The Reagan Renaissance

As I look around America, I find myself back in 1979. Our economy is falling apart. Government is running up massive deficits. Our place in the world is diminishing. But now is not the time to succumb to the failed idea that government is the answer. No, now is the time for all of us to recommit ourselves to the principals that once saved this country, and can do it again. A commitment to Conservative Principals.

America has lost its way, but the American spirit has not vanished. At the time of our last great despair a leader came forth. Some called him nothing more than a former B-actor; they underestimated his love for our country, and the keen insight he possessed, and his ability to delivery, that would help make America into that “bright, shining city on a hill.”

This Saturday will mark what would have been Ronald Regan’s 99th birthday. The best gift we can give him is to remember how great we were as a nation when he was our President; and how we can move forward by returning to those key principals. Let’s us declare February 6, 2010, a new beginning, a “Reagan Renaissance.”

I encourage everyone to:

Read Ronald Regan’s 1977 CPAC speech ( Ronald Reagan's 1977 CPAC Speech)
View his greatest speech – A Time for Choosing (A Time for Choosing)
View his farewell address to America (Ronald Reagan's Farewell Address )

It Has Always Been "The People's Seat"

What does the battle between Scott Brown and Martha Coakley really mean? Why has this race captured the attention of an entire nation? Why is the media fascinated with this race? The answer is simple….hope and change.

It is more than just Republican against Democrat, Liberal against Conservative; it is the understanding of the principle that we are a representative republic and not an elected aristocracy. It is the appreciation of knowing that it is the “people’s seat,” and not the throne of a self-professed nobility, who believe that it is their seat to hand down from one lord to the next. It is the hope that every generation remembers that it is the elected who answers to the people, and that change can never come at the expense of our founding principles…….. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…”

Believe or not this campaign is not even about Scott Brown (who is an incredible person first and valid candidate second). This is about the simple belief that it is the consent of the governed that have been preordained to control their own destiny, and will not be “subjects,” ruled by a few bigheaded elitist. Elitist whose fingers burn whenever they touch the Constitution, whose ears bleed when the Declaration of Independence is read aloud, and who have grown blind and deaf to the will of the people. Elitist who expel any original thought once they are elected, and whose asses grow accustom to a chair that is on loan to them.

There are events that happen to every generation that reaffirms the founding principles that are at the very core of this “great experiment” known as America. Every once in awhile “We the People….” is more than just a catchphrase used by politicians to harvest votes. "We the People…” becomes the rallying cry not just against something, but in support of an idea or cause worth fighting for. Revolutions aren’t just won with bullets, especially in America. Every so often a course of action becomes so apparent that the American people “take to march” and fight for a cause greater than the individual.

The Brown vs. Coakley is the manifestation of everything our Founding Fathers expected from us. Massachusetts’ own Sam Adams knew that every generation would need to be “eternally vigilant” as to the cause of our own liberty when he said – “The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.” Today, the new “Sons (and Daughters) of Liberty” are preparing to fire the second shot heard around the world. This is not about the “41st vote,” or “derailing” President Obama’s agenda, but a stand against tyranny and arrogant authority. This about reminding those in Washington that the only thing that is inevitable is that if they chose to govern in a manner that is contrary to our Republican principals, than their days are numbered.

Benjamin Franklin, was standing outside Independence Hall when the Constitutional Convention ended, when he was approached by a Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia, who asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it."

Regardless of whether Scott Brown wins or not, the message will be clear. Every race, every campaign, and every candidate will have to prove that they understand that it is the people’s seat they seek, and that they are just temporary occupants. In the end, it is important for all Americans to remember that it is our “Republic,” ............if we “can keep it.”

The Character of Conservatism Part Five: Against Anti-Republican Tendencies

Against Anti-Republican Tendencies

When Thomas Jefferson entered the White House as our third President he was well aware that the nation was divided after an intense election process and the final result. Vice-President Jefferson defeated President Adams in an election that had both candidates being declared an enemy of the Constitution, an exaggeration born from campaign enthusiasm, but had the eyes of a young nation peering cautiously at their new President.

