Sowing Wind and Reaping the Whirlwind

"Snow Storm: Steamboat off a Harbour's Mouth,"
by J. M. W. Turner. 1842 

I've lately begun noticing what the Bible doesn't say, and what was left unwritten impresses me just as much as what was put down. There's something smacking of divine inspiration when a man could write Romans 13 after suffering what he had at the hands of the Romans. Why not come right out and condemn things like the Roman Empire, emperor-worship or slavery? God's Word is the complete and authoritative guide to everything in existence, and yet there are things it doesn't directly address. This is because if everything was spelled out for us, there wouldn't be room for our faith and reason, and God created us to exercise free will.

Constitutions operate under a similar principle. Like the Bible, the Constitution of the United States is also notable for what it doesn't say, and these things it doesn't say are an important recognition of our God-given freedom. At only 7,200 words long, the Constitution is very short. Its brevity is a reflection of its wisdom. It recognizes that rights are preexisting in nature and in the states, and thus, instead of spelling out all our rights, it limits itself mainly to telling the federal government what it cannot do. "Congress shall make no law respecting..." The conception of rights found in the Constitution is one of "negative rights," meaning that it prevents the government from infringing on all the rights we as citizens are already understood to possess. Even though a right to pursue education or employment isn't found within the document, its only because its understood that human beings possess them intrinsically. The Tenth Amendment makes this point vividly: "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."

The E.U.'s constitution, on the other hand, totals about 78,000 words. Why so long? For one thing, because it's fundamentally based on humanistic assumptions. There is no God, therefore mankind isn't made in his image and doesn't have rights intrinsically - they're concessions from the state. Thus, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (the equivalent of our Bill of Rights) is obligated to give a comprehensive list of all the rights its citizens may want or need. The long, dreary litany includes such things as the right to education, the right to affordable housing and the right of the handicapped to have accessibility to buildings, etc. etc. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, if a citizen of the EU can't find a right within his constitution, well, too bad. The state hasn't decided that he has that right.

Notice how insidious this can be. A right to healthcare? A right to education? Rights become entitlements under this kind of "positive rights" system - a system where people have the right to have a specific good or service. Now, don't get me wrong. All the "rights" I just listed are good things in and of themselves. People should have the right to be educated and to be able to buy a house. Here in the United States we have the same rights - even though they're not included in our Constitution, . We have the right to pursue affordable housing and education, but we're not entitled to them.

Why is Europe facing the most daunting fiscal crisis that's ever beset the modern world? Because the EU's humanism has created an entitlement culture of unprecedented size and scope. Since education, healthcare and many other things have become fundamental "rights," the state is now obligated to make sure every citizen has them. To this end, it's had to take over from the private sector the job of supplying education, insurance, food, clothing, housing and many other commodities. Think about the costs involved in that. We've all seen how inept government is at stimulus projects and the like, so how much worse must it be when it's effectively running whole swathes of the economy? No amount of taxes that an average citizen pays in can possible finance the individual entitlements he has to a "free" education, healthcare or social services. The only answer, then, is debt and inflation. In their quest to have all the benefits of civilization without recognizing its Author, nations of the European Union have sown nothing but wind, and now they are reaping the whirlwind (Hosea 8:7).

A Tale of Two Philosophies in the Civil Rights Movement

 

Ecclesiastes 9:11: “The race is not to the swift - It is not by swiftness, nor by strength and valor, that races are gained and battles won.” The Bible teaches that “races” are won by humble virtues like perseverance, excellence and diligence. Christianity’s spread across the ancient Mediterranean world was due in large part to Christians’ persistence in doing good –from saving unwanted babies to caring for the poor and orphaned on Rome’s streets- even under the enormous pressure of persecution. Christianity didn’t conquer the ancient world by overturning the Roman state. No doubt there were those who resented Rome and wanted to fight fire with fire, like the Jewish zealots before them. But this was not to be. Christians chose the plan laid out in the Bible. It was doubtless far harder in the short run, but it guaranteed a lasting victory. Christianity won through sheer perseverance, beating an overconfident but napping Rome at its own game. As the Emperor Julian said, “Nothing has contributed to the progress of the superstition of the Christians so much as their charity to strangers… the impious Galileans provide not only for their own poor, but for ours as well.”

