In his May 29 post, Keenan described the System of Profound Knowledge in 'Deming Can Teach You Everything You Need To Know . . . .'
That post prompted me to reflect on why all Americans, young and old alike, should take the time and make the effort to study the history and know better the underlying reasons why American Exceptionalism is both real and unique. So here goes.
Magna Carta: Eight Centuries of Liberty does a superb job of describing our unique American system of governance, and our civic responsibilities as 'owners' of the greatest nation the world has ever known. So with that in mind, let's consider relevant portions of this highly educational, informative and thought provoking essay:
"Eight hundred years ago next month, on a reedy stretch of riverbank in southern England, the most important bargain in the history of the human race was struck. . . . As Lord Denning, the most celebrated modern British jurist put it, Magna Carta was “the greatest constitutional document of all time, the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot.”
It was at Runnymede, on June 15, 1215, that the idea of the law standing above the government first took contractual form. King John accepted that he would no longer get to make the rules up as he went along. From that acceptance flowed, ultimately, all the rights and freedoms that we now take for granted: uncensored newspapers, security of property, equality before the law, habeas corpus, regular elections, sanctity of contract, jury trials. . . .
The bishops and barons who had brought King John to the negotiating table understood that rights required an enforcement mechanism. The potency of a charter is not in its parchment but in the authority of its interpretation. The constitution of the U.S.S.R., to pluck an example more or less at random, promised all sorts of entitlements: free speech, free worship, free association. But as Soviet citizens learned, paper rights are worthless in the absence of mechanisms to hold rulers to account.
Magna Carta instituted a form of conciliar rule that was to develop directly into the Parliament that meets at Westminster today. As the great Victorian historian William Stubbs put it, “the whole constitutional history of England is little more than a commentary on Magna Carta.”
And not just England. Indeed, not even England in particular. Magna Carta has always been a bigger deal in the U.S. . . . .
The early settlers arrived while these rows were at their height and carried the mania for Magna Carta to their new homes. As early as 1637, Maryland sought permission to incorporate Magna Carta into its basic law, and the first edition of the Great Charter was published on American soil in 1687 by William Penn, who explained that it was what made Englishmen unique: “In France, and other nations, the mere will of the Prince is Law, his word takes off any man’s head, imposeth taxes, or seizes any man’s estate, when, how and as often as he lists; But in England, each man hath a fixed Fundamental Right born with him, as to freedom of his person and property in his estate, which he cannot be deprived of, but either by his consent, or some crime, for which the law has imposed such a penalty or forfeiture.”
There was a divergence between English and American conceptions of Magna Carta. In the Old World, it was thought of, above all, as a guarantor of parliamentary supremacy; in the New World, it was already coming to be seen as something that stood above both Crown and Parliament. This difference was to have vast consequences in the 1770s.
The American Revolution is now remembered on both sides of the Atlantic as a national conflict—as, indeed, a “War of Independence.” But no one at the time thought of it that way—not, at any rate, until the French became involved in 1778. Loyalists and patriots alike saw it as a civil war within a single polity, a war that divided opinion every bit as much in Great Britain as in the colonies.
The American Revolutionaries weren’t rejecting their identity as Englishmen; they were asserting it. As they saw it, George III was violating the “ancient constitution” . . . . It was therefore not just their right but their duty to resist, in the words of the delegates to the first Continental Congress in 1774, “as Englishmen our ancestors in like cases have usually done.”
Nowhere, at this stage, do we find the slightest hint that the patriots were fighting for universal rights. On the contrary, they were very clear that they were fighting for the privileges bestowed on them by Magna Carta. The concept of “no taxation without representation” was not an abstract principle. It could be found, rather, in Article 12 of the Great Charter: “No scutage or aid is to be levied in our realm except by the common counsel of our realm.” . . .
The rights we now take for granted—freedom of speech, religion, assembly and so on—are not the natural condition of an advanced society. They were developed overwhelmingly in the language in which you are reading these words.
When we call them universal rights, we are being polite. Suppose World War II or the Cold War had ended differently: There would have been nothing universal about them then. If they are universal rights today, it is because of a series of military victories by the English-speaking peoples. . . .
Think of the world as it stood in 1939. Constitutional liberty was more or less confined to the Anglosphere. Everywhere else, authoritarianism was on the rise. Our system, uniquely, elevated the individual over the state, the rules over the rulers. . . .
The very success of Magna Carta makes it hard for us, 800 years on, to see how utterly revolutionary it must have appeared at the time. Magna Carta did not create democracy . . . .
What Magna Carta initiated, rather, was constitutional government—or, as the terse inscription on the American Bar Association’s stone puts it, “freedom under law.”
It takes a real act of imagination to see how transformative this concept must have been. The law was no longer just an expression of the will of the biggest guy in the tribe. Above the king brooded something more powerful yet—something you couldn’t see or hear or touch or taste but that bound the sovereign as surely as it bound the poorest wretch in the kingdom. That something was what Magna Carta called “the law of the land.”