Even today some question Jefferson’s interpretation of the Constitution and maybe that is justified (the Louisiana Purchase is often cited as a break from Constitutional intent). But it is important to remember that not only did President Jefferson not participate in the Constitutional Convention, he was separated from the process by an entire ocean (Jefferson was serving in France as the Constitution was being written), so we should not look to him for any in-depth elucidation. One must look to the Federalist Papers written by James Madison (The Father of the Constitution) for a truthful explanation of the Constitution’s intent. Fortunately Jefferson (and a young America) benefitted from a close friendship with Madison, and Jefferson often sought the counsel of Madison during his presidency on matters regarding Constitutional interpretation.

But at the time of his first inauguration, Jefferson understood that there were forces already in play trying to move America away from the first principals of our republic, the belief that liberty and rights are central values, and that the people were, as a whole, sovereign. Jefferson first inaugural speech rejected the concept of inherited political power, and declared with confidence, an expectation that every citizen to be independent in their performance of civic duties.

The character of conservatism can be found in two of President Jefferson’s writing; the Declaration of Independence (a foundational document of Conservatism) and his first Presidential Inaugural speech.

Friends and Fellow-Citizens:

CALLED upon to undertake the duties of the first executive office of our country, I avail myself of the presence of that portion of my fellow-citizens which is here assembled to express my grateful thanks for the favor with which they have been pleased to look toward me, to declare a sincere consciousness that the task is above my talents, and that I approach it with those anxious and awful presentiments which the greatness of the charge and the weakness of my powers so justly inspire. A rising nation, spread over a wide and fruitful land, traversing all the seas with the rich productions of their industry, engaged in commerce with nations who feel power and forget right, advancing rapidly to destinies beyond the reach of mortal eye—when I contemplate these transcendent objects, and see the honor, the happiness, and the hopes of this beloved country committed to the issue, and the auspices of this day, I shrink from the contemplation, and humble myself before the magnitude of the undertaking. Utterly, indeed, should I despair did not the presence of many whom I here see remind me that in the other high authorities provided by our Constitution I shall find resources of wisdom, of virtue, and of zeal on which to rely under all difficulties. To you, then, gentlemen, who are charged with the sovereign functions of legislation, and to those associated with you, I look with encouragement for that guidance and support which may enable us to steer with safety the vessel in which we are all embarked amidst the conflicting elements of a troubled world. During the contest of opinion through which we have passed the animation of discussions and of exertions has sometimes worn an aspect which might impose on strangers unused to think freely and to speak and to write what they think; but this being now decided by the voice of the nation, announced according to the rules of the Constitution, all will, of course, arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good. All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

Let us, then, fellow-citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. During the throes and convulsions of the ancient world, during the agonizing spasms of infuriated man, seeking through blood and slaughter his long-lost liberty, it was not wonderful that the agitation of the billows should reach even this distant and peaceful shore; that this should be more felt and feared by some and less by others, and should divide opinions as to measures of safety. But every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. I know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a republican government can not be strong, that this Government is not strong enough; but would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm on the theoretic and visionary fear that this Government, the world's best hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve itself? I trust not. I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest Government on earth. I believe it the only one where every man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern. Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative government. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe; too high-minded to endure the degradations of the others; possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation; entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions and their sense of them; enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter—with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.

About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies; the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people—a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burthened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety.

I repair, then, fellow-citizens, to the post you have assigned me. With experience enough in subordinate offices to have seen the difficulties of this the greatest of all, I have learnt to expect that it will rarely fall to the lot of imperfect man to retire from this station with the reputation and the favor which bring him into it. Without pretensions to that high confidence you reposed in our first and greatest revolutionary character, whose preeminent services had entitled him to the first place in his country's love and destined for him the fairest page in the volume of faithful history, I ask so much confidence only as may give firmness and effect to the legal administration of your affairs. I shall often go wrong through defect of judgment. When right, I shall often be thought wrong by those whose positions will not command a view of the whole ground. I ask your indulgence for my own errors, which will never be intentional, and your support against the errors of others, who may condemn what they would not if seen in all its parts. The approbation implied by your suffrage is a great consolation to me for the past, and my future solicitude will be to retain the good opinion of those who have bestowed it in advance, to conciliate that of others by doing them all the good in my power, and to be instrumental to the happiness and freedom of all.
Relying, then, on the patronage of your good will, I advance with obedience to the work, ready to retire from it whenever you become sensible how much better choice it is in your power to make. And may that Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peace and prosperity.

