The notion of a big government nanny state takes on many forms. Big government Republicans can be just as dangerous as liberal Democrats. Both support big government and are therefore the purveyors of statism.
Despite their protests to the contrary, statists by their very nature oppose human liberty.
We have seen the work of so-called 'compassionate conservatives' in vastly expanding the size and scope of government. Liberty has suffered as a result.
To be sure, 'compassionate conservatives' compensate for their statism by supporting tax cuts. Big government liberals have never supported the idea that citizens get to keep more of their own money.
As Geraldine Ferraro told Bill O'Reilly recently when O'Reilly complained about Obama's possible hefty tax increases on his money, 'Just be glad you get to keep some of it.'
This is the liberal ideology in a nutshell. They think your money belongs to them and you get to keep some of it only by their good graces.
Ferraro is totally and absolutely wrong. She should just be glad we allow the government to take some of it.
After all, that money is ours, not the government's. We pay taxes only as the citizens allow government to collect it.
At least the big government conservatives agree with my view on taxes.
But I am greatly disturbed by recent trends among conservatives, especially within the GOP, to embrace and support the expansion of government. This is totally antithetical to the views of our Founders.
As someone stated recently as I was reading through blogs, perhaps the terms 'conservative' and 'Republican' have lost their significance. Perhaps better terms are 'statism' as propounded by big government statists, and 'liberty' as propounded by small government Jeffersonians.
An encouraging sign that the true conservatives, the small government Jeffersonians, have gotten the message is that a group within government made up of the guardians of liberty has been engaging in a series of meetings since the election.
This group maintains that they put no stock in the fact that a person may refer to themselves as 'Republican' or 'conservative.' The only thing that matters to them is whether or not the person is anti-statism and a guardian of liberty as envisioned by the small-government Framers of the Constitution.
And this is the best sign of hope I've seen in a long time.
Showing posts with label Jeffersonian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jeffersonian. Show all posts
Friday, November 07, 2008
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Jefferson's Opposition to Standing Army-Navy
As a matter of principle, Thomas Jefferson had expressed opposition to the concept of a standing army and navy in the years just after the nation's founding. This was in spite of the fact that the Constitution to which he swore allegiance stated that the one essential element of the federal government was to provide for the national defense.
In Jefferson's mind there was no contradiction between his stated philosophy and the words of the Constitution. He believed in a citizens' militia--an army of ordinary citizens who could be ready to fight for the nation's defense whenever necessary.
Jefferson had been one of the driving forces behind adopting the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. While the Constitution itself was ratified on September 17, 1787, the original document did not contain a 'Bill of Rights' as we know it today.
Certain of the nation's Founding Fathers had vehemently opposed the notion of a Constitution precisely due to the fact that it contained no guarantee of individual rights. Patrick Henry was one of these.
Due to the influence of Jefferson, Henry, and others determined to protect the inherent rights of all human beings, the Bill of Rights was approved on December 15, 1791 after the required number of states had given approval.
Jefferson's opposition to a standing army and his commitment to the nation's defense are entirely consistent when one considers the two concepts within the context of the Bill of Rights.
The second section of the Bill of Rights, known as The Second Amendment, made clear that the nation's defense would be the task of every citizen. Each individual citizen would together form a well-regulated, meaning trained, militia.
It was assumed that these citizens would be armed. That assumption is expressed by Jefferson himself many times in his public statements and written documents. Jefferson believed that an armed citizenry was the perfect defense against the tyranny of big government.
Thus, Jefferson's opposition to a standing army and navy was in no way regarded as a belief in public disarmament. To the contrary, Jefferson believed that a standing military was rendered relatively unimportant if not unnecessary specifically due to the fact that he knew the individual citizens were armed and ready to fight when called upon.
In spite of the best of intentions, Jefferson's two terms in office did not succeed in totally dismantling the standing military. History shows that the harsh realities of politics often detour even the greatest of statesmen.
Despite powerful voices encouraging American involvement in overseas conflicts, Jefferson had fought vociferously to keep America out of Europe's wars during the late 1700s and early 1800s. Nonetheless, those voices were powerful enough to keep the President from totally dismantling the military, particularly the Navy.
America's most strategic seaports were of great concern to many, given the might exhibited by the Spanish and French navies. Thus, there was strong support for a buildup of U.S. navy forces as a showcase to the world, demonstrating America's might.
