Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Herb London :: Townhall.com Columnist
A Republic vs. A Liberal State
by Herb London
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Ben Franklin when asked to describe the goal of the Constitutional Convention said, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” The last five words are critical. For in the succeeding two hundred years the Republic has undergone shifts and dramatic changes. Surely the limited government envisioned by the founders does not resemble the government of today that by happenstance, pandering or addressing real and perceived needs is elephantine.

But perhaps the most significant challenge to a republican form of government is the liberal state that emphasizes rights as its critical feature. Rights tend to be inviolable; moreover, a privilege vouchsafed over several months morphs easily into a right.

Rent control in New York City, for example, proffered as a temporary measure to assist G.I.’s returning from World War II, was transmogrified into a right that doesn’t make economic sense and certainly has little application to the city 60 years after its introduction.

The liberal state is fond of finding and then defending rights the founders could not possibly have imagined. Reproductive rights, the right to healthcare, the right to marry a member of the same sex are clearly contemporary rights that come to mind.

The problem with newly created rights is that they take on a status like those in the Bill of Rights; they must be defended and applied as if the First Amendment. And there isn’t any end to their invention and metamorphosis from idea to privilege to right.

Rights are also universal; they apply to those who pay taxes and those who don’t; they apply to new immigrants and the old; they may even be applied to those who arrive on our shores illegally. Hence rights can fundamentally alter the character of a nation, even as we take pride in many rights (individual rights, property rights) as being essential for the continued qualities in our nation.

Republicanism is summarized in three words, “we the people.” Our Constitution does not refer to “we the states” or to “a polity.” The government presumably serves the will of the people and acts on the consent of the governed. Therefore, rights must be seen against a backdrop of consent. If the people are willing to abjure some rights in order to enhance security, that is their privilege.

Liberalism has so encroached on the essence of the republic that the courts have arrogated to themselves the right to make laws the Constitution earmarked for Congress. And this has occurred without much of an outcry from the public.

In my judgment the reason for the failure of the recent immigration bill is that the proposed legislation represented liberal overreaching. By suggesting people who violated American sovereignty should be rewarded with the rights of citizens struck those with a republican orientation as absurd. This was seen, rightly or wrongly, as the frivolous dissemination of rights.

The proliferation of rights is not accompanied by a devotion to duties. People assume rights are manufactured – as indeed they often are – and are served to the American people cost free. As a consequence, there is a natural constituency for rights proliferation and not one for a traditional republican form of government.

Yet there are many areas of public life where the consent of the governed should prevail. If the public is wary of radical Islam and its penchant for violence, must we say rights should be applied to radical Muslims and Muslims alike? If the people are unwilling to embrace guest workers who do not have any interest in being American – speaking our language, learning our customs and history and sacrificing for the nation – does it make sense to extend the rights of American citizens to these workers?

Clearly the tension between liberalism of John Stuart Mill and the republicanism of Jefferson is embedded in our history. This moment, in a sense, is not different from others. But I would contend we have tilted so far in a liberal direction, we have lost our way. It’s time to rebalance philosophical assumptions and restore consent of the governed into the national debate on public policy issues.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Herbert London is president of Hudson Institute and professor emeritus of New York University. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001).

Be the first to read Herb London's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

So Be It!
__We need to reclaim these principles for this nations prosperity.Keep beating that drum!The time is now.Mr. Fred Thompson knows this,and is doing a terrific job carrying that message.

Do the libs remember the "founders?"
"The liberal state is fond of finding and then defending rights the founders could not possibly have imagined. Reproductive rights, the right to healthcare, the right to marry a member of the same sex are clearly contemporary rights that come to mind."

EXELLENT! WELL SAID!

"The government presumably serves the will of the people and acts on the consent of the governed."

And, did we not see this in our "We The People's" finest hour when we demanded the defeat of the Shamesty Bill.

"We The People" are Congress' oversight committee, and it works, if we make it work!



The Republic
referred to by Ben Franklin and other debaters who created the Constitution has absolutely no relationship to what is now called a 'republican' party.

The twentieth and twenty-first century 'republicans' are nothing more or less than the opposition. This is why I call them 'loyal' opposition.

Nicely and concisely written
"Rights" have also become an entire enterprise for the many opportunistic lawyers, as people now have a right to the results they want in life despite the choices made.

I don't think there is any rebagging this biting, pooping, hissing, scratching cat of entitlement.

Key point: Limited Gov't
Left-wing big government is no better then right-wing big government. The key point to remember is that a republic will only prosper when the people elect those that believe the purpose of government is to protect the freedom of the individual, and nothing else.

