Technorati search

Thursday, February 02, 2006

Globalism, Utopianism, and George W Bush

The following is a commentary by former vice president candidate Chuck Baldwin regarding Mr. Bush's state of the union address, found on


George W. Bush might be a Republican. He might be a Texan. He might even be a nice guy. However, after listening to his State of the World speech last Tuesday, one thing is for certain: George W. Bush is a globalist!

He was barely into his speech when he boldly asserted that America is proudly leading a "world economy." Obviously, Mr. Bush is not really interested in the U.S. economy. It may be that he doesn't even think in those terms.

Of course, there is good reason for President Bush to focus on the "world economy" (whatever that is) instead of the U.S. economy. According to Paul Craig Roberts (quoting the January 19 issue of Manufacturing & Technology News), "During Bush's presidency the U.S. has experienced the slowest job creation on record (going back to 1939). During the last five years, private business has added only 958,000 net new jobs to the economy, while the government has added 1.1 million jobs."

The "economic recovery" Bush speaks of is mostly the new jobs of waiting tables and serving booze. In reality, America is in a job depression, all the Bush-speak notwithstanding.

Furthermore, Roberts quotes McMillion as reporting that "during the past five years of Bush's presidency, the U.S. has lost 16.5% of its manufacturing jobs." The biggest culprit, of course, is government-generated "free trade" deals and mass job outsourcing which has skyrocketed under the Bush administration. In fact, "free trade" outsourcing is so bad that the U.S. has run up nearly $3 trillion in trade deficits during the Bush years.

Roberts properly summarized the impact President Bush has had upon the U.S. economy by saying, "Globalization is wiping out the American middle class and terminating jobs for university graduates, who now serve as temps, waitresses and bartenders."

No wonder President Bush likes to talk about a "world economy." But it doesn't stop there. In the very next paragraph, Bush said, "[W]e seek the end of tyranny in our world."

Not only is Bush a globalist, he is a utopian. Does he really believe that one country can end tyranny and oppression all over the world? If so, how will he do it? Does he intend to invade China, Cuba, The Sudan, Zimbabwe, plus most Middle Eastern and most African countries? Is G.W. Bush President of the United States or king of the world? I wonder if he knows.

Mr. Bush redundantly promoted globalism and utopianism in his speech with statements such as, "The U.S. will not retreat from the world." We will "move the world toward peace." We will "lead the world toward freedom." "We will compete and excel in the global economy." Ad infinitum. Ad nauseam.

Moreover, while President Bush repeatedly told us that Iraq is experiencing "the benefits of freedom," he boldly told the American people that they were in the process of losing theirs. Of course, he did not say it in those terms, but that is the net result of his intention to continue to ignore the Constitution and rule of law in turning the federal government's military and intelligence apparatus against its own citizens.

Mr. Bush even had the audacity to say that immigrants (translated: illegal immigrants) are necessary to America's well-being. He went so far as to say, "[T]his economy could not function without them." I suppose Mr. Bush believes that America could not function without the Mafia dons, either!

All-in-all, the speech was laced with accolades for globalism and utopianism and with calls for bigger and more intrusive government. Yes, George W. Bush might be a Republican. He might be a Texan. He might even be a nice guy. However, he is anything but a conservative!


At 5:11 PM, Blogger JD said...

Some of the points Mr. Baldwin makes here are certainly valid. While I personally enjoy Mr. Baldwin's comments for many reasons, I have also often questioned his own approach (or fix) to the problems that he so clearly summarizes.

To better sum up this point, I would have to use his own words.

Several months ago there was an article going around about the President referring to the Constitution of the United States with certainly less than favorable words.

I will post the text from Mr. Baldwin's response to that particular article in moment. The point I am trying to make here is that he seems to be constantly puting forth the problems, but the only solution that I can ever seem to find from Mr. Baldwin is a revival of constitutional law... period.

While I will admit that the fact that the Constitution is the law of the land and most definately ought to be adhered to as such... the problem is the "preeminence" that Mr. Baldwin places the Constitution in. This is dangerous!

