something wicked this way comes
Posted on 12/30/2014 8:04:36 AM PST by Kaslin
In the film, "Girl, Interrupted," Winona Ryder plays an 18-year-old who enters a mental institution for what is diagnosed as borderline personality disorder. The year is 1967 and the country is in turmoil over Vietnam and civil rights. While lying on her bed one night and watching TV, she sees a news report about a demonstration. The narrator says something that might apply to today's turmoil: "We live in a time of doubt. The institutions we once trusted no longer seem reliable."
As 2014 ends, the stock market is at record highs but our traditional institutions and self-confidence are in decline.
A Pew Research Center study confirms one trend that has been obvious over several years. The "typical" American family is no longer typical. Just 46 percent of American children now live in homes with their married, heterosexual parents. Five percent have no parents at home. They most likely are living with grandparents, says the study.
These startling figures about the decline of the American family contrast with the year 1960 when 73 percent of American children lived in traditional families.
A major contributor to this trend has been the assault on marriage and other institutions by the Baby Boom generation. It was that generation that promoted cohabitation, no-fault divorce, hatred of the police (they called them "pigs" then, too) and disdain for the military and America, spawned not just by the Vietnam War but a life of relative ease unknown to their parents.
The culture bomb dropped by the boomers created fallout still being felt today. The two-plus generations born since the Sixties have been infused with the notion of entitlement, victimhood, envy and greed. Since the elimination of the draft, young people are no longer expected to serve in the military and so most of them pursue whatever goals they wish with no expectation they should give something back to their country. It's one possible explanation for why we can no longer seem to win wars.
History warns us what happens when empires refuse to teach known values that strengthen societies and help protect them from enemies intent on their destruction.
The late British diplomat Sir John Glubb wrote a book called "The Fate of Empires and Search For Survival." Glubb noted the average age of empires since the time of ancient Assyria (859-612 B.C.) is 250 years. Only the Mameluke Empire in Egypt and the Levant (1250-1517) made it as far as 267 years. America is 238 years old and is exhibiting signs of decline.
All empires begin, writes Glubb, with the age of pioneers, followed by ages of conquest, commerce, affluence, intellect and decadence. America appears to have reached the age of decadence, which Glubb defines as marked by "defensiveness, pessimism, materialism, frivolity, an influx of foreigners, the welfare state, (and) a weakening of religion."
Decadence, he writes, "is due to: Too long a period of wealth and power, selfishness, love of money (and) the loss of a sense of duty."
Do these not define America at the end of 2014? Glubb says the 250-year average of empires has not varied in 3,000 years, but we don't learn from history because "our studies are brief and prejudiced." He means they are mostly about one's own country.
It will take more than a new Congress in 2015 and a new president in 2017 to save us from the fate of other empires. It will take a revival of the American spirit, and that can only come through changed attitudes towards our institutions and each other.
What about the Ottoman Empire? I thought it lasted longer than the Mamluk?
What about ancient Greece and the Roman Empire? Didn’t they last much longer than 250 years???
History.
Nothing learned.
Repeat.
What are we saying here? The Bush Empire versus the Obama Empire, versus the Clinton Empire? Are we so short-minded....that we can’t focus and realize the world around us?
Both the Roman Empoire (45 BC-AD 1453) and the Ottoman Empire (1299-1923) lasted longer than 250 years.
When the foundation is not protected and that fact is just fine with a lot of people, other institutions get abandoned and destroyed.
Naturally a new foundation must be formed. People forget that part
So when people say oh that’s just old thinking etc. I ask ok who is writing the new documents?
The answer is ... These numbskulls. In a clash of self deluded ‘titans’
Clinton’s with their advisors like sharpyon and deblasio. Alinski etc
Bushes. With their money. Where does that come from rop
Most conservatives likely would agree that some of the essay's conclusions regarding perceived progress in 1987 toward restoration of the founding ideas have suffered serious setbacks in recent years.
Will The Great American Experiment Succeed?
Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, enumerated what he called 'the essential principles of our government. . . which ought to shape its Administration.'
He then stated:
"These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civil instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety."
When asked by a curious citizen after the adjournment of the Constitutional Convention what kind of government had been structured by the Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin is said to have answered: "...A REPUBLIC, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT."
