*******

When President Obama announced a new $50 billion stimulus plan Labor Day weekend, conservatives scoffed — and rightfully so.

Who does this guy think he’s fooling? After the $700 billion TARP bailout, the auto manufacturer bailout, and an $800 billion stimulus, does this president actually think a measly $50 billion is going to successfully turn around an economy where greater sums have failed? But the president and his party have a ready reply for such naysayers: “Imagine if we did nothing?” This open-ended question will undoubtedly continue to provide cover for stimulus-loving liberals, no matter how often conservatives insist that their government intervention simply doesn’t work.

When my commentary on the ninth anniversary of 9/11 was broadcast on WTMA, a number of callers were angry I suggested that our policy of foreign intervention does not work. No matter how much I explained how our incompetent government does more damage than good abroad, my critics sounded pretty much like Obama: “But Jack, imagine if we did nothing?”

So yes, let’s imagine these scenarios. What if the Federal Reserve had never artificially lowered interest rates and created a housing bubble? What if the Fed had not printed literally countless dollars out of thin air, further weakening our currency? What if we never had borrowed money from China to pay for bailouts and stimulus? Would we be worse off financially than if the government had never done any of these things? Any conservative worth his salt recognizes the absurdity of these arguments and also recognizes that such fear-mongering is typically used as an excuse for more statism.

But such fear-mongering is also used by those on the Right to support our equally statist foreign policy, particularly when they portray radical Islam as somehow a threat on par with the Soviet Union or talk radio’s favorite comparison, the Nazis. Although I agreed with some callers that there probably is a uniquely medieval aspect to Islam not present or as prominent in other major religions, I asked, “Why did Americans not have to worry about Islamic terrorism in the 1940s, ’50s, and ’60s? What has changed? Islam? Or our foreign policy?” The question answers itself in the sense that we don’t have to “imagine” what might happen if we “did nothing” in the Middle East today, precisely because when we did little to nothing decades ago, there was no terrorist threat to the United States.

A few of my critics immediately and predictably called me an “isolationist” in much the same way Obama now chides conservative Republicans as belonging to the “Party of No” for opposing every new government intervention the Democrats come up with. Government must do something, you see, and no doubt Obama would readily paint anti-stimulus Republicans as some sort of domestic, economic “isolationists” if such jargon came into fashion. Luckily for conservative hawks, such jargon is well-established but is no less absurd. Compared to how engaged we are today in the Middle East, did the U.S. have an “isolationist” policy toward that region in the first half of the 20th century? Is Switzerland asking for trouble due to their long history of neutrality or isolationism? Are 99 percent of nations “isolationist” for not mimicking the foreign policy of the U.S., arguably the most ambitious imperial power in world history?

When conservatives suggest that we should apply free market solutions to financial crises, liberals dismiss those who make such proposals as libertarian wackos who don’t realize that it was the lack of government regulation that led to such problems in the first place. This is similar to the claim many conservatives make concerning foreign policy: that if the U.S. does not drop bombs on certain Third World countries indefinitely, station troops in some Mideast sand pit for decades on end, and regulate the world stage, our refusal to do all this will somehow put Americans at risk.

It’s time for both sides to start imagining what they fear most: What if we did nothing? What if our federal government didn’t spend or borrow beyond its means or constantly meddle domestically? What if our federal government did not constantly intervene overseas, spending and borrowing well beyond its means to do so?

We used to have a Constitution which restricted our federal government from doing such damage, and if we could only return to that charter, this entire column would be a moot point. Yet the prevailing belief that government must always do something both domestically and abroad will not be discarded by the Left or Right anytime soon. Both sides have an enduring attachment to statism, born not only of their particular ideologies but political identities, and they will continue to create new problems using government intervention in the name of solving old ones, blind to the fact that the larger mess is almost entirely of their own making.

The “Southern Avenger” Jack Hunter is a conservative commentator (WTMA 1250 AM talk radio) and columnist (Charleston City Paper) living in Charleston, South Carolina. See his blog.