I am not here condemning Mr. Baldwin, nor trying to point fingers, but as a fellow believer in Christ I find it a bit scary to put the Constitution on par with the Word of God.

Forgive me for posting such a long response and for getting somewhat off topic from the original post. I hope it can be viewed as a word of caution from me to the readers... not OF Mr. Bladwin himself but the idea that seems to be so popular in much of his writing.

Here is the original text followed by some more of my comments.


By Chuck Baldwin
December 13, 2005

Internet news site Capitol Hill Blue
( founder Doug Thompson wrote
in his column on December 9 that in a private meeting with
congressional leaders, President G.W. Bush was urged to take
caution in implementing his new Patriot Act because it would
potentially "alienate conservatives." According to Thompson, the
president retorted by saying, "I don't give a g-d-, I'm the President
and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way!"

During that same meeting, Thompson quotes an aide as telling Mr.
Bush, "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law [the
Patriot Act] undermine the Constitution." Thompson quotes the
President as screaming back, "Stop throwing the Constitution in
my face. It's just a g-d- piece of paper!"

Thompson said he talked with three people who were present for
that meeting and that they all confirmed that President Bush called
the Constitution a "g-d- piece of paper."

Please understand, Thompson is a career journalist. To my
knowledge, his news site only produces credible news. For the
sake of this column, therefore, let's deal with the possibility that
what Doug Thompson wrote was truthfully told him by people
who were in attendance at that meeting. (No, Thompson did not
name those persons.)

Before going further, let's acknowledge that Doug Thompson is
not a fan of President Bush. In fact, he is an outspoken critic of the
President. But then again, it seems to me that he is an outspoken
critic of most politicians. In my opinion, that's not all bad. But
that's not the point. All that matters is the truthfulness of the
report. If it's not true, Thompson must bear responsibility.

However, what if it is true? What if President Bush actually said
the things Thompson said he said? In that case, every American
must bear responsibility!

If President Bush said the things Thompson accuses him of saying,
it is monumentally important! It reveals a side of G.W. Bush that
has been heretofore hidden from the public, a side of the President
that should cause all true Christians and all lovers of liberty deep

If G.W. Bush said the things he is quoted as saying, it means that
our President is not only the worst kind of liar but also a very clear
and present threat to freedom!

Remember that President Bush twice put his hand on the Holy
Bible and took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution of the United States. Such an oath carries with it the
most sacred of intentions and the most serious of consequences.

It is one thing for a president to proceed upon the conviction that
his actions are constitutionally justified even though he is criticized
for those convictions; it is another thing altogether for a president
to feel in his heart and to verbalize with his lips that the very
document which he swore an oath to uphold is nothing more than a
"g-d- piece of paper."

Americans must understand that the only reason (humanly
speaking) that this country has been able to maintain a 200 plus
year legacy of liberty and individual freedom is due to our
respectful adherence (at least in principle) to the U.S. Constitution.
To quote Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, "I don't have to
prove that the Constitution is perfect; I just have to prove that it's
better than anything else." Amen.

The Constitution is better than anything else! It is the most
magnificent governing document ever written by man! Along with
our Christian heritage and common English language, the
Constitution has formed the glue which has held our republic
together. Rightly did Daniel Webster say, "The hand that destroys
the Constitution rends our Union asunder forever."

If President Bush truly believes the Constitution is "just a g-d-
piece of paper," he is capable of any attack against it.

Yet, there is another revelation contained in President Bush's
remarks, if they be true: his repeated blasphemy of God's name.

It has been long known that G.W. Bush is a prolific swearer. That
much we know is true. One former congressman told me of
hearing Bush repeatedly use the "f " word. Most Christians would
not want their children using that or any other swear word, but
probably don't mind too much (sadly) that their president, even
one who professes to be a Christian, would use profanity. But what
about repeatedly using God's name in vain? Is that insignificant?

To many people, swearing is nothing more than everyday
communication. However, using God's name in vain is more than
vulgar talking: it is blasphemy!

The Holy Scriptures are very clear on this point. The Third
Commandment is emphatic: "Thou shalt not take the name of the
Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that
taketh his name in vain." Furthermore, Psalms 139:20 states,
"Thine enemies take thy name in vain."