The problem is that people get caught up in the candidate's charisma. Voters believe that the one they are voting is "strong" or "a leader" or for that matter is just plain "trustworthy." In a separate discussion I had with with someone else in a different article on Townhall, the person went so far as to say that following the Constitution is not as important as being able to lead. Clearly, the problem is not just a liberal one. The Republicans are offering a solution this election cycle, however, with the only candidate that votes limited gov't and most often with the US Constitution, Congressman Ron P...(censored by Townhall). :)

Without Defense
Does a government have no moral obligation to defend its people? In a park one block from where I am sitting, chronically mentally ill men are sleeping outdoors tonight because they are unable to take care of themselves (get and sustain a job, get and sustain personal hygiene, get and sustain medication). They are at risk: who is to defend them? On the TV two feet from where I am sitting, comment goes forward on tainted food, tires, toys, etc coming in from China. Consumers are at risk: who is to defend them?

"Survive on your own, or drop dead, or go to hell, because the state bears no responsibility for you" is a harsh dictate.

Apathy towards the Constitution
Herb wrote: "Liberalism has so encroached on the essence of the republic that the courts have arrogated to themselves the right to make laws the Constitution earmarked for Congress. And this has occurred without much of an outcry from the public."

The latest outrage in a Supreme Court decision? For the average voter, and probably every single non-voter: "Booorrring! Let's watch American Idol now." Ironically, this apathy has been generated by the very security - both economic and physical - that our republic allowed a free people to create.

I'm just glad our nation's enemies and rivals haven't been able to get their acts together, either, or we'd be in much more trouble than we are.

----

A good test for differentiating true rights from liberal-manufactured "rights" is to remember that a right does not impose an obligation on another person (except, arguably, the obligation not to violate anyone's rights).

Tytler observed that
democracies have an average life of about 200 years and "when the people awaken to the fact that they can vote to themselves the largesse of the Treasury, democracies fail".

Dead republic walking.

What are rights?
A "right" is not a right if it forces someone else to supply the "right" or to pay to have it given to you.

Fictitious rights, like "affordable" housing, health care, abortion, or education are not rights but rather policies which some people believe that the government is morally responsible to provide for its citizens.

Who should be forced to give you housing at your price? Must I, as a doctor, be forced to provide you medical service or abort your fetus? Must I, as a teacher, be forced to teach you ?

You respond, "The government will pay". Aha.

Your "right" devolves into a tax payer funded governmental program in which anyone can benefit if they can't pay for it by themselves.

Your fake "rights" are not rights, but forced participation insurance policies.


BrianR
Couldn't agree with you more.

This column: too little; too late.

When London says,
"Therefore, rights must be seen against a backdrop of consent. If the people are willing to abjure some rights in order to enhance security, that is their privilege."

He demonstrates that he is a man without a clue. Rights are unalienable. Herb needs to familiarize himself with the founding documents. The people cannot abjure their own Rights. They certainly cannot abjure mine.

Sooner or Later....
No worries, people. The entire rotten edifice of this regime will come crashing down, and in not too many more years. The unsustainable demands of the Baby Boomers for free medical care and subsidized retirement will see to that. My money is on a crash date of 2020, no later.

The sad thing about it is that the American people themselves are to blame. Over the last 120 years or so, they have transformed themselves from a self-reliant, thrifty, productive people to a collection of high-maintenance, whiny spoiled brats.

Industrialization made the individual worker a mere cog in the factory machine. Statism, collectivization and an entitlement state (beginning in 1917) reduced the citizen to a role-player and spectator in the political process in exchange for Government subsidies. Television and mass entertainment created a population of tired, overworked and passive sheep.

The modern American is, by and large, a technopeasant---ignorant and ignored by the political classes, save for being farmed by the State for taxes and the State's Corporate allies for "consumption". The demands of that System, however, will outstrip the abilities of the technopeasantry to meet them----and the whole enterprise will come crashing down.

We're talking a crash MUCH bigger than what happened in 1929, and likely bigger than the one that took the Roman Empire out in 476. The economic and social collapse involved may well kill billions.

When this Regime comes down, I suspect that the real trick will be to avoid the destruction of the Human race in the process.

You Have Been Warned. Have a nice day.

Your servant,

Lord Karth


lilly
You are an amazing person. You look at every situation and can only see a need for more liberal statism.

"Without Defense
Does a government have no moral obligation to defend its people?"

Defend their rights? Absolutely. No one, not even 51% of elected officials, should have the right to take your property against your will to use it in ways that you find objectionable.

"In a park one block from where I am sitting, chronically mentally ill men are sleeping outdoors tonight because they are unable to take care of themselves (get and sustain a job, get and sustain personal hygiene, get and sustain medication). They are at risk: who is to defend them?"

In a word: YOU!!!! You have a PC. You apparently pay for the internet. You probably own a car, possibly a home, and live in relative comfort. If you and a group of liberal friends on about a 8:1 ratio would just give up a few luxuries, YOU could rescue those people.