A compromise was reached between Jefferson and the Navy's supporters when the President agreed to keep a standing Navy provided it would be a much smaller and more efficient one. The Jefferson compromise meant that the nation's coastline would be protected by a fleet of smaller, faster gun-boats, and Congress gave its approval to this plan during Jefferson's second term.
Another motivation for Jefferson's plan to streamline military operations was his belief in small, efficient, and cost-effective central government. Jefferson was a minimalist when it came to central government. Expenditures for the federal government, which included military spending, were cut.
This meant that government was forced to live within its means. Believing that the citizens themselves were responsible for the young nation's defense, Jefferson was committed to scaling back the size and scope of government services. This led to the end of internal taxation entirely during Jefferson's Presidency.
The obvious lessons to be learned from the Jefferson years are of incalculable importance for America today. A return to the core values of Jeffersonian democracy may well save the Republic from falling into a thousand years of darkness.
In Jefferson's mind there was no contradiction between his stated philosophy and the words of the Constitution. He believed in a citizens' militia--an army of ordinary citizens who could be ready to fight for the nation's defense whenever necessary.
Jefferson had been one of the driving forces behind adopting the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. While the Constitution itself was ratified on September 17, 1787, the original document did not contain a 'Bill of Rights' as we know it today.
Certain of the nation's Founding Fathers had vehemently opposed the notion of a Constitution precisely due to the fact that it contained no guarantee of individual rights. Patrick Henry was one of these.
Due to the influence of Jefferson, Henry, and others determined to protect the inherent rights of all human beings, the Bill of Rights was approved on December 15, 1791 after the required number of states had given approval.
Jefferson's opposition to a standing army and his commitment to the nation's defense are entirely consistent when one considers the two concepts within the context of the Bill of Rights.
The second section of the Bill of Rights, known as The Second Amendment, made clear that the nation's defense would be the task of every citizen. Each individual citizen would together form a well-regulated, meaning trained, militia.
It was assumed that these citizens would be armed. That assumption is expressed by Jefferson himself many times in his public statements and written documents. Jefferson believed that an armed citizenry was the perfect defense against the tyranny of big government.
Thus, Jefferson's opposition to a standing army and navy was in no way regarded as a belief in public disarmament. To the contrary, Jefferson believed that a standing military was rendered relatively unimportant if not unnecessary specifically due to the fact that he knew the individual citizens were armed and ready to fight when called upon.
In spite of the best of intentions, Jefferson's two terms in office did not succeed in totally dismantling the standing military. History shows that the harsh realities of politics often detour even the greatest of statesmen.
Despite powerful voices encouraging American involvement in overseas conflicts, Jefferson had fought vociferously to keep America out of Europe's wars during the late 1700s and early 1800s. Nonetheless, those voices were powerful enough to keep the President from totally dismantling the military, particularly the Navy.
America's most strategic seaports were of great concern to many, given the might exhibited by the Spanish and French navies. Thus, there was strong support for a buildup of U.S. navy forces as a showcase to the world, demonstrating America's might.
A compromise was reached between Jefferson and the Navy's supporters when the President agreed to keep a standing Navy provided it would be a much smaller and more efficient one. The Jefferson compromise meant that the nation's coastline would be protected by a fleet of smaller, faster gun-boats, and Congress gave its approval to this plan during Jefferson's second term.
Another motivation for Jefferson's plan to streamline military operations was his belief in small, efficient, and cost-effective central government. Jefferson was a minimalist when it came to central government. Expenditures for the federal government, which included military spending, were cut.
This meant that government was forced to live within its means. Believing that the citizens themselves were responsible for the young nation's defense, Jefferson was committed to scaling back the size and scope of government services. This led to the end of internal taxation entirely during Jefferson's Presidency.
The obvious lessons to be learned from the Jefferson years are of incalculable importance for America today. A return to the core values of Jeffersonian democracy may well save the Republic from falling into a thousand years of darkness.
Monday, September 03, 2007
Washington: The Beautiful Sound of Silence
Whenever the U.S. Congress goes into recess, the most beautiful sounds one will hear during the entire year emanate from the nation's capital--the sound of silence.
One of those times is now. The Congress has been in recess, but will return with a vengeance on Tuesday after Labor Day.
The Founding Fathers never intended for the Congress to be a full-time job for Senators and Representatives. Perhaps the complications and complexities of modern life have necessitated that change, but I have often wondered if we would not be much better off doing it the way the Founders did it.
