The State of our Freedom

During the current week, we will observe the anniversary of our Nation's birth. We will celebrate our independence from a "Tyrant--unfit to be the ruler of a free people--". We also celebrate the genius of our constitutional form of government established to secure the "Blessings of Liberty" but not to be so powerful as to undermine those very Blessings.

As we know, freedom is a fragile concept. Consider the words of these political commentators.

In the "Reflections on the Revolution in France" (1790), Edmond Burke:

     --- denounced a revolution that led to a reign of terror and ultimately to chaos and the despotism of Napoleon.  "Armed with a doctrinaire logic of rights , these revolutionaries were indifferent to history and hostile to tradition. 'The age of chivalry is gone', wrote Burke. 'That of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded---' From Paris, Robispierre would show how an undisciplined--sentiment could animate the berserk certitude of a homicidal revolutionary. (Burke) accepted that sovereignty was formed by the social contract of free individuals. But Burke's social contract wasn't 'dissolved by fancy'. ----He prized 'civil liberty' but only for those citizens capable of putting 'moral chains upon their own appetites' ".  (Quote from Jeffrey Collins in "A Disciplined Sentiment" (a review of "Edmund Burke: The First Conservative" by Jesse Norman) Wall Street Journal- June 19. 2013).

Alexis de Tocqueville in "Democracy in America" (1833):

     "---marveled at the way Americans preferred voluntary associations to government regulations. 'The inhabitant of the United States', he wrote, 'has only a defiant and restive regard for special authority--'. Unlike Frenchmen--- who instinctively looked to the state to provide economic and social order, Americans relied on their own efforts". (Wall Street Journal article "The Regulated States of America" by Niall Ferguson-June 19, 2013).

Later de Tocqueville said:

     "Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." (from "Discourse pronounced in constitutional assembly in a discussion of the constitution project" (1848) as quoted by F.A. Hayek in "The Road to Serfdom" (1944)).

In his book, Hayek added:

     "---socialism was early recognized as the greatest threat to freedom---- The French writers who laid the foundation of modern socialism had no doubt that their ideas could be put into practice only by a strong, dictatorial government".

 Niall Ferguson in "The Great Degeneration" (summarized by George Melloan in "A Jeremiad To Heed"-Wall Street Journal- June 20, 2013):

     "Western civilization has entered a period of decline due mainly to the strangling of private initiative by the ever encroaching state.---The threatened institutions are representative government, the free market, the rule of law and civil society. Mr. Ferguson is dismayed at the explosion of public debt, the destruction of markets by excessive regulation, the replacement of the rule of law by 'a rule of lawyers' and the decay of civil society as represented in part by the thousands of private voluntary organizations (Rotarians, Elks, at al) that have contributed so much to social order and progress in America."

Compare Ferguson's observations to those of de Tocqueville  and to the warnings of other writers. From Burke (and before). history has shown that freedom will not thrive in either a state of chaos or that of tyranny. Freedom requires balance: a government with enough power to secure the "Blessings of Liberty" but not so much as to smother those Blessings. As Niall Ferguson observes, we have swung too far in the direction of concentrated and authoritarian government.

                      We can only conclude that the state of our freedom is not good.
     

"Amateur Hour" at The White House

A front page article in this past week-end's edition of the Wall Street Journal "Behind Obama's About Face on Syria" states that the President:

     "----personally rebuffed a proposal to arm the rebels despite appeals from David Petraeus, then-director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and Hillary Clinton, then-Secretary of State.-----senior British officials had been agitating for months for the U.S. to do more in Syria-----King Abdullah, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal and Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan also argued to Mr. Obama that the U.S. was allowing three of its chief historic rivals in the Middle East-Iran, Russia and the Lebanese militia Hezbollah-to dominate the battlefield in Syria and help President Assad push back recent rebel gains."

In a related editorial, "Dabbling in Syria", the following comment is made:

     "All of which suggests that Mr. Obama still doesn't appreciate the strategic stakes in the Syrian civil war. Russia, Iran and Syria want to create an arc of influence from Iran to the Mediterranean while demonstrating to America's regional allies that the U.S. is a retreating power that lacks the will to support its friends."

Anyone paying attention for the last two years could have predicted with some certainty that lacking meaningful involvement by the U.S., Russia, Iran and others would take advantage to promote their own ends.

During the "Arab Spring"(where our involvement was hesitant and insufficient) radical forces gained the upper hand in Egypt and Libya. And in Iraq and Afghanistan, moderate groups have been in danger of being overwhelmed by extremists after we withdrew from a combat role.

The delay in providing arms to the Syrian rebels may be too little and too late. One can reasonably assume that we would have acted sooner had we not been in the middle of an election. A fair question is whether this President has subordinated our role in the world to political expediency.

We have witnessed since this Administration's start, the tendency to deny responsibility for all manner of bad news (unemployment, deficits, IRS malfeasance, attacks on journalists, Benghazi, NSA data mining etc.). What ever happened to Harry Truman's observation: "The buck stops here."? Or the need for a president to lead, to be decisive when required, to honor the Constitution (and the Office of President) and to be honest and straight with us? In short, to be "presidential".

As we have stated in prior posts, Obama is a community organizer in the tradition of Saul Alinsky. He is clever but is he wise? Based on his record, his background and commitment to a far left ideology, he is not and cannot be an effective president in the mold of most of his predecessors. He has "dabbled" in foreign affairs, is unserious about many of our problems and lacking in executive experience. Or put more succinctly, he is an amateur at a time when we need serious and expert leadership.

Are Today's Politics Injurious to Our Constitutional Liberties?

Nowhere in our Constitution are political parties mentioned. The founding fathers saw them as contrary to good government. They realized (and hasn't history shown us?) that political parties arouse public passions leading to politically expedient solutions.

During times of crises--real or imagined--the Executive often easily assumes greater power. And so we have seen the passage of the Patriot Act after 9/11 and the increasing surveillance of American citizens. Going back to the early 1900's, there have been steady accumulations of power by over 2000 separate agencies, boards, commissions and departments (not including czars). Each of these has established a "new normal" which then becomes the basis for change for yet another crises.

As we have seen this past week, some changes were made to governmental authority without the Congress' or public's knowledge. As stated in the New York Times editorial of 6/6/13 regarding NSA data gathering:

     "Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it."

Our Constitution provides limits to government power. The government is granted ONLY those powers specifically enumerated. To underscore this very point, the first ten amendments (The Bill of Rights) lists those freedoms that the government shall not infringe. Lest there be any doubt of the limits to government power, Amendment X states:

     "The powers not granted to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Apropos of the current controversies, Amendment IV says:

     "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Current activities in data collection by the NSA, IRS, FBI and potentially HHS (and the IRS) in administering the Affordable Care Act call into question their actual and potential infringements on our Constitutional liberties. The founding fathers understood that power can be abused and sought to limit its impact. On any grant of power, we must be vigilant, not only for its immediate effects but also its potential for misuse by future administrations.