This classic conflict between power and humility, speed and patience, self-confidence and endurance has been played out many times in history. A more recent example can be found in the civil rights movement. The man who was in many ways the father of the movement was Booker T. Washington. He had been born in slavery, the illegitimate son of a white landowner. After his family was freed following the Civil War, Washington had to pull himself up by the bootstraps through working grueling jobs like tending a salt furnace and mining coal. He then worked himself through a secondary education and was appointed as the head of the Tuskegee Institute, a new school for freedmen. Over the years, Washington created a vast network of entrepreneurs, philanthropists (many of them white) and charitable organizations to fund schools and vocational opportunities for African-Americans throughout the South. Although he also worked to end Jim Crow laws and supported civil rights initiatives, his philosophy was not primarily one of setting blacks’ political power against whites’. He believed that any enduring victory won by African-Americans would have to rest on a more solid foundation than ballot-boxes and legal jargon on paper. Just like Christians’ victory in ancient Rome, this would have to be a victory over the hearts, minds and pocket books of the enemy. Better to overcome mistreatment and discrimination by showing how baseless they were than by wresting power and winning a legal victory only. The key was "…industry, thrift, intelligence and property." Washington encouraged African-Americans to become the very best in whatever field they worked. This far-sighted and conciliatory attitude is made even more remarkable when one recalls the difficult circumstances of Washington’s early life and all the reasons he had to harbor bitterness.

But it made him enemies, including a fellow black intellectual named W.E.B. Dubois. Dubois had tremendous talent, the result of an innate gifting helped along by both an upbringing in relative wealth and a Harvard education. Understandably, he was tired of African-Americans plodding along at a snail’s pace towards freedom and acceptance. But this impatience and frustration with discrimination in attitudes and laws - though he had not experienced them the same way Booker T. had – pushed him to advocate for a faster solution. Dubois viewed education and power as the only way to achieve true equality, and he vocally opposed Washington’s strategy, even going so far as to give him the nickname “the Great Compromiser." Through attaining positions of influence in the government, the legal system and academia, African-Americans would be able to shape society to win full equality. Eventually this emphasis on a top-down approach to equality led Dubois and the organization he helped found, the NAACP, to embrace socialism. According to this view, the slow, steady methods of Washington were tantamount to treason

Dubois’ desire to see his race achieve equality in his lifetime was certainly a noble intention, but noble intentions can be hijacked by impatience. If that impatience is allowed to define beliefs, it can lead to embracing the gravely erroneous notion that the “ends justify the means.” Booker T. Washington’s ideas promised no immediate change and may not have not had as much appeal at the time for that reason, but they’ve been vindicated in retrospect. Regardless of the political power wielded by African-Americans, the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s would have been impossible to win long-term without the support of whites nationwide. That support was gained between the 40s and 60s largely because African-Americans had (knowingly or not) followed Washington’s advice: they became the very best at whatever they did. African-Americans’ skill as sports heroes (like Jackie Robinson and Mohammed Ali), singers and musicians (Sam Cooke, Chuck Berry, Ray Charles, Nat King Cole, the Supremes and the Temptations) defined the popular consciousness of the entire nation during the 1960s. Every teenager listened to Doo-Wop, Rock and Roll, Soul and Motown – all genres that had their beginnings in African-American music. Through television and radio, African-American stars found their way into every home and car. A whole generation grew up seeing that the other race was every bit as capable of innovation as their own. African-Americans had won the battle of the mind and heart, therefore ensuring victory in the political battle that Martin Luther King Jr. would lead.