Jefferson’s first inaugural address was an example of the perfect political speech, and I do not mean that in the negative. What I mean by that is that it was crafted by its author to address its immediate audience, the Legislative and Judicial branches of the government, to remind them that they not only served at the will of the people, and “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed …..,” but it was the intent of Jefferson “to unite a proper energy in the Executive, and a proper stability in the Legislative departments, with the essential characters of Republican Government,” a belief that was expressed by Madison to Jefferson in September of 1787 (in a letter from Madison in Philadelphia to Jefferson in France).

Jefferson’s speech was meant to set the tone to address issues facing our young nation as a united Republic, the most important, to work together to remain true to originally intent of the Constitution. But more than this, Jefferson’s had an opportunity to reaffirm what he originally wanted to say in the Declaration of Independence. Most know the line …”Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness…” But few know that Jefferson originally wrote…”Life , Liberty and the Pursuit of Property…” Jefferson understood that governments true role was first and foremost “provide for the common defence,” and conduct itself in a manner that creates the smallest footprint upon individual liberty:

“Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.”

Jefferson’s first inaugural speech is the essence of a liberty based Republic, a sentiment later reaffirmed by Ronald Reagan:

“Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the—or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment……….
“…… defines liberalism as meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government…….the full power of centralized government"—this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.”

One of the fundamental natures of conservatism is the understanding that our republic can not withstand the weight of its own oppression when it chooses to interfere with the liberty of others by confiscating from those willing to work and give it to those who are not.
The strength in Jefferson’s first inaugural address is its dedication to the genuineness of Republicanism, the governmental foundation that America is built upon. Jefferson spoke to unity without compromise to one’s own principal, a tone that would later be captured so brilliantly by Ronald Reagan.

Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence would come to serve as the foundation, his first inaugural speech the frame, and his presidency the crown that would all later be known as Jeffersonian principal, and by progression, an evolutional component of the character of conservatism.

A Time for Choosing Again

The following is the text of a speech I gave during two separate appearances before Republican committee’s last week. Depending on the audience members point of view, they either enjoyed it or they were squirming in their seats:

Ladies and Gentleman...thank you for your invitation to speak before you tonight.

I have the luxury of not running for office or relying on a pay check that requires me to be polite, or diplomatic in my presentation. It is quite liberating to be able to offer observations unencumbered by who I might offend.

Today (October 28) we mark an important anniversary for conservatisms, and in turn the Republican Party. It was 45 years ago today that Ronald Reagan gave one of his greatest speeches….”A Time For Choosing.” It was in that speech that then citizen Reagan not only defended the principals of conservatism, but put socialism on notice:
“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.”

Most of you are gathered here today because you see your State and your Country at the edge of that darkness. And sadly I must tell you that some in the Republican Party are willing participants in our shared fate. The Republican Party lost its way, becoming nothing more than Democrat-light; interested more in vote harvesting and staying in power. It seems that our party motto became – “Any Republican is better than a Democrat.” But where has that gotten us?

Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party now share the same predicament, the American people don’t trust either one. The Republican Party forgot the words of Jack Kemp - “You serve you party best, by serving your country first.” It is time for the Republican Party to embrace that statement once again, because God knows the Democrats won’t.

So before we can take back our State and our Country, we must first take back our Party. Because you see, there are those that call themselves Republican and have no clue what that means. Worse yet there are those that call themselves moderate Republican, conservative Republican, and my new favorite oxymoron Liberal Republican.

I actually chuckle when I hear all of these terms, but I am most amused when I hear people describe themselves as a Conservative Republican……….or delineate by stating they are a social conservative or fiscal conservative. Well, I am here to tell you today that the very essence of the Republican Party is conservative. The first Republican platform, its last platform, and all the platforms in-between are the very model of principled conservatism. Don’t believe me, you tell me if this is a moderate, liberal or a conservative statement (from the 2008 Republican Party platform):

This is a platform of enduring principle, not passing convenience — the product of the most open and transparent process in American political history. We offer it to our fellow Americans in the assurance that our Republican ideals are those that unify our country: Courage in the face of foreign foes. An optimistic patriotism, driven by a passion for freedom. Devotion to the inherent dignity and rights of every person. Faith in the virtues of self-reliance, civic commitment, and concern for one another. Distrust of government's interference in people's lives. Dedication to a rule of law that both protects and preserves liberty.

