Rss

  • youtube

Helicopter government – Part III – Overpraising

Posted by :admin On : June 12, 2015
0

Category: Archives, Education, Government, Humanism

This series of articles describes helicopter parenting and helicopter governing, the pathologies associated with each, and the impact on American culture. A helicopter government is one that exhibits characteristics similar to those of helicopter parenting which are expressed in four types of behavior: overprotection, overpraising, overindulging, and overprogramming. In Part III we shall examine the consequences of a culture of overpraising encouraged by the indirect but pervasive influence of our helicopter government and the American educational system. The obsessive, destructive, and faulty efforts of the educational establishment to build child self-esteem at any cost has enabled a culture of overpraising resulting in pathologies and consequences harmful to children, adults, and the culture at large.

Overpraising

To understand the emphasis on self-esteem we must look at the development of a new view of self in America following World War II. Alan Petigny summarized the seismic change in the view of self as, “…a rejection of the belief in the innate depravity of mankind, the celebration of spontaneity, and a pronounced turn toward self-awareness…[This] gave rise—on an unprecedented scale—to a more secularized notion of the individual.” From this humanistic view of self came a belief in the basic goodness of man and a rejection of Original Sin; loosened behavioral codes that allowed one to get in touch with one’s true self rather than discover truth as defined by tradition, scripture, natural law, and other authoritarian sources; and a preference for self-expression as opposed to self-discipline. Rejecting the external, there was a decided inward turn to discover one’s guiding principles and the meaning of life. In the 1950s this process of getting in touch with one’s self was called self-actualization in which answers to the big questions of life come from within and can only be found by trusting one’s own reactions and doing “what feels right.”[1]

However, the self must not only be actualized but must be made to feel good about it. Dr. Robert Hudson believes that the whole “overprotection racket” with regard to children began with a popular fad of the 1980s in which a child’s self-esteem was built through giving them a multitude of choices.[2] Through the efforts of the American educational system and complicit parents, this process of self-actualization or getting in touch with one’s true self, co-joined with building self-esteem, begins in the earliest preschool years and continues through all primary and secondary levels and into adulthood at the university level. So many hours are spent by educators on building self-esteem that teaching skills and knowledge are neglected which is one of the major reasons for the dismal condition of American education, the most humanistically-indoctrinated institution in American life.

The problem of overpraising children and efforts to build high self-esteem are fundamentally linked to humanism’s false assumption of the basic goodness of man. The root of the problem of overpraising children lies in the mistaken belief that achievement follows self-esteem rather than self-esteem as a result of achievement.[3] Here we must distinguish between overpraising children and that of expressions of love and affirmation that all children need. Although we must not put love, affirmation, and encouragement of a child on a praise-as-you-achieve basis, we must be careful to not persistently build up within a child a false understanding of the source and value of his or her self-worth and abilities through overpraising. Overpraised children are being setup for disappointment and failure in their adult years because they were never taught how to cope with failure and disappointment in their formative years. And the consequences of those lessons denied in the childhood years are far more painful, longer-term, and costly in the adult years and radiate outward to family, friends, and society in general.

So what does all this overpraising of children have to do with a helicopter government? The emphasis on high self-esteem for children has effectively robbed them of those learning and coping experiences (especially bad experiences) in their growing up years. The effect for many is to Extend childhood forever.[4] These adults living in perpetual childhood often become wards of the state. And our helicopter government is always ready to swoop in and minister to the wounded self-esteem of those individuals or groups who feel themselves slighted, offended, insulted, or snubbed. In other words, the feelings of these pseudo-adults have been hurt, and the government must punish the perpetrators.

Professor John Portmann, professor of religious studies at the University of Virginia, believes that the quest for high esteem in children is damaging the whole fabric of society. Marano quotes Portmann who

…sees young people becoming weaker right before his eyes, more responsive to the herd, too eager to fit in—not just less assertive in the classroom, but unwilling to disagree with their peers, afraid to question authority, more willing to conform to the expectations of those on the next rung of power above them.[5]

Children raised on the pacifier of high self-esteem disconnected from reality become weakened adults living in an extended childhood. These overpraised, self-actualized adults continually in need of a self-esteem fix attempt to find their value and worth from within but are constantly demoralized by the external world’s failure to affirm their inner vision of themselves. Their dismay and distress is a result of the humanistic worldview’s false understanding of the source of a person’s value and leads to an attack on the biblical view of man which is really an attack on his true dignity and worth.