Copyright 2010, Charleston City Paper

There seems to be a bit of confusion of what it means to be a Constitutionalist or supporter of the Tenth Amendment (Both go hand in hand) and a Conservative. Let me explain my definition of both.

A Constitutionalist and Tenth Amendment supporter believe that the U.S. Constitution is arguably the greatest political document man could devise. Sure, the Articles of Confederation were also a great document, in fact the Convention delegates that gave us the current Constitution were technically meeting only to revise the Articles. With that said, we support the United States Constitution wholeheartedly and want those elected to Federal office to abide by it. Unfortunately, they stopped many, many years ago.

What does supporting the Constitution mean? Many people who call themselves “Conservative” have rebuked us for betraying conservative principles ie… Gun Rights, Abortion, Homosexual Marriage, Drugs and prayer in school to name a few.

If you are a federal office holder and  “Conservative”, you should always defend the Second Amendment, look to overturn Roe v. Wade, vote for the  Marriage Amendment and absolutely be in favor of the War on Drugs. This is what a Conservative is conserving, right?

What if I told you that the Federal government has no business what-so-ever getting involved in these issues? That the Bill of Rights is intended as a limitation on the power of the FEDERAL government ONLY, not the states, and that any federally elected person, conservative or not, that votes in favor of laws that interfere with these things is breaking their oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution.

What would you say?

The Founding Fathers debated this issue quite thoroughly. There were many in attendance who wished to have us become a consolidated, national government. James Madison repeatedly tried to grant the federal government the power to negate all state laws. He was soundly defeated each time.

In the end we were given a Federal Republic that was made up of individual sovereign states. These states delegated limited and enumerated powers to the federal government. To be certain that there was no mistake, they had the Tenth Amendment added: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Couldn’t be much clearer – if it’s not in the Constitution, it’s left for the states or the people to decide.

Yet today, so called conservatives want the federal government involved in myriads of everyday-life activities. Take the Second Amendment for example. I am an avid gun collector and shooter. You will be hard pressed to find anyone more “Pro-Gun” than me.  I believe that the Federal government has no right to tell me if I can own a firearm or not. They have no right to dictate to my state or it’s citizens (unfortunately, they don’t need too) on whether or not I can own a machine gun, suppressor, high capacity magazine, bayonet or any other accessories. They have no right to tell me I can’t purchase a firearm from one state and have it shipped to mine without a federal license.

However, the Supreme Court and the Federal government also have no right to tell my state that they MUST  or must not allow concealed handguns or any other weapon. You see, the federal government must stay out of things that don’t concern them. The Second Amendment remember, is part of the Bill of Rights, which in turn limits the FEDERAL government ONLY.

Just imagine if all these rules and regulations were left where they belong, in the states. Granted, you may not like your states rules and regulations, here in the Peoples Republic of New York, they are horrendous. We are one of the greatest welfare states in the union. However,  I would much rather fight local politicians to have these laws overturned than have to fight against a politician from California or Massachusetts.

If you allow these laws in your state and don’t fight to repeal them, shame on you. You could always move to a pro-freedom state.

The same with Marriage. If the people of your state want to allow Homosexual marriages, which I am against on moral grounds, so be it. Either fight to repeal it or move. How dare the Federal government and Nancy Pelosi tell me and my neighbors that I have to have Homosexual marriage or not.

Abortion? Same thing, I am against it, however, if you are not willing to effect change in your own state, how dare you tell others how to run their lives. Prayer in school? If my neighborhood school wants to say a prayer each morning to thank God, who is some atheist in New Jersey to say we cannot?

How dare anyone  expect the federal government to act like a bully and force change in your neighborhood whether you want it or not. The Supreme Court? They once decided that African Americans were property! Yeah, I’ll trust their decisions.

The lesson here is simple. The federal government was delegated certain enumerated powers from the people of the several states. Everything else is left to those states to decide for  themselves. Whether they want school prayer, the death penalty, abortions, medical marijuana or machine guns.

True “conservatives” should be fighting to conserve these principles. We are all on the same side. We agree on most issues and fighting amongst ourselves only allows the Frankenstein Monster we call the federal government to run ram shod over our individual freedoms.