The extensive Constitutional republic they envisioned, in reality, became a place of liberty and opportunity for countless millions of people from all over the world. Their ideas worked, because they were based on enduring principles which recognized human imperfection and the need to structure a limited government of laws, dependent upon the consent of a people who, themselves, understood the principles.
The Distinctiveness of the American Experiment as Laid Down by the Founding Fathers:
It acknowledged that individual rights are derived from a Creator.
It was based on enduring principles compatible with "the laws of nature and of nature's God."
It recognized human imperfection and that a tendency to abuse power is ever present in the human heart.
It restrained those in power through a written Constitution which carefully divided, balanced, and separated the powers of government and then intricately knitted them back together again through a system of checks and balances.
It left all powers with the people, except those which, by their consent, the people delegated to government and then made provision for their withdrawing that power, if it was abused.
What Has Happened to the Philosophy and Principles Held by the Founding Fathers?
Have we kept faith with their ideas of republican (representative) government and of the virtue which must underlie such an institution? As Andrew Jackson observed: "It is well known that there have always been those amongst us who wish to enlarge the powers of the general government...and...to overstep the boundaries marked out for it by the Constitution." Such is certainly true in 20th Century America! Not only do the various branches of government seek ways to expand their power by changing the Constitution, but there are well - organized and heavily-funded organizations actively at work to make serious changes in the Founders' system.
Can America Lose Her Freedom?
An examination of the history of civilization reveals that nations have risen, and they have fallen. Governments have been formed, and they have been dissolved. People have become free, and they have fallen into slavery again. Toynbee observed that 19 of the world's 21 significant civilizations disappeared from the face of the earth - not from assault by outside forces, but from deterioration within the society.
Many would contend that America has departed from the intentions of its Founders in a number of significant ways. Others, whose judgments are less categorical, at least would acknowledge that there are valid reasons for such a judgment.
Increasing Centralization of Authority in the National Government
Through liberal judicial interpretations of the necessary and proper" and "general welfare" clauses, as well as the commerce clause, the national government has gained sufficient power to intrude into virtually all concerns and areas which were originally intended to be within the domain of the states (See: Part V, Federalism). What is more, the courts, through the process of 'selective incorporation,' have used the Fourteenth Amendment to nationalize and apply the Bill of Rights to the states. Various Amendments have also served to weaken the state governments, albeit indirectly. For instance: the Sixteenth Amendment, through its provision for federal income tax, has made the states, to a great extent, dependent on the national government. The Seventeenth Amendment, which changed the Framers' intent as to the manner in which the Senate would he determined, has served to reduce the influence and balance of state interests in the national councils.
Erosion Of Principle Of Separation Of Powers
The Framers believed that it would be the Legislative branch, armed with the most important powers of government, which would pose the greatest danger to the separation of powers. For this reason, they divided the legislature into two houses and strengthened the Executive and judiciary branches. Over time, however, the Congress has delegated much of its authority to the Executive branch or to independent regulatory bodies. On the other hand, the judiciary, which the Founders believed to be the weakest of the branches, has asserted the doctrine of judicial supremacy-that its interpretation of the Constitution is authoritative and binding on the other branches (an idea clearly not held by Jefferson, Madison and others). In addition, the courts have in fact 'legislated' to bring about changes which they contend are mandated by their interpretation of the Constitution (See: Part V, Separation of Powers). These "positive resolutions" on the part of the courts are seen to run counter to the Founders' idea of representative (republican) government, because they represent a usurpation of the legislative function, and ignore the voice and consent of the people through their elected representatives. This bypasses the slow and deliberative amendment process provided by the Constitution for making changes to that document.
Departure From The Basic Values To Which The Founders Subscribed
Although the word "rights" remains an important part of the political and social vocabulary, the perception that individual rights are of divine origin has been largely excluded from public discourse. What was once the very cornerstone of the philosophy of freedom expounded by the Declaration of Independence-that a Creator endowed human beings with rights and the liberty to enjoy those rights - has virtually disappeared from the textbooks of the nation and from the public statements of many leaders. Indeed, rights are now thought of as man-made and emanating from government. As such, the concept of rights not only has been secularized but trivialized as well. After all, what is the authority for such rights? Any self-proclaimed entitlement to special treatment, privilege, status, or benefit conferred by government can, by inference, be withdrawn. Moreover, the modem notion of man-made rights does not embody the natural law injunction that the exercise of a right embodies a corresponding obligation to observe the rights of others, nor does it recognize the "laws of nature and of Nature's God" described by the Declaration of Independence.