This phrase is commonplace in our language. But think of what it represents. The law is not determined by the people in government, nor yet by clergymen presuming to interpret a holy book. Rather, it is immanent in the land itself, the common inheritance of the people living there.
The idea of the law coming up from the people, rather than down from the government, is a peculiar feature of the Anglosphere. Common law is an anomaly, a beautiful, miraculous anomaly. In the rest of the world, laws are written down from first principles and then applied to specific disputes, but the common law grows like a coral, case by case, each judgment serving as the starting point for the next dispute. In consequence, it is an ally of freedom rather than an instrument of state control. It implicitly assumes residual rights.
And indeed, Magna Carta conceives rights in negative terms, as guarantees against state coercion. No one can put you in prison or seize your property or mistreat you other than by due process. This essentially negative conception of freedom is worth clinging to in an age that likes to redefine rights as entitlements—the right to affordable health care, the right to be forgotten and so on.
It is worth stressing, too, that Magna Carta conceived freedom and property as two expressions of the same principle. The whole document can be read as a lengthy promise that the goods of a free citizen will not be arbitrarily confiscated by someone higher up the social scale. Even the clauses that seem most remote from modern experience generally turn out, in reality, to be about security of ownership. . . .
Liberty and property: how naturally those words tripped, as a unitary concept, from the tongues of America’s Founders. These were men who had been shaped in the English tradition, and they saw parliamentary government not as an expression of majority rule but as a guarantor of individual freedom. How different was the Continental tradition, born 13 years later with the French Revolution, which saw elected assemblies as the embodiment of what Rousseau called the “general will” of the people.
In that difference, we may perhaps discern explanation of why the Anglosphere resisted the chronic bouts of authoritarianism to which most other Western countries were prone. We who speak this language have always seen the defense of freedom as the duty of our representatives and so, by implication, of those who elect them. Liberty and democracy, in our tradition, are not balanced against each other; they are yoked together. . . .
Most other countries have fallen for, or at least fallen to, dictators. Many, during the 20th century, had popular communist parties or fascist parties or both. The Anglosphere, unusually, retained a consensus behind liberal capitalism.
This is not because of any special property in our geography or our genes but because of our constitutional arrangements. Those constitutional arrangements can take root anywhere. They explain why Bermuda is not Haiti, why Hong Kong is not China, why Israel is not Syria.
They work because, starting with Magna Carta, they have made the defense of freedom everyone’s responsibility. Americans, like Britons, have inherited their freedoms from past generations and should not look to any external agent for their perpetuation. The defense of liberty is your job and mine. It is up to us to keep intact the freedoms we inherited from our parents and to pass them on securely to our children."
American Exceptionalism is real. Each generation has a duty to past and future generations to preserve and protect the idea that We the People are in charge and not those we elect to serve us.
The Federalist Papers, of which there are 85, were published between 1787 and 1788. Every American should become generally familiar with them and take the time to read at least #10 and #51, respectively. Of course, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution should be read and understood as well.
We the People of each generation continue to make the American road as we go. We always have and we always will. Our freedom to do as we so choose is restricted only by our obligation to not infringe on the equal freedom of others.
It's our duty as free American citizens to deliver to future generations a system of self governance that is equal to that which was given to us.
So let's get busy doing just that.
It's how the system works.
The bad news: most families are still worse off than they were before the Great Recession.
That’s according to the latest data from Sentier Research, which derives the results from government figures. They found that median annual household income rose 0.6% in April to $54,578. That’s 3% higher than the same month of 2014, and 6.2% higher than Aug. 2011.
However, median income is still 2.9% worse than before the onset of the recession in Dec. 2007.
“Our time series charts clearly illustrate that although the economic recovery officially began in June 2009, the recovery in household income did not begin to emerge until after August 2011,” said Gordon Green of Sentier Research in a statement.
The income is presented before tax but adjusted for inflation.
The data fits with the upward trend in measures of consumer confidence, but also with surveys that still show unease about the broader economy.
A separate Federal Reserve survey released Wednesday showed there was just a 3 percentage point rise, from 62% in 2013 to 65% in 2014, in the number of adults who consider their families to be doing “okay” or living “comfortably.” There was an 8 percentage point gain, from 21% to 29%, in those who expected their income to be higher in a year.
That survey also found that retirement was just a dream for many households — 38% said they either won’t retire or plan to keep working as long as possible."
Facts are facts, whether we like to hear about them or not.
And believe it or not, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Janet Yellen, Bruce Rauner, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush and even the Pope can't change what is. They can and do, however, help us to avoid reality by not discussing it openly these days.
When will things improve? Well, they are improving.
But when will they return to what we commonly refer to as normal? That's not likely to happen for a long time, and perhaps for a very long time at that.
Sooner or later we'll relearn the simple truth that rowing our own boat is easier and even more fun that depending on the government gurus to row it for us or tell us how to row it for ourselves.
Until then, they'll continue to talk a good game, but they won't even be talking about the real game.
Politics sucks. Sadly, that's my take.