Tyranny of the Majority (part II)

Every day I, as well as one of my neighbors picks up garbage from our street. And beyond the garbage that is randomly discarded, clearly some of our neighbors are targeting us. I have found six packs, excrement, corn cobs and clothing flung onto our property. I believe that some of this stems from the dark human inclination towards envy and the desire to lower others rather raise yourself. This came to a head when I politely confronted a child who was littering only to be met by a string of vulgar invectives issued by his mother. Within her litany of abuse, she pointed out that "everyone else is doing" and seemed indifferent to my exhortation that we could rise above the standards and improve the neighborhood. Ultimately the argument ended when her "baby's daddy" leaped out of the car and threatening to "beat the f*ck out of me."

After reflecting on the instance I realized that she may be correct - littering reflects the values and behaviors of the majority (of our street) and those who behave contrary to the standards of the majority will be chastised. This wouldn't be so bad if the majority castiagated a neighbor for pathological behavior, but in this case we were being chastised for maintaining higher standards. And unfortunately the partisans of lower standards are apt and able to utilize a myriad of effective tools, such as vandalism and threats of violence, whereas those who seek to maintain higher standards are limited in their options.

At the risk of engaging in hyperbole, I believe that this is a micro-social example of Tocqueville's tyranny of the majority. As much as large segments of academia believe that majoritarian tyranny is the sole domain of the white, middle-class, they are mistaken. At least within large urban centers, white middle class neighborhoods are far more tolerant of diversity than many minority dominated neighborhoods. If you doubt this, ask yourself why a gay African-American will be harassed far more in an African-American than in a white neighborhood. And ask yourself why in Paris or Malmo (Sweden ), a Jew or Christian could not safely live in a Moslem neighborhood, but a Moslem could safely live in a Jewish or Christian neighborhood.

Perhaps this is because from grammar schools to universities, the white middle class is presented with positive messages that stress the need to respect the cultures and customs of other people. Whereas, the said institutions presents minorities a narrative in which they are victims of, rather than potential perpetrators of intolerance and majoritarian tyranny. So, it comes as no surprise that as a whole the latter groups may be less tolerant. This leads me that the "progressive" mantra of "unity through diversity" is a dream that is not grounded in reality. Rather, the demographic surge of diverse groups with divergent values and behaviors will lead to greater conflict and paradoxically to greater segregation.

Tyranny of the Majority (part I)

The great Tocqueville warned democracies of the danger of developing a tyranny of the majority. This form of tyranny is based on the belief that democracy simply equalled the electoral majority's right to enforce their will on any minority group. An obvious example being the historic abuses of African-Americans.

Tocqueville believed that in a developed democracy the tyranny of the majority could be manifested in more subtle forms, that "might result when the people seek to use government to protect them in their mediocrity by restricting the freedom of any who might challenge or endanger them. This could lead to a kind of sterile suffocation of talents or ambitions, and the utter surrender of freedom in exchange for equality (of outcomes)."

Clearly this refers to the hostility that demagogic politicians foster against successful individuals and enterprises. Such politicians blame any economic and social difficulties on these individuals and organizations, rather than acknowledge the inherent challenges in achieving equitable economic and social outcomes in a world in which individual ability, efforts and fortunes so dramatically differ.

And sadly, envy, the flight from personal responsibility and blaming others for your misfortunes are parts of human nature. Only through a strong individual or cultural commitment can these impulses be moderated. But, unfortunately these dark elements of human nature makes ideologies of resentment and redistribution attractive to many people. And of course the politicians who promote this ideology are usually rewarded by votes.

The logical extension of this world view is the belief that the state has an almost unlimited right to seize or control the assets of one group of individuals and enterprises and transfer it other less successful and less politically influential individuals and groups. The implied belief in the almost unlimited right of the state to seize the wealth of its citizens is seen in the language that "progressives" use to discuss tax cuts, in which they complain that "the government is giving back too much to the rich." This implies that citizens may keep a portion of the product of their labor only by the good grace of the state, rather than the fundamental principle that the state may seize the wealth of its citizenry only by their grace of the people.

