Tomorrow is America’s birthday. It’s a good time to think about where we are as a nation. Are we still the land of the free and the home of the brave, even though a terrorist attack nearly a decade ago still has us taking off our shoes at the airport, and even though an economic downturn has us running away from our heritage of economic freedom? Or, despite our problems and backsliding are we still pretty much the country our founders envisioned? Have we so abandoned our founding ideals, whether because they have failed or because we no longer value them, to the point that we might as well go groveling to England, begging the Queen to accept us back? Or is there still hope for our constitutional system of self-government and personal liberty? If so, what is the basis for that hope?
Christianity, Culture, Vocation
Lucas Cranach, self portrait c.1530.
-
Site Statistics
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
My son made an interesting comment, “We used to vote as families; now we vote as individuals.” There’s an unearthed story here on how women’s suffrage has grown government. Women are more willing to trade liberty for security.
Although this devotion does not directly answer the questions presented, I think it is pertinent to the implied question, “Quo Vadis?”
http://campaign.constantcontact.com/render?v=001L3AseUHaywbRC5vPkFMHDuAjuxqT1Jn8WCMGidnwOFEKVtpxLjyk1qyiiXGXHRlj0Q-y-vKnlGADzPDonMWHUwsOkU2JDqH-X_2v-UfN_09y-7VGHxH-MHVJVY8nQ4lWdLA8s503aUEfrnTIqlnHK7SE1oDT1Rev
Why would the Queen want you back? She has enough problems already!
“Women are more willing to trade liberty for security.”
“If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president.” — Ann Coulter, New York Observer, Oct. 2, 2007
Some more information from Women’s suffrage over time, by John R. Lott, Jr.:
Of the 19 states that had not passed women’s suffrage before the approval of the 19th Amendment, nine approved the amendment, while the other 12 had suffrage imposed on them. If some unknown factor caused both a desire for larger government and women’s suffrage, then government should have only grown in states that voluntarily adopted suffrage. This, however, is not the case: After approving women’s suffrage, a similar growth in government was seen in both groups of states.
The horse is out of the barn.
People don’t care about freedom, they are too used to sucking on govt. teats.
I live in brasil now. as far as I know, americans are the only nationality that look at their flag and the content of the symbolism is mostly about ideals such as liberty, freedom, the right to vote… etc.
too bad though that most dont think through ideas such as the one that we are a republic and not a democracy. our leaders would not want us to think so hard. this is obvious with the republican push for referendums on controversial issues and a push to amend constitutions to win contested issues.
I think to get back to the intent of the founders is going to be along road. There are many cultural shifts that have played a major role in how our government operates and how the political system functions in general. Self-government seems to be a lost notion today. The mere mention of the term in common discourse raises eyebrows. A plugged in generation has grown up expecting the man behind the curtain to take care of whatever problems may arise. I find it interesting that the lack of self-government exhibited today parallels the misunderstanding of freedom. That freedom is not a blank check to do what we please, but rather the ability to comply with what is right even if it means restraining our actions or voluntarily serving one another.
even though an economic downturn has us running away from our heritage of economic freedom?
Wow.
I’d love to see you try that line out with the thousands of poor (some of them literally) folks who lost 50 BILLION DOLLARS thanks to Bernie Madoff and the lack of government
supervision. This is what happens when business has free rein — innocent people lose their life’s savings and much more.
This is free enterprise?
Human nature remains unchanged. People are still selfish sinners and we need checks and balances.
Is that so hard to see?
@8 bob
this is right.
the rule of law (aka regulation) is in no way contrary to a free market. to the contrary, laws that demand full disclosure, transparency, fairness and protect those who are not sophisticated ( not everyone can understand or even read the 6 pt fine print on credit card contracts…) are God´s fatherly hand at work.
example of a good law that would cost companies nothing:
a statement on every credit card that says :
“if you make the minimum payment on the current balance, you will pay $000.00 and $000.00 will be interest. your final payment will be on (date) assuming no additional charges.” this would cost about $.00001 cents in paper and programing.
Usury laws that restrict consumer interest, including fees and penalties! to a ceiling, even one that floats around the prime rate, would also in no way be immoral or impede in any way the flow of commerce. colateral lenders (aka pawn shops) could still be allowed to operate at their rediculous rates).
and what about the government doing something for people with no bank account who are thus forced to cash government checks at check cashing locations at super exorbitant fees. why does this situation even exist? free market principles? or failure for us to care about the poor in real and concrete terms?
@Bob + fws
Good points. One of the things that some Americans and many pundits fail to realize is that a free economy (especially capitalism) is not normal. Feudalism is normal. The construction and maintainance of a free market economy requires regulation to even exist. Madoff, now Sanford – these men are the enemies of capitalism.
But I think Gene’s point had less to do with regulation and more to do with all this ridiculous “stimulus” situation. We have traded our freedom for percieved security. And as the Washington Times pointed out today, the National debt is on the brink of becoming the next financial crisis. The stimulus idea, the “rescue” of auto makers, etc. can never empower the people or a free market system. It is designed to rescue and serve the wealthy, and it is killing our economy.
Funny, the connection made above between republicanism, the national debt crisis, and lack of regulation. Canada has avoided all three in the last 12 years and is still very free and well-governed as a constitutional monarchy.
Happy Birthday to the U.S. nonetheless…. May Freedom ring.
CL
You Canadians are lucky…you don’t have Harry Reid, Barney Frank, and Nancy Pelosi up there to gum up the works.
fws,
I don’t think the “free market”has much to do with it. The markets are not free, and haven’t been for a long time. We have a huge amalgamation of government plus corprorations. Bernanke and Geitner are Wall street cronies who used their new found positions to bail out their friends and in the process mortgage our futures. These banks and industries are the ones who lobby congress( and contribute billions to election campaigns) to pass laws allowing this behavior and conversly prevent good laws from being put in place.
Bob,
Madoff was aided and abetted by a whole bunch of people in his scam, not the least of whom are the government regulators at the SEC who had been tipped off numerous times to Madoff’s shady dealings and refused to investigate.What good is regulation when those charged with enforcing it are in bed with the crooks? Those who lost everything were those who violated the first and cardinal rule of investing:never put all your eggs in one basket. These people’s loss has nothing to do with the “free market” or business having “free reign.”
I celebrated the Fourth by playing “Viva La Vida” over and over on the piano in honor of Todd Wilken and Issues, etc., in my rainstorm/firework smoke induced ferocious asthma attack.
Viva La Vida
Also, I’ll be watching the progress of the divine Miss Sarah, and I don’t care who lambastes me for that.
Booklover, I second your comments. Go, Sarah, go!
@13 Pat I agree with everything you wrote.
I think my comment was directed at those who say that , by definition, regulation is damaging to a healthy “free market”. I would argue the contrary if the “regulations” are about the rule of law, especially in the form of transparency and full disclosure.
“freedom, free market, etc” are ideals and therefore rather relative concepts in practice aren´t they?
Question to Pat and all? do you think the usa is the free-ist country in the world? in all respects? why?
Canada doesn’t have our problems because its significantly smaller (30 million people) and it really does not have a strong military due to the U.S. presence.