Congress was historically in session only as long as it took to take care of the nation's business. Elected officials then had to quickly return home to earn a living and care for families.
Today, Congress is in session so much that it sometimes appears they create for themselves work to do, particularly in that massive and cumbersome monster of a pseudo-government they created called 'the federal bureaucracy.'
Federal bureaucrats are ultimately dependent on Congress granting them the funds and the means to meddle more and more in the affairs of the citizens. Without the meddlesome task of regulating the lives, the property, and the businesses of private citizens, these bureaucrats would have nothing to do.
It is without doubt the ultimate insult, the most ill-informed point of view, and the most blatant display of ignorance to judge an elected representative by 'how many bills they introduced.' Rather, the thing I wish to know is how successful was my Congressman or Senator in stopping legislation from being passed.
We have enough laws on the books as it is, most of which are never enforced, such as the nation's specific and thorough anti-illegal alien laws. Why, then, do we need more laws unless those particular laws expand liberty for the citizens rather than restrict and regulate?
A pet peeve of mine concerning the upcoming formal announcement of Fred Thompson as a candidate for President revolves around this very issue. Critics maintain that 'Thompson is not known for introducing legislation when he was a Senator.'
Well, HALLELUJAH! Amen! We should be celebrating that fact rather than bemoaning it!
The fact that Fred Thompson is not known for getting more laws passed in Congress is a key indication that he adheres to the philosophy of Jefferson--'the government that governs best governs least.'
A politician who adheres to the philosophy of the Founding Fathers is not going to be known for the legislation he or she passes. Rather, they will be known for legislative restraint.
Socialists such as Ted 'Senator Blowhard' Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, John Kerry, and company are the ones who have a corner on 'introducing legislation' that subjects the citizens to more restrictions and regulations. In fact, let them wear that badge of 'honor'--horror would be more like it.
And since this is the gang that controls Congress at present, although with only 16% of the public approving of the job they are doing, it is a good thing--a VERY good thing--that they are out of town on recess. If only they could stay out of town a bit longer.
Thus, when the present Congress is not in session, it is time to stop and count our blessings. For every day they miss work we don't have to worry about more and more cumbersome regulations and 'new legislation' designed to delve us ever deeper into the 'nanny state.'
Washington can actually be a very beautiful place--when the halls of Congress are silent.
One of those times is now. The Congress has been in recess, but will return with a vengeance on Tuesday after Labor Day.
The Founding Fathers never intended for the Congress to be a full-time job for Senators and Representatives. Perhaps the complications and complexities of modern life have necessitated that change, but I have often wondered if we would not be much better off doing it the way the Founders did it.
Congress was historically in session only as long as it took to take care of the nation's business. Elected officials then had to quickly return home to earn a living and care for families.
Today, Congress is in session so much that it sometimes appears they create for themselves work to do, particularly in that massive and cumbersome monster of a pseudo-government they created called 'the federal bureaucracy.'
Federal bureaucrats are ultimately dependent on Congress granting them the funds and the means to meddle more and more in the affairs of the citizens. Without the meddlesome task of regulating the lives, the property, and the businesses of private citizens, these bureaucrats would have nothing to do.
It is without doubt the ultimate insult, the most ill-informed point of view, and the most blatant display of ignorance to judge an elected representative by 'how many bills they introduced.' Rather, the thing I wish to know is how successful was my Congressman or Senator in stopping legislation from being passed.
We have enough laws on the books as it is, most of which are never enforced, such as the nation's specific and thorough anti-illegal alien laws. Why, then, do we need more laws unless those particular laws expand liberty for the citizens rather than restrict and regulate?
A pet peeve of mine concerning the upcoming formal announcement of Fred Thompson as a candidate for President revolves around this very issue. Critics maintain that 'Thompson is not known for introducing legislation when he was a Senator.'
Well, HALLELUJAH! Amen! We should be celebrating that fact rather than bemoaning it!
The fact that Fred Thompson is not known for getting more laws passed in Congress is a key indication that he adheres to the philosophy of Jefferson--'the government that governs best governs least.'
A politician who adheres to the philosophy of the Founding Fathers is not going to be known for the legislation he or she passes. Rather, they will be known for legislative restraint.
Socialists such as Ted 'Senator Blowhard' Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, John Kerry, and company are the ones who have a corner on 'introducing legislation' that subjects the citizens to more restrictions and regulations. In fact, let them wear that badge of 'honor'--horror would be more like it.
