home > archive > 2008 > this article


Search this site Search WWW

Choosing America's future

By Henry Lamb
web posted March 3, 2008

Every presidential election forces the nation to confront the conflicting philosophies of government that have kept the country divided since the beginning.  The issues change, from cycle to cycle, but the underlying philosophical difference remains the same.  There is one bunch of people who believe that government should be omnipotent, and guarantee:

A college education for every person who wants it;

Health care for every person who needs it;

Adequate housing for every family;

Income supplements for families below the poverty line;

No war unless attacked.

There is another bunch of people who believe that the federal government should be limited to those powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.  Their ideal platform might call for:

No legislation without identified, explicit, Constitutional authority;

Trade deficits, and agreements that caused them, eliminated;

Withdrawal from international treaties that provide no direct benefit to U.S. citizens;

Establish a non-progressive, uniform flat tax for all citizens;

Maintain the strongest national defense in the world.

Currently, all three major candidates for President appear to belong to the group that subscribes to the first platform.  The candidates who subscribe to the second philosophy have been all but eliminated.

The first group is often labeled "liberals," and the second group is called "conservatives."  There is no clear line of demarcation, of course.  John McCain calls himself a conservative, but his record and his platform challenge this claim.

There can be no doubt that the liberals are winning the hearts and minds of the majority of Americans.  Virtually every effort to advance even a modest conservative agenda, has been rejected by Congress and by the citizenry.  There is a reason for this surge of liberal thought.

Since the League of Nations was defeated by the U.S. Senate, sending Woodrow Wilson to an early grave, proponents of the liberal philosophy have regrouped, organized, and worked diligently to reeducate Americans.  No longer is the U.S. Constitution the supreme law of the land.  Even Supreme Court Justices believe it is necessary to consider international law when making judgments on U.S. law.  Congress has consistently rejected legislation that would require every proposed bill to identify the Article and Section of the Constitution which authorizes the proposed law.

Roosevelt was not the first President to ignore the Constitution, but his "New Deal" certainly expanded the precedent.  Since then, Congress has failed to consider the Constitutional limitations of federal power when enacting new legislation.

Roosevelt's more important contribution was the U.N., created primarily to end war, by demilitarizing every nation, and maintaining its own army to enforce its laws.

Another early objective of the United Nations was the creation of the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.  UNESCO's first project was to teach teachers how to teach world government, and how to demonize the idea of national sovereignty.  The National Education Association, a strong supporter of the U.N., and UNESCO, cooperated fully, and encouraged their teachers to promote values, attitudes, and beliefs that are consistent with the liberal philosophy.

The result of this liberal education emerged in the reaction to the Vietnam War, galvanizing a strong anti-war movement that brought down a president.  This movement is still alive and well, and pushing the first agenda embraced by the entire liberal group.

Conservatives, on the other hand, have paid little attention to organizing a national educational campaign to trumpet the virtues of capitalism, freedom, and national sovereignty.  For years, these values were automatic, passed down from generation to generation, taught in every school, and practiced by business and by government.  As the liberals gained control of major institutions, including the U.S. Department of Education, conservatives didn't notice the subtle change in school curriculum.  Parents were too busy to notice what their children were being taught.  Consequently, we have now several generations of people whose values, attitudes, and beliefs have been shaped by the very people who should have been teaching the virtues of the U.S. Constitution.

This is the generation that is now swooning to the empty eloquence of Senator Obama.  This is the generation that is producing a new crop of Congressmen, state legislators, county commissioners, and city councilmen.  This is the generation that is eager to impose their platform and their philosophy on the rest of the nation – and the world.

There is little room for individual freedom in this philosophy, except for the freedom granted by government.  The very idea that "…all men are created equal…and endowed by their Creator…the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness," is little more than a catchy slogan to them.  The liberal agenda declares that all men are created equal, and have an unequal responsibility to fund government, and an unequal right to benefit from government, and above all, the absolute requirement to get the government's permission before doing anything.ESR

Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO), and chairman of Sovereignty International.

 

Send a link to this page!
Send a link to this story

 

Home


 

Home

Site Map

E-mail ESR

Musings - ESR's blog

 

Send a link to this page!
Send a link to this story



Get weekly updates about new issues of ESR!
e-mail:
Subscribe
Unsubscribe

 

 

1996-2013, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.