We need to get something settled: George W. Bush (or any other
U.S. President or Congressman) is not above the Constitution or
the Word of God! And while we are at it, let's settle something
else: those conservative Christians who would allow G.W. Bush
(or anyone else) to trample our Constitution and our Biblical
values have become idolaters in their own hearts by giving to man
(any man) the kind of preeminence that only the Bible and the U.S.
Constitution deserve!

Did President Bush really say the things Doug Thompson quotes
him as saying? I sincerely hope not. And if he did not, Mr.
Thompson certainly owes his readers and the President an apology.
However, if it proves to be true, will conservative Christians admit
that everything they were led to believe about G.W. Bush was a
lie, because indeed it would be?!


Originally written Dec 15th 2005

Mr. Baldwin’s approach to analyzing the assumed validity of the claims of a rather damaging potential comment by the President is admirable. We ought not to begin casting stones anytime we hear stories of he said she said. Our reliance on credible media (especially today) is obviously something that should be approached with care. I believe his article took such care.

My intent with this essay is not to accuse or otherwise presume to put words in to Mr. Baldwin’s mouth. Likewise, his personal character is most certainly not under attack here. I am also quite aware that the way in which I have interpreted what he wrote might very well be taken out of context. My goal here is to analyze the words or specific language that he used as I personally found certain things to be very troubling in his article and this type of talk seems to be very popular even amongst the majority of (so-called) “conservative-Christians”.

That being said; there were a few comments made by Mr. Baldwin that I find quite startling. He said; “humanly speaking” that this country has been able to last 200 plus years is due to an, “respectful adherence (at least in principle) to the U.S. Constitution”, and he quoted Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as saying, “I don’t have to prove that the Constitution is the perfect; I just have to prove that its better than everything else.” He confirms this with an “Amen” and continues to say that, “The Constitution is better than anything else! The Constitution is the most magnificent governing document ever written by man! Along with our Christian heritage and common English language, the Constitution has formed the glue that has held our republic together.” He also quotes Daniel Webster as saying that, “The hand that destroys the Constitution rends our Union asunder forever.” Finally he says, “those conservative Christians who would allow G.W. Bush (or anyone else) to trample our Constitution and our Biblical values have become idolaters in their own hearts by giving to man (any man) the kind of preeminence that only the Bible and the U.S. Constitution deserve!”

In a word… WOW!

Not many people will argue the fact that we are in a period in history where government is huge. Our rights are trampled on in so many ways that I will not even begin to try and lay down examples as many educated men have already done many times over. One might ask; where do these rights come from? Entire books can be written on this particular subject so I will stick with the topic at hand. We can agree for the sake of the argument that at least in this land, the rights in reference are presumed to be protected by the Constitution itself. Many will say that the Constitution is supposed to be the final protector of our liberties. Indeed it was established to be some sort of lasting guarantee of these liberties.

This brings me to the first comment that I would like to respond to. He says that, “respectful adherence (at least in principle) to the U.S. Constitution” has afforded this country the opportunity to last for over 200 years. Is this true? The Constitution was signed on September 17th, 1787. The War Between the States can be said to have started with the secession of South Carolina on December 24th, 1860. That is merely 73 years later! This is not to mention the storm that was brewing up earlier on in the late 1820’s to mid 1830’s during the “Nullification Crisis” which can account for an even shorter span of time that the Constitution supposedly maintained protection of liberties, to a ridiculous 46 years, give or take. It is also worth mentioning that the Bill of rights were not ratified by the 11th of the 13 Colonies until Virginia finally accepted them on December 15th, 1791 (ironically 214 years ago today). If you consider this in the equation, you will see the numbers drop even more. Now if you are thinking, “yes but this is due to a neglect by governing officials to respect the law in the Constitution” I would say that the argument goes much deeper than that. Either way, what about the 200 plus years?

