To
the Founders, some idealists, others more pragmatic, but
revolutionaries all, who believed that a more perfect union was
possible. And to all patriots who struggle to make their dream a
reality.
PATRIOT ACTS
INTRODUCTION
If a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
—Abraham Lincoln, quoting Mark’s gospel
I
am afraid for my country. America has weathered disasters before, but
today, the confluence of national and international crises has created a
perfect storm of fear and unrest. Financial devastation, social and
cultural upheaval, a decade of war, homegrown terrorism, environmental
disruption—the range, magnitude, and complexity of these problems is
unprecedented. The tangible impact on our lives is enormous, but so is
the toll on our national psyche.
For
generations, the American Dream has been within reach for most
citizens. Not everyone would grab the brass ring, but we all had a shot.
With hard work, perseverance, and just a bit of luck, most people could
join the middle class, buy a home, educate their kids, and expect a
modicum of security as they aged. That promise has been fading for quite
some time, but as a nation, we are wonderfully, stubbornly optimistic
and have kept the faith. Suddenly, it vanished, and millions of people
want to know why. Why, through no fault of their own, are they out on
the street or out of a job while U.S. corporate profits reach their
highest levels since 1988? Why are their kids failing in school? Why is
the nation drowning in debt? Who is to blame and what must be done?
Today, Americans view the future with trepidation, not anticipation.
People want explanations, and they want solutions—now. But beware:
Fearful times can produce fearsome responses.
In
moments of crisis, people act in predictable ways. We gather with
people we trust; with those who share our beliefs. External threats
unify the American tribe as we rally together beneath our flag, but
internal threats tend to weaken this bond. Then, we seek out “our kind”
and define “the enemy” as other Americans who don’t fit within our
chosen circle. Depending on the crisis, this can exacerbate religious,
racial, social, and political differences and strain the very fabric of
our nation.
Any
student of history, not to mention most news pundits and politicians,
knows how to capitalize on these tendencies. Divide and conquer is an
ancient and effective tactic, and fear of the “others,” domestic or
foreign, will always provoke a worried population. Political candidates
routinely trumpet or exaggerate threats from the opposition to rally
constituents, win elections, and grab or consolidate power. This
convenient short-term strategy can spiral out of control, providing
legitimacy for a host of radical positions and the people who advocate
them. Suddenly, what was fringe is deemed mainstream. History
demonstrates that if people are fearful enough, civil liberties and the
rule of law, even a constitutional government, can be coaxed from a
gullible and frightened electorate without firing a shot.
We
are facing such a moment. The tiny birther movement that first
questioned President Obama’s citizenship in 2008 was encouraged by
Republican leaders with a wink and a nod. By early 2011, former
Republican governor and Fox News host Mike Huckabee was delivering as
fact a fabricated tale of Obama’s Kenyan upbringing, Mau Mau philosophy,
Muslim religion, and anti-American intentions. Presidential hopeful
Newt Gingrich said Obama’s political views could be understood “only if
you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior.” He declared that the
president’s administration heads up a “secular-socialist machine” that
represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet
Union. Essentially, these and other so-called mainstream conservative
figures are saying that we have a Manchurian candidate in the White
House who, along with his party and political supporters, is plotting to
destroy the country. They equivocate when pressed, but the message is
clear: “Real Americans” must stop this subversive takeover by any means
necessary.
Nevada
senatorial candidate Sharon Angle suggested that if conservatives lost
at the ballot box in 2010, second-amendment remedies might be needed to
save the country. Congresswoman and current presidential candidate
Michele Bachmann said she wanted her constituents “armed and dangerous”
during the 2009 fight over an energy tax, and has called for national
hearings to investigate the patriotism of her Democrat colleagues. In
January 2011, Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords was stalked and
seriously wounded by a gunman while attending a local gathering with her
constituents. Six people died in the hail of bullets and eighteen were
injured. The entire nation was horrified. Any suggestion that violent
rhetoric could inspire such an event was denounced as an attempt to
capitalize on the tragedy. Clearly, the shooter was deranged. Case
closed.