Booker T. Washington’s capitalistic and individualistic philosophy was thus vindicated, making it all the more unfortunate that fifty years later it’s in danger of being thrown away. When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, people mistook the culmination of the civil rights movement for its cause. They seized the opportunity to invoke Dubois and use the state as a sort of “savior” for African-Americans. This has since become the prevailing philosophy in talks about equality between the races. It has created endemic dependency on government, poverty. It has also fostered a bitterness and victim mentality that had no place in the life of the one who began the movement - one who had actually known the horrors of life as a slave. Washington would be appalled. In eschewing power and instead stressing industry, excellence, patience and winning the war of the mind, he recognized that it was folly to exchange aristocratic Southern masters for a whole government of far more powerful masters.

The Forgotten Father of Constitutional Liberty

Stephen Langton, from the exterior of
Canterbury Cathedral

Very little is known about Stephen Langton's childhood. What we do know is that he was born in the late twelfth century in the county of Lincolnshire. He first emerges from the shadow of obscurity as a star pupil at the University of Paris, where he befriended a fellow student who later became Innocent III, the most powerful of medieval popes. Thanks to this friendship, Langton was made a cardinal years later. He became renowned throughout Europe as a prolific expositor of scripture, publishing commentaries and treatises  - he even divided the Bible into the chapter/verse format we're so familiar with today. As profound as these accomplishments were, they pale in comparison with his greatest.

Hundreds of miles away, Langton's home was being torn between the teeth of Normans and Saxons, rich and poor, barons and king, church and state. The latest controversy was who would be Archbishop of Canterbury and therefore control the English church. King John had his man who would be sure to be loyal to the Crown, and the churchmen of England had theirs. Innocent III, ever intent on strengthening Papal power wherever it reached, saw an opportunity here to bring the English church firmly under Rome's control. He stepped in and engineered the election of a third candidate: a friend and a champion of the church; someone who would take orders from Rome without question. Langton's election was thus engineered, and King John's vengeance predictably broke out like a torrent.The struggle mounted until the king's plundering of the church resulted in his excommunication.

As serious as this conflict was, in English minds it was only a sideshow to one that had been simmering for centuries - that of barons and king. Every monarch since William the Conqueror had seen his greed for land, power and money frustrated by his equally greedy nobility. These barons were tired of spending their lives and fortunes in fruitless contests for what they considered the foreign lands in France.This friction between throne and fief had embroiled the kingdom in almost constant civil war for generations. Now that King John had been declared apostate by the church, this civil war became a holy war for the barons.

There seemed to be a thousand different ambitions clashing in the realm, like a pack of dogs tearing each other to pieces without a goal in mind. Langton saw an opportunity to bring order from the chaos, and it was now that he leaped into the contest. He had been reminded of something which the lords and churchmen of England could use to the advantage of themselves and the kingdom and posterity. He called for a council of churchmen and barons at Westminster, where he reminded those assembled of a certain "Charter of Liberties" which John's great-grandfather, Henry I, had been compelled by the barons to sign. True enough, that charter had dealt with only inconsequential matters like the illegality of certain fees kings had been accustomed to collect. But Langton saw here a precedent: that kings, too, were under the law. The Charter of Liberties should be expanded, renewed, and used to keep a lawless king accountable. With loud shouts of acclamation, the council swore an oath to conquer or die in defense of their liberties.

By now, however, the wily king had outmaneuvered his enemies. By swallowing his pride and submitting to the pope he had secured a powerful ally, but it had not been without a price. John's olive branch was nothing less than England itself - it would be governed as a Papal fief. Innocent III had jumped at the opportunity, but Langton balked. The last thing he wanted was more exploitation of the English people, whether from Westminster or Rome. Yet, the tables were now turned against him, and his cause was still fruitless. Continuing the struggle to check the king would mean going against the full might of both church and state. Perhaps Innocent had been misinformed. Clinging to that hope, the archbishop urged the barons to continue their efforts to check the king's ambition by refusing to submit to his taxes, and pressuring him to renew the Charter of Liberties or face open rebellion. John remained unmoved, and so in June 1215 the barons gathered their might to march on London, whose gates were thrown open by a sympathetic populace. There, with support from both France and Scotland, they forced John to agree to approve a royal charter that recognized the rights of his noblemen and, for the first time, codified legal limits to the king's power. Langton hurriedly set to work articulating the barons' grievances.