Mr. Baldwin goes on to praise the comments of Justice Scalia by affirming his comments and suggesting, “The Constitution is better than anything else! The Constitution is the most magnificent governing document ever written by man!” Why then has it failed to guarantee the liberties that it was designed to protect? Patrick Henry was very publicly opposed to the (so-called) establishment of a more perfect Union. His charge was that the rights of individuals and of the States were inadequately protected by the Constitution. Even after ultimately losing the debate, with nothing but the protection of true liberty in mind, he was pivotal in ensuring that at least the Bill of Rights were adopted with the hopes that they might be able to save some of the rights that he envisioned would be lost over time (the Bill of Rights was not the product or brainchild of the Federalist’s). If Patrick Henry were here today, he just might say… “I told you so!” A quick reflection of current events will reveal that indeed he was right. Any argument to the contrary must originate from imagination.

The real problem with this however, is that the Constitution is a completely secular document. Prior to the ratification of the Constitution and under the Articles of Confederation, many individual colonies or States had their own charters or compacts that acknowledged the Sovereignty of God and of Jesus Christ as the resting place for ultimate law and justice. This humble form of acknowledgement on the Word of God as supreme to all matters including civil government were blatantly clear in the texts of documents such as “The Mayflower Compact” - and “the Preamble to the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut” - . I challenge you to look them up!

( )

Moreover the Word of God declares its own authority over the affairs of men; Psalm 127:1, “Unless the LORD builds the house, they labor in vain who build it; unless the LORD guards the city, the watchman stays awake in vain”. Our country in this sense can be compared to our house. The foundation of our house (the Constitution) ought to be built on a firm Christian foundation (the Foundation under the foundation). The omission of this foundation from the founding documents, I believe, made way for the eventual decay of any efforts of protection of liberties as our declaration clearly states, “we hold these truths to be SELF-evident…. Governments are instituted among men, deriving their powers FROM the consent of the governed." And finally, in the Constitution we read right from the beginning, “We the people…. Do ordain”. There is much more to be said about this but one simple chapter in the Bible speaks LOUDLY in opposition to such an idea, it is not the will of the people nor the ordinance of man.

Romans 13, “1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.

Likewise we read in Deuteronomy chapter 4 that Moses commanded obedience to God’s Law. Whether or not you agree with theonomy ought not prohibit the clear understanding of the declaration made by Paul in Romans that all authority is given by God. Thus, God gives all righteous ordinances as well. For man to declare any law or authority as given BY man (or by the will of the people) is to utterly deny the Holy and Omnipotent authority of God altogether. This is the epitome of secular humanism.

Deuteronomy 4:6-9, “6 Therefore be careful to observe them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes, and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’
7 “For what great nation is there that has God so near to it, as the LORD our God is to us, for whatever reason we may call upon Him? 8 And what great nation is there that has such statutes and righteous judgments as are in all this law which I set before you this day? 9 Only take heed to yourself, and diligently keep yourself, lest you forget the things your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life. And teach them to your children and your grandchildren”.

And we remember 2nd Timothy 3:16, “16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work”.

Romans 9:16, “16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy”.

Understanding that this verse is used in the context of God’s Sovereign Will over His people, I use it here as an example that even as our faith is ultimately bound by the Sovereignty of God, such is true also for His Blessings on our nation. Our ability to respond with favor to His Gracious gift of faith and subsequent redemption in Christ results in our profession of faith and utter reliance on His continued Grace and sanctification via the Holy Spirit. Not only are we called to put on the whole armor of God (Ephesians 6:10-20) but the Bible also declares that if we love Him we will obey HIS commandments, I believe, even as a nation.

Matthew 19:17; Revelation 12:17; Revelation 14:12; John 14:15…

Our nation has clearly abandoned such love for the Savior. An appeal to the Constitution (and even lack of respect for it as some how being the ultimate problem) does little more than affirm our reliance on human ordination and further neglects the problem of realizing the black hole that was barking at the door of the constitutional convention when the founders decided to depart from the covenant that had been made by the early settlers during the early Puritan era. The solemn declarations of dependence upon a Holy and Righteous God were set aside for a fallible creation of man. Even if it is clear that the founders incorporated some clear and obvious principles from God’s Biblical model in drafting the Constitution, they failed to recognize the fundamental element, that of complete Dependence on His Word and Authority over all creation even socio-political. Indeed the Declaration might justifiably be understood as the foundational document paving the way not only of Independence from the English Crown, but also the Heavenly Crown.

