson. Citing the report "Right wing Extremism: Current Economic & Political Climate Fuelling Resurgence in Radicalization & Recruitment," Napolitano stated:

"Mr. Jefferson clearly falls under the category of someone who is guilty of "rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely." (pg 2)

Napolitano urged the public to remain vigilant against "right wing extremists (that) are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use..." (pg 3) After all, it's self evident that anyone who opposes our Messiah's policies or rejects "federal authority in favor of state or local authority" must be a right wing extremist...

http://www.openmarket.org/2009/04/14/federalism-and-opposition-to-illegal-immigration-are-subversive-obama-administration-claims/

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/14/confirme-the-obama-dhs-hit-job-on-conservatives-is-real/

American Exceptionalism

One of the great follies of "progressives" is to take America's unparalleled freedom, peace and prosperity as givens, rather than as a historical exception. Another related folly is to judge the United States according to absolute standards, rather than compare it to the behavior of other countries and cultures. This lack of perspective explain why most "progressives" are so negative in their assessment of the United States. In my classes in the School of Education, the unifying theme was how the United States was such a "racist, sexist, homophobic society" that was "in desperate need of radical reform." When in fact, no other nation in history has advanced so far in curing these ills as the United States.

The issue is not that the United States is above criticism, but those who fail to appreciate the incomparable freedom, peace and prosperity that the American way has produced, will be far less likely to understand and promote the cultural and economic policies that led to this greatness. And of course, they will be far more reckless in their drive to transform the United States based on their flawed abstract constructs. The issue is not that the United States should be frozen in time and placed beyond the reach of reform, rather those who understand the American exception will be cautious and circumspect in their efforts to remake the United States. They will understand that the unintended social and economic consequences of ill conceived reform are often far more egregious than the original object of reform.

Nothing more dramatically highlights American Exceptionalism as a comparison of the American Revolution to other major revolutions. The French, German, Russian, Turkish, Chinese, Cuban and Iranian Revolutions all left their people less free and less prosperous than before. The French revolution quickly deteriorated into terror and tyranny. In Czarist Russia, several thousand radicals languished in Siberia, the vast majority living to tell about their experiences. But, in the Soviet Union, between 1918 -1956 a minimum of 15,000,000 people were executed or suffered slow deaths in the Gulags. Under the Shah, the Evin Prison had approximately 1,500 political prisoners, but under Khomeini the number surged to 15,000 culminating in an execution of at least 4,000 political prisoners in 1988.

So, we must ask two interrelated questions: what accounts for the failures of these revolutions and the unique success of the American Revolution? Each of the said revolutions sought to increase government control over social and economic life in the name of the "greater good." Each of them assumed that the only road to progress was a strong, centralized state. On the other hand, the driving force behind the American Revolution and the evolution of the American Republic was a state limited in size and scope. Implicit in this vision was the understanding that economic and social freedom and a robust civil society based on free association were the surest roads to progress.

If more "progressives" understood the history of failed revolutions, I am certain that they would be far less reckless in their efforts to remake the United States. Rather than assault the founding principles that made us the shining light of freedom and prosperity, they would seek to preserve and expand them, only pursuing cautious, circumspect change when necessary. But as Obama has shown us, those who do not understand history, will pursue the failed paths of their predecessors.

The Problem of Traditions by Russell Kirk

In 1956, the great conservative thinker Russell Kirk wrote an interesting essay that explored the vital importance the traditions holds, especially in a democratic society. Enclosed are some excerpts; if you would like to view the whole article, click on the link at the bottom of this post.

The Problem of Tradition by Russell Kirk*

In the following verse Kirk quotes from Christopher Dawson's book "Understanding Europe," in which he discusses the catastrophic violence that the swept Europe via nazism and communism, two movements that were rabidly hostile to Europe's Judeo-Christian spiritual traditions.

Indeed the catastrophes of the last thirty years are not only a sign of the bankruptcy of secular humanism, they also go to show that a completely secularized civilization is inhuman in the absolute sense-hostile to human life and irreconcilable with human nature itself. For ... the forces of violence and aggressiveness that threaten to destroy our world are the direct result of the starvation and frustration of man's spiritual nature. For a time Western civilization managed to live on the normal tradition of the past, maintained by a kind of sublimated humanitarian idealism. But this was essentially a transitional phenomenon, and as humanism and humanitarianism fade away, we see societies more and more animated by the blind will to power which drives them on to destroy one another and ultimately themselves. Civilization can only be creative and life-giving in the proportion that it is spiritualized. Otherwise the increase of power inevitably increases its power for evil and its destructiveness.

I do not want our traditions to run out, because I do not believe that formal indoctrination, or pure rationality, or simple mutation of our contemporaries, can replace traditions. Traditions are the wisdom of the race; they are the only sure instruments of moral instruction; they have about them a solemnity and a mystery that Dr. Dryasdust the cultural anthropologist never can compensate for; and they teach us the solemn veneration of the eternal contract which cannot be imparted by pure reason. Even our political institutions are sustained principally by tradition, rather than by utilitarian expediency. A people who have exhausted their traditions are starved for imagination and devoid of any general assumptions to give coherence to their life.

Yet I do not say that tradition ought to be our only guide, nor that tradition is always beneficent. There have been ages and societies in which tradition, stifling the creative faculty among men, put an end to variety and change, and so oppressed mankind with the boredom of everlasting worship of the past. In a healthy nation, tradition must be balanced by some strong element of curiosity and individual dissent. Some people who today are conservatives because they protest against the tyranny of neoterism, in another age or nation would be radicals, because they could not endure the tyranny of tradition. It is a question of degree and balance. But I am writing of modern society, especially in the United States; and among us there is not the slightest danger that we shall be crushed beneath the dead weight of tradition; the danger is altogether on the other side. Our modern affliction is the flux of ceaseless change, the repudiation of all enduring values, the agonies of indecision and the social neuroses that come with a questioning of everything in heaven and earth. We are not in the plight of the old Egyptians or Peruvians; it is not prescription which enslaves us, but the lust for innovation. A young novelist, visiting George Santayana in his Roman convent in the last year of the philosopher's life, remarked that he could not endure to live in America, where everything was forever changing and shifting. Santayana replied, with urbane irony, that he supposed if it were not for kaleidoscopic change in America, life there would be unbearable. A people infatuated with novelty presently cannot bear to amble along; but the trouble with this is that the pace becomes vertiginous, and the laws of centifugal force begin to operate.

When tradition is dissipated, men do not respond to the old moral injunctions satisfactorily; and our circumstances and national character differing from Sweden's, I do not think we would experience the comparative good fortune to slip into an equalitarian boredom. The contract of eternal society forgotten, soon every lesser form of contract would lose its sanction. I say, then, that we need to shake out of their complacency the liberals who are smug in their conviction of the immortality of Liberal Democratic Folkways in the United States, and the conservatives who are smug in their conviction of the abiding superiority of the American Standard of Living. Political arrangements, and economic systems, rest upon the foundation of moral prejudices which find their expression in tradition.

Wherever human dignity is found, it is the product of a conviction that we are part of some great continuity and essence, which elevates us above the brutes; and wherever popular government is just and free, it is in consequence of a belief that there are standards superior to the interest of the hour and the will of a temporary majority. If these things are forgotten, then indeed the people will become despicable. The conservative, in endeavoring to restore a consciousness among men of the worth of tradition, is not acting in contempt of the masses; he is acting, instead, out of love for them, as human persons, and he is trying to preserve for them such a life as men should lead.

*As appeared in A Program for Conservatives (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 1956).

http://www.acuf.org/principles/p_tradition.asp