Volume 10, Issue 2
The same motto can be said for a government that respects and serves its citizens.
The United States of America, in reaching its potential to be greater as a whole than the sum of its parts, went through more than one iteration in structure. The original American colonies found they were doomed to an exercise of subservience being parts of a whole represented by a king who cared less about the parts than his own crown. They declared independence.
Under the Articles of Confederation, the United Colonies established a weak central government that did not allow for the partnership of power or the sharing of sacrifice for the greater good. Insurrection resulted. George Washington called for a moral cease and desist in Americans fighting Americans.
Alexander Hamilton, among other Founding Fathers, argued for a new constitution with a strong central government. The first call for a Constitutional Convention went out in 1785. Three colonies responded. Upon a worsening economic climate, a second call was issued for a Constitutional Convention in 1786. Six colonies responded. As societal order continued to disintegrate, a third call for a Constitutional Convention was authorized. All thirteen original colonies responded.
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was convened on May 25th. For many of the delegates, the intents and purpose of meeting were to rewrite for correction the Articles of Confederation. James Madison along with Alexander Hamilton were inspired to design a completely new structure of government wherein both power and sacrifice were shared to create a whole (a country) greater than the sum of its parts (the states and the people).
These shared sacred responsibilities required a commitment to principles defining the character and culture of a new United States. They believed that Freedom unleashed potential for the individual. A government whose purpose was to protect the rights of the parts (the people) not only created a whole greater than the sum of the parts, but the people themselves became greater as a part of a whole than they would have as separate individual entities.
This lineage of constitutional government has set the standard for individual prosperity not only in quantified economic terms, but in statement of moral character.
Throughout its history, the United States has found itself many times divided on any number of issues: from women’s rights, to minority rights, to family values, to prohibition, the Federal Reserve, taxation, monopolies, and foreign policy. Surviving these societal confrontations was never easy. However, even in our worst of times, defining what it means to be an American was ultimately the resolute solution.
Not always was it the intent of certain leaders to include all people in the definition of the whole for benefits as members. The Civil War was fought over this intractable debate of whether or not freedom belonged to everyone.
Today, the United States is moving dangerously close to destruction. The country is driven by tribal emotions to such depths of division that only the parts have relevance without any consideration for the good of the whole. The United States Constitution does not require a voter to be a U.S. citizen to vote for federal offices, including President. For the first 220 years, it was just assumed that only U.S. citizens would vote. A federal law was not passed until 1996 that stated the qualification for voters to cast a vote for federal office requiring one to be a U.S. citizen.
This law was not enacted because there was widespread evidence of foreign illegal voting. It was passed to emphasize the responsibility and obligation of U.S. voters to protect their own country by participating in the policy supporting the concept of the American character.
It is very difficult to enforce this law without a residency requirement, a registration, and a signature verification. Most Americans would agree that only U.S. citizens should vote in U.S. elections. They have little concern about registering. Yet, the number one priority of progressives is to pass HR1, the new federal voting rights act. They claim that passage of this law is imperative for minorities’ rights to fully participate in American democracy.
The law requires the elimination of residency requirements, registration, and signature verification. Further, the universal mailing of ballots without personal request is mandatory. Harvesting of ballots at a central location for redistribution is legal. Any state requiring the facilitation of voting to be administered by a certified election board representative is illegal.
If HR1 is necessary to fully empower all American citizens to vote, then so be it. But it should only be temporarily administered until all citizens can be brought to the same capacity of comfort to perform for the greater good of the common identity.
Considering all of the chaos in the world, each of us must continually ask ourselves, what does it mean to be an American?
Only in answering this question can we continue to grow and prosper as a whole. Seldom are the French looked to for the purpose of defining culture. However, in the recent brouhaha with the British over supplying a submarine to Australia, their defiance in losing the contract quickly devolved past particulars to the fact that the British were not…well, French.
Many accuse the French of arrogance. At least they are comfortable in being united in their nationality. The French economy has been recovering at a competitive pace since 2020. French workers are not refusing to go back to work. This is not to suggest that the French democratic socialistic model should be used as a template. But it appears to work for them.
When the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts, tribalism emerges as a societal priority. Demagoguery naturally embellishes the emotions of identity politics. The United States originally existed as, and passed a constitution to support the concept of, “the great melting pot.” America was the country where people of lesser parts sought to escape from governments that did not include all parts in the definition of the greater whole.
Somewhere in every American’s definition of what it means to be an American must include the word freedom. If the definition has nothing to do with individual freedom, then tribalism as a greater whole prevails. You can have that whole, but it will never be greater than the sum of its parts.
Today, President Biden held a news conference to outline the successes of his first year in office. He said, “Capitalism without competition is exploitation.” In this we must all agree. But too much government management and intervention in free enterprise, for the benefit of certain parts rather than the whole, leads to tyranny. Such a result would bring America back full circle to 1776.
The great experiment of the United States Constitution, birthed out of necessity to govern a whole greater than the sum of its parts, is as greatly challenged today as at any time in its history. In the absence of national leadership, it is now up to the citizens of the United States to take up their rightful authority, regardless of race, creed, color, or sex, to declare allegiance to the national purpose of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Believing in shared power and equal sacrifice for the greater common character is not only worthy, but eternal in ordained principle.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?