Education In Our Own Laws

Permit me, Sir, to add another circumstance in our colonies, which contributes no mean part towards the growth and effect of this untractable spirit. I mean their education. In no country perhaps in the world is the law so general a study. The profession itself is numerous and powerful; and in most provinces it takes the lead. The greater number of the deputies sent to the congress were lawyers. But all who read, and most do read, endeavor to obtain some smattering in that science. I have been told by an eminent bookseller, which in no branch of his business, after tracts of popular devotion, were so many books as those on the law exported to the plantations. The colonists have now fallen into the way of printing them for their own use. I hear that they have sold nearly as many of Blackstone's Commentaries in America as in England. General Gage marks out this disposition very particularly in a letter on your table. He states, that all the people in his government are lawyers, or smatterers in law; and that in Boston they have been enabled, by successful chicane, wholly to evade many parts of one of your capital penal constitutions. The smartness of debate will say, that this knowledge ought to teach them more clearly the rights of legislature, their obligations to obedience, and the penalties of rebellion. All this is mighty well. But my honorable and learned friend on the floor, who condescends to mark what I say for animadversion, will disdain that ground. He has heard, as well as I, that when great honors and great emoluments do not win over this knowledge to the service of the state, it is a formidable adversary to government. If the spirit be not tamed and broken by these happy methods, it is stubborn and litigious. Abeunt studia in mores. This study renders men acute, inquisitive, dexterous, prompt in attack, ready in defense, full of resources. In other countries, the people, more simple, and of a less mercurial cast, judge of an ill principle in government only by an actual grievance; here they anticipate the evil, and judge of the pressure of the grievance by the badness of the principle. They augur misgovernment at a distance; and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze.

~Edmund Burke~

Conscience

If in all the world, I have found one thing that is made solely of the fibers of honesty and truth, it must be that still small voice given to each one of us, which gives clarity in the midst of the torrents of indecision. While subject to error, it has remained the most faithful champion of thoughtfulness without prejudice. 

 ~Brutus Sophos Monticello~

Foreign & Domestic

Another not unimportant consideration is, that the powers of the general government will be, and indeed must be, principally employed upon external objects, such as war, peace, negotiations with foreign powers, and foreign commerce. In its internal operations it can touch but few objects, except to introduce regulations beneficial to the commerce, intercourse, and other relations, between the states, and to lay taxes for the common good. The powers of the states, on the other hand, extend to all objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, and liberties, and property of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.

~Joseph Story~

Throw Off The Yoke of Party Loyalty

Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party generally.... A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

~George Washington~

Right VS Left

Right and left as it concerns political or ideological alignment is surely one of the biggest mockeries of our intelligence I can think of. Are we to believe that in matters of public policy there are but two roads to choose? Have we become so lazy as to accept that our own beliefs must fit into one of these predetermined camps of thought? Are the two sides we have been given an option to choose from really all that different? Perhaps we should examine the origins of the terminology Right & Left, that we may decipher whether or not it merits our continued faith.

The first uses of these monikers right and left, to describe conservative and liberal respectively, can be traced back to the French National Assembly of 1789 where the more liberal delegates congregated on the left side of the chamber and the opposing conservative members camped upon the right. This simple seating arrangement has since swayed most legislative bodies worldwide, into this practice of creating an imaginary line of center which creates in turn the real divide of legislative members within the body. This has basically put form to the theory that all things political can be represented on a linear axis, a straight line going from one extreme to another. This two dimensional explanation states that going from either direction, simple steps of succession lead only to a more rigid belief in the pronounced extreme of either side.