Or is it? The Huckabee and Gingrich comments I mentioned came after
the shooting. With the 2012 election season under way, I expect to hear
more of this dangerous talk. If candidates tell their followers that
opponents are not only wrong on policy, but an actual threat to our
national survival, that they created our economic troubles intentionally
to destroy the free markets and enslave the American worker, that
Christianity is under attack and Sharia law is coming to our courts,
what should a real patriot do?
Republicans
in the Wisconsin statehouse didn’t need guns to overthrow our political
system. Deciding that their majority status trumped legislative rules,
in 2011, they voted to eliminate collective bargaining in that state
without a quorum present. So what if the Democrats weren’t even in the
building? Then, they authorized the new GOP governor, Scott Walker, to
disband local elected governments and appoint a private overseer to
manage cities and towns if he alone deemed it an economic necessity.
These are the actions of a dictator and puppet government, not those of
elected officials in a constitutional republic.
As
I watch the political battles escalate, I am reminded of an old Gahan
Wilson cartoon. An infantryman stands alone in a barren, smoldering
landscape. Absolutely nothing is left alive. The punch line: “I think I
won!”
“I think I won!”
Convinced
that the mission is just and true, many hard-liners do not understand
that their vision, if realized, would destroy what they claim to defend.
This land would remain, and the victors could lay claim to it, but its
heart and soul, the greatness that is America, would be gone.
There
is a real battle to be joined in this country, just not the one so many
are waging. When rhetoric and ideological warfare threaten the very
pillars of our democracy, true patriots must act. They must do so armed
with facts, not myths, and with a real understanding of the
extraordinary but fragile system our Founders established.
At
the close of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was
asked, “What sort of government have we?” He replied, “A Republic, if
you can keep it.” It is time we rally in its defense.
I.
What Sort of Government Have We?
Americans
love our country deeply, and when told we’re losing it, nothing can
stop us from fighting. But there seems to be a lot of confusion these
days about the mission. What exactly did the Founders establish? What is
now at risk, and what must be done to preserve the Republic?
Our
Founders created a constitutional government that would protect and
promote a free and diverse society. This secular system was based on the
emerging political philosophy known as “classical liberalism,” which
advocated individual liberty, private property, and representative
democracy. This philosophy was shared by the American revolutionaries,
conservatives and liberals alike. During the drafting and debates,
vigorous attempts were made to skew the Constitution left or right, but
they were defeated. Those who argue otherwise are misleading you
intentionally or are ignorant of historical facts.
In
1789, when these men gathered in Philadelphia to draft the
Constitution, two groups fought vigorously to dominate the convention.
Conservatives wanted another England. Alexander Hamilton argued for a
monarch and a House of Lords. They believed in a strong central
government ruled by the elite. The liberals feared control by an
American aristocracy. They were quite radical in their struggle to limit
such power. Benjamin Franklin wanted a single House of Representatives
with members elected every year and argued against the presidency,
preferring an executive council. The conservatives sought economic
growth and civil order. The liberals wanted individual liberty and real
assurance that average citizens would have a strong voice in the
nation’s affairs. Each side believed passionately in the righteousness
of its position and greatly mistrusted the opposition.
The
Constitution that emerged from this convention became known as James
Madison’s Grand Compromise, a triumph of visionary wisdom over partisan
self-interest. Neither the conservatives nor the liberals gave up their
beliefs about the best way to lead the nation. What they abandoned was
the chance to rig the game, and in return, they accepted a neutral
playing field and the chance to compete fairly in the marketplace of
ideas. Their political theories would be tested in the public arena and
would face a referendum at the ballot box every two, four, or six years.
Win or lose, power would transfer peacefully, and the work of governing
would continue. If unhappy with the results, citizens could change
course in the next election.
To
call this system neutral is not quite accurate: Actually, it promoted
competition by design. Knowing the dangers of direct democracy and how
quickly an impassioned majority can impose its will, both conservatives
and liberals wanted a representative democracy. But even an elected
majority would be constrained by our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
These documents create multiple checks and balances across three
branches of government, including presidential vetoes, congressional
overrides, a complex amendment process, and independent judicial review,
all designed to temper power and ensure that minority voices would be
heard. Interestingly, the wealthy conservatives were adamant about this.