By now my "progressive" critics are most likely striking at the straw-man and stating "oh yeah, how will we pay for roads, police, firemen and teachers?!?" All but the most radical of libertarians will acknowledge that the purpose of the state is to provide for the broad welfare of its citizens, which of course includes the said services. But seizing the majority of the wealth of a narrow group of citizenry to give to other groups via subsidies and entitlements is another story. As the said programs and policies expand, so will their voracious appetite for capital. But as the state's appetite outstrips the productive capacity of the wealthy, we can be sure that the definition of the wealthy will greatly expand to include large segments of the middle class. But, regardless of how small or large the targeted minority, the belief that your electoral majority entitles you to their wealth is at its core majoritarian tyranny. And the only remedy is a limited, constitutionally bound government that guards the personal and property rights of individuals and groups.

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

Tocqueville - A Great Biologist?

Pictured Above: American Sheeple waiting

to be cared for by their shepherd.

My associate Dr. Tim brought it to my attention that not only was Tocqueville a greater writer, but he apparently was also a great biologist. Tocqueville predicted that Homo Sapien Americanus would evolve into Sheeple Americanus.

In "Democracy in America," he anticipated people being governed by "an immense, tutelary power" determined to take "sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate." It would be a power "absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident and gentle," aiming for our happiness but wanting "to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness." It would, Tocqueville said, provide people security, anticipate their needs, direct their industries and divide their inheritances. It would envelop society in "a network of petty regulations — complicated, minute and uniform." But softly: "It does not break wills; it softens them, bends them, and directs them" until people resemble "a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."

Buy this man some Tocqueville! (Part II)

If after reading the works of Alexis De Tocqueville Mr. Obama refused to acknowledge the essential role that Judeo-Christian values and civilization played in the foundation and success of our great American Republic, I recommend that he read up on the founding fathers and the tremendous role that Christianity played in their vision:

The great American patriot and revolutionary Patrick Henry wrote: It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

In 1772 Samuel Adams stated: The right to freedom being the gift of the Almighty...The rights of the colonists as Christians...may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutions of The Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament

James Madison wrote: Religion is the basis and foundation of government...We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.


In 1778 Benjamin Franklin wrote: A Bible and a newspaper in every house, a good school in every district -- all studied and appreciated as they merit -- are the principal support of virtue, morality, and civil liberty.

Benjamin Franklin explicitly tied America's prosperity to divine blessings in the following statement: And the Divine Being seems to have manifested his approbation of the mutual forbearance and kindness with which the different sects treat each other; by the remarkable prosperity with which he has been pleased to favor the whole country.

Alexander Hamilton wrote: I now offer you the outline of the plan they have suggested. Let an association be formed to be denominated 'The Christian Constitutional Society,' its object to be First: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.


Thomas Jefferson possessed strong reservations about organized religion, but professed a strong attraction to Christianity, as seen in the following statement: My views...are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others...

Later presidents such as Abraham Lincoln were strong proponents of Christianity's role in the American Republic, as seen from this excerpt from a speech delivered on March 30, 1863: Whereas, the Senate of the United States devoutly recognizing the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God in all the affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the President to designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cdf/onug/index.html

Buy this man some Tocqueville! (Part I)

During a recent visit to Turkey, Obama stated "One of the great strengths of the United States is that while we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or or a Jewish Nation or a Muslim Nation, we consider a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values..."

Yes, Mr. Obama was correct in his assertion that we are a diverse nation of many faiths, in which there is a separation of church and state, but the subtext of his statement was to downplay the essential Judeo-Christian foundation of the United States as most "progressives" do.

