Volume 7, Issue 10
In the late 1700s, France was a country coming off the Seven Years’ War, transcontinental expensive expeditions, and military campaigns in the new Americas. The monarchy of Louis XVI raised taxes and rationed resources to the benefit of the aristocracy. The French Revolution was a reaction to proletariat oppression.
However, the French Revolution began without a foundational premise for what the people wanted to supplant the monarchy. Rebel leaders preached change for change’s sake. Reasoning only was their driving force. In fact, riotous citizens built statues of the goddess Reason in the public squares and worshiped her. But reason pursued had no foundation of purpose. Reasoning without premise is like a ship on a stormy sea without a compass for navigation.
The French Revolution ended with Napoleon ultimately becoming the Emperor of France. The Napoleonic Wars of Europe followed.
In 1776, the colonies of America declared independence from Great Britain and the American Revolutionary War ensued. The declaration was established on sound premise that all men are created equal. All rights are unalienable and come from God. All citizens have an equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Government is established to the serve the people in a democracy. All reasoning emanating from this premise resulted in the Constitution of the United States of America.
The U.S. Constitution was ratified by the states in 1789. The premise was codified into law. The French Revolution began in the same year of 1789 and ended in 1799 with Napoleon becoming the leader of the new republic. The uncertainty of commitment to a foundational premise of liberty over government lingers and impacts French politics today.
What is the premise on which she bases this reasoning?
Socialism has been tried many times, in many forms, through many different structures. It has always failed miserably. Whether a monarchy, a despot, or a dictator, socialism has never met the prescribed objectives. Why? Because government control requires standardization of society against the natural framework of diversity in culture and individual definition of the pursuit of happiness.
Communism is a more extreme prototype of government manipulation. Socialism in Europe today allows for free speech, demonstrations and debate. Communism does not. The former Soviet Union was a test of total government control operated over a population supposedly large enough to generate economic growth internally and citizen prosperity. The Soviet case study is now the subject and required reading for all government leaders on what not to do.
China is experimenting with a communist economic command model that extends an overvalued currency to developing areas of the world to secure a foothold for resources and controlled trade. Have no question, it is not working. China today is pleading with the United States not to restrict their access to our markets. It is the open free enterprise system of the United States, based on the premise that, in freedom and equal pursuit of opportunity and the desires and free and open choices of the individual, prosperity is attained. Adam Smith and John Wesley were right in this reasoning. Karl Marx was wrong.
Progressive leaders continue to pursue government policy wherein government power is paramount to individual liberty. The approach in their argument is to first remove the premise of fact leaving the reasoning process unattached. In Christian philosophy, Eve was approached by the great deceiver, Satan, to take a bite of the forbidden fruit. Satan didn’t argue that it was OK to break God’s law. He simply tried to remove God from the equation. It’s OK. Take a bite. You will receive enlightenment and knowledge. There will be no consequences. Eve made a decision based solely on its impact on her personally. Upon partaking, Adam and Eve introduced sin to the world, and the world fell.
Robespierre, the famous leader of the French Revolution, was intent on destroying the monarchy and removing all of its vestiges. Nothing was recognized to be of value of the old system. Quickly, the economy collapsed, chaos resulted leading to Napoleon. The crown was replaced with an emperor.
In America, the premise of unalienable rights and a subservient government established the premise for the reasoning of new government structure. Certain aspects of British society were maintained. The court system was restructured on the reasoning of the Bill of Rights. The magistrate enforced the law pursuant to the new purpose and premise. Free trade and commerce developed between the states as an extension of the reasoning of interstate commerce.
In other words, change was based on a premise of freedom, having learned from the past transgressions of history.
To demand socialism today repeats the mistakes of history that are consistent in application and result. Throwing out a health care system that adequately serves 80% of the population is, as a starting point, foolhardy. It is critical to examine what works and do what is necessary to support the 20% in need of assistance. Standardization, which is a key building block of socialism, is an anathema to the character of humankind.
In the coming 2020 presidential debates, progressives will argue for socialized medicine, redistribution of wealth, and government control of economic growth. This may sound good to a particular librarian in Des Moines, Iowa. In a recent interview, a woman formerly supporting Hilary Clinton is now leaning toward Bernie Sanders. She is being asked to decide to support socialism based upon the removal of any premise, and therefore, in its abandonment, only consider such policies’ personal impact on herself.
She is on a fixed income. Her benefits are set. Her retirement is in place. Her worry is whether the government can fulfill their promises to her. She has to decide whether the concept of free enterprise and a rising tide raises all boats is better security for her static economic existence than the promise of socialism and total government control. In her eyes, the outcome is the same regardless.
If the premise is removed from the quotient, then the decision is only about what it means to her as an individual. Fear now becomes a component of the decision-making process and enlightenment is excluded.
It is important to note that socialism and communism has not always failed primarily on oppression of the people. They failed by collapse of their own weight upon themselves. They were unable to provide the basic services in the expectation of the people. In times of austerity, the aristocracy, or government officials who replaced them, always take care of themselves first.
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her compatriots, Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren, are pursuing a Robespierre philosophy of reasoning without premise. They propose change for change’s sake. Their political ideology ignores the lessons of history.
The United States of America, its Constitution, and its record of commitment to its founding premise of freedom and liberty for all, are worthy of building upon foundationally. The United States is the last hope and safe harbor for peoples of the world seeking unalienable rights.
For the librarian in Iowa to answer the political question of whether Abandoning the Premise of Reason will provide security for her and her family, she only has to read the history of France.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?