Dutifully, and no doubt seethingly, the king and his entourage processed to the nearby meadow of Runnymede to sign this charter in the midday sun of June 15, 1215. What he was forced to affix his seal to cannot have pleased him.The charter that Langton and the barons produced went far beyond the provisions of the Charter of Liberties in its effort to restrain the Crown. A few examples will suffice: Section 12 of this "Great Charter" said that "No scutage or aid shall be imposed on the kingdom unless by common counsel...." This principle became a rallying cry that found its way into subsequent charters until it was enshrined in the English Bill of Rights and became a principle of our own Revolution: "no taxation without representation." Section 20 said that barons could only be judged by their peers, not by courts in the pocket of the king. Freemen, too, would be judged by the oaths of honest men in their own neighborhoods. If this principle of English liberty sounds familiar it's because the Sixth Amendment of our Constitution contains it: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." The guarantee of a "speedy trial" was also found originally in Magna Charta: "To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice." The document further guaranteed the rights of merchants, provided that all sheriffs and constables would be "competent" and first enumerated the idea of a constitutional government: "All fines made... against the law of the land...shall be entirely remitted." To enforce these concessions, a council of 25 barons was appointed to oversee the king, his laws and fines.

Shortly after signing Magna Charta, John proceeded to break nearly every rule in it with the full sanction of Innocent III (who also condemned the document). John's successors, too, were not particularly more faithful to its idealistic clauses. But this does not mean that Langton's work was forgotten. It gave the struggle against tyranny a profound legitimacy, and the idea of a limited monarch entered into political thought. To see just how much the document mattered to the nation, consider that over the next two hundred years, the English kings were forced to renew the document over 30 times. Finally, during the dictatorial reign of Charles I (1600-1649), what were by now considered centuries' old liberties were transferred into the English Bill of Rights, thus diffusing throughout the English-speaking world to, among other places, America, where the principles Langton had devoted his life to securing found their way into colonial charters, state constitutions, and the United States Constitution itself.

Thomas Jefferson and Leading By Example

A perilously high national debt, burdensome taxes, corruption, political favors, extreme partisanship, a powerful executive branch, and a bitterly divided government. Does any of this sound familiar? It may surprise you, then, that I’m describing the United States as it was in the afterglow of John Adams’ administration over two hundred years ago. It’s true that, in relative terms, taxes, debt and the size of the national government in 1800 were a vastly different affair from what they are today. But it was a more principled world, where infractions that we may think small were taken greater notice of and recognized as a threatening precedent for posterity.

Carried by the tumultuous winds of politics, it was the Virginia gentleman, philosopher and statesman Thomas Jefferson who was chosen to lead the young nation. He was to be a sort of shepherd to lead them away from the shadowy valleys of nationalism to the still waters of republicanism. Although dubious as usual about being away from Monticello, Jefferson ascended triumphantly -but without Adam's pomp and circumstance- into the swamp that was Washington D.C. (it was still under construction). After ten years of European-style experiments with national banks, standing armies, censorship of newspapers, excise taxes and piling on of debt, Americans were ready to see the Revolutionary goal of “a wise and frugal government” manifested. They got just that in the “Revolution of 1800.”