Evidently Mr. Obama has not read up the works of the great French writer Alexis De Tocqueville. If he had, he would have stated something along the lines of "yes, we are a diverse nation of many faiths, but the core values that bind us and ensure the success of our great republic are distinct products of Judeo-Christian values and culture. Although many individual Moslems, Hindus and atheists have greatly contributed to our country, it is self evident that if the United States would not have achieved its unparalleled level of freedom, peace and prosperity if it had been founded on Moslem, Hindu or Atheist values. Only in the context of Western, Judeo-Christian culture were these individual Moslems, Hindus and atheists able to achieve and enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

After spending several years exploring the United States, Tocqueville wrote about the essential role that Judeo-Christian values played in the American Republic. Not only did Tocqueville believe that Republican values were intimately connected to Christianity , but also that a key element in the unparalleled success of the American Republic was the strong Christian mores that permeated private and public life alike.

Here are but a few quotes in which Tocqueville expresses these sentiments:

Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.

In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.

Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief.

I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.

In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.
In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...

Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...
I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution.

Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power.

America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom.

The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other

Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts -- the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cdf/onug/detocq.html

An exception to the rule...

Pictured above - Andrew Carnegie one of the richest and most charitable men in American history.

In his visit to the United States Tocqueville noted that one of the things that makes the United States unique is the strength and scope of its civil society. He noted on countless Americans voluntarily contribute their time and money to thousands and thousands of charities, churches and civic organizations with no direct self benefit to themselves.

The more I learn about other cultures, the more I can tell you with certainty that this is an exception to the rule that this makes America a unique and wonderful country.

In many nations the wealthy watch as half their nation starves. But in the United States the great leaders of commerce from Carnegie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Carnegie) to Gates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates_foundation) voluntarily donated vast sums of money to better their fellow citizens. And many educated people, who I greatly respect, opt for lower paying jobs in the non-profit sector.

In socialist and social democratic countries in which the state supposedly intervenes on behalf of the poor, the typical citizen will not voluntarily spend a dime or a minute of their time on behalf of their brethren. Caring for the poor, supporting arts and education is the job of the state, not of private citizens.

That which takes a century to create can be undone by the sloth of a generation. I fear that as the nanny state expands and becomes the cradle-to-grave caregiver, our great civil society and sense of social initiative will wither. And as the state usurps more and more of our wealth, those who once gave freely and joyfully will tightly cling to their diminishing wealth.


Here are some great organizations; I encourage you to give to one or more of them - our messiah, the great Obama can not yet cure the blind and turn water into wine, so the poor and sick still need your help.
http://www.bpkids.org/site/PageServer


http://www.leukemiafoundation.org/


http://www.afmda.org/

http://www.wfmt.com/

Free Lunch with Toqueville!

179 years ago, the French writer Alexis de Tocqueville prophetically wrote that "the American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

Toqueville's perfectly explains one of the main sources of our current economic and political ills, particularly our 10 trillion dollar deficit.

So many people don't realize that they will pay for every "free" service that the government provides them, be it welfare or warfare, in one or more of the following ways:

1. Direct taxation that burdens the rich and poor alike. Especially in our city and county, those who are too poor to pay an income tax are heavily burdened through a sales tax, corporate taxes (that raises the cost of the goods and services that they utilize) and property taxes (that are passed on to them in the form of higher rents.)

2. Creating massive public debt through continuous borrowing. Fundamentally this equals a transference of wealth from future generations to our own short sighted generation.

3. The inflationary tax that occurs when the government debases the value of the dollar by printing money to cover the costs of a massive state. The working and middle class know that costs are rising faster than their income, but few see the culprit as the government's expansion of the money supply.

Unfortunately a perverse form of natural selection occurs that virtually ensures the "bribery of the public" by grossly irresponsible politicians. As the elections of Bush, Blagojevich and Obama show, anyone who promises more "free" government programs and less taxes will almost certainly get elected. And anyone who is informed and honest enough to present the public with the painful choice between less government and / or more taxes will almost never get elected.

As a good friend of mine from Iran said "people usually gets the government they deserve."

To learn more about Tocqueville:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toqueville

To learn more about Toqueville's great work - Democracy in America:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_America