As Benjamin Franklin was reported to have said, “If we don’t hang together, most assuredly we will all hang separately.”

Rick Montes [send him email] is the state chapter co-coordinator of the New York Tenth Amendment Center

Absolute governments (though the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, that they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs, know likewise the remedy, and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies, some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine.
–Thomas Paine, “Common Sense,” 1776

Think about each of the observations Paine makes in the quote above. They could not describe our current state of socio-political existence any better. We have come full-swing and have arrived back to the days preceding our point of origin. Which way forward?

It is time to stop thinking about politics and start thinking about society. Scholars, such as Paine, did not have Fox, CNN and MSNBC in their days. They bickered just the same, but many actually studied and contemplated society and its interaction vis-à-vis politics. Their thoughts ran deep; they were not distracted by mainstream quarrels of the day. Let’s take Paine’s statement above and break it down.

“Absolute governments (though the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, that they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs….”

Here, Paine is saying that if a society is ruled by a dictator, people would have the benefit of being able to immediately know the source from which their oppression emanates.

“….know likewise the remedy, and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures.”

Confronted by a dictator and knowing the source of their suffering, there is but one remedy – to overthrow the dictator.

“But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies….”

This statement recognizes a pitfall when authority is dispersed among many, and despite such “balance” of power, the people feel oppressed. It slows the pursuit of social justice. People lose track of where to place blame, and losing their senses of direction, argue among one-another as to how to set the stage for a more general sense of common prosperity and tranquility.

“…. some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine.”

Witness the Republicans vs. the Democrats; the liberals vs. the conservatives; FOX vs. MSNBC; and the independents who are lost in the melee.

The state of politics in America is little different than that which the early Americans experienced in their time. The system is so ill-defined, chaotic and confusing. The smell of corruption is behind almost every politician’s door.

We argue and squabble and blame. Politics is in its prime. Democrats and Republicans, conservatives, liberals and independents…. We’re all missing the boat. There is a big picture here. We are all the same. We are not the elites; we are the working class. We have, in essence, the same needs. Why do we argue with one another?

It’s time to return to the pursuit of Enlightenment. We need to make amends, cross political lines, and begin having a meaningful discourse on a socio-political solution. Political labels are destructive.

Are we really “conservatives” or “liberals?” It is time to think about what these words actually mean and not what Hannity and Olbermann tell us they mean.

One thing is for sure. We are the working class; corruption abounds, and we (the middle class) are not doing the corrupting. We are on the same side. We just need to recognize it and find ways to unite. We might find that none of us need to cross to the other side of the line. There might not be a line at all.

Stay tuned….

Jeff Matthews [send him email] is an attorney living in Houston, Texas. His current projects include the website SovereignStates, and the forthcoming organization, The National Taxpayer Takeover.

Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit to the author and this website is given.

Human nature and history teach us that political labels are used to influence society to accomplish a certain political end. Many times, words used to describe original principles are somehow conquered or hijacked and then proclaimed to be a part of those original principles, but are realistically far from them. As I was growing up, I remember thinking this: “‘liberal’ equals bad and ‘conservative’ equals good.” “Conservative” was proposed to be a word purely describing the principles believed and proclaimed by America’s founding fathers. “Liberal” was proposed to describe those whose only goal was to bring Americans under the control and dominion of the federal government. As it turns out, these words and descriptions were not only misleading and narrow-minded in their application, but they were also incorrect in their origin. Today, neither “conservative” nor “liberal” accurately describe the philosophy and principles they purport to advocate. Consequently, freedom suffers because of America’s ignorance of and infatuation with these labels, contrary to George Washington’s warning of this very tragedy.

The United States were born and raised on the principles of a constitutionally limited government, (state) powers checking (federal) powers, federalism, natural rights, natural laws of God, individual liberty, self-government, consent of the governed, state and individual sovereignty, and meaningful checks and balances, just to name a few. With these ideas, America threw off the enslaving chains of Great Britain’s national and centralized government control in the individual, familial, commercial and religious affairs of the people, to the point that most of our constitution’s framers and ratifiers believed that the government which governs least, governs best. So, were these principles advocated by conservatives or liberals from 1776 to 1787? Perhaps those who call themselves conservatives today should understand the original application of that word before being proud of it. Same goes for liberals.