We are familiar today with incoming presidents talking up bipartisanship and then proceeding to stack their deck with friends, relatives and donors. Typically, they blame the other side of the aisle for every problem the country experiences. Jefferson set a different course. After declaring "We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists" in his First Inaugural Address, he answered Adams' last minute stuffing of the government with Federalists with stunning decency. By refusing to replace any except the most dogmatic among them with Republicans, the president diffused the cyclical feuding that had seized the nation for years. The next problem to fix was one of finance, and Jefferson began by selling  the stately coach, swords and elements of ceremony that Adams and Washington had favored. The president of the nation's first republic could often be seen braving the muddy streets of Washington on foot. The example he intended to set among his countrymen extended to his dress, which was very plain, a practice most shocking to foreign dignitaries. He made himself readily available to any and all. In fact, it was his rule to respond to every letter, and receive every guest who called on him during his presidency.

The federal government in 1800 was minuscule by today's standards, employing around 130 men. However, a number of these had been hired by the treasury under Hamilton's spendthrift secretaryship. Jefferson thought the positions an unnecessary waste of the peoples' money, so he eliminated them. In like manner, he scrapped more than half the navy (believing it encouraged foreign adventurism), reducing the government's expenditures by more than 25% even while abolishing the excise taxes that the previous administrations had devised. To Jefferson, a government with debt unnecessarily led its people down the road to servitude. A couple years of thriftiness later, his administration became the first to entirely pay off the national debt. Although some of Jefferson's later years would tarnish the brilliant beginning of his presidency, he left an example of how a president who leads by example, and is the first to take the sacrifices he asks others to accept, can heal a torn nation and give it a strength and solvency that has yet to be matched again.

The Decline of Federalism, Part II

(If you missed the first part of this series, check it out here)

Over the next thirty years, the United States became embroiled in the slavery debate. The balance of free and slave states tenuously ebbed and flowed until the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision. In Chief Justice Taney’s final verdict, slaves were branded as “property,” and Southerners’ defense of slavery as a matter of states’ rights was upheld. This pairing of two different issues in one unfortunate decision made state sovereignty, that vital half of federalism, appear specious, if not downright evil. Several years later, when the South resorted to the hotly debated right of secession, Abraham Lincoln built on Jackson’s precedent and called forth Federal troops to reduce the South to submission.

Even the most just wars end in diminished liberty, and the Civil War was no exception. The victorious Union overreacted to the problem the states had posed in their appeal to a supposed “right” to own slaves by stripping them of their rights altogether. The Fourteenth Amendment expanded the Bill of Rights to restrict states and placed liberties that had been sacrosanct to those states and their citizens perilously under Washington’s control. A wave of nationalism obliterated what loyalty remained to the state governments. Secession was branded with eternal infamy. “What was once a legitimate argument and rallying cry [came] to symbolize…the terrible injustice of a slave-based society.”

As Calhoun had observed thirty years earlier, “…it is not possible to distinguish, practically, between a government having all power, and one having the power to take what powers it pleases.” With the states robbed of any effectual means of checking Federal power, federalism was dealt a mortal wound. As if on cue, Washington’s powers began to explode. Woodrow Wilson’s administration first passed the 16th Amendment. This legalized the income tax and ensured that the Federal government had a vast financial advantage over the states. “By employing its ability to make grants to the states to…implement national programs, Congress has…[transformed] the states…into administrative arms of the national government.” The 17th Amendment followed, making senators directly elected and divorcing them from their position as the states’ agents. The states were now without a voice in the government they had created.

Most foreboding of all was the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the Constitution as a living document. This had its genesis in the relativistic view that, in Wilson’s words, “[Government] falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin.”

A Supreme Court armed with the ability to redefine the Constitution undermines the very idea of a written constitution and imperils our rights. It has proved especially deleterious to what traces of federalism remain to slow things down. In the 1930s, the Court coupled this judicial activism with support for the New Deal’s engorgement of Federal power. In 1941’s U.S. v. Darby Lumber, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment’s reservation of power to the states and people was only a truism; in Wickard v. Fillburn, the wheat a farmer grew for his own chickens was declared to be under the jurisdiction of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.