Richard M. Weaver has identified the steps in the progressive demotion of man in modern society while he unsuccessfully attempts at the same time to elevate himself through humanism’s false measures of self-worth.[6] The author has previously written of Weaver’s analysis of modern man’s confusion as he struggles to understand why humanistic concepts of his worth do not bring satisfaction.

First, astronomers in the last half millennium have discovered that the earth is but a mere speck on the fringes of a vast universe. Because the earth is physically “insignificant” in relation to the totality, it is implied that man is also insignificant. As reasoning goes, the creator must have little concern for insignificant man…

Darwin’s theory of the descent of man was the second means of depreciating the worth of man. No longer the center of creation, he was robbed of his special origins, the divine spark snuffed out, and was now counted among the animal kingdom sharing a common ancestry with other creatures that struggled out of the primeval ooze and late of the anthropoid clan…

The third assault on biblical individualism occurred when man was robbed of his freewill, and his actions are now explained by material causality. He is now brute beast, a slave to animal passions, and those actions can be predicted and explained (or will be at some future point after enough study) by materialistic determinism… [7]

Humanists speak eloquently of the individual, his dignity, his worth, and his freedom to choose. They promise a freedom from the mores, norms, tradition, and distant voices of the past by which humanity has achieved a measure of civilization. However, it is a false freedom that gives unbridled control to the self and senses and ultimately leads to bondage. For all of man’s time on this earth this personal license has been the path toward disaster. To believe that such personal freedom will lead to the greater good of mankind is folly for man is a fallen creature, and he cannot lift himself by pulling at his own bootstraps.[8] And no amount of societal or self-generated esteem will fix fallen and unregenerate man.

In the humanistic worldview, the praise of self is a relentless chorus and signals the retreat from relationship and unity. This humanistic emphases on self and its consequent conceits and egotism are systemic poisons leading to fragmentation of culture through redefinition and radicalization of various concepts such as egalitarianism, multiculturalism, tolerance, feminism, and diversity. Such fragmentation of culture leads to cultural decline and disintegration because of the loss of a unifying central cultural vision.

In the Christian worldview, value or worth of a person is not dependent on what that person or someone else thinks of him. Man’s worth has been pre-determined by our Creator, and that worth is inestimably great. God did not create man out of need. Rather, it was a will to love, an expression of the very character of God, to share the inner life of the Trinity. Being God, He knew the course and cost of His creation. Rejection was not a surprise to an omniscient God. Before creation, God knew the cost of the regeneration of man would be the death of His Son, and this is hinted at in Revelation 13:8, “…Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” God’s infinite love exceeded the cost of that love at Calvary.[9] To compare the value humanism places on self-actualized and highly self-esteemed man with the value God places on His special creation is to compare ashes with gold dust.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Alan Petigny, The Permissive Society – America, 1941-1965, (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 226, 238-239.
[2] Jason Ashley Wright, “Nurturing in Excess,” Tulsa World, March 24, 2014, D1.
[3] Robert Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, (New York: Regan Books, 1996), p. 243.
[4] Hara Estroff Marano, “A Nation of Wimps,” Psychology Today, November 1, 2004.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200411/nation-wimps (accessed March 31, 2014);
Hara Estroff Marano, A Nation of Wimps, (New York: Broadway Books,2009), pp. 243-244.
[5] Marano, “A Nation of wimps,” Psychology Today.
[6] Richard M. Weaver, Visions of Order – The Cultural Crisis of Our Time, (Wilmington, Delaware: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2006), pp. 136-145. Originally published by Louisiana State University, 1964.
[7] Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), pp. 222-223.
[8] Ibid., pp. 220, 221-222.
[9] Ibid., p. 158.

Helicopter government – Part II – Overprotecting

Posted by :admin On : June 5, 2015
0

Category: Archives, Government, Socialism

This series of articles describes helicopter governing and its similarities with helicopter parenting, the pathologies associated with each, and the impact on American culture. A helicopter government is one that exhibits characteristics similar to those of helicopter parenting which are expressed in four types of behavior: overprotection, overpraising, overindulging, and overprogramming. In Part I we observed that a helicopter government is rooted in socialism which is the required and eventual end of government under a humanistic worldview. A humanistic worldview is flawed because if fails to reflect truth as to the purpose and nature of man and therefore cannot give answers to the basic questions of life for which man continually seeks in developing his worldview. In Part II we shall examine the origins of our helicopter government’s propensity to overprotect and the pathologies and consequences thereof to individuals and culture at large.

