And, of course, What do you mean by “America”? U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has come out with a warning against something he calls “progressivism.” In his opinion, “progressivism” has the potential to destroy America.
 |
| Justice Clarence Thomas |
By America, we assume Thomas means “the United States of,” and by “progressivism” we assume he means “radical ideological liberalism.” We do not think either of these labels is entirely accurate, but whether you call the USA “America” or “the United States” still begs the question: What does His Honor mean by “America”?
We do not think Thomas makes it very clear what he is talking about. In an article in ABC News, he is quoted from a speech he recently gave, which really doesn’t help. As he said,
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Wednesday delivered a televised broadside against progressivism, a political philosophy he described as an existential threat to America and the principles that founded it 250 years ago. “Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence and hence our form of government,” Thomas said in a speech at the University of Texas Austin Law School pegged to the nation’s upcoming milestone birthday. A spirit of “cynicism, rejection, hostility and animus” toward America — by Americans — has taken hold, Thomas said in remarks carried live on CSPAN.
This is a damning indictment, indeed . . . but what are “the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence and hence our form of government”? There doesn’t seem to be any consensus, especially during the present administration, what these are.
Take, for example, the statement from the Declaration of Independence that “All men [yes, and women are included in a rational interpretation of the document] are created equal” and have the same un- or inalienable rights. Under the current administration, this has been (re)interpreted as meaning only those people with whom the One in Charge agrees (for now) are actual persons with actual rights . . . temporary rights, mind you, but still rights . . . even if no one seems to be able to define precisely what “right” means at any given moment.
For the record, we hold by the definition of right as being the power to do or not do some act or acts in relation to others. The opposite of having a “right” is not “duty.” A duty is the obligation to do or not do some act or acts in relation to others. A duty is thus the correlative of a right, not the opposite. The opposite of having a right is not having a right or (as Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld put it) “no right.”
 |
| Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld |
That will be on the test. And now back to our regularly scheduled programing.
Justice Thomas is rightfully concerned about the survival of the United States, but frankly, we are reminded of the semi-fictional summation given by Judge Dan Haywood (played by Spencer Tracy) in Judgment at Nuremberg (1961) — “Survival as what?” Yes, a nation might survive by doing certain things . . . but as what?
In our opinion, the only way to counter the “existential threat” of which His Honor and quite a few others speak is to empower ordinary people, so they no longer feel the “spirit of ‘cynicism, rejection, hostility and animus’ toward America” they currently feel. And the only way to do that is to make certain everyone owns a piece of it. This has been known for centuries. As Plutarch noted in his “Life of Tiberias Gracchus” (cir. A.D. 96-125),
He [Tiberias Gracchus] told them that the commanders were guilty of a ridiculous error, when, at the head of their armies, they exhorted the common soldiers to fight for their sepulchres and altars; when not any amongst so many Romans is possessed of either altar or monument, neither have they any houses of their own, or hearths of their ancestors to defend. They fought indeed and were slain, but it was to maintain the luxury and the wealth of other men. They were styled the masters of the world, but in the meantime had not one foot of ground which they could call their own. (“Tiberius Gracchus,” The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, Translated by John Dryden and revised by Arthur Hugh Clough. New York: Random House, Modern Library edition, 999).
 |
| Daniel Webster |
American statesmen of an earlier day told us why; as Daniel Webster noted in a speech during the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention of 1820, “Power naturally and necessarily follows property.” Benjamin Watkins Leigh expanded on this somewhat a decade later in a similar debate, albeit in a different commonwealth. As he said, “Power and Property can be separated for a time by force or fraud — but divorced, never. For as soon as the pang of separation is felt . . . Property will purchase Power, or Power will take over Property. (Speech on November 3, 1829, Proceedings and debates of the Virginia State Convention of 1829-1830, Volume 1, New York: DeCapo Press, 1971, p. 156; also quoted by Salvador Araneta in Bayanikasan — The Effective Democracy for All, Manila, Philippines: AIA Press, 1976, pp. 57-58.)
 |
| William Cobbett |
Between 1824 and 1827, the “Radical” English politician William Cobbett (“Peter Porcupine”) weighed in on the power-property issue. As he declared,
456. Freedom is not an empty sound; it is not an abstract idea; it is not a thing that nobody can feel. It means, — and it means nothing else, — the full and quiet enjoyment of your own property. If you have not this, if this be not well secured to you, you may call yourself what you will, but you are a slave. . . . You may twist the word freedom as long as you please, but at last it comes to quiet enjoyment of your own property, or it comes to nothing. Why do men want any of those things that are called political rights and privileges? Why do they, for instance, want to vote at elections for members of parliament? Oh! because they shall then have an influence over the conduct of those members. And of what use is that? Oh! then they will prevent the members from doing wrong. What wrong? Why, imposing taxes that ought not to be paid. That is all; that is the use, and the only use, of any right or privilege that men in general can have. (William Cobbett, A History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland (1824-1827) § 456.)
It is hard to add to these sentiments, although we could quote ad infinitum (or nauseum) on the subject. The message and solution is abundantly clear without that, however. If you want to stop “progressive” destruction of the United States, turn people into capital owners, and the way to do that is to adopt the Economic Democracy Act (EDA).
#30#
