Volume 5, Issue 16
How does this compare to an American celebration of our country’s founding?
We decentralize parades down to the city level. We celebrate children, family, hot dogs, outdoor bar-b-ques, veterans, local bands, picnics and fireworks. These parochial displays are reflections of the National celebration in Washington, DC which includes a parade and concerts. Fireworks are the unifying activity for all celebrations. We do not parade missiles, nor do we have goose-stepping troops illustrating the dominance of dictatorial authority. In other words, we celebrate naturally what we celebrate in life.
This comparison of celebrations, which reflects our priorities in life, could not be more stark.
The United States of America was founded on the premise that God is sovereign over man, and man is sovereign over government. There is no role, authority, or natural order for government to intercede between God and man in purpose or orchestration of God-given inalienable rights. This revolutionary ideal, presented to the world in the Declaration of Independence and signed on July 4th of 1776, gifted the principle that these inalienable rights included the individual pursuit of happiness as ordained by God’s purpose in a relationship with an individual. An obvious axiom and resulting principle from the recognition of the inalienable rights is that total standardization of societal life is an anathema to freedom. Determining how to maintain freedom for all individuals through complicated circumstances of the intersection of religion and societal morals is the ongoing effort and purpose of a developing constitutional democracy.
This struggle of the individual pursuit of happiness through freedom ordained versus autocratic dictates to control a society for the sole good and purpose of a nationalistic order or moral code is still prevalent in the world today.
Part and parcel of the debate surrounding Brexit centers on the conflict of government versus individual rights. The United States, of course, was strongly influenced by Europe in its colonial period. Many ideas, but not all, of our constitutional rights originated in Great Britain. “Europa”, in its historical context, developed around monarchies and principalities. But in the late 19th century, it reached its apex of economic synergies to produce goods and services without the element of war. The European Union (EU) was envisioned to copy the United States, not its own cultural history. In fact, one of the arguments for national referendums to support the EU treaty was that they would become the United States of Europe.
Yet, for many reasons involving nationalism, regulation, currency management, and labor force movements, Britons were emboldened to vote to leave the EU. The debate really centered on ‘can we all be made the same through standardization of economic process and opportunity to the benefit of all?’ The answer is no. Individual pursuit of happiness through unregulated freedom is the critical ingredient of the formula for economic production. It is simply each of us deciding how we will use our individual resources and energy as we see fit in this pursuit of happiness. In this collective, unregulated pursuit, economic activity is efficiently expanded. Yes, there must be laws and regulations. Capitalism can result in an entity, an organization or an individual accumulating capital. This can also be achieved by a monarchy, a dictatorship, or someone who has financial talent, like the Rothschilds. However, what should be less regulated is free enterprise which allows anyone to pursue happiness, as he or she sees fit, and let fair results be what they may.
China is another example of communism attempting to emulate capitalism when command policies fail to render desired results. Deng Xiaoping came to the conclusion in 1976 that communism doesn’t work economically. He was right. There is little individual private ownership in China today. It impedes economic activity. Without private ownership, the Chinese fail to understand the goal of unrestricted pursuit of happiness. For instance, entertainment is a natural element of happiness. There, sports teams are all state teams. There is very little city pride. In the NBA playoffs, Oklahomans want the OKC Thunder to beat the Houston Rockets. They want victory in and through the sportsmanship of competitive athletics. No citizen of OKC or Houston harbors ill will toward the other citizen. Healthy city-state competition was actually originated by the Greeks.
The Chinese government fears allowing any freedom of self-determination for Chinese citizens. Communist governments are afraid of any loyalty to anything but the State. They believe that individualism weakens support for the State. Here in America, we are loyal to each other and our country. In national issues of health care and defense, we’re all Americans.
In the United States today, the national news media would portray our country to be in great turmoil in reference to the leadership of the Trump Administration. Such intellectuals are remiss and negligent not to put our political debate into the proper historical and world context of the progress made as a democracy towards individual rights and the leadership that the United States continues to deliver to the world in economic structure. Progressives would have you believe that society and citizens’ activities must be standardized, that one shoe fits all sizes. This was not the intent of our Founding Fathers. That is why they went to such great lengths to pen into the Constitution states’ rights. This was to allow for diversity in ideas, culture, religion, and ethnicity for individuals in their pursuit of happiness that the diversity of the human race exemplifies.
In this collective diversity of pursuit of happiness was the collective purpose of the United States of America as one.
Donald Trump’s approach and protocol may appear messy. As in any open society, the press and the public should be able to question government motives and expect answers. But this fear by the progressives of individuality, and a presidency that embraces it, is unnatural and regressive.
Think about this. Every country and area of the world mimics and borrows from the United States for government structure and economic policy, except for North Korea.
What then is the result of North Korean policy? Goose-stepping troops and missile parades.
In the 1990s, I was involved in diplomatic projects for the United States with China. At a private state dinner in Beijing, I was asked by the then Secretary of State of China, how did I think democracy was working. I took it as a serious question and began defending the progress for human rights that we had made in our then 215-year history. He stopped me mid-sentence and said, “Marc, it’s a trick question. The answer is, ‘it’s too soon to tell.’” He went on to lecture me that China had a 5,000-year history, and had, in fact, had been separated several times for more than 200 years through different Dynasties.
Last night I hosted a Chinese delegation exploring the possibility of investment in the United States. At the close of dinner walking out the door, a Chinese Millennial referenced to me that people in China are not really happy. They are not allowed individual pursuit of happiness. He looked at me and said, “There are hundreds, if not thousands, of Chinese every day seeking to leave China for a better life in America. How many Americans are leaving the United States seeking a better life in China?” He held up his hand to make the sign and mouthed the word silently, “Zero.”
It is imperative that the United States honor the Founding Fathers’ legacy of defending all inalienable rights. Perhaps my response to the Secretary of State of China should have been, “Yes, you have a history of 5,000 years, and you still don’t have it right yet.”
Whether it is too soon to tell or not about the success of democracy versus autocracy, in the lesson of 6,000 years of recorded history, democracy is the world’s only hope.
May the United States always be the vanguard for the defense of democracy.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?