Conservatives in the 1700 and 1800’s preferred government controls, privileges, monopolies, cartels and subsidies in the areas in which the revolutionary Americans believed government had no business whatsoever. Conservatives were those who wanted America to be the “British system without Great Britain.” (Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty: Libertarian Manifesto, 2nd Ed. [Auburn, AL, Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 2006], 8. These conservatives unsuccessfully attempted to interject their ideas for a centralized/national and monarchical government at the Constitutional Convention debates in 1787. These conservatives attempted to annihilate the existence, sovereignty and power of the states in the union. (Alexander Hamilton, The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Ed. Henry Cabot Lodge, vol. 1, [New York, NY, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904], 397-398, 400: “We must establish a general and national government, completely sovereign, and annihilate the State distinctions and State operations; and, unless we do this, no good purpose can be answered…I believe the British government forms the best model.”) These conservatives possessed Old World ideas completely contrary to the foundations of American Revolution during the 1700 and early 1800s. For this, the Federalist Party died (another example of a deceptive use of a word: in this case, “Federalist”). However, their kind, agenda and philosophy did not die, but still thrives today under different labels, even under the label, “conservative”.

Conversely, liberals of the 1700 and 1800s were those who believed that government was to leave individuals, families, commerce and religion alone; that the freedom of the people to produce and prosper was more important than government sustainability and energy; and that the natural rights of man were to be protected, preferred and secured at the cost of government power and control. It was this freedom movement that led us from victory during the American Revolution in the 1700s to the Industrial revolution in the 1800s. Classic liberal leaders like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams and John Randolph fought vigorously to keep Old World conservatives like John Adams, Henry Clay, and Alexander Hamilton from creating in America through subversive constitutional (de)construction what they could not accomplish through transparent constitutional debates and ratification in 1787. From Jefferson’s Presidential election in 1801 to James Buchanan’s election in 1857, classic liberal concepts, such as laissez-faire, individual and natural rights, state sovereignty and limited and divided government, prevailed in public opinion, believing that “the ideal government…is one which barely escapes being no government at all.” (Henry Louis Mencken, Prejudices: Third Series, [New York, NY, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1922], 292.)

Over time, the labels, “conservative” and “liberal”, changed meaning and application. You hear the word “liberal” today, and every notion contrary to classic liberalism comes to mind. Liberalism’s ideals of freedom were distorted, through the government-controlled education systems, into socialistic and fascist forms and masquerades, where “individual rights” are obtained through government force, control and regulation. Through duplicity and deceit, classic liberalism was replaced with social liberalism, whereby the “[government] must regulate industry for the public good; substitute organized cooperation for the dog-eat-dog of the free and competitive marketplace; and above all, substitute for the nation-destroying liberal tenets of peace and free trade the nation-glorifying measures of war, protectionism, empire and military prowess.” Rothbard, For A New Liberty, 12.

Admittedly, conservatives today attempt to present themselves in a form similar with classic liberals of the 1700 and 1800s, but their substance is far removed from those ideals. Consider this: since Abraham Lincoln, more supposed conservative presidents have been elected than any other political or philosophical category; and yet, since Lincoln, the power of the federal government has become exponentially more centralized and powerful. Like social liberals, these conservatives claim to advocate freedom for society (and even the world!), only this freedom comes by government centralization, control, war and force. Consider the following few historical illustrations.