Overprotecting

First we must ask why helicopter parents are overprotective of their children. A short, vague, and somewhat unsatisfying answer is that parents are a product of their overprotective culture. And much of that culture has been shaped and defined by the radical element (about 25%) of the Boomer generation (born between the end of World War II and the end of 1964) which has ascended to positions of leadership in the institutions of American life. That leadership has embraced the humanistic worldview and imposed and implemented laws, regulations, policies, and practices consistent with the tenets of humanism. In essence, we can say that over time the rise of helicopter parents are a derivative of an overprotective government. And from the overprotectiveness of parents and government arose both individual and cultural pathologies. In support of this view we again contrast the perceptions of the two worldviews regarding the purpose and nature of man.

Purpose of Man

For the Christian, the ultimate purpose of man is to know God and dwell with Him as His child for eternity. Therefore, relationship is the focus and end purpose of man and implies a right relationship not only with God but one’s fellowman. According to renowned humanist Paul Kurtz, the ultimate purpose of man is happiness and is further refined as “…the greatest-happiness-for-the-greatest-number…”[1] In other words, the focus is on the individual but only in the larger context of the common good. Under the humanistic worldview, government has become the judge and guarantor of happiness for the individual. However, humanism judges economic systems by whether or not they “…increase economic well-being for all individuals and groups, minimize poverty and hardship, increase the sum of human satisfaction, and enhance the quality of life…and judge it by its responsiveness to human needs, testing results in terms of the common good .”[2]

In his influential book The Philosophy of Humanism, Corliss Lamont agrees with Kurtz.

On the whole, however, a society in which most individuals, regardless of the personal sacrifices that may be entailed, are devoted to the collective well-being, will attain greater happiness and make more progress than one in which private self-interest and advancement are the prime motivators.[3]

Again, we see the humanists’ supremacy of the common good over the individual. But how is the humanist’s “common good” different from the Christian’s emphasis on relationship? It is different because the Christian’s concern for his fellow man is based on the eternal and unchangeable laws of God through an act of his or her freewill as opposed to the humanist’s required group adherence to state-defined interpretations of an ephemeral “common good” which is susceptible to revision with each change of leadership.

And it is here we see humanism’s overprotective government collide with man’s freewill and consequent desire for freedom. The tenets and assumptions of the humanistic worldview are inherently collectivist and are a direct contradiction to the independence, self-reliance, and pioneer spirit demonstrated by Americans in the colonial era and first 150 years of the nation’s history. And with this brief understanding of the humanist worldview with regard to the purpose of man, we begin to see the rise of a helicopter government that breeds dependency of the populace on a government that will be the provider and guarantor of happiness as opposed to merely making possible the pursuit thereof.

It is not that the Christian worldview is opposed to the happiness of the individual. Rather, it is the source of a Christian’s happiness that is different. A recent op-ed piece by Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, made some very shrewd observations which hit at the heart of what it means to be happy. He pointed out that personal moral transformation was the most important factor in social justice. Using information from the 2010 General Social Survey, the nation’s best sociological database, he made the following observations as to what makes people happy.

Take the example of two men, identical in age, education, race, and income. The first is religious. He’s married with two kids. He also works more and participates in his community more than 90 percent of the rest of the country. The other man meets none of these qualifications. The first man is nearly 400 percent more likely to be happy…real social justice must encourage people to participate in faith, family, and community. Their chances of happiness—and success—are inextricably linked with these moral institutions.[4]

In other words the true happiness is a collateral result of focusing on right relationships with God, spouse, family, and community.

Nature of Man

Contrary to humanist belief that man is basically good, the Founders held a biblical understanding of the corruptible nature of man and a belief that government was untrustworthy due to man’s corruptibility and therefore should be limited. Traditional ideas of limited government prevailed until the Great Depression and World War II in the first half of the twentieth century. Americans still distrusted government, but as a result of the growing influence of the humanistic worldview, they saw government as a mechanism for dealing with a multitude of societal problems. Politicians happily acquiesced and more and more “problems” were discovered that required governmental answers or intervention. Because man was basically good according to the humanists, social problems arose not because man was fallen but because of corrupt social systems. Thus, a growing number of social and political solutions by government social engineers in the name of the general welfare of its citizenry became the catalyst for a monolithic and overprotective government.[5]