Was this intentional? I am not necessarily suggesting that it was. However, that does not negate the facts. We reap what we sow.

As to, “The hand that destroys the Constitution rends our Union asunder forever.” What if God destroys the Constitution as a result of turning away from Him? Did He not also deal harshly with Israel for such abandonment?

Lastly, “those conservative Christians who would allow G.W. Bush (or anyone else) to trample our Constitution and our Biblical values have become idolaters in their own hearts by giving to man (any man) the kind of preeminence that only the Bible and the U.S. Constitution deserve!”

The first problem with this statement is that it speaks against itself as we know very well that the Constitution was made by "man". Also, given its clear NEGLECT of any self-proclaiming utter Dependence in God, I believe that any form of parallelism of the man-made man-centered Constitution to God’s Holy, inspired and inerrant Word, SCREAMS idolatry! The preeminence of the Bible is that of Holiness. To even categorize it in “kind” with man-made documents should cause the Christian to stop and think.

I pray that it will be understood that this essay was not an attempt at smearing my fellow countrymen nor was it an attempt to slander the good attributes of the documents mentioned. I will forever maintain though, that until we realize that its current foundation is on sand (sinful humanism) rather than the Rock of Christ, our national apostasy will continue. The Constitution must not be compared to the Holiness of God especially if in its current form it refuses to acknowledge Him. Constitutional restoration in America must be followed by Constitutional reform. Then might He consider Blessing our efforts at securing freedom, not for our own glory but for His.

At 6:32 PM, Blogger C.T. said...


Thanks for the dissertation. I had to break for dinner on page 87, but picked it back up nicely and after a few cups of ultra cafeinated coffee and one more song on the all night radio was eventually able to come to the part where you said "Constitutional restoration in America must be followed by Constitutional reform."

O.k., so you agree with Mr Baldwin that we AT LEAST must get back to constitutional fidelity. After that, what's next? Hebrew case law? (wink, wink).

Faithful application of the US constitution DOES protect life, liberty, and property. Unfaithful application tears them away. Maybe you're right. Maybe we ought to demand more than life, liberty, and property. Maybe we ought to demand that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. I don't think the constitutional framers had that in mind. Maybe that's a problem for some people. But it doesn't negate that what they did have in mind was about as close to ensuring liberty as they could get. Remember, their forefathers had religious government and it went wayward. Who was left to protect them from that? As you well know, Mr. Baldwin is just trying to get our government back to constitutional fidelity. Maybe that's not the same as christianity, but at least it's not liberalism.

So I can agree with you. The constitution's not perfect. It has some flaws. But it defines our form of government. Tossing the name of Christ in there a few times isn't going to make the liberals like him any better. Let's at least get back to the constitutional restoration before we can get to the reform.

Thanks, JDB, for your comments. And congratulations, if you know what I mean.

At 3:29 AM, Blogger JD said...

"I had to break for dinner on page 87, but picked it back up nicely and after a few cups of ultra cafeinated coffee and one more song on the all night radio was eventually able to come to the part where you said..."

Ha ha...

Please excuse my writing if it is such a bore. I guess now you know that I am just as winded writing as I am with talking. It doesn't help that these blog’s only offer about 4 words per line! 8-)

"so you agree with Mr. Baldwin that we AT LEAST must get back to constitutional fidelity. After that, what's next? Hebrew case law?"

Well, I guess I'd have to agree with the Psalmist in declaring delight in His Law. Even if we are to say that the Hebrew case law was given specifically to the Hebrews alone... does this somehow mean that such Law is not useful? Do we then suggest that our own man-made laws are superior and therefore better than Law as given by God, even if it was not specifically given to us?

I'd love to talk more about this, but I would certainly find it less than fruitful if it would be considered to be more "excessive reading" as I am certainly not out to waste anyone’s time. I just don't know how to discuss things that are complex, simplistically, so I will leave it at that unless I am asked to dive deeper in to this particular topic.

"Maybe we ought to demand that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."