And since this is the gang that controls Congress at present, although with only 16% of the public approving of the job they are doing, it is a good thing--a VERY good thing--that they are out of town on recess. If only they could stay out of town a bit longer.
Thus, when the present Congress is not in session, it is time to stop and count our blessings. For every day they miss work we don't have to worry about more and more cumbersome regulations and 'new legislation' designed to delve us ever deeper into the 'nanny state.'
Washington can actually be a very beautiful place--when the halls of Congress are silent.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
The Dilemma of the Libertarian-Leaning Voter
During a speaking engagement some time ago I fielded a question from the participants concerning my political preferences. The question was this: given that you are obviously libertarian in your views, why, then, do you tend to support Republican candidates?
The answer that I gave at the time is still relevant. I said, 'Because the Republicans are the only ones, with a national audience, that take the Bill of Rights seriously, at least enough to talk about it.'
Of course it bears repeating my oft-cited assertion that I am neither Republican nor Democrat, but a political independent with libertarian leanings.
Further, it is essential to understand that there is a difference between belonging to the Libertarian Party, which I do not, and being one who espouses libertarian views.
A libertarian point of view toward government and politics normally centers on the belief in free market capitalism, small government that intrudes into private lives and private business only to insure a fair playing field, an adherence to Constitutional principles, particularly with regard to the Bill of Rights, and the general conviction that government is not entitled to taxes but is ultimately dependent on the people and what they are willing to allow government to collect in order to pay for the legitimate role of government as delineated in the Constitution itself.
At one time while the nation was still in its infancy, those persons who adhered to these views were known as 'Jeffersonian Democrats.'
The meanings of words certainly change over time.
Today Democrats are nearly as far away from the principles of Jefferson as one can get. Some Republican are just as bad.
Yet overall, Republicans generally claim at least verbal adherence to Jeffersonian principles. Even Rudy Giuliani, who is by no means a Jeffersonian, is alarmed at the abject socialism of Hillary Clinton and states that he would choose judges for the federal bench based upon the principle of 'strict constructionism,' which means that a candidate for a seat on the federal bench would have to consider the views of the Framers as the ultimate test of Constitutional interpretation.
Of course, Giuliani has consistently contradicted his stated philosophy by supporting measures that fly in the face of the views of the Framers, particularly on the Second Amendment.
Nonetheless, Republican voters take these matters very seriously. And thus, Rudy's apparent failure to adhere to his own stated principles is a big issue with a large portion of the GOP faithful, particularly in areas such as the South, the Midwest, and the Rocky Mountain states.
There are times, however, when the chosen Republican candidate is so repugnant when it comes to libertarian principles that voting for a third party candidate seems to be the only prudent course.
For example, during the 2006 election cycle I threw my support behind Alabama Gubernatorial candidate Loretta Nall, who was running on the Libertarian ticket. Republican governor Bob Riley had alienated many libertarian leaning Republicans in the state by proposing the largest tax increase in the state's history, although there was no budget shortfall.
It was for this exact same reason that I threw my support behind U.S. Senatorial candidate Kathrene Harris, R-FLA, in her bid to unseat Senator Bill Nelson. Harris wishes to abolish the IRS and move to a fair tax system as a means of lifting the tax burden for all.
The Democratic candidate in Alabama, Lucy Baxley, was a regular run-of-the-mill modern Democrat, complete with the expected 'big government can solve all' mentality.
I saw little difference between Riley and Baxley, and thus, I began to look at Nall.
I determined that Nall was the best choice based upon five basic reasons: she wished to cut the state income tax and supported the 'fair tax' on the national level; she supported homeschooling and private schools to protest the sorry state of affairs in public schools; she supported removing all restrictions on gun rights; she wished to end the so-called 'war on drugs' much as the nation ended Prohibition against alcohol for one reason alone--it did not work; and finally, she was refreshingly candid and honest.
Knowing early-on that Nall's chances of being elected were next to nil, I nonetheless could not bring myself to support either the Republican or the Democrat. Thus, my support went to Nall.
When this same level of deduction is applied to the national level, how far does the Republican candidate for President have to stray from basic libertarian principles before the GOP faithful begin to look to a third-party alternative?
My gut tells me that many would do exactly that--begin looking elsewhere--if the nominee happens to be Giuliani or McCain, and perhaps even Romney.