Already outnumbered, they feared that Thomas Jefferson’s common man,
the general population, might seek to suppress their interests.
On
the day our Constitution was adopted, Franklin addressed the
Convention, saying, “If every one of us in returning to our constituents
were to report the objections he has had to it… we might prevent its
being generally received and thereby lose all.”
1
But the Framers realized that the whole was greater than the sum of its
parts, and their crowning achievement was to make a vigorous democratic
process, not partisan ideology, our constitutional mandate.
Our
first political parties emerged before the ink was dry on this noble
document, and the race was on to reframe its mandate and
institutionalize partisan advantage. That our system survives,
relatively intact, is a testament to the power of our democratic ideals
and the willingness of the American people, generation after generation,
to defend them above special interests and partisan beliefs. Without
the push-pull of ideas between liberals and conservatives, our nation
would be a very different place, one I suggest neither side would like.
Unchecked conservatism becomes authoritarian and tyrannical, allowing a
small group of the powerful elite to govern with few checks on their
actions. Extreme liberalism moves toward socialism, even communism, and
delivers control to a different group, government bureaucrats, but still
arrives at the same place—tyranny. Pure liberty leads to anarchy, and
guess what that vacuum invites? Might makes right, and that equals
tyranny.
Political
parties attract like minds, and from their earliest moments, our
conservative and liberal factions have exhibited rather consistent
personalities. My point about the need for balance is made clear if you
imagine what happens if a somewhat controlling, authoritarian father has
no counterbalance in the mother. He may help a scattered family focus
on specific goals but fail to see the drawbacks to his
single-mindedness. He will act quickly when threatened, but he can go
off half-cocked, refusing to take much-needed advice. Confident that his
views are the right ones, he doesn’t tolerate debate or dissent,
preferring that his wards march to a single tune. To him, securing the
family is more important than promoting the community’s welfare, so in
troubled times, he will grab up resources, leaving others to fend for
themselves. The mother seeks to balance interests. She cannot be
narrowly focused, as the long-term well-being of the family is her goal.
She wants each member to be happy and tolerates their unique choices,
loving them no matter what. She sees that a healthy community makes her
own kids safer when they venture out, so she expands her mission beyond
the family circle. But at times, she might listen too long to competing
voices and try too hard to make everyone happy. Important missions might
be neglected as she tolerates too much input or chaotic behavior. This
is, of course, a gross simplification, but at their core, conservatives
seek order and liberals pursue freedom. Maintaining a balance produces
the healthiest, most productive results over the long run.
Conservative
icon Friedrich A. von Hayek was lauded by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher as one of the intellectuals most responsible for their own
political philosophies. His most recognized work is likely The Road to Serfdom. One article they may have missed is entitled Why I Am Not a Conservative. In it, he discusses how political philosophy and personality coincide and the dangers this presents to a real democracy.
Hayek
could not come up with a name for his own political philosophy. Writing
in 1960 and knowing that the terms “liberal” and “progressive” had been
hijacked from their classical meaning, he wasn’t sure what to call
himself. But he adamantly rejected the conservative label for several
reasons. His observations, objections, and descriptions of what he
believed were true American principles are right on target today.
Hayek
applauded the Founders’ “courage and confidence, [their] preparedness
to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will
lead.” Our first political leaders were progressives in the true sense
of the word—designing a future, not clinging to the past. He was
frustrated that modern conservatives defend an imaginary status quo
despite the inevitability of change. He objected to their tendency to
put the brakes on progress without offering a different course. “The tug
of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the
speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments. The critical
question for any American is not how fast or how far we should move, but where we should move, for move we will.”
Hayek
noted similarities between modern conservatives and socialists (not
liberals): Both groups are content to expand government as long as they
are in control. “The conservative does not object to coercion or
arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right
purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men,
it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules… he is less
concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be
limited than with that of who wields them… like the socialist, he
regards himself as entitled to force the values he holds on other
people.”