The matter is exponentially complicated when we ask what ends populate either side of this given axis. To one it may be a line based on classes of society, the left being a champion of lower classes and the right being the friend of the upper class in society. Another explanation might show the divide in government involvement, the left representing large government programs and high taxation to fund them or the right’s belief that government should be limited in its reach and less of a financial burden to the citizenry. Another possibility might be in the manner of legislation. The right could be said to represent a rigidity of principle regardless of the tangible ends whereas the left might be said to follow the singular principle that every circumstance demands its own consideration based on expected ends. This invariably clouds the discussion when we argue one set line against another, whose line may have a different definition. If my interpretation of left to right was the amount government involvement with a belief that lower class citizens have the best chance of rising out of their current class by means of less government involvement, I would assuredly be on the right. With the same belief but on the scale of class compassion, wouldn’t I then be on the left? Also, if we took the level of government involvement method we would see socialism on the far left and anarchy, or the lack of a government, on the extreme right, right? Well perhaps, if all agreed on the axis but as I recall, fascism is most often considered being an extreme right system of government which is defined as a system lead by a dictator, regimenting all forms of industry and commerce. So this system of pure government control could be considered either left or right depending on the axis used.

Here in America the right and left is represented by the Democratic and Republican parties although the defined axis is less clear. It would seem that for any given topic each of these parties account for their respective sides but often by different views of the axis. When it comes to war efforts, the Republicans are the accepted champions, most often citing a principle of common defense for this stance, disregarding the largeness of government it entails. Likewise the Democratic Party is often marketed as the party of the free thought, championing the notions of free speech and expression. The term liberal even stems directly from the word, liberty. Free thought and expression however are most often coincided by a lack of regulation and therefore a more limited government which now places them on the right. This circular means of reasoning can quickly overwhelm those without the insight to see past this ploy and entices those easily led, to choose one or the other as if they were the only choices to be had.

This must be stopped. We must put away this erroneous delineation of a single line, explaining all positions of policy. Forget the idea that what is presented as left and right are actually the polar opposites of each other. We must choose for ourselves a position, based upon principles within us, to determine where we stand on every issue. Who can we trust but ourselves and our own personal lives and experiences to determine not right or left but right and wrong? Let us then make every effort to map our own political philosophies, individually with an understanding not only of where we stand but also why. Take any policy issue at hand, resist the impulse to jump into a familiar form of thought and treat this issue singularly and without prejudice. Look to history and good council to weigh your conclusion but begin with your own sense of conscience and let that be strengthened by the exercise that in time, when any new matter arises, your faculties may be sharpened for the consideration.

Finally, drop all names of confederation whenever possible, for to take on the name of any group entitles you also to their whole ideology. Likewise, abstain from determining another’s entire philosophy by concluding from a single position that they make known. This has stifled the furtherance of political discourse in America to a very sad degree. Every debate seems so quickly reduced to pitting one’s own group and all its positions against the other, instead of looking at the matter singularly and without thought or care to how a particular group views it. Take pride in your own beliefs and do not rely on others to define or defend them but take this responsibility on yourself. The pleasure of knowing why you believe something in addition to simply knowing what you believe, grants enough personal reward to condone the practice and more so when you consider the effects on this nation, should any large number of people subscribe to it.

Brutus Sophos Monticello

A Matter of Principle Over Emotion.

Often times I find myself very separated in what I see as good personal policy and what should remain as good public policy, and since I deem my personal policies to be, well personal, I speak here, rather to notions of public policy, and that at times makes me come off as cold and heartless. But this is also where I think the root of many discussions have gotten off track in the dialogue of public policy. A government that is not limited to a set of principles is constantly growing the scope of what it will govern. So rather than keep the debate on whether it is the role of government to do this or that, we get caught up in whether we personally approve of it, which causes the divide in debate. Also we must remember that some things that are good public policy are still not appropriate for our form of a republic style government. For instance I will share a question that had me scratching my head for a bit. On the one side I do not believe in the ability of government to determine how I spend my money, and yet I am sick of people being able to buy elections because of rich supporters. Principle tells me that no matter how much I hate lobbyist being able to buy politicians and race outcomes, it is not the role of a government of free people to determine how best to control such a practice. Beyond principle, one could also argue to the unintended effects of such legislation and the ability to always find a loop hole would only make matters worse. No, this is one where, at least in my opinion, it is the responsibility of the people to stop the practice. We could stop it. I am astounded some times when people say things to the effect that "it's always been that way". All of society, its strengths and weaknesses are only what the masses believe them to be. We are united not by lines of a map nor bound to a certain definable creed, but we all claim to be American, free, and so on. It is because we believe this that makes it so. If tomorrow we the people decided that if a politician would make better as a public servant if they would abstain completely from the lobbyist then we would never see another. So, the labels of greedy and hateful, while very effective in tearing someone down personally, doesn’t  really add much in the scope of national governance debate. So the next time you enter into a discussion with a friend, family member, or just some person on the street, about what you believe is right for the country, do not allow the argument to spiral into emotional feelings, especially those based on a personal faith in how something should be. I am speaking to this, because I am tired of talking with likeminded conservatives who are just afraid of debating such topics with anyone who disagrees because they are afraid of being called names and being treated as if they want all the poor people in America to suffer rather than lend a little support, when in reality, nothing could be farther from the truth. I hope that this may inspire someone who may have been reluctant in the past to speak without fear in the knowledge that their position is based on principle and not emotion.