I agree with you that this is not the approach we should take. I also do not believe that an established theocracy would be justified if it sought to demand faith, or demand that it's citizens professed faith in the Christian religion. this would obviously be contrary to everything taught by the writers of the NT and Christ Himself. In fact... I am not so sure anyone even suggested that?

"But it doesn't negate that what they did have in mind was about as close to ensuring liberty as they could get."

What liberty was at stake? They had just secured liberty only a short while earlier. Then they met in SECRECY to establish a constitution and more significantly A CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, supposedly for the people and by the people?

An interesting quote:

"The sessions of the convention were held in secret--no reporters or visitors were permitted. Although many of the naturally loquacious members were prodded in the pubs and on the streets, most remained surprisingly discreet. To those suspicious of the convention, the curtain of secrecy only served to confirm their anxieties. Luther Martin of Maryland later charged that the conspiracy in Philadelphia needed a quiet breeding ground. Thomas Jefferson wrote John Adams from Paris, "I am sorry they began their deliberations by so abominable a precedent as that of tying up the tongues of their members."

The Virginia Plan

On Tuesday morning, May 29, Edmund Randolph, the tall, 34-year- old governor of Virginia, opened the debate with a long speech decrying the evils that had befallen the country under the Articles of Confederation and stressing the need for creating a strong national government. Randolph then outlined a broad plan that he and his Virginia compatriots had, through long sessions at the Indian Queen tavern, put together in the days preceding the convention. James Madison had such a plan on his mind for years. The proposed government had three branches--legislative, executive, and judicial--each branch structured to check the other. Highly centralized, the government would have veto power over laws enacted by state legislatures. The plan, Randolph confessed, "meant a strong consolidated union in which the idea of states should be nearly annihilated." This was, indeed, the rat so offensive to Patrick Henry."

Of course a good amount of time spent reading the "Federalist" and "Anti-Federalist" papers allows us to peer into the mind set of the time a little bit better than do many of the books and other documents available by modern writers. It has always been interesting to me that Patrick Henry, a man who is so historically documented for his effort in the War of Independence, was so strongly opposed to the ratification of the Constitution. The fact that the standing law's of the land were VIOLATED so as to force the ratification in the first place strikes me curiously.

Again, as I stated in my original post here, my issue was not with Mr. Baldwin necessarily, but the type of things that seem to be commonly neglected (IMHO) when I read what many of these big name people are putting out there to read.

"But it defines our form of government."

This is why I said that restoration must be followed by reform. It is hard to suggest though, (and I am not saying that you are) that any majority of elected officials in any branch of federal government, the federal school system or the voters themselves even have the slightest clue about "this system of government." Most of our citizens are perfectly content with some vain idea that this is a democracy!?

"Tossing the name of Christ in there a few times isn't going to make the liberals like him any better."

I agree... nor does it inherently make things better or somehow change the heart of man just by providing a few particular lines of text. The only way this can be done is through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit and encouraged through evangelism. It is not being suggested that forced faith or screaming "Armageddon" from a street corner will some how make everything better. I do however, believe in a victorious Savior... not just one who fed His chosen people to the wolves. "Thy Will be done ON EARTH as it is in heaven" Jesus declares.

"Let's at least get back to the constitutional restoration before we can get to the reform."

Agreed! I just hope that documents like the Constitution will NOT be endorsed with a reverence even remotely close to that of God's Word. When that is the emphasis that is given to the public, coupled with an ignorance of the true early establishment of this Union... the result of this kind of recipe is no better than the tyranny which is being attempted to be departed from.

Thanks for the congrat's!


At 7:35 AM, Blogger C.T. said...

I'm not going to disagree with you that post- independence america may have been sufficient without the radification of the constitution, but neither will I say that a federal government is bad in and of itself. The federalist/anti federalist debate raged on long after the federal gov was in place and still does today. My understanding is that the anti-federalist position isn't simply opposed to the constitution per se, but a certain interpretation of it granting greater powers to the federals. One can still be an anti federalist while supporting the constitution, at least that's how I understood it.

You're comment about the convention being held in secret is interesting.