In retrospect, Jefferson’s and Madison’s warnings were remarkably farsighted. Without true, state-centered federalism, the Supreme Court has indeed become a mere rubber stamp for Washington’s agenda. The Court’s endorsement of the New Deal led to its endorsement of the welfare agenda of Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” and the surge of Federal power it required. Moreover, the Court’s expansive view of the Bill of Rights as a limit not just on Congress, but on the states, has led it to conjure de facto “rights.” 1965’s Griswold v. Connecticut saw justices discover an individual “right” to contraception that overrode Connecticut law. Americans were granted the “right” to murder an unborn child eight years later in Roe v. Wade, even though most states had outlawed abortion. One wonders what other “rights” might be contrived by our government next - the “right” to gay marriage?

In 2001, George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” initiative seized more control of education from the states and gave it to a Washington bureaucracy. Federal education spending has tripled, but grades have continued to decline. During the BP oil spill, FEMA regulations prevented states’ timely response to the disaster. Arizona’s controversial immigration law was a desperate answer to Washington’s inability to enforce the powers it has assumed. After more than a century of living outside federalism’s constraints, our government is finally facing its overextension. Our fiscal crisis is fundamentally caused by the consolidation of a massive array of powers that were designed to be dispersed to the states and people in true federalist fashion.

The answer to the fiscal crisis, abortion, gay marriage, government corruption, an out of touch administration, and citizens’ apathy, is to revive federalism and restore to the states the decision-making power they were intended to wield. “Federalism was all about keeping government within reach of the individual. It was…about keeping government in its place…and maintenance of…democratic sentiment. As federalism has diminished as a constitutional…and political principle, much of what makes this nation what it has been is put at risk…. Our ability to restore the primacy of federalism in America may well shape what this nation is to become.”

The Decline of Federalism, Part I

(Read part II here)

When conservatives look to Washington to enact every part of their agenda, they are unwittingly kicking the supports -all fifty of them- out from under conservatism itself. How far we have come from our Founders’ vision of a republic where “The powers delegated…to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." If the states are closest to the people, it is only in their legislatures that most issues can be properly and effectively settled. "When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power,” Jefferson warned, “it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as…oppressive as the government from which we separated." The most pressing public policy issue of our day is the decline of “federalism,” that is, the dispersal of power between states and the nation. Indeed, our “Federal” government’s increasing lack of federalism is at the heart of every other struggle our nation faces today.

To the Founders, the states were indispensable bastions of freedom. The people identified themselves as Virginians or New Yorkers, not Americans. They were represented in their state capitals by men whom they knew, and who knew their concerns, often personally. The states also maintained a healthy competition with each other in their rich diversity of tradition and law. “For these reasons, the states seemed the more appropriate locus for government authority. Only by maintaining the sovereignty of the states could republican government flourish.” To that end, but also to impel cooperation among the states, the Constitution created a Federal government that could act decisively in its own sphere of power, but one that would “owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments….” This dependency was another piece in the elaborate machinery of checks and balances that the Founders planted in our nation at its inception, ensuring that Washington’s reach would remain limited.

Almost immediately after the ratification of the Constitution, this novel idea of a “federal” government of “dual sovereignties” -a national government with a few defined powers, the others being retained by the states or people- aroused fierce controversy. James Madison had made it quite clear in Federalist #39 that “The proposed Constitution…is…neither a national nor a [confederal] Constitution, but a composition of both….” but finding this middle ground of “federalism” proved difficult for the young nation. As early as 1798, when the dubiously constitutional Alien and Sedition Acts were passed, parties emerged that erroneously claimed that the government was one or the other. The disagreement revolved around whether an act of Congress that was unconstitutional was binding on the states. The implications were profound.

In response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, men like Jefferson and Madison argued that, had the United States been founded as a national government whose decisions were binding on the states even if unconstitutional, then “…that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers….” In effect, Congress could acquire new powers without fear if it was accountable only to its own Supreme Court, and not the states. To that end, it was argued, each state reserved “an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the…measure of redress” –i.e. the right to “nullify,” or refuse to enforce, an unconstitutional Federal act.