In this connection, the rights specified in the Bill of Rights frequently have been interpreted in an arbitrary manner without regard to the tradition or values which they were designed to protect and preserve. For instance, the First Amendment's provision that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" has been 'interpreted' in a manner not in keeping with Jefferson's idea that the "liberty to worship our Creator" had been "proved by our experience to be its [government's] best support." In this and other areas, rights are upheld quite apart from the Framers' concerns for civil or ordered liberty, or for the ends of government, especially those set forth in the Preamble. Alexandr Solzhenitsyn's scathing critique of Western moral values, and those which have gained currency in the United States in particular, drives this point home:
"Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as, for example, misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and horror."
Professor Lino Graglia, a harsh critic of the Supreme Court and its interpretation of the Bill of Rights, makes much the same point in another context: "The Court has created for criminal defendants rights that do not exist under any other system of law-for example, the possibility of almost endless appeals with all costs paid by the state and which have made the prosecution and conviction of criminals so complex and difficult as to make the attempt frequently seem not worthwhile...By undermining effective enforcement of the criminal law...the Court has diminished our liberty to walk the streets of our cities with a degree of security".
Destruction Of The Founders' Monetary System Based On A Money With Intrinsic Value
One of the primary concerns of the Founders was the establishment of a sound monetary system which would provide stability and would assure the citizens that government could not manipulate their currency and confiscate their earnings through inflation, a problem with all unbacked paper currencies of the past. By various legislative and judicial actions, United States citizens no longer possess a currency with its own intrinsic value. Unbridled government spending and debt plague the nation. Since the withdrawal of gold coins in 1933, the nation has experienced a cumulative inflation of over 821%.
Loss Of Citizen Understanding Of Constitutional Principles And The Philosophy Underlying Them
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people...said John Adams. And Thomas Jefferson declared: "Whenever the people are well-informed they can be trusted with their own government...The boys of the rising generation are to be the men of the next, and the sole guardians of the principles we deliver over to them."
Early generations of Americans were taught the principles upon which their nation had developed its Constitution. The Founders believed that the real security for liberty would be a people who could understand those ideas which are necessary to preserve liberty and who could perceive approaching threats to their freedom. For that reason, a primary purpose of the schools was to teach boys and girls to read and write so that they could study the ideas of freedom. A popular textbook for children was entitled "Catechism on the Constitution." Written by Arthur J. Stansbury and published in 1828, it contained questions and answers on the principles of the American political system.
Tocqueville's Democracy In America , written in the 1830's, described America's aggressive process of universal education on the Constitution and the political process:
"It cannot be doubted that in the United States the instruction of the people powerfully contributes to the support of the democratic republic; and such must always be the case, I believe, where the in struction which enlightens the understanding is not separated from the moral education ...." The American citizen, he said, "..will inform you what his rights are and by what means he exercises them .. In the United States, politics are the end and aim of education ... every citizen receives the elementary notions of human knowledge; he is taught, moreover, the doctrines and the evidences of his religion, the history of his country, and the leading features of its Constitution .... it is extremely rare to find a man imperfectly acquainted with all these things, and a person wholly ignorant of them is a sort of phenomenon .... It is difficult to imagine the incredible rapidity with which thought cir culates in the midst of these deserts [wilderness]. I do not think that so much intellectual activity exists in the most enlightened and populous districts of France."
Research shows that, beginning in the early 1900's, the teaching of the philosophy undergirding the Constitution and the principles incorporated in it began to be eliminated from the public schools of America. Consequently, several generations of Americans have not been taught the principles which would enable them to be guardians of their own liberty, and they have not been able to serve as "watchmen on the walls" who could recognize encroachments when they occurred. Even most of the law schools do not train the nation's law students in the philosophical foundations of the Constitution.