The question is, where would they go? If Giuliani is unacceptable, then support for someone like Hillary or Obama would be laughable. But there are no serious libertarian-leaning candidates to support in the Presidential race, unless it is one of the Republicans other than the RINOS.
This means that it is absolutely essential that the GOP chooses a candidate who appeals to those who value the Constitutional principles of small, efficient government, low taxes, free market capitalism, personal freedom, and the Bill of Rights--ALL of the Bill of Rights.
The answer that I gave at the time is still relevant. I said, 'Because the Republicans are the only ones, with a national audience, that take the Bill of Rights seriously, at least enough to talk about it.'
Of course it bears repeating my oft-cited assertion that I am neither Republican nor Democrat, but a political independent with libertarian leanings.
Further, it is essential to understand that there is a difference between belonging to the Libertarian Party, which I do not, and being one who espouses libertarian views.
A libertarian point of view toward government and politics normally centers on the belief in free market capitalism, small government that intrudes into private lives and private business only to insure a fair playing field, an adherence to Constitutional principles, particularly with regard to the Bill of Rights, and the general conviction that government is not entitled to taxes but is ultimately dependent on the people and what they are willing to allow government to collect in order to pay for the legitimate role of government as delineated in the Constitution itself.
At one time while the nation was still in its infancy, those persons who adhered to these views were known as 'Jeffersonian Democrats.'
The meanings of words certainly change over time.
Today Democrats are nearly as far away from the principles of Jefferson as one can get. Some Republican are just as bad.
Yet overall, Republicans generally claim at least verbal adherence to Jeffersonian principles. Even Rudy Giuliani, who is by no means a Jeffersonian, is alarmed at the abject socialism of Hillary Clinton and states that he would choose judges for the federal bench based upon the principle of 'strict constructionism,' which means that a candidate for a seat on the federal bench would have to consider the views of the Framers as the ultimate test of Constitutional interpretation.
Of course, Giuliani has consistently contradicted his stated philosophy by supporting measures that fly in the face of the views of the Framers, particularly on the Second Amendment.
Nonetheless, Republican voters take these matters very seriously. And thus, Rudy's apparent failure to adhere to his own stated principles is a big issue with a large portion of the GOP faithful, particularly in areas such as the South, the Midwest, and the Rocky Mountain states.
There are times, however, when the chosen Republican candidate is so repugnant when it comes to libertarian principles that voting for a third party candidate seems to be the only prudent course.
For example, during the 2006 election cycle I threw my support behind Alabama Gubernatorial candidate Loretta Nall, who was running on the Libertarian ticket. Republican governor Bob Riley had alienated many libertarian leaning Republicans in the state by proposing the largest tax increase in the state's history, although there was no budget shortfall.
It was for this exact same reason that I threw my support behind U.S. Senatorial candidate Kathrene Harris, R-FLA, in her bid to unseat Senator Bill Nelson. Harris wishes to abolish the IRS and move to a fair tax system as a means of lifting the tax burden for all.
The Democratic candidate in Alabama, Lucy Baxley, was a regular run-of-the-mill modern Democrat, complete with the expected 'big government can solve all' mentality.
I saw little difference between Riley and Baxley, and thus, I began to look at Nall.
I determined that Nall was the best choice based upon five basic reasons: she wished to cut the state income tax and supported the 'fair tax' on the national level; she supported homeschooling and private schools to protest the sorry state of affairs in public schools; she supported removing all restrictions on gun rights; she wished to end the so-called 'war on drugs' much as the nation ended Prohibition against alcohol for one reason alone--it did not work; and finally, she was refreshingly candid and honest.
Knowing early-on that Nall's chances of being elected were next to nil, I nonetheless could not bring myself to support either the Republican or the Democrat. Thus, my support went to Nall.
When this same level of deduction is applied to the national level, how far does the Republican candidate for President have to stray from basic libertarian principles before the GOP faithful begin to look to a third-party alternative?
My gut tells me that many would do exactly that--begin looking elsewhere--if the nominee happens to be Giuliani or McCain, and perhaps even Romney.
The question is, where would they go? If Giuliani is unacceptable, then support for someone like Hillary or Obama would be laughable. But there are no serious libertarian-leaning candidates to support in the Presidential race, unless it is one of the Republicans other than the RINOS.
This means that it is absolutely essential that the GOP chooses a candidate who appeals to those who value the Constitutional principles of small, efficient government, low taxes, free market capitalism, personal freedom, and the Bill of Rights--ALL of the Bill of Rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)