The Radicalism of the Right

I am going to have to admit that I have been wrong. In fact, I am even going to point out that most of us on the right have been wrong when we accuse President Obama of being a radical leftist or of having a radical ideology. The truth is that the President’s ideology is quite the norm, while it is in fact the ideology of those of us on the right that is clearly radical in nature.

Those of us on the political right favor a smaller, limited government that is bound by the Constitution. We believe that the proper role of government is to protect freedom, and that the best government is that which governs least.

Few would dispute the fact that Obama is a proponent of a large, powerful federal government that controls nearly every aspect of our lives. In order to govern something, by definition you must take away freedom. This has been, throughout the history of mankind, the normal relationship between humans and their governments. Early democratic forms of government likely existed on a small scale, and most of us are familiar with the ancient Greek experiment with democracy.

These examples are however, the exception rather than the rule. By far, human history offers more examples of governments that rule by force rather than by consent. According to a recent report by the Economist’s Intelligence Unit, there are only 25 full democracies in the world, representing just over 11% of the world’s population. According to the report the trend is downward, with most of the declines in freedom taking place in Europe.

A brief look at our history reveals a number of significant events which led up to the founding of the United States. The Charter of Liberties, issued by Henry I in 1100, was intended to bind the King of England to the rule of law. Although it was largely ignored, it did set a precedent that led to the signing of the Magna Carta in 1225. Both of these documents came about as a result of a desire to limit the power of government, and at least a beginning of an understanding by the kings that they could not rule by brute force. They understood that if they wanted to remain in power, they needed the consent of the governed. They did not however, come to such a realization through careful thought and meditation; they were brought to such conclusions because the people revolted against abusive rule.

When the American colonies were finally fed up with being ruled by the British Empire, it fell upon Thomas Jefferson to draft the Declaration of Independence, intended to declare to the world the justifications for taking such drastic action. In the preamble that cites "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them", Jefferson clearly espoused the concept of Natural Law as a foundation for legitimate governance. The theory of Natural Law has been developed over the centuries, and was influenced by Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. The later had a profound influence on the founding of our nation. Other influences came from such men as Thomas Aquinas, the Apostle Paul, Henry de Bracton, Thomas Gordon, and John Locke.

Although this concept was not new, the American Revolution brought about the perfect conditions under which to put these ideas into practice. Aided by the geographic distance from the stronger nations in Europe, the new American nation was able to plant the seeds of freedom and watch it grow.

The idea that government should be limited and men should be free is one that is indeed radical compared to world standards; and it is one that is only being championed by conservatives. Our friends on the left will naturally argue that it is they who champion freedom, given their support for causes such as abortion and gay marriage, but it is easy to see those issues are merely tools they use as leverage to expand the size and role of government.

We have become so accustomed to thinking of ourselves as being free that we now view as radical the ideologies that seek to limit our freedom through expansion of government. Unfortunately this leads us to a feeling of complacency, which has allowed a slow but steady erosion of our liberty. It is important that we remember how we gained our freedom, and embrace our history of radicalism.

Free Men and Government

President Obama and his cohorts have demonstrated an obvious disdain and disregard for our constitutional rights. On more than one occasion recently, I’ve heard my friends on the left refer to our Constitution as an “old document” and make the well worn claim that it was outdated because our founding fathers "couldn’t possibly have imagined today’s world". Even one of our Supreme Court Justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has opined that our Constitution would not be a suitable document to use as a guide for a newly formed government.

One of the more common beliefs among the far left is that our Second Amendment was intended for a different era, and that it should either just be ignored, or if absolutely necessary, repealed. When I hear this position expressed, I immediately know that I am dealing with someone who simply does not understand the origin of our rights, or the proper role of government.

To suggest that the right to keep and bear arms, or any of our other rights for that matter, can be taken away by the government is to suggest that the right was initially bestowed by that government. While I will readily acknowledge that this is a common belief among a large portion of our citizenry, that belief is seriously mistaken and in fact, quite dangerous. The natural conclusion of such a belief is that ultimately, we are subjects of that government rather than free men consenting to the authority of that government.

To get a clear picture of the nature of what we refer to as our “basic human rights”, we must have at least a rudimentary understanding of the concept of natural law. If we consider the natural state of man, unencumbered by societal pressures and external threats, we have a clear picture of a person who can be considered totally free. This person has a right to come and go as he pleases, to gather and maintain possessions, and to generally do anything he pleases if it makes him happy. Once other people enter into the picture however, things become a little more complicated.

Due to the nature of people in general, the once free man has to become concerned with protecting his life and property, as well as his family. As the number of people grows, so grows the threat to his life, family, and property. In order to protect his family and possessions while having the freedom to continue about his normal activities, this free man saw fit to come to an agreement with the other people in the same area to establish rules of conduct for all that would allow them to remain free to do as they pleased, as long as their actions did not infringe upon the ability of anyone else to do as they pleased; and in doing so, established the first form of government.

Note that this government was established to protect the rights of the free man, not to grant those rights. In order for this government to work properly, it had to exist with the consent of those over which it had authority. Without consent, there is no rightful authority.

The concept of natural law was one that guided our founding fathers in their efforts to establish a free nation. It was this idea that Thomas Jefferson expressed in the Declaration of Independence when he penned these well known words:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

With this understanding then, how could anyone believe that it would be possible for our rights to be simply rescinded through legislative action? Such a move by our government would amount to a breach of the trust and an abuse of the power given to the government by those people who created it; and ultimately that government would forfeit its authority and reason to exist. It was with this in mind that Thomas Jefferson penned the next sentence in the Declaration of Independence:

“That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”