Although Daniel Webster had used this theory of nullification to oppose the draft, and the Hartford Convention had drawn from it to encourage New England’s secession, no one put it into practice until 1828. A Federal tariff passed that year was refused enforcement by South Carolina on grounds of unconstitutionality. Taking up Jefferson’s mantle, Vice President John C. Calhoun defended this act of nullification, contending that “The Government is one of specific powers, and it can only exercise those powers expressly granted…all others being reserved to the States….” Nullification was seemingly discredited when President Jackson threatened to send troops into South Carolina, and the state backed down. The more vital issue of state sovereignty became guilty by association. It now appeared to be simple Southern feather-ruffling. This did not bode well for federalism, hinging as it did on the concept of states’ independence in their own sphere. If the Federal government could intrude into that sphere to force acceptance of its will, did the states retain any freedom in reality? 


TO BE CONTINUED

America and the Freedom to Fail

Our world today has made greater strides in fighting poverty than at any time in its history. Even counting recent struggles and upheavals across the globe, peace and order have reigned like they rarely have before. Then there's the seemingly daily buzz of one frontier of science after another being crossed, or this or that record being broken. Literacy is at rates never fathomed before, college education is almost universal, and standards of living continue to rise. In the midst of so much success, why are we afraid as never before at the thought of failure?

Author Michael Goodwin points out in his video that this fear is inherent in our idea of “social promotion,” that is, giving students who haven't learned their subject a passing grade. As a senior pursuing a bachelor's degree in History, I have seen this philosophy spread to our universities as well. Curved scores are only the most obvious symptom of a teaching rubrik that harms the very students it professes to help. Academic success cannot be achieved by robbing our children of recognition when they succeed, and of the help they need when they don't.

The economist Milton Friedman once observed that “If you are not free to sin, then neither are you free to be virtuous.” How much freedom do we really have when we're only allowed to succeed? Yet this philosophy so pervasive in our school system has been adopted by our government. Rather than letting corporations fail when they can't turn a profit, Congress has voted to rescue them. This sends them the same message that schools send our children: ethical, honest, and diligent behavior doesn't matter. You can do just as well with less work, less honesty and less accountability.

We are created to learn by failure; it's at the very core of what's made us great as a nation. George Washington's celebrated victories at Trenton and Monmouth came only after crushing defeats had taught him what tactics didn't work. Our Founding Fathers never would have proposed the Constitution if they hadn't faced the shortcomings of their Articles of Confederation. The same is true of the new and uniquely American ideas of "capitalism” and the "self-made man.” Would they have been possible in a world like today's when they fundamentally depend on rewarding only the successful? If he had lived in an era of "social promotion,” would Thomas Edison have been inspired to try his lightbulb the 10,000th time?

The Power to Destroy

Most people who didn't sleep through their high school history classes are familiar with the Supreme Court case McCulloch vs. Maryland. Those who were the brighter stars in their constellations may even remember the essence of the dispute: In the midst of an ongoing firestorm over the relationship of the state and federal governments, the Second Bank of the United States mischievously established a branch in Maryland. The state legislature fired back by passing a bill that placed such a tax burden on the bank that it couldn't hope to make a profit. Chief Justice John Marshall rejected this bill and with it the ability of a state to impede a Federal project. He declared that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." As you can see, it was an interesting era; one where "Federal government" and "larceny" weren't yet synonyms.

