Volume 6, Issue 39
To answer the above questions, we as a people must ask ourselves how America achieved its current position in the world.
The United States Has All the Marbles
The above headline appears sweeping. It is. Yet it is absolutely true. America enjoys the largest domestic market in the world. Fifty-percent of everything made in the world is consumed in the United States. No country can prosper without selling goods and services to the U.S. The average exports of all countries, as a percent of their GDP, is 80%. For the U.S, it is 30%. For China, it is 70%. Did you ever wonder why only the U.S. threatens trade sanctions? It’s because we are the only country that can? And no country can withstand a trade war with the United States.
America exercises the world’s largest banking system. Grassroots community banks are the strength of our capital distribution. We have the largest military. The US Dollar is the world’s primary currency. Many countries in the world use the dollar as their own sovereign currency. The U.S. Federal Reserve is now the world’s Federal Reserve. U.S. Monetary policy is now inherent with sensitivity for interest rates worldwide.
One often overlooked strength of America is that we are the only country in the world with a middle class financially capable of buying everything the U.S. makes. In this, America is secure in its own economic policy. Every other country in the world must export to survive.
The world’s language is English. The world’s culture trends American. The United States’ university system is the envy of the world. In China today, citizens seek ways to immigrate to the U.S. Literally no one in the U.S. attempts to immigrate to China. If, however, a U.S. citizen wants to leave the country, they can. Citizens cannot leave China without government permission.
Today, President Trump addressed the United Nations. He made the statement that great accomplishments had been achieved in his first two years in office. The U.N. delegates laughed. CNN reported that they were laughing at the President. From what perch of sovereign achievement would any delegate of any nation-state in the U.N. dare to laugh at the United States? Few countries protect their citizens’ rights as a priority. Rule of law to many is a statement only. Their economies depend upon the United States. Their security depends upon the benevolence of the U.S. armed forces. Their currency, and therefore their transactions, are backed by the U.S. dollar. A majority of all international contracts specify U.S. law as the basis for disputes. A survey of their citizens reveals that, even with the constant criticsm of the United States by world leaders, international citizens either desire to live in the U.S. or covet our freedom. The United States remains the world’s asylum for a safe harbor. The laughter in the U.N. was the sound of hypocrites in denial.
It is critical to ponder, after 6,000 years of recorded history, how did the United States arrive at this status?
The Confederate Flag
In conflicts of cultural ideology, it is imperative to consider the value of the past, applied to the present, and projected into the future. The Confederate flag was a symbol of a time when slavery was acceptable. Such an emblem made a large segment of American society very uncomfortable. It added nothing to the bonds of unity. It was necessary that the flag be removed from all government buildings, public parks, and areas of public domain. Robert E. Lee argued in his memoirs that he reluctantly fought for the cultural heritage of the south. History deems him honorable in this solemn creed. The heritage that he defended included slavery. Slavery is an abomination to mankind. Therefore, even statues that, in their presence, raise memories of time past when men were oppressed, must be eliminated. In this case, the past, applied to the present, has no value for the future.
Women’s Suffrage and Slavery
Women did not have the right to vote in the United States until the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1920. If the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution declared that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that ‘we the people’ includes all people, men and women, how were African-Americans and women excluded? Unfortunately, it was the prevailing view of the culture at the time. It doesn’t make it right. It wasn’t. What’s important is that the principles of the constitution were constantly pursued on the recognition of the morality of the issue. A Civil War bled American lives in resolution of the dispute. The Union could have been dissolved and the evil would have been exacerbated. The constitution would have failed for lack of a defense.
Women’s suffrage was successful in changing the prevailing view of the culture of the time based on the premise that the constitution and ‘we the people’ included women. The constitution is worth defending for the hope and the privilege of all races and all genders.
The Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearings
The Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation Senate hearings in our time represent on one hand the constitutional rights of an individual, and on another hand, the efforts of the Me Too movement to change the prevailing view of the culture as they feel the moral commitment. An initial question facing the Judiciary Committee members is what is the standard of proof to render judgement on conflicting allegations? Is it the lesser standard of the preponderance of the evidence or the greater burden of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’? An argument can be made that the more important legal principle is ‘burden of proof.’
‘Right by trial of one’s peers (a jury)’ was first established in the Magna Carta in 1215. The king could make unsubstantiated allegations against a noble. The noble could be found guilty, without any corroborating evidence, based solely on the king’s word. The nobles wanted rights to defend themselves against such persecution. From this Old English law came the right of cross examination of an accuser. The burden of proof rests initially with the accuser. A basic foundation must be built on the facts to support the legitimacy of the allegation. The burden of proof then shifts to the defendant to prove that he or she did not commit that particular crime. It is this standard of the initial substantiation of fact that Dr. Christine Ford must meet.
Democratic Senators argue that, if Dr. Ford believes this happened and that Judge Kavanaugh committed the egregious act, she simply must be taken seriously. She has no burden of proof. They argue further that the prevailing culture of the time must be confronted in its contempt of women coming forward.
The effort to change the prevailing view of our culture in this time is in direct conflict with the constitutional rights of Judge Kavanaugh. Both persons pursue righteousness from their point of view. Both commitments of morality applied from the past to the present, and projected to the future are in recognition of the morality of the issues. Therefore, both premises have righteous merit.
In these conflicts of the righteousness of principles is the Kavanaugh conundrum.
Now, each of us must take inventory of our own thoughts and answer for ourselves this essential question: why and how did America become the greatest country the world has ever known?
Any resolution of the Kavanaugh conundrum must protect, defend, honor, and hold dear this personal truth.
We did not self-declare this greatness upon ourselves like Nazi Germany tried to do. We have not dominated other countries by force like the Romans did. We have not enforced our will on the world. Through the natural process of peoples seeking the freedom to make their own choices for their beliefs, their vocations, their lifestyles, and their family values, individuals have sought America and her opportunities.
America’s greatness is the purity of the human spirit unchained through all spiritual dimensions.
Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation or rejection must be based on all our constitutional rights, even if it means a continued struggle in changing the prevailing view of the culture in our time. For to do otherwise would catapult us back to 1215 when a person’s word could mean the loss of life and property. Such retreat of moral principle would defeat the entire purpose and hope of 1776.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?