But too many people seem to have difficulty saying the word Conservative out loud. Some whisper it like a mark of shame, afraid that they will be tarred and feathered by the villagers. The only shame is that we have forgotten what we stand for, and thus the country is in far worse shape for our own ignorance.

But there is more hope for the Republican Party than the Democratic Party, and why do I say that?

40% of the people in this country identify themselves as conservative; 36% identify themselves as independent (with center to right leanings), and only 20% identify themselves as liberal. Republicans know how to be conservative, and as we found out in 2006 and 2008, we are terrible at being liberal.

Over the past few months there have been a lot of words that begin with “R - E” thrown about. Reenergize, rebuild, refocus, regroup, and rejuvenate. Folks, these are merely marketing terms that will only cause further mistrust. The Republican Party must be true to itself, which in turn will earn the trust of the people, because there is too much at stake if you and I fail.

In the speech “A Time for Choosing,” Reagan understood that America was the last best hope for the world; that if the torch of freedom was extinguished here, then the warming light of liberty dies everywhere. I say to you that if you believe that America is the last best hope for the world, then it is the Republican Party that is the last best hope for America.

Ronald Reagan did not stand in front of us and call himself a Conservative Republican; he simply called himself a Republican because he understood to be Conservative was to be Republican, and to be Republican was to be Conservative. The only way for us to return the Republican Party to a party that serves the people is to return to the grassroots of conservatism that made us great, and avoid any further watering down of our principals in an effort to come across as more appealing.

The justification for watering down the core beliefs of the Republican Party is the often heard phrase that we are a “Big Tent Party.” There is some truth to that statement…we are the Big Tent Party, and all are welcome. But that does not mean you check your principals at the door before you enter. No…..it means that you enter the tent prepared to stand for something greater than yourself….greater than the next fundraiser…..or greater than the next election!
For you see, this tent stands strong because it is being held up by poles of principals. This tent stands strong because of great Republican leaders such as Reagan, Coolidge, and Lincoln, who stood firm on the principals that made this party great. The Republican Party is strongest when it uses the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution as its firm footing, a foundation to keep us away from the dangers of that darkness President Reagan warned us about. In the words of President Lincoln:

“Be sure you put your feet in the right place, then stand firm.”

There can be no comprise or moderation when the cause is just, when the hope of an entire planet rest with us, you and I, choosing the right course. But with the Constitution as our North Star, always there to point us home, not only as a country, but as a people committed to the cause of liberty. But we must be willing to use it, because if we chose to ignore it, America will be lost at sea until it sinks from the weight of its own ignorance.

So let’s you and I dabble with the suggestion from those who feel we should be more moderate. Where should that moderation be applied? Which of the issues should you and I comprise on? That the redistribution of wealth is fair and just? That higher taxes are there to serve the people? That the chain of debt that is already weighing down future generations is not our problem? That a stronger centralized government is in the best interest of America? That the Constitution is a living, breathing document, open to generational interpretation?

Or is just simpler that the Republican Party take a more “sensible” understanding that “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 those words do not apply to the unborn, just as some felt it did not apply to those held in bondage over 100 years ago.

Or how about the belief that morality is purely the province of the individual, and that a community has no vested interest in protecting religion, preserving the strength of the family, or promoting a robust patriotism and strong sense of civil commitment.

No I tell you…. that it is not moderation, it is appeasement to oppression. Does it matter that the tyranny comes in the form of 1000 pages bills that no one reads, or by the point of the gun? Our party, the Republican Party was founded on the very principal of Life and Liberty. The Republican Party was founded with the sole purpose to fulfill our country’s promise that all Men are created equal. There are some that have confused moderation with appeasement. This confusion has hurt our country, and our inherent laziness has moved us closer to the abyss of totalitarianism.

Sam Adams once said -

"It is not high time for the people of this country explicitly to declare, whether they will be freemen or slaves? It is an important question which ought to be decided. It concerns us more than anything in this life. The salvation of