However, funding government and the growing list of wants, wishes, and synthetic rights of the populous has become difficult if not impossible because government cannot do everything for everybody. Samuelson calls this “the politics of overpromise…the systematic and routine tendency of government to make more commitments than can reasonably be fulfilled. First, government resources are not adequate and never can be. People (and institutions) must do some things for themselves. A second problem arises when a helicopter government can’t fix the problems of the day; it is perceived as a failure and leads to less trust in government and growing disunity.[6]

The falseness and failures of the humanistic worldview become evident when one examines the pathologies of an overprotective helicopter government that is based on a wrong understanding of the purpose and nature of man. These pathologies are evident in much of America’s citizenry and include self-centeredness, disunity, petulance, lack of discipline, inability to function well in organized endeavors, aimlessness or lack of purpose, inability to cope (addictions), codependency, poor problem-solving skills, and a false sense of entitlement. These labels apply in varying degrees to both children who have experienced helicopter parenting and adults conditioned by a helicopter government.

The application of the overprotective policies and practices of the humanistic worldview in all institutions of American life (particularly in government and education) has resulted in a pervasive victim mentality. The consequences of this mindset have led to cultural carnage including institutionalization of poverty through multiple generations of welfare recipients; broken families without the presence of a father to be the role model of a responsible provider in lieu of various welfare agencies and social workers; and an obsession with “rights” as opposed to fulfilling one’s responsibilities, duties, and obligations to family, clan, community, and country.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Paul Kurtz, In Defense of Secular Humanism, (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1983), p. 68.
[2] Paul Kurtz, ed., Humanist Manifestos I and II, (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1973), p. 20.
[3] Corliss Lamont, The Philosophy of Humanism, 8th Edition, Revised, (Amherst, New York: Humanist Press, 1997), p. 272.
[4] Arthur Brooks, “The right must reclaim social justice,” Tulsa World, April 1, 2014, A-14.
[5] Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), pp. 252-253.
[6] Robert J. Samuelson, The Good Life and Its Discontents, (New York: Vintage Books, 1995, 1997), p. 141-142.

Helicopter government – Part I – A Nation of Wimps

Posted by :admin On : May 29, 2015
0

Category: Archives, Government, Socialism

Back in the late 1980s the term helicopter parenting came into vogue to describe a style of parenting in which overprotective parents discourage a child’s independence by being too involved with the child’s life. In other words, a helicopter parent hovers over a child like a helicopter, ready to swoop in at the first sign that their child may face a challenge or discomfort.[1] According to Dr. Robert Hudson, a clinical professor of pediatrics and co-director of the Center for Resilience at the University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, there are four ways helicopter parenting manifests itself: overprotecting, overpraising, overindulging, and overprogramming. Each of these types of parenting has serious consequences for the child.[2]

A nation of wimps

Bad things happen to everyone in life, and children must learn through experience including bad experiences while growing up. Psychology Today’s Editor-at-Large Hara Estroff Marano described the consequences resulting from parents who overprotect their children from experiencing failure and discomfort: inability to adapt to the difficulties of life, psychologically fragile (depression and anxiety), risk-averse, loss of identity, loss of meaning and a sense of accomplishment, lack of self-control, and lack of perseverance. These consequences can last into adulthood. Quoting one child psychologist, “Kids need to feel badly sometimes. We learn through experience, and we learn through bad experiences. Through failure we learn to cope.” According to Marano, “Whether we want to or not, we are on our way to creating a nation of wimps.”[3] As these overprotected children move into adulthood, American government and its bureaucracies have willingly assumed the role of surrogate parents of this nation of wimps.

It appears that unhealthy consequences of helicopter parenting for children are strikingly similar to the pathologies resulting from a nanny-state government increasingly involved in its citizens’ lives and which we might also label helicopter governing by a helicopter government. Government involvement with the details and intricacies of the lives of American citizens has grown dramatically commencing with Roosevelt’s New Deal and the Judiciary’s exceptionally expansive re-interpretation of the Constitution’s general welfare clause in the 1930s. This involvement was greatly exacerbated by the Great Society programs of the 1960s and continues under the socialistic policies of the current Obama administration.

Under modern judicial, legislative, and executive branch interpretations, the general welfare of American citizens has come to mean far more than those fiercely independent and self-reliant Founders ever imagined. In the twenty-first century, America’s helicopter government stands ready to swoop down and fix, mend, change, smooth-out, correct, adjust, or repair any problem, difficulty, or perceived injustice that may arise. No aspect of its citizens’ general welfare is too large or too small to escape our helicopter government’s attention and involvement, be it the size of our sugary soft drinks or the kind of cars we are permitted to drive.