Abraham Lincoln engaged in what became America’s most horrific war–against our own people, no less! And for what purpose? Most Americans have been taught Lincoln “had to, to save the union”? The truth is, Lincoln destroyed the union, by destroying the principles that formed the union. In Lincoln’s own words, the Civil War was to reform (replace) the original nature and character of the union from a federation of states to a nation of people, despite our original formation under the constitution. Lincoln says, “[T]he awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land, may be but a punishment inflicted upon us, for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of national reformation as a whole People[.]” (Abraham Lincoln, The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union, [Washington D.C., Government Printing Office, 1899], 106). Lincoln knew that for the ratified federal union to become a national system (which was rejected by the people and founders), the nature and character of the union must be reformed. For this cause, Lincoln waged war against the Confederate States of America, creating substantially the same national system of government that the colonies seceded from in 1776 and the states rejected in 1787. This is “saving the union”!? This is “American”!? This is “freedom”!?

Shortly after the Lincoln administration, President William McKinley led a war against Spain in 1898, eventually giving the United States empirical control of former Spanish colonies, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam. What was the driving force behind this “conservative” President?–well, in his own words, to commercialize and imperialize the Spanish territory. McKinley says, “I don’t know how it was, but it came [to me]: (1) that we could not give them [the islands] back to Spain…(2) that we could not turn over to France or Germany – our commercial rivals in the Orient – that would be bad business and discreditable; (3) that we could not leave them to themselves – they were unfit for self-government – and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain’s was; and (4) that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them…I told [the War Department] to put the Philippines on the map of the United States…and there they are and there they will stay while I am President!” If there is anything contrary to the American ideal of justice, it is empire-building, colonizing, foreign entanglements, and unjust wars. Yet, many conservative presidents have towed that line.

Even modern conservatives’ model president, Ronald Reagan, adopted the imperialistic approach to the United States’ involvement in foreign affairs–a notion completely contrary to the laws of nations as expressed by our founders. Reagan describes the United States role as peace-giver to the world! He says,

“Our dream, our challenge, and yes, our mission, is to make the golden age of peace, prosperity, and brotherhood a living reality in all countries of the Middle East. Let us remember that whether we be Christians or Jew or Moslem, we are all children of Abraham, we are all children of the same God… If you take away the belief in a greater future, you cannot explain America – that we’re a people who believed we were chosen by God to create a greater world.” (John W. Robbins, Freedom and Capitalism, [Unicoi, TN, The Trinity Foundation, 2006], 123).

To these past conservative presidents, America has to force others to accept (their version of) peace, way of life and government. To do this, of course, America must entangle itself in the affairs of foreign sovereign nations and force the states in the union to participate in unconstitutional acts. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington despised and warned us about these very dangers: empire-building, military-industrial union, corporate statism, and foreign entanglement. Yet, somehow, many conservatives and liberals in America erroneously believe this philosophy to be what our forefathers accepted in principle.

The immeasurable expansion, size and control of the federal government includes both foreign affairs and domestic society–at the hands of both conservative and liberal. Of course, we know that politicians can advocate for good causes, but these causes have been the distraction to the more important and fundamental matters of freedom. What good is it for those on a train heading over a cliff to enjoy the ride before falling? Do you want someone advocating that you have tastier food, more comfortable seats, and a better view on the train or do you want someone trying to stop and reverse the train before falling? Evidently, conservatives and liberals in America have not protected, preserved and defended the American ideals adopted by the people of the states from 1776 to 1787. How do we know? Well, they have had a DU-nopoly in America for the past 150 years. Yet , here we are!

A country does not go from good to bad over night. It takes decades. A country does not go from libertarian to fascist, communist or socialist in a matter of months. It takes generations. You think Obama has caused all of our problems? How ludicrous! By chance, to those who now criticize Obama’s enormous federal spending, did you criticize G.W. Bush for his 4 Trillion dollar debt increase, setting a federal spending record at that time? Wake up! Slavery is accomplished by the gradual sink method, not by the mere election of a democrat or republican president. And if these presidents in fact make this determination, then we no longer live in a confederate republic, but a despotic monarchy; and this whole system is just a matrix of lies and deceit to make the people think they have anything whatsoever to do with the outcome of political, social and individual freedom.

Could I agree with certain ideas advocated by conservatives and liberals? Certainly. Even a blind squirrel will find a nut every so often, and talk is cheap. You cannot dump every American into the red-blue, republican-democrat, conservative-liberal pigeon holes–despite the politicians’ and media’s attempt to do so (because it gives them monopolistic control over all public debate and perception).