For that matter, if you really don't want to do that, take a part time job and give the proceeds to the relief of those folks.

However you have no RIGHT to demand that others do morally what you think they should do... even if they're filthy rich and selfish.

You go off on any suggestion that certain other immoral behaviors fall under gov't jurisdiction... yet here you are making a moral judgment and demanding that others not only agree with you about it but fund its solution.

"On the TV two feet from where I am sitting, comment goes forward on tainted food, tires, toys, etc coming in from China. Consumers are at risk: who is to defend them?"

That is a commerce and "general welfare" issue that gov't has a vested interest in and a constitutional mandate for. I would argue that environmental laws are also but should be supported by the passage of an Amendment specifying the division of powers and costs.

""Survive on your own, or drop dead, or go to hell, because the state bears no responsibility for you" is a harsh dictate."

And not one that conservatives or libertarians advocate. You look at situations concerning the poor and needy... and all you see is a problem that gov't should solve. We look at them as community, church, and individual responsibilities.

Need I go over the proofs over which is more effective both in resolving the issues and doing it most economically?

We were constitutionally established as a self-governing nation. Along with rights, we get responsibility. Personal responsibility not to make self-destructive choices. Personal responsibility to help those around us in need PRIVATELY and not through gov't wealth redistribution.

I salute you for caring. But as Jesus taught, the responsibility to do something about it is personal... there is no charity involved in thinking someone else should do something about it... If you remember the story of the Good Samaritan- two people who probably hoped someone else would do something about it had already gone by.

Again, Jesus didn't tell the rich young ruler to raise taxes and give to the poor. He told him to sell all he had and give to the poor.

Your position isn't the caring and charitable one though those may be your genuine intentions. Your position reflects envy and resentment toward those have more... and less than selfless commitment to those who need help.


Lord Karth
Unless we see a genuine redirection toward decentralization, I suspect that you are correct... though the time frame could be longer. We ARE a divided people. When the bank breaks, the "blues" and those they've taught the "I'm entitled to the property of another" will very likely become violent and attempt to establish an authoritarian state and formally confiscate all rights and property.

For those genuinely good hearted liberals that post here who really do just want to see things better than they are...

I met an Iranian recently. He was college professor there and a political reformist under the Shah. They thought the Shah was terrible and resented what they saw as manipulation by the US. He helped in the movement to remove him in favor of the Ayotollah. Within 8 years of the revolution, the mullahs began power consolidation. They stripped people of rights. They began a purge of intellectuals and reformers to include this man.

Even though he and those like him had helped them rise to power, they were now seen as a threat. He and many others were fired. Police then showed up at his home, locked the family in the bathroom, then proceeded to destroy or loot everything they owned. They were able to sell hidden jewelry, bribe an official, and escape the country before being killed.

Totalitarian states don't accept friendly criticism or allow dissent... not even from supporters.

Lilly the Lying Loony Lib: Back AGAIN
Lilly the Lying Loony Lib constantly posts her rants on TH; so I will post this when ever I see her garbage.
Her posts usually criticize others, but she rarely responds when criticized for some of her ill conceived, inaccurate comments. At best she’s viewed as just another crackpot Lib and ignored or laughed at. At worst, she’s loathed and bashed for the liar she occasionally is. What I can’t understand is why she continues to seek such abuse. Perhaps she’s a masochist or just delusional; thinking she’ll actually convince someone. Perhaps she could if she were reasonably intelligent, rational, and presented well thought out arguments. And perhaps we’d take her more seriously if she ever responded to comments and criticism. But she never does. She usually avoids responding to any criticism when confronted with her distortions, half truths and occasional lies. She’s known as Ms. “Hit & Run”. She drops her B.S. bombs and then runs rather than respond. On many of these blogs she’s often referred to as “The Sea Gull”. She takes a dump and then flies away. But this in itself says something about “Lilly”. As with most Libs, she can’t handle criticism. She never fires back a response because she has NO ammunition.

Since “Lilly the Lying Loony Lib” obviously isn’t going to go away, perhaps the best recourse is to place her on PERMANENT IGNORE. Or to put it another way: Refuse to engage in a battle of wits with the MENTALLY DISARMED.....LMAO

Insighting
You are absolutely right.

The author doesn't show a fundamental understanding of the difference between a right and a privilege. That apparent ignorance is a testimony to the root of the problem.

Rights are not created by men. They are transcendant truths that men either affirm and defend or deny and oppress.

There is no such thing as a "right" to free healthcare paid for by someone else. It simply doesn't exist. The idea is a privilege mislabeled by deceptive politicians to add force and legitimacy to their attempts to by votes with taxpayer money.

Confused
This seems an oddly confused column. Presumably rights are not inconsistent with what Franklin meant by a republic, or the republic was lost with the passage of the bill of rights.