Before we examine the consequences of a helicopter government, we must understand the driving forces behind it and how these forces have changed America over the last 75 years. America has changed because the worldview of much of the leadership of the institutions of American life and the organizations they represent have changed. A worldview is a person’s belief about things, an overall perspective or perception of reality or truth from which one sees, understands, and interprets the universe and humanity’s relation to it and that directs his or her decisions and actions.

The collective worldviews of a nation’s citizens becomes its central cultural vision, and in America there are two worldviews contending for dominance in its central cultural vision. One is the Christian worldview which reflects the central cultural vision of the colonial Americans, the Founders, and the nation for 150 years following its founding. The Christian worldview rests on the universals reflected in God’s creation and the biblical revelation to the ancient Hebrews and first century Christians. Humanism is the competing worldview that contends that Nature is all there is and that man is a product of a long, developmentally progressive period of evolution. For humanists, there is no God or life after death, and all truth is negotiable and determined by the current needs of society.

The best way to contrast the two worldviews is to look at two fundamental differences that stand at the heart of the conflict. The first centers on the purpose for which man was created. For Christians, the fundamental purposes of life center on an eternal relationship with God and earthly relationships with his fellowman. For the humanist, the ultimate purpose is happiness through the exaltation of self. From these basic differences flow a whole myriad of conflicts which we call the culture wars.

The second major point of divergence relates to the nature of man. Christians view man as having been created by God but subsequently having a fallen nature because of his disobedience that resulted in a broken relationship with God. Consequently, man is in need of redemption. Humanists believe that man is basically good and therefore not fallen nor in need of redemption. Hence, humans are masters of their own destiny, and reason and science alone point the way to an ever-progressive improvement of mankind.

Because the humanistic worldview does not present a true picture of reality (truth) as it relates to the purpose and nature of man, the tenets of its faith are flawed and from this flawed perception of truth we see pathologies develop as humanism fails to adequately address the basic questions of life.

America’s helicopter government is the product of a humanistic worldview that has gained ascendency in America during the last seventy-five years. The required method of organizing society under a humanistic worldview is socialism. As the humanistic worldview has advanced, so has America’s tendency toward socialism of which a helicopter government is its heart and soul.

In this series of articles we shall examine the four types of helicopter governing (overprotecting, overpraising, overindulging, and overprogramming), the pathologies associated with each, and the impact on American culture.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “helicopter parenting,” Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/helicopter+parenting (accessed March 24, 2014).
[2] Jason Ashley Wright, “Nurturing in Excess,” Tulsa World, March 24, 2014, D1.
[3] Hara Estroff Marano, “A Nation of Wimps,” Psychology Today, November 1, 2004. http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200411/nation-wimps (accessed March 31, 2014).

Would Jefferson label the modern Judiciary as the “Despotic Branch”?

Posted by :admin On : May 22, 2015
0

Category: America, Archives, Constitution, Government

George Will is one of the brightest and most articulate columnists on the national scene (Washington Post Writers Group). I normally savor every one of his appearances on the opinion page. This is why I am disturbed by Will’s false and malicious criticism of presidential candidate Mike Huckabee (“Huckabee’s ‘appalling’ crusade for nullification”).[1] Will is a huge fan and student of baseball and occasionally writes a column on the subject. Using a baseball analogy, Will must know that his column’s pitches at Huckabee were not only far outside the strike zone but that they were intended as bean balls meant to injure and harm Huckabee. This disappoints because Will has not lowered himself to such levels in past columns that I have read.

Will claims to be “appalled” by Huckabee’s recent remarks that deal with the question of judicial error and overreach with regard to the Constitution, an issue that also concerns a great number of Americans. Will takes Huckabee to task for rejecting “judicial supremacy” and suggesting that a ruling by the Supreme Court does not make its ruling the “law of the land.” In doing so, Will incorrectly links Huckabee’s remarks with the pre-Civil War doctrine of nullification which arose in 1830 during Andrew Jackson’s presidency.