This blush of youthful innocence wouldn't last terribly long, however, thanks to a Federal government that overcame the troublesome check of the states by learning to wage unjust wars by unjust means. In 1861 the first (and, at that time, unconstitutional) income tax was passed as part of the Revenue Act of 1861, confiscating 3% of the annual income of Americans to aid the war effort. Prior to this, the Federal government's revenues had come mainly through indirect taxes like excise fees, and for good reason. Indirect taxes targeted events rather than specific people or property. The Founding Fathers' revolt against governmental power run amok had been partly because of the ease with which direct taxation could be abused. They enshrined this experience in the Constitution's Article Nine, expressly forbidding an income tax. Any remembrance of this was all but drowned out by the furor of the Civil War years. In 1862, a second act was passed that expanded on the Revenue Act. A bedrock precedent was laid for the progressivism of the early 1900s when the 16th Amendment was passed, making the income tax constitutional. At first rates were well below 10%, but with newfound legal authority came newfound abuse, and they began to climb steeply. At first, there were seemingly good reasons, like World War II. But it is the nature of injustice once justified to numb its victims. The 1940s' jump in rates by more than 400% was quickly followed by less extenuating, and more suspicious, reasons to which there was little resistance. With a seemingly unlimited pool of wealth to draw from, America was soon the proud owner of several bizarre accomplishments characteristic of a government with more money than it needs: Korea, Vietnam, and the Great Society.

Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire contains a very striking account of what eventually happens when a nation allows its government to prey directly upon the fruits of its labor: "In the sixth year of his reign Constantine visited the city of Autun, and generously remitted the arrears of tribute, reducing...the proportion of their assessment...to eighteen thousand heads, subject to the real and personal capitation [i.e., income tax]. Yet even this indulgence affords the most unquestionable proof of the public misery. This tax was so extremely oppressive...that, whilst the revenue was increased by extortion, it was diminished by despair: a considerable part of the territory of Autun was left uncultivated; and great numbers of [citizens] rather chose to live as exiles and outlaws than to support the weight of civil society."

The Manhattan Purchase and Multiculturalism

Who hasn't heard the story of the infamous Manhattan Purchase? It goes something like this: In 1626, a group of West India Company merchants led by Peter Minuit swindled Manhattan out of the hands of its natives for a mere $24. Like the legends of George Washington and the cherry tree, the glories of the Emancipation Proclamation, or the Kennedy family, this story has been subsumed into our Western consciousness in all its misinterpreted glory. The next time someone tells it the way you've heard it before, keep these facts in mind:

The Dutch currency of the 17th century was the guilder. To estimate the value of what Minuit was offering the natives for their land in contemporary terms, a New York historian converted guilders into dollars and came up with the figure $24. The problem is that this was calculated 165 years ago. Since then, the value of your dollar has gone down more than 99%, and what was $24 then would now be worth almost $2400. Add to this the extreme cheapness of unsettled land in a continent still bursting with it, and you may begin wondering who was swindling whom. It gets better. The natives of the northeast were known to make bead-like pieces out of seashells to use as jewelry and currency.The time and labour involved in carving and filing the shells into these decorative pieces was immense. As a result, each individual “bead” was worth a small fortune. When the Dutch offered hundreds of beads as part of their payment for the land, the natives suddenly found themselves exorbitantly enriched. If I were faced with the choice of either continuing to squat on my undeveloped land, or moving into the vast interior with overflowing coffers, I would have done just like the natives did. Maybe that's just me.

The irony of this story isn't only how it's been misconstrued, it's what it says about our multiculturalist mentality. In the name of protecting oppressed minorities we presume to think for them. We know what's in their best interest, whether it's what they want or not. In this case, we assume that the natives must have been extremely gullible to willingly sell the Dutch their land, when in fact they were making a rational decision to "get rich quick." Similarly, we don't think that Jews who vote Republican can be true Jews. Female politicians can't be touched - unless they're pro-life. Blacks who frequent tea parties have been misled by conservatives. Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Alan Keyes and other African-Americans can't have made an intelligent decision to embrace free markets, they must have been beguiled by the white establishment. The multiculturalists insist that all these exceptions to their heavy-handed rule are simply naive individuals. In the end, who's truly naïve? At least the arrogance of the “white man's burden” vilified the native cultures alone. In its contemptuous disdain for universal truth, postmodernity vilifies both the white man's culture and the native's intelligence.