While possessed of strong moral principles, he found that many conservatives do not hold strong democratic
convictions. Our system requires healthy debate, willingness to work
with political opponents, and respect for our system of government even
when that system thwarts certain conservative objectives. Every American
should defend theses principles above partisan advantage.
These
comments by Hayek were not addressing policy issues—what sort of taxes
or regulations we should have or whether an international crisis calls
for military intervention. Instead, he was talking about the tendency of
conservatives to challenge or ignore our most fundamental
constitutional principles when they block certain goals or permit
outcomes the group opposes.
Hayek
said, “I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they
blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited
government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power.” That
power could reside in an overreaching bureaucracy, or, even worse, might
be handed to a single president by congressional decree. Hayek
concluded that “it is not who governs but what government is entitled to
do that seems to me the essential problem.”
He
did not address the pros or cons of American liberals; but notably,
socialists were his counterpoint to conservatives—the progressives were
somewhere in the middle. His criticisms were targeted, but the
observations create an essential checklist for a healthy democracy.
In
recent years, the partisan attack on our system of government has been
relentless. After 9/11, the Bush administration took actions that far
exceeded executive authority, building what is now known as a “unitary
presidency.” Throughout Bush’s tenure, the Republican-led Congress and
Department of Justice served as a rubber stamp, willingly abdicating
their power to the executive branch as Americans were spied on, civil
and legal rights were curtailed, and martial law was expanded, to list
just a few of the questionable, even unconstitutional measures of that
time.
There
is nothing patriotic about granting such powers to leaders simply
because we agree with their positions. There is nothing American about
abusing the rule of law or ignoring the Constitution when “our side” is
in control. Just as FDR’s Democratic Congress would not let him pack the
Supreme Court, and the Republican Party led the push for Nixon’s
resignation, true patriots will oppose actions by either party that seek
to thwart the democratic process or secure power that exceeds
constitutional authority.
Today,
many conservatives claim that President Obama is overreaching on health
care or stimulus spending, while liberals say the same about his use of
military and security powers. If these claims are true, both sides
should look in the mirror for the real culprits. Congress cannot claim
surprise when succeeding administrations use the power it gave up when
it was politically expedient to do so.
International
threats and tough economic times always increase social tensions, and
the call to restrict freedoms is a predictable response. The battle is
twofold; the curtailing of our liberty in the name of security is one
concern, but so is the targeting of particular groups within our
population. Virtually every ethnic and racial group—the French, Irish,
Chinese, Japanese, African Americans and others—has been demonized at
some point in our history. Most of us would laugh at the notion that a
Catholic president might turn over our government to the pope, yet this
was a serious concern when John F. Kennedy campaigned in 1960. Today,
Hispanics and Muslims are in the crosshairs.
A
dramatic shift in our demographics is underway, with Hispanics on
target to become a majority in the United States by 2050, and illegal
immigration is a major economic and security issue. Since 9/11, global
terrorism has dominated our foreign policy, and now, incidents have
sparked concern over the rise of homegrown terrorists inspired by
Islamic fundamentalists. These issues should be at the top of our
political agenda, but the manner in which they are being addressed is of great concern.
Many
politicians play on our fear and anger to score points with their base,
while certain commentators do it for ratings, promoting draconian
measures and severe crackdowns to demonstrate they are tough on these
problems. The prospect of gutting our constitutional protections does
not disturb them. Nor is truth an obstacle, as they weave fantastic
renderings of our history and produce data from thin air to justify
their positions.
A
fair number of Republicans now believe that President Obama is a Muslim
(he is not), and conservative state legislatures across the country are
scrambling to stop an imagined spread of Sharia law. In March 2011,
Republican Congressman Peter King launched hearings to investigate the
nation’s entire Muslim American community based on its Islamic faith,
rejecting efforts to limit his inquiry to radical elements that might
actually threaten our security.