However, conservatism and liberalism today are missing the ultimate goal for which our forefathers fought and died, and serve only to place those in power who perpetuate the very form and substance of government that continues to deny us our contractual and natural rights derived from God and secured by our Constitution. If that is what being a conservative and liberal is, I do not classify myself as either. Rather, call me a Freedomist! If you agree, join me!

Tim Baldwin is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former felony prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney’s Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is author of a soon-to-be-published new book, entitled FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE. Tim is also one of America’s foremost defenders of State sovereignty. See his website.

Copyright ©Timothy Baldwin 2009

Anyone who desires a constitutionally limited federal government should remember and celebrate that its limitations would necessarily cut both ways. Because if federal policy actually adhered to the letter of the Constitution, no single ideological camp could wield sufficient power to impose a set of beliefs on the entire country.

Which was exactly the point of our federalist system, and of the 10th Amendment. Beyond specific, enumerated federal powers, an infinite number of issues were intentionally left to the authority of the people through their state governments. And it is to the states that liberals, conservatives, and even libertarians must address all questions extending beyond the constitutional purview of federal authority.

Questions involving but not limited to:

Health Care: If the framers had intended the federal government to establish and manage hospitals and Alms Houses within the states, they would no doubt have given it the explicit authority to do so. To misconstrue the general Welfare Clause in such a way as to conjure that authority out of thin air is to commit a blatant act of intellectual dishonesty.

In fact, regarding those words, “general welfare,” James Madison himself said: “To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

This also includes Medicare and Social Security, both of which are preparing to default on a massive scale thanks to the sort of bureaucratic mismanagement and fiscal shell games at which governments excel.

Of course, nowhere does the Constitution say that states cannot establish and bankrupt their own socialized medicine or retirement schemes. See: Massachusetts and California.

Drugs: George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were hemp farmers, and drugs themselves have existed in various forms for thousands of years. They were certainly not unknown to the framers of our national government. Yet, excepting the (repealed) 18th Amendment, there is no mention of drugs or prohibition in the Constitution.

It is thanks to an expansive and unlimited interpretation of the Commerce Clause that the federal government now claims the power to ban certain substances. But in 1787, the Commerce Clause was worded to make trade regular between the states by preventing protectionist tariffs, not to give Congress the power to impose national standards of morality on the marketplace.

In recent years, some states have tried to reassert their authority on this issue, but a senselessly violent war continues to be waged by the federal government against the personal purchasing decisions of people in every state.

Marriage: The positive impact of creating social and financial bonds between consenting adults was likely as obvious in the eighteenth century as it is now. But the framers had a much healthier distrust of the federal government than we do today. They gave it no power to define marriage because the framers did not feel compelled to ask or grant the blessing of the federal government in forming private religious unions.

Neither do we need it today to legitimize private unions, religious or otherwise. But as long as both parties seek to engineer social policy through the federal income tax code, the issue of marriage will needlessly divide our country, and state governments will remain unable to fully implement their citizens’ will.

The list goes on and on, but the point remains the same: America was built on individualism and freedom of choice, and what’s right for one person or one state is not necessarily right for them all.

There is no way to make everyone happy with every law, but abandoning the futile and divisive quest for a “one size fits all” centralized government, and returning the states to their rightful role as competing laboratories of democracy is a good start.

Before America can rediscover the promise of her founding, people on both sides of the aisle must come to grips with the fact that the federal government does not exist to impose on the nation either the Right’s or the Left’s vision of freedom, morality, or social justice.

Josh is a freelance writer and journalist originally from the Washington D.C. area. He is a cynically optimistic and unrepentant news junkie. His work has been published locally and in Charleston, SC. Email Josh.

What use is the political left? This is a serious question, not a rant. The same question can be asked about the political right. The question does not imply derogatory implications about individuals on the political left or the political right. Rather, the question concerns the basket of emotions, issues, and knee-jerk responses associated with the political left and the political right.