The doctrine of nullification evolved from resolutions initially adopted by the South Carolina legislature in December 1828 and which opposed certain tariffs imposed by the federal government. In opposition to President Jackson with regard to the tariffs, Vice President John Calhoun authored a lengthy essay on state government which supported the Southern position of state sovereignty and minority rights. According to the doctrine of nullification, individual states did not have to follow a federal law and in effect could “nullify” the law. By 1830, the nullification debate had evolved to the larger questions of origin and nature of the Constitution. Massachusetts senator Daniel Webster defended the federal position by “…attempting to show that the Constitution was not the result of a compact, but was established as a popular government with a distribution of powers binding upon the national government and the states.”[2]

It is misleading for Will to accuse Huckabee of crusading for nullification of federal laws at will because the Constitution was merely the product of a compact. Huckabee’s concern is with modern judicial efforts to create legislation as opposed to interpreting the law. What is interesting and lends authority to Huckabee’s position on interpreting the Constitution is Andrew Jackson’s response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s view of the constitutionality of a re-charter of the 2nd Bank of the U.S. Although the Supreme Court viewed the legislation passed by Congress as constitutional, Jackson did not and vetoed the legislation. The bank charter debate became the major issue of the 1832 presidential campaign.[3] In defending his veto, Jackson made a noteworthy description of the duties of the three branches of government with regard to interpreting the Constitution.

The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others…The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.[4]

In the first seven decades following the writing of the Constitution in 1787, the Supreme Court ruled only twice that a law created by Congress was unconstitutional, and both times the ruling was ignored by Congress and the President.

Marbury v. Madison

In the last hours of the presidency of John Adams, he made several Federalist judicial appointments in the District of Columbia in an attempt to further load the bench with Federalist appointees. Under President Adams, John Marshall was both Adams’ Secretary of State and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. As Secretary of State, it was Marshall’s duty to deliver President Adams’ legally executed appointments, but he failed to do so. When James Madison became Secretary of State under newly elected President Thomas Jefferson, the president refused to have the appointments delivered. The disappointed appointees sued, and in Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice Marshall and the Supreme Court at first ruled that the Court had no judicial authority over the case. Then with a surprisingly contradictory action, the Chief Justice ruled that President Jefferson should deliver the appointments. Jefferson and Madison ignored the ruling and received virtually no condemnation voiced by Congress, the Supreme Court, or the public. Jefferson called the Court’s attempt to interfere with the business of the Executive decision a “perversion of the law” by attempting to strike down the Judiciary Act of 1789 in which on two occasions the Supreme Court had found no objection or fault.[5]

Nineteen years later, Jefferson affirmed the general view of the Founders that any of the three branches could interpret the Constitution.

[E]ach of the three departments has equally the right to decide for itself what is its duty under the Constitution without any regard to what the others may have decided for themselves under a similar question.[6]

Jefferson specifically rejected the belief that the Judiciary was the final voice and described the damage to the Constitution of a contrary opinion.

[O]ur Constitution…has given – according to this opinion – to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others; and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation…The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.[7] [emphasis added]

Jefferson and the other Founders would be greatly alarmed with the modern view of the Judiciary that it may prescribe rules for the other branches of Government.

Dred Scott v. Sanford

Dred Scott was a Negro slave, a household servant for Dr. John Emerson who had taken Scott to various areas in the North where slavery was prohibited. Scott eventually sued for his liberty in Missouri courts and maintained that he was free because of his stays in a free state and a free territory. In March 1857, the Supreme Court ruled (Dred Scott v. Sanford) that Scott (and all other slaves) was not a citizen of the U.S. or the state of Missouri and therefore not entitled to sue in the federal courts. For Scott and all other slaves, the effect of the ruling reinforced the status quo of slavery and made it impossible for slaves to gain their freedom through the courts or legislation.[8] Effectively, the Supreme Court had declared that Congress could not outlaw slavery and that slaves were not citizens but property.

Several of Abraham Lincoln’s remarks in his first Inaugural Address were prompted by the Dred Scott decision.

I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court…At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made…the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having…resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.[9] [emphasis added]

Like Jefferson’s response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Marbury v. Madison sixty two years earlier, both Lincoln and the Congress ignored the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case. Not only was the ruling ignored but directly disobeyed. On June 9, 1862, Congress prohibited the extension of slavery into free territories and in 1863 Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation ending slavery.[10]

Jefferson, writing to Abigail Adams in 1804, said of the Supreme Court, “[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”[11] [emphasis added] But this is what the Supreme Court has become in 2015 America. Thoughtful judicial interpretation of laws in light of the Constitution is the courts’ proper role. But through judicial activism by liberal judges usurping the role of the legislature in making laws, the courts have appropriated unto themselves a law-making role never intended by the Founders and breaches the coveted separation of powers.

Will is not only incorrect in his spurious charge that Huckabee was crusading for nullification, he crudely disparages Huckabee’s Christian faith because of his call for prayer for the Supreme Court justices considering the fate of same-sex marriage (See: 1 Timothy 2:1-2). He also belittles Huckabee’s well-founded concern that the nation is moving toward the criminalization of Christianity which is amply demonstrated by the growing trend of the judiciary and bureaucracy to punish Christians for practicing their faith.