Brutus Sophos Monticello

A matter of civilty.

With the understanding that what I am about to say may seem crass or exasperating to some, I feel compelled none the less to pen my frustration at the incessant calls for a return to civility in our political discourse. Yes, I for one am sick to death of hearing this reproof not so much because I would gainsay the notion but rather because it is an odious obfuscation of what is really going on in our public discourse. Unless of course, civility suddenly became the synonym for honesty, in which case I would not only laud the effort but jump at the opportunity to account myself in that accord. Honesty however, is not the buzzword of the day. In fact it seems not only lost but little missed, upon the people at large and downright abhorred by those who populate our seats of government. Much has been made about the possible causes leading up the horrific shootings in Tucson, earlier this year. Nearly immediately, the charges of rhetoric being the complicit accomplice were thrown around and then countered and re-countered again until it would seem a consensus formed. Civility or the lack thereof became the underlying reason whether it could be directly linked or not. Finally we all were treated to the admonishment of our most upright in civility, civil servant, the president. Once given a time for reflection we have now been offered some comic relief it would seem, in the painstaking methods that some are trying to take in blazing this new road of civility. There are some who feel their best means of adding to public discourse is by simply editing their lexicon of any words that may in any way be also used in describing any war time campaign. “I wonder if that word will be taken off the table now. A campaign is after all what you call an advancing army.” From cross hairs to battle ground states, we are now being asked to reexamine the terms we use when discussing such weighty matters as our own government. To what end? Where will this lead us? In all my short life, I have seen little that is more frustrating than the political discourse of my country. Never once though, was I under the impression that it was a lack of manners that kept conversation in a stalemate. If anything, I have at times winced to see one so prolific in debate be dissuaded from furthering their position at the deference to decorum. In these times I am reminded of our congress’s counterparts across the pond in the English parliament, bantering back and forth most heatedly in discussion of their nation’s politics. Have we come so far as to forget the passion of debate that founded us? It was not by sword or musket alone that we took on that empire to form our own country but most assuredly by means of the men whose passionate debate and diction awaked in ourselves a notion of liberty. Our congress, once known as the greatest deliberative body on the face of this earth, has also it seems become entangled in this farce of civility being somehow the most righteous cause above all else. I beg that you consider an alternative to this fruitless pursuit and cast aside the notion of politically correct speech in favor of a stringent demand of the truth. This I would argue is what we have been missing most in our dialogue concerning government. From empty and quickly broken campaign promises to a misrepresentation of an opponent’s stance on an issue, the lack of honesty we hold our officials to is shameful. We are so conditioned to lying and being lied to that we hardly ever make the effort to see the truth, when most often it is the glaringly obvious. Let each of us then pledge one to another, a return to honesty and let us furthermore hold it dearer than any semblance of civility, though we must not consider either to be exclusive of the other. If on occasion they are at odds then let honesty always win out. If we can do this simple thing then we may yet bask in a place of honor among the generations of Americans as have gone before us; if we cannot, a brief spot of shame I fear is our due record. Let it not be said that we counted semblance over substance or that we coward from the truth for an easy repast of empty, though colorful, words.

Brutus Sophos Monticello