Your writing certainly isn't a bore. I was just giving you a hard time. Please take no offense

At 7:04 PM, Blogger JD said...

It is also my understanding that the Anti-Federalist position was not 100% anti (any form of fed)... they spoke out against the serious losses of liberty that were being suggested in the proposed establishment of the central government.

I do not believe that having a central government is entirely a bad thing. Essentially it is no different than if there were ONLY State governments in that if that were the case, then they would themselves be THE central governments of that particular territory.

The problem is where they had intended to create a consolidated central government that was explicitly limited in power over the States, in reality it left the States open to the eventual dismantling of such localized supremacy of power by the States, thus involoutarily submitting the States as subordinate to the central government.

While I would agree that there WAS an abundance of wisdom to be found at the convention, the anti-federalist position was primarily one of angst toward what they invisioned to be the decay of the liberty they had just secured in the war. They knew that "the collective genuis" of the convention failed to recognize the vulnerabilities that the new federal system produced.

It is interesting to me that virtually everything they predicted, turned out to be somewhat (not literally) prophetic in nature.


A few more quotes if I may from the anti-federalist:

"After the war began, they could not with decency recede, for the sword and enemy were at the very entrance of their gates. The case is greatly altered now; you conquered the enemy, and the rich men now think to subdue you by their wiles and arts, or make you, or persuade you, to do it yourselves. Their aim, I perceive, is now to destroy that liberty which you set up as a reward for the blood and treasure you expended in the pursuit of and establishment of it. They well know that open force will not succeed at this time, and have chosen a safer method, by offering you a plan of a new Federal Government, contrived with great art, and shaded with obscurity, and recommended to you to adopt; which if you do, their scheme is completed, the yoke is -fixed on your necks, and you will be undone, perhaps for ever, and your boasted liberty is but a sound, Farewell! Be wise, be watchful, guard yourselves against the dangers that are concealed in this plan of a new Federal Government."


....If you are in doubt about the nature and principles of the proposed government, view the conduct of its authors and patrons: that affords the best explanation, the most striking comment.

The evil genius of darkness presided at its birth, it came forth under the veil of mystery, its true features being carefully concealed, and every deceptive art has been and is practicing to have this spurious brat received as the genuine offspring of heaven-born liberty. So fearful are its patrons that you should discern the imposition, that they have hurried on its adoption, with the greatest precipitation..."


"The advocates of this plan have artfully attempted to veil over the true nature and principles of it with the names of those respectable characters that by consummate cunning and address they have prevailed upon to sign it; and what ought to convince the people of the deception and excite their apprehensions, is that with every advantage which education, the science of government and of law, the knowledge of history and superior talents and endowments, furnish the authors and advocates of this plan with, they have from its publication exerted all their power and influence to prevent all discussion of the subject, and when this could not be prevented they have constantly avoided the ground of argument and recurred to declamation, sophistry and personal abuse, but principally relied upon the magic of names. . . . Emboldened by the sanction of the august name of a Washington, that they have prostituted to their purpose, they have presumed to overleap the usual gradations to absolute power, and have attempted to seize at once upon the supremacy of dominion."


Excellent link for more reading

good starting points may be #'s 4, 7, 17, 44, 74.

"One can still be an anti federalist while supporting the constitution"

This is absolutely true... but one would be wise to recognize it's shortcomings in an effort to affect positive change if the opportunity should ever arise.

I suppose my underlying issue is that it seems almost deceptive to embrace the Constitution "as is" with emphasis. Let's suppose we were successful in educating the public at large of the neglect of the central government in following the law as it is in the Constitution. Then what? Do we then tell them that we have nothing left to pursue except strict adherence to it? To me, this seems to be the "potential misleading".

Good and enfluential people go around parading quotes from the founders and all of the greatness of the constitution. If they were ever successful in restoring a constitutionally limited republic, how would they ever bring about the necessary reform if they had spent so much time proclaiming it's supposed "preeminance"? In other words, if it is so good and great, "better than anythying else" then why fix it? Shouldnt we only need but to restore it's validity? I think it goes much further than that.

No offense taken. Thank you very much for entertaining my conversation.



Post a Comment

<< Home