In the age of the “living” Constitution, the Judiciary has made it pliable in order to accommodate the whims of a humanistic society unhooked from mores, norms, traditions, and voices of the past. In Jefferson’s words such a Constitution becomes, “…a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” Combining the words of Jefferson and Lincoln, such a Judiciary would become a “despotic branch” and “the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.”

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] George Will, Huckabee’s ‘appalling’ crusade for nullification,” Tulsa World, May 15, 2015, A-15.
[2] Richard B. Morris, ed., Encyclopedia of American History, (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1953), pp.167-168.
[3] Ibid., p. 173.
[4] Ibid.
[5] David Barton, Original Intent, (Aledo, Texas: Wallbuilder Press, 2008), pp. 275-176.
[6] Barton, p. 271. Quoting: Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, ed., (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XV, p. 213, to Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Morris, pp. 221-222.
[9] Barton, p. 272.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Barton, pp. 271-272. Quoting: Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, ed., (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), Vol. IV, p. 27, to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804.

Why are democracies unraveling around the world?

Posted by :admin On : May 14, 2015
1

Category: Archives, Government, Worldview

There are few columnists with which I disagree more on almost all issues than E. J. Dionne (Washington Post Writers Group). In a recent column titled “Is democracy unraveling around the world?” Dionne implies that many of the world’s democracies are dysfunctional and unraveling.[1] However, his conclusions as to “why” this is happening and the solutions offered are not only wrong but are oblivious to the real cause of societal dysfunction in democracies.

Dionne points to a 2013 survey in which “…63 percent of Americans said government should be doing more to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, but 59 percent also believed government had grown bigger because it had become involved in things people should do for themselves.”[2] Dionne believes that the world’s democracies are beset by a peculiar set of contradictions. He states that there is a decline of trust in traditional political parties but also a rise in political partisanship. But the larger picture escapes Dionne as he attempts to gloss over big government’s systemic failures by blaming political parties that engage in divisive partisan politics. A second observation was that people want the government to reduce levels of economic insecurity and expand opportunity while at the same time they do not believe government has the ability to do so.[3] Here, Dionne fails to see that mistrust of government extends far beyond its perceived failure to provide economic security and opportunities as demanded. Rather, in the larger perspective, people have been conditioned to expect the government to accomplish the impossible task of providing an ever expanding array of wants, rights, and wishes while at the same time limiting government involvement in their lives.

How is it that America has arrived at this paradox after almost 250 years of democracy? There are two parts to the answer. One is loss of the concept of limited government. The other is the incompatibility of human nature and loss of freedom. We shall deal with the loss of the concept of limited government first.

Limited government

Traditional ideas of limited government were part of the American psyche even before the Founders designed the American system of governance. These ideas prevailed until the rise of the humanistic worldview in the early twentieth century and converged with the economic and societal upheavals caused by the Great Depression and World War II. Under the humanistic worldview there was a seismic change in how mankind and justice were viewed. Man was not fallen but basically good. Therefore, all injustice and inequality in society are the result of defective institutions which the government must correct.

Three generations after this convergence, many Americans now view government as primarily responsible for dealing with an ever expanding array of societal problems. Politicians became the power brokers for providing solutions to a host of newly found social and political demands. However, funding government and the growing list of wants, rights, and wishes of the populous has become a major hurdle because government cannot do everything for everybody. Samuelson called this “the politics of overpromise…the systematic and routine tendency of government to make more commitments than can reasonably be fulfilled.” For decades the irrationality of the politics of overpromise has been glossed over by a misplaced faith in an ever expanding economy that would provide all the income necessary to meet the growing list of demands.[4]

Government became the provider or guarantor of happiness as opposed to making possible the pursuit thereof. After decades of an ever increasing institutionalization of synthetic rights purported to be due to the great majority of the populous, progressive politicians and bureaucrats must find someone to pay for the costs associated with a benefactor government. Because government cannot do all things for a people, it is held in deep distrust.[5] To maintain governmental power in the face of dwindling resources, there is a steady progression towards socialism.

