In response to my blog on Friday titled "Post-Mortem Madness", an anonymous poster, going by the name Publius (those of us that know our history know the name well), posted a rather lengthy response.
I thought it worth front-page focus, so--here it is (with my emphasis added):
In 1787, whilst he exited the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked by a woman, "What have we got--a republic or monarchy?" His reply, well known, was "a republic…if you can keep it."
The United States Constitution instituted a republic not only for the general government of the several (distinct) States, but it guaranteed this form of government to every State in Article 4, Section 4. This nation was, thus, a republic of republics.
In fact, prior to the passage of the 17th amendment in 1913, when Senators were selected by State legislatures, the Senate represented the interests of the States, as independent entities, and the House of Representatives, those of the people.
If only we still had a House of the States...federalism would not be dying its tragic death now...
Although the Philadelphia Convention eschewed monarchy, the document it produced has not completely survived over the years the force of personality in the presidency.
Andrew Jackson sought the abolition of the Electoral College, which would place the selection of the chief executive in the hands of the people instead of the States. Abraham Lincoln signed into law the first income tax, eventually leading to the passage of the 16th amendment that allows Congress to levy an income tax without regard to the States.
Erosion of the rights of individual States, by constitutional alterations and military force (1861-1865), combined with the populists movements of the late 1800s and early 1900s, has transformed the American republic increasingly towards the peril of democracy, rule by omnipotent majority.
New Deal and Great Society programs should not be unexpected when the Constitution of 1787 is relegated from fundamental law to historical artifact. Can we fathom what "Change" we are in for from an administration led by someone who describes it as a "charter of negative liberties."
Republics safeguard the rights of individuals and minorities. Democracies facilitate mob rule, allowing those who are experts at winning elections, and but potentially nothing else, to dominate politics. The distinctions between these systems have been noted for over two millennia, from Plato's Republic to Tocqueville's Democracy in America.
Toqueville should be required reading...the most critical warning which speaks to our time: "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
Thomas Jefferson wrote, "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on true free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among general bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others."
James Madison describes the dangers of democracies in Federalist #10, writing "When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government... enables it to sacrifice its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens." He then argues that the Constitution contains a republican remedy (or it once did).
We can debate ad nauseam about what platform/issues might save the GOP or whether forming a new Conservative party is merited with the Republican brand being tarnished as it is, but unlike the Whig party of the 1850s, whose good name was sullied by debate over slavery, those who claim to carry the banner of Reagan have failed in part because they omit his principle of New Federalism.
INDEED...but such a concept is now so foreign to much of the populace after nearly a century of populism...
I have often marveled that a self professed "conservative" Republican president, who instituted a massive federal insertion into public education and spearheaded an initiative to increase entitlement spending via medicare prescription drug benefits for seniors, could be so vilified by the Democratic Party. This hatred transcends post 9/11 security policies and the Iraq war.
You and me both...to call George W. Bush a conservative in the Regan/New Federalism mold is to be woefully ignorant of what conservatism in this vein is...
But a shift back from democratic populism to a constitutional, federalist republic will not alone save our country. What is also needed is, described in the Constitution of Virginia, Section 16, "the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forebearance, love, and charity towards each other."
The 10th commandment states, "You shall not covet." Following this, the politician, who offers to take the wealth of another, by force, and distribute it to others, should hold no power over "We the People."
Let us be clear on the application of this principle. A presidential candidate who offers money to those who do not pay taxes is not reducing tax liability (a tax cut) because no tax is owed. To even call this welfare would be charitable, when it has all the appearance of an outright bribe.
Tocqueville predicted, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." An honest reflection of our current state of affairs leads to the indictment of both Republicans and Democrats in this regard, but the citizens have culpability as well. Is not the recipient of a bribe, paid for at the expense of another’s labor, a willing participant in the treachery?
I will divert from Publius in this matter...when the public is ignorant of such treachery, I do not believe they are culpable...
John Adams said, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
"We can pretend that Republican Party, or the Democratic Party for that matter, or even the "republic" itself can long survive morale relativism or pluralism, but the study of history is not our friend in this regard. We must face the reality that the Great Commission of Matthew 28 holds more power to transform society than the election of any executive, the actions of any legislature, or the rulings of any judiciary.
Ronald Reagan said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." Fight the good fight.
Publius
1 comment:
Post a Comment