It must be remembered that the principles of the Constitution and the philosophy undergirding those principles represent:
The ultimate standard of measure for all government action.
The ultimate protection for the people from the excesses of government.
If the people do not have an understanding of these basic things, then they will be incapable of preserving them.
Without a doubt, those departures from the Framers' intent listed above, and others as well, result in serious questions about the ultimate success of their experiment. We should note, however, that the Framers built well, and the Constitution, despite the buffeting it has taken, is still extremely viable in one crucial respect: namely, the channels for restoration remain open. Nothing - not even Amendments - has altered the distribution of powers or the basic institutional relationships set forth by the Founders. This means, in effect, that the PEOPLE can operate through Congress to bring the system back into line. If the people, through knowledgeable, good judgment, select members of Congress who have the courage to act, the Founders' system can be restored.
A determined Congress, for instance, is more than a match for a judiciary bent upon advancing the doctrine of judicial supremacy and encroaching upon the Legislative prerogatives intended by the Founders. Such a Congress could, as it has done in the past, limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Court. The Senate could carefully screen presidential nominations to the federal courts, particularly the Supreme Court, and refuse to con, firm those who support judicial "activism." Or, at the extreme, Congress could impeach and remove those justices who, to use Alexander Hamilton's terminology, habitually exercise "will" (the intended prerogative of the Legislature), not "judgment," in interpreting the Constitution. In sum, Congress is equipped with all the weapons to win any "shoot out" with the Court. In all likelihood, if history serves as any guide, the mere threat of their use would suffice to restore the proper relationships between the branches called for by the separation of powers principle.
Congress also possesses ample means to restore some semblance of balance with respect to state-national relations. Much could be accomplished simply through legislation, or through a more discreet use of congressional powers to allow the states greater latitude. Congress could, probably through legislation (or amendment, if need be), assert the sole authority to enforce the "due process" and "equal protection' clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment through appropriate legislation, thereby depriving the courts of the means to impose their will upon the states. This corrective measure would, by itself, go a long way toward restoring vitality to the federal principle, while simultaneously putting the judiciary back into its proper constitutional place.
While the Constitution provides the means of restoration, clearly the process is a difficult one.
As demonstrated above, restoration of the Founders' formula for preserving liberty is, indeed, possible through the mechanisms provided by their Constitution. But what must take place in order for such restoration to occur?
THE PEOPLE MUST:
Prize and cherish Creator-endowed liberty above all (as did the Founders).
Study and develop understanding of the IDEAS and PRINCIPLES which, alone, lead to security and true liberty.
Study and develop understanding of the kind of deliberative, representative government (democratic republic) structured by the United States Constitution. Become familiar with its safeguards for liberty - so that they may recognize threats to their freedom under whatever disguise they may come.
Use their Constitutional knowledge and understanding to elect and support an ongoing majority in Congress and an Executive who are devoted to Constitutional principles and who will see that those appointed to the Judiciary are committed to preserving the integrity of the Constitution.
Exert their will and Constitutional privilege to recall elected officials who, once elected, support legislation which expands government power in violation of Constitutional principles.
Understand that the price of freedom is continual vigilance and accept personal responsibility for that vigilance.
See that the IDEAS and PRINCIPLES, as well as the passion for liberty, are passed on to future generations by requiring that they be taught in their local schools.
For the first time in many years, there are encouraging signs that some important changes may be emerging. Although the teaching and study of the Founders' ideas had virtually disappeared from the curriculum of the schools for many decades and partially, as a result, from public discussion, there is renewed enthusiasm and interest in those ideas among a vital and committed segment of the population. Some signs of this renewed emphasis on the ideas of liberty are:
The reappearance in print of writings of the Founders, among them, THE FEDERALIST, collections of the writings of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams, Washington, and others.
The appearance of campus groups who focus attention on study of the Founders' writings, the Constitution, and their relationship to current political thought.
Serious questioning of the role of the courts and of the constitutionality of judicial activism. Many members of Congress now oppose such judicial activism on the part of the Court.
Increased questioning of the capacity of the national government to solve major economic and social problems. A move in many areas toward privatization of previously public services, toward greater local autonomy and toward a renewing of the concept of limited government.