Dionne attributes much of this mistrust of government to the growth of special interest groups he claims have too much influence on government. He quotes one study by a political scientist who wrote of the rise of negative partisanship among the electorate, “…supporters of each party perceive supporters of the opposing party as very different from themselves in terms of their social characteristics and fundamental values.” Dionne states that, “…our current form of partisanship leads us to dislike not only the other side’s politicians but even each other.[6]

Dionne cites Stanley Greenberg who says that this hostility among not only the politicians but the electorate as well is a result of special interest groups having too much hold on government.[7] But Samuelson correctly argues that the growth of special interest groups is merely a result of growth of government.

When government is limited, it can be more easily influenced through elections. Voters can get a sense of where there representatives stand on major issues, and legislators can judge their constituents’ general feelings. As government activities proliferate, this is harder for both voters and legislators.”[8]

In other words, big government begets special interest groups. For years liberal big-government politicians welcomed special interest groups. But now campaign finance reform is always popular with proponents of big government. Until the advent of the Internet, talk radio, and a proliferation of cable TV companies, the proponents of big government weren’t too concerned with campaign funding because by default the bully pulpit was monopolized by the big government-friendly news media, academia, government bureaucracies, big business, and the entertainment industry. But even with the loss of the liberal monopoly over the media to influence public opinion, they are happy to give up campaign funding and go back to the good old days. It is not that the liberal monopoly wants to eliminate special interest groups; it is that such legislation will dry up funds for conservative political action committees, limited-government candidates, and issue-oriented campaigns. Funds for conservatives to access new media outlets are dried up by so-called campaign finance reform, and this leaves the no-cost liberal media monopoly and their government funded emissaries and yes men to spread their big government orthodoxy.

Incompatibility of human nature and loss of freedom through big government

The second part of our answer as to the paradox regarding the unraveling of democracy deals with the incompatibility of human nature and loss of freedom because of the impositions of big government.

Dionne ends his article with a remarkably revealing statement as to what he believes is the first task of politicians in democratic countries—the aggregating of sustainable majorities. He quotes Daniel T. Rodgers’ 2011 book Age of Fracture which proposes that, “…if the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s were a time of political and social ‘consolidation,’ the dominant tendency now is ‘disaggregation’ which is a big problem for self-government.”[9] If Dionne is correct, then our elected representatives are not to be primarily concerned about the opinions and wishes of the electorate but to merely aggregate sustainable majorities. It appears that much of the elected leadership has been following Dionne’s prescription since the 1960s. Could this be the cause of the electorates’ anger and mistrust of government which is “…undermining faith in the public endeavor and unraveling of old loyalties”?[10]

The conflict between big government and limited government as well as the frustrations and anger expressed by the electorate are merely a microcosm of a larger conflict of worldviews in America. On the one hand we have the biblical worldview upon which the nation was founded. The biblical worldviews of its citizens collectively became the central cultural vision of the nation and reigned supreme until the first part of the twentieth century. In a society built upon the biblical worldview, men join together and voluntarily limit their freedom. But the imposition of limits comes from a group of like-minded individuals whose central cultural vision reflects the biblical worldview of freedom (lack of coercion) resonates with the nature of man. By the mid twentieth century, those of the humanistic worldview had risen to leadership levels in all institutions of American life, and their humanistic policies, laws, and initiatives are being imposed (coercion) on a nation whose citizens still cling to the biblical worldview of the Founders. This is the essence of the culture wars—the conflict for supremacy in the American cultural vision between those holding the humanistic and Christian worldviews.

To answer the “why” of Dionne’s question regarding democracy’s unraveling around the world we must look to John Adams, Founder and second president of the United States.

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.[11]

In other words, democracy cannot be sustained without a moral populace. Morality in government must flow upward from the morality of its citizens. By morality and religion Adams meant Christian morality. Without a moral citizenry, there is no hope for a sustained moral and just self-government. However, in Dionne’s world, morals are a matter of interpretation and decided by man and not God. Self-government flows downward from the humanist elite or, as C. S. Lewis called them, the “conditioners” of society which are more interested in aggregating sustainable majorities to maintain their power rather than representing the wishes of the people. But such a government eventually erodes into a totalitarian state and a loss of freedom so essential to man’s nature.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] E. J. Dionne, “Is democracy unraveling around the world?” Tulsa World, May 2, 2015, A-16.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Robert Samuelson, The Good Life and Its Discontents, (New York: Vintage Books, 1995, 1997), p. 143.
[5] Ibid., p. 188.
[6] Dionne, A-19.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Samuelson, p. 193.
[9] Dionne, A-19.
[10] Ibid.
[11] William J. Federer, America’s God and Country, (Coppell, Texas: Fame Publishing, Inc., 1996), pp. 10-11.