London is right that some issues are not well handled in the name of rights, and even right that the reason is often that rights are such a sledgehammer approach that allows for no accomodations to situations.

But he runs over rights that would limit the government and those that would grow it (that is positive vs negative rights) as if they were the same thing. The result is that although he tacitly accepts the Bill of Rights, there is nothing in his argument which would not apply equally against it.

Other People's $$$$$
Other People's Money (O.P.M.) is the Opiate of Your Masters.

Intent of America's Founders?
Does this look like our Founding Fathers intended America to be run by Communists?

United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

sjt18
Your 11:33 post was outstanding.

I think
this site is screwy. It's not displaying entered comments.

hm
Methinks I should be more patient.

Opposition in Libs Face
__Hustler,The Republic,our founding fathers refered to,is exemplified more by the republican parties,and its base,than those aligned with the democrats.At one time this wasn't so,but the liberal control,that secures their dominion, ripped it away.The individual interest of the party became of greater interest than the whole. They proudly claim concern for the individual, but never do anything on,or of,their own, to remedy the situation. I see(lilly)posted here saying,"In a park one block from where I am sitting, chronically mentally ill men are sleeping outdoors tonight because they are unable to take care of themselves (get and sustain a job, get and sustain personal hygiene, get and sustain medication)." I wonder how many times she stopped with a cup of soup,an extra blanket,a kind word? Maybe never,I don't know, but I do know that,if only one person stopped, that did more than anyone liberally driving by.I wish libs would actually read about this Republic.A good starting point might be Volume 1 of Pollak's,The Constitution and the Supreme Court.

Neither party
is a great reflection of the founders though the Republicans are closer than the Dems. That's not difficult though. Dems don't even give lip service to limited gov't. Their ideals are almost universally opposite those of the founders.

sjt18 dems reflect pure democracy
__They imagine that,"by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights,they would,at the same time,be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions,their opinions,and their passions." From Madison speaking of the faults of a pure democracy.At the time he was presenting arguments of why a Republic,over a democracy was the most stable form of government.Reading his 10th Federalist paper,along with other documents from the convention,our founding fathers had the liberals pegged.Theoretic politicians had been around long before our present liberal speculators sought power.They knew a traveling medicine man when the saw him peddling his wares,speculating on a public looking for a quick cure.

Rights come from God, and not men
THE FOUNDING PRINCIPLES

Are found in the Declaration of Independence
---------------------------------------------


We hold these truths

(notice the 's' showing more than one truth is revealed)


to be self-evident,

(so plain it is common knowledge, inherent in each man to not need to be taught him)



(Truth 1.) that all men are created equal,




(2)that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

(3)that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

(4) - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,

(5)deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -

(6) That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,

(7) and to institute new Government,

(8)laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
------------------------------------------


This line, line number 8 shows the underlying principle this Nation is Founded in is the truths 1-8

"laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form"


And the very First Principle Jefferson listed is
Rights come from God.



"We hold these truths to be self-evident,



that all men are created equal,

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

These God given Rights were Ratified into the US Constitution in 1791.


These restrictions, I think, are so guarded as to hinder evil only. However, if we do not have them now, I have so much confidence in my countrymen as to be satisfied that we shall have them as soon as the degeneracy of our government shall render them necessary." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:450, Papers 15:367

lilly
Just exactly how much responsibility should the govt. have for you? Trouble is the more responsibility you cede to the govt. the more rights you lose. Everything comes with a string attached.

Expound the Truth
Well said!

Expound Truth
Possibly a better start than Pollak's book would be Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787. Better than The Federalist Papers for clarity of Founders original intent, since it is written in 2nd person paraphrasing of actual conversation.

sjt18
annthem writes: Thursday, July, 12, 2007 2:53 PM
sjt18
Your 11:33 post was outstanding."


I agree. You have any book recommendations that reflect this line of thinking?

lilly

>>>
Does a government have no moral obligation to defend its people?
>>>

You have have attempted to redefine the meaning of 'defend'. 'Defend' does not mean to tend, manage, or nurse.

Look it up.

Solo
My first employer put its mgt trainees through a week long libertarian camp. The guy discussed politics and business. I think it was simply called "The Freedom School".

I think it may still in operation in SC. The guy's name was Cullinane but the effort originated with Robert Lefevre. You can get an intro here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/lefevre1.html.

I am not quite as laissez faire on foreign policy as he advocates and don't believe we can afford to be in an age of instant mass destruction. However his ideas about man, liberty, and rights are dead on.

Here's a book by Lefevre that I've owned for years in hardcopy. Again, you may not agree completely... but it is thought provoking. His reasoning is very solid, logical, consistent with truth, and threads his ideals through historical proof.

http://www.mises.org/story/1970
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.