Glenn
Beck told his Fox News viewers that radical fundamentalists were behind
the democratic uprisings in the Middle East and then made extraordinary
leaps to tie terrorists to the American left, claiming that our unions
are in cahoots with Egyptian radicals. On air, Beck professes to be a
student of history and politics as he manufactures evidence to justify
outrageous theories and proposals. Yet when interviewed in Forbes
magazine in April 2010, Beck was surprisingly candid, saying, “I could
give a flying crap about the political process. We’re an entertainment
company.” Sadly, many followers, including some Republican
officeholders, recite his imaginings as truth. Meanwhile, Beck is
laughing all the way to the bank.
It
has taken several years for thoughtful conservatives to realize just
how destructive a small group of reactionary pundits and politicians can
be to their party. It’s the old adage about riding the tiger—sooner or
later, you’re going to get eaten. By the spring of 2011, George Will and
other respected voices on the right began challenging the credentials
of people like Beck, Michele Bachmann, and Sarah Palin as they realized
the damage these people were doing to true conservatism and to our
constitutional system of government.
I
am all for those who challenge entrenched interests on their own side
of the aisle while vigorously debating the political opposition. Both
political parties are failing the American people and need strong
members to shake things up. I do not agree with some of Congressman Ron
Paul’s positions, but he uses intelligent, reasoned arguments to defend
even unconventional proposals. He has no problem taking on his
Republican leaders or challenging entrenched interests that ignore the
needs of the American people. His is an important voice in our political
debate. But when mavericks choose the easy path—divisive rhetoric,
historical falsehoods, and unconstitutional remedies—then they should be
marginalized, along with their theories.
In
these incendiary times, we should all remember our history. John
Adams’s Alien and Sedition Acts, FDR’s internment of Japanese Americans,
and Senator Joseph McCarthy’s witch hunt from Hollywood to the halls of
Congress are just a few of the moments that Americans now view with
shame. An attack on our pluralistic democracy and constitutional
government for short-term political gain is unworthy of any real
patriot.
In
many nations, elections are revolutionary moments. Heads roll,
governments topple, and wars break out. In the United States, we
celebrate our peaceful transitions. The Founders believed that free
people could debate their differences, cast their ballots, and then work
together for the good of the nation. The losing side may despise the
victors, but if the rules have been followed, true patriots defend this
outcome even as they disagree about policy or philosophy. An attack on
the legitimacy of the winners is an attack on democracy itself.
In
2009, before he got into a nasty primary campaign for his Arizona
Senate seat, John McCain said wisely, “Elections have consequences.”
This was the reason that Al Gore conceded the election in 2000 despite
pleas for him to continue the recount fight. He thought it better for
the nation to rally behind George Bush, a man whose philosophy he
fiercely opposed, than to risk undercutting the government’s legitimacy.
This was the same reason that in April 2010, Republican Senator Tom
Coburn of Oklahoma challenged a rowdy home crowd to stop demonizing the
Democrats. To catcalls, he said his opponents were good people and
challenged his own party to win on the issues, not through personal
attacks on the opposition. To label a large portion of the nation and
their representatives “un-American” as a campaign strategy is as
unpatriotic as it gets.
In
this country, we defend the right of citizens to hold opposing views
and accept that our favored positions will not always win out. Our
elected officials must be willing to share power and govern with people
who see things very differently. This is not a matter of civility; it is
a democratic mandate. Look at Iraq. People voted, officials took
office, but then they refused to engage. To date, their government is a
democracy in name only. Here at home, too many politicians proclaim “my
way or the highway” and wear obstruction like a badge of honor; reaching
across the aisle can earn them a primary opponent. I am not suggesting
wholesale compromise for the sake of comity, but without meaningful
debate and bipartisan cooperation, the system dies. True patriots should
denounce such conduct, not applaud it.
Finally,
both parties are willfully ignoring the greatest threat to our
democratic process, further exacerbated by the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court
decision in Citizens United v. FEC, a ruling that
legitimizes the corporate takeover of American political campaigns. In
private, our leaders know how corrupting big money is, but they refuse
to reform our campaign finance laws for fear of losing influence and
advantage. The same is true of our congressional redistricting laws.