Traditionally, the political left has had a Benthamite view of government, seeing government power as the tool for improving society whether through revolution or reform. Paradoxically, the political left has believed in Big Government despite the political left’s emphasis on civil liberty. The political left sees government power not as a threat to civil liberty but as a tool for enforcing civil liberty; for example, through Brown vs. Board of Education and coerced integration in the southern states.

Traditionally, the political right has had a Blackstonian view of government, distrusting government power as a threat to individual liberty. Paradoxically, conservatives value individual liberty while tending to view civil liberties as protective devices for criminals and, currently, terrorists.

The political left tends to blame problems on existing societal institutions, especially on capitalism, which is believed to foster greed and private power that is not accountable to the people. The political right blames problems on human fallibility and on laws and regulations that create the wrong incentives and that replace private action with government action.

The Founding Fathers, being mild revolutionaries, set up a Blackstonian Constitution in which law is a shield of the people and not a weapon in the hands of government. The Founders balanced this restraint on government with reformist democracy that works against status quo hierarchies.

Another essential difference between the left and the right is “compassion.” The left tends to regard criminals, the poor, misfits and failures as victims of society and reacts with excuses and social safety nets. The political right emphasizes individual accountability. In a world of pragmatists, differences in emphasis would be compromised. But ideologies are different. Ideologies run to extremes. They are fighting creeds that demonize opponents.

Whether one stands with the left or the right, it is apparent that both political factions are failing the country. The right responded to 9/11 by asserting American hegemony over international law and by permitting the executive branch to waive civil liberties. The political left went along with these developments, perhaps thinking to use the enhanced power of government for its own purposes later. Hoping to restrain the executive’s assaults on the Middle East and civil liberties, the electorate gave control over Congress to the Democrats in the last election. However, the Democrats have not ended the war or overturned the encroachments upon civil liberties.

There can be little doubt that the Republicans have brought discredit upon themselves. The question is: now that the political right has damaged the Blackstonian civil liberties that restrain the Benthamite impulse, what will the political left do with executive power when it regains it?

The “war on terror” has further eroded the Blackstonian check on Benthamite impulses just as Lincoln’s Civil War, the Great Depression and the New Deal did earlier. Our political system has become unbalanced. The Civil War effectively erased the Tenth Amendment, ended states rights and concentrated political power in the central government, thus undermining the Republic. The New Deal undermined the legislative power of Congress by giving the executive agencies the right to make law by writing the regulations that interpret statutes. The Bush administration has used the war on terror to assert executive branch hegemony over international law and the Constitution.

The foundation is in place for rule by the executive. Normally this is called dictatorship. The tendency is always strong to look to the executive for leadership. With elite power now concentrated in a few material interests and the demise of an independent news media (except for the Internet), we face a future with a more powerful and less accountable executive.

Those with agendas will welcome this development, but the fight to gain executive power will become more vicious than ever. The people are diminished as government accountability declines. An important buttress to the power of the citizenry is the Second Amendment with its implication that the people have the right to overthrow a government that abandons the Constitution and oppresses the people.

The gun control movement reifies guns and attributes to inanimate objects the behavioral failings of humans. Events such as the Blacksburg shootings by a deranged student provide powerful propaganda for gun control. Those who would overturn the Second Amendment should not proceed blind to the fact that stripped of the right to bear arms, the people would be stripped of the right and the means to resist government oppression.

The demise of the Second Amendment would result in a critical change in psychology. The creed that government is answerable to the people would fade away as the American people are transformed from citizens empowered to hold government accountable to mere subjects of executive power.

Paul Craig Roberts wrote the Kemp-Roth bill and was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is author or coauthor of eight books, including The Supply-Side Revolution (Harvard University Press). He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He has contributed to numerous scholar journals and testified before Congress on 30 occasions. He has been awarded the U.S. Treasury’s Meritorious Service Award and the French Legion of Honor. He was a reviewer for the Journal of Political Economy under editor Robert Mundell. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He is also coauthor with Karen Araujo of Chile: Dos Visiones – La Era Allende-Pinochet (Santiago: Universidad Andres Bello, 2000).

Copyright © Creators Syndicate