Growing confidence in the free market economy and in deregulation as the best way to secure prosperity.
Serious questioning by the public of the educational establishment's role in curtailing and changing the teaching of American history and the ideas upon which our democratic republic was built. This questioning has taken the form of books; public statements by religious and political leaders; the formation of citizen groups to remedy the situation; and test cases in the courts of several states.
Explosive growth of private and home schools where traditional values and the teaching of history are emphasized.
Growth explosion among church groups which emphasize traditional values, study of the Constitution, and the relationship between the political order and religious belief.
These and other signs are encouraging, but, at best, are just the beginning of a long journey to rediscover the greatness of our Constitutional philosophy and principles and to redirect efforts in their proper restoration.
It was John Adams who said: "The foundation of every government is some principle or passion in the minds of the people." Clearly, the Founders' passion was liberty, and in order to secure that liberty, they sought out and incorporated into the United States Constitution those ideas and principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence.
The French historian, Guizot, once asked James Russell Lowell, "How long will the American republic endure?" Lowell replied: "As long as the IDEAS of the men who founded it continue dominant"
Herein lies the answer to the question, "Will the Experiment Succeed?"
It can and will succeed IF the motivating "principle or passion in the minds of the people" is LIBERTY, and if that passion causes them to exert the determination and will to complete the needed restoration of the IDEAS upon which the great American experiment was based.
Our Ageless Constitution, W. David Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Editors (Asheboro, NC, W. David Stedman Associates, 1987) Part VII: ISBN 0-937047-01-5
The Roman Empire was growing during a time of peak debauchery. It didn’t start falling until after it became Christian.
That said, only the western half fell during ancient times. The eastern half lasted another thousand years.
Mr. Thomas’ thesis is not supported by the data.
There are several better candidates for the fall of the western Roman Empire: lead poisoning, climate change (natural), decline of academic learning, price controls, wily Goths, etc. But it wasn’t immorality. Any family decline at the time was due more to lead poisoning and/or vows of celibacy.
We had a lead poisoning problem, which is now being fixed now that lead has been taken out of gasoline and paint. But residual lead concentrations are still pretty high in our inner cities, and this may account for some of our crime problems therein.
On the other hand, we are introducing a host of new chemicals and organisms into our bodies on a regular basis. Some of these may account for the growing popularity of homosexuality, metrosexuality, and bronies. A nation of girly-mans might well have a problem maintaining an empire.
Conservatives might want to team up with the environmentalists and non-corporate scientists on this issue.
BTTT
Good Grief!
More than 1/2 this Country don’t even realize that they are living under Mein Kampf II, meaning it has been translated into American English and has been run through congress (see My Tagline) for the last 60 years.
WHY?
Too busy with the “important crap” like american idiot/real housewives of ________________ (insert any town/city/hood you like), okra/doc phil/”news cast”/who did bill cosby rape/keeping up with the kardashins/etc.
I watched a show on The Bombing of Hiroshima and Col. Tibbets (IIRC) went to speak at a High School and He was introduced as a Pilot from WW 11 (ELEVEN).
I remember reading Glubb’s short book as a teenager. IIRC, he divided the “classic” (sic) Roman empire into 2 250-year periods, Republic and then Empire. I think you can get a PDF of it out there, it’s well worth a read and very thought-provoking.
Really it was the western army's disintegration that led to Germans crossing the a defenseless Rhine. Had Theodosius come to terms with one of the usurpers in the west, thing may have just rolled along for the west...
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until voters discover that they can vote themselves largesses from the public treasury. From that time on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
"The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage."
The second sentence of his quote absolutely hits the nail on the head.
Indeed, the Eastern Roman Empire was Christian and lasted another thousand years.
Correlation does not prove causation, but anti-correlation does disprove causation. Rome got more moral, and fell. It’s pretty safe to say that personal immorality was not the cause of the fall.
What interests me as a Christian is how many Christians actually think the empire fell because of the faith embraced by the empire (almost a perverse pleasure in that thought) or how many think Rome got more decadent as the faith spread. Gibbons was anti-Christian and yet so many believers think he was right...
something wicked this way comes
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.