What should be nonpartisan is instead a battle between the parties to
rig elections in their favor. All Americans must realize that these
issues are critical to the health of our democracy. It is the people who
lose out when special interests or tiny partisan groups control the
outcome of our elections. To suggest that our elected officials should
promote a healthy system is not naïve—our Republic was founded on
ideals—but without a public uprising, these critical reforms will never
occur.
All
in all, this new Republic was a rather radical experiment. Despite
their differences, our Founders were united in their role as guerilla
fighters, insurgents in a revolution. When the dust settled, these men
did not enshrine partisan beliefs or powers in our founding documents.
Instead, the Framers gave us a strong but flexible system based on
universal principles and ideals.
I
have strong beliefs about the direction in which our nation should go,
and I will make those arguments based not on modern political ideology
but on our founding principles, constitutional government, and the
lessons learned as the nation has evolved. Some positions will seem
conservative and some rather progressive, but all, I believe, are
consistent with the ideals at the core of our magnificent system.
Whether
you agree with my proposals is not the most important thing. I welcome
an honest debate; such is the essence of democracy. But as a patriot, I
believe that our founding principles and system of governing are not
negotiable. We must recognize the difference between honest debate over
policies and philosophy and those measures that skew or upend our
extraordinary system for partisan advantage. Such tactics may produce
short-term gains, but in the end, everyone loses.
II.
A Patriot in Search of a Party
Ideology is the science of idiots.
Long
before I studied our founding fathers or took constitutional law
classes, I had my own vision of an ideal society. We’re all products of
our upbringing, and Texas left an indelible mark on me. I was raised in a
Dallas suburb, but my expansive neighborhood was dotted with open
fields and secluded forests, a trip downtown was a big deal, and by the
time I was ten, most of my free time was spent on horseback at the local
stables. Reluctantly, I donned dresses for school, but the tomboy
emerged with the afternoon bell.
By
1967, my family had rented a farm to house our growing herd of horses. I
hauled hay, cleaned stalls, and competed in horse shows across the
Southwest while my classmates went to football games and dances. In
1970, we moved to our own property sixty miles north of Big D. Rather
than transfer to the tiny Celina High School for my senior year, I
commuted back to Richardson each day, but psychologically, I was at home
in the country.
As
a kid, I was also at home in the emerging Republican Party. In 1952,
before I was born, Texas broke for Eisenhower. Unlike the rest of the
state, Dallas County did not return to the fold. Conservative Democrats
in Dallas continued to migrate, and except for the 1964 election of our
favorite son, Lyndon Johnson, Dallas County was now a Republican
bulwark.
In
those years, I was too young to make a reasoned political choice, but I
made certain assumptions about the GOP based on things my parents did
and said and the character of my community. What follows are the
perceptions of a child, idealistic and uninformed. Nevertheless, they
shaped the principles that still guide me today.
Texas
was a unique environment in the 1960s. Houston had the Johnson Space
Center, but Dallas was the business and financial hub of the state.
Texas Instruments was a technology giant. Universities were popping up
everywhere. Republicans were visionaries—building, innovating, and
investing, publicly and privately, in America’s future.
You
certainly couldn’t pigeonhole Dallas residents. It was not uncommon to
wave to a banker on his tractor Saturday morning and then meet him at
the theater or opera that night. Dallas was a churchgoing community, but
religion was a personal matter. No one quizzed you on attendance or the
nature of your faith. Plenty of people found their sanctuary where
Ronald Reagan did, celebrating Sunday on horseback or with a fishing
pole on some quiet creek, and that was just fine.
I
grew up believing that Republicans were the “progressive” visionaries
who valued national investment in science, technology, and
infrastructure. Throughout history, our federal government had directed
the construction of major national infrastructure including canal and
railway systems, the interstate highway system, and the electrification
of rural America. The Federalists, and later, the Republicans were the
leaders who pushed much of this through over objections from the
Democrats. They knew such investment was good for long-term economic
growth and defied objections from liberals who saw this as an
inappropriate or unconstitutional use of taxpayer money. Our public
dollars were well spent creating platforms on which private enterprise
could prosper.
I
understood that much had come my way through no effort on my part. I
was born in America to a comfortably middle-class white family and was
provided support and opportunities many others did not have. But taking
these circumstances for granted was unacceptable. In the United States,
achievement was not measured by someone’s station at birth, or by bank
accounts or social standing. Americans were judged on what they did, not
who they were.
I
was taught that all children, fortunate or not, would have a chance to
succeed in this land of opportunity. The nation believed in a hand up,
not a handout. Our good public school system would ensure that all kids
had a solid foundation to compete in the workplace. Lawmakers were
struggling to remove barriers experienced by women and minorities so
that all people were judged on their merit. Success and respect were
earned through integrity and hard work.
In
the Crier household, this notion of American meritocracy was on regular
display. My parents would tell my sisters and me, “You can do whatever
you’re big enough to do.” We never imagined girls couldn’t do everything
the boys could. I learned to study hard and pursue the things I was
passionate about. There were no guarantees, so the message was do your
best, play fair, and roll with the punches.
My
folks weren’t big on rules. As in the Constitution, there was a
framework for acceptable behavior but plenty of room to maneuver. That’s
not to say we kids were left to run wild. On the contrary, we learned
quickly that freedom expanded with trust. If I stayed out of trouble and
was home by dark, I was allowed to roam the neighborhood or disappear
on horseback without accounting for every moment of my time. If my
grades were good, I didn’t have to abide by a rigid homework schedule.
If I demonstrated sound judgment, personal responsibility, and
integrity, boundaries were lax. If I violated that trust, then my
parents would lay down the law.
My
takeaway? Respect for social rules, often called “hidden laws,”
provides much of the order needed in a community. Concepts like shame
(“Don’t do anything you wouldn’t want printed in the paper”), honesty
(“Lying will get you nowhere” and “The truth always comes out”), and not
cheating (“Nobody likes a cheater” and “You’re only cheating yourself
”) were drilled into my psyche. The emotional consequences of bad
behavior were as much of a deterrent as any tangible threat. And
ultimately, the loss of parental trust could mean the loss of my
freedom.
Individual
liberty was cherished, but it came with basic ethical and moral
responsibilities. If you couldn’t be trusted, then more stringent rules
would be imposed and enforced. If your actions affected no one but
yourself, then have at it. Laws intent on creating conformity were
antithetical to our basic freedoms. These house rules were a microcosm
of the American philosophy. America was truly the land of opportunity
and our political and legal systems would ensure fair access to the
playing field. What you did after that was up to you.
“Catherine Crier is widely informed and deeply intelligent, as well as passionate about history and her country. Patriot Acts is a tour de force.”
—Ted Turner, founder, CNN
“In
a world gone absolutely mad with ideological intransigence often
predicated on a misunderstanding of our Founding Fathers, comes
Catherine Crier with a well-researched, intelligent, thoughtful and
provocative look at America in the dawn of the 21st century. For the
good of the country, I hope Patriot Acts is well read.”
—Michael Smerconish, nationally syndicated talk show host
“Catherine
Crier presents a nuanced view of capitalism that goes beyond the stale
free market versus socialism dichotomy, which seems to define all
political debate in Washington. She correctly shows that the real issue
is power—not just government power, but corporate power—and one is just
as much a threat to freedom and prosperity as the other.”
—New York Times bestselling author Bruce Bartlett, columnist, Fiscal Times; senior economic advisor, Reagan White House
NY Law - Patriot Acts: 1: What America Must Do to Save the Republic
Published on
May 16, 2012 by
NYLSAV
A roundtable discussion with Cahterine Crier, host Deva Roberts and panelists Nadine
panelists Nadine Strossen and Michelle Zierler.
NY Law - Patriot Acts: 2: What Americans must do to Save the Republic
Published on
May 15, 2012 by
NYLSAV
Deva Roberts interviews Catherine Crier
on her new book, Patriot Acts: What Americans
Must Do to Save the
Republic. Nadine strossen and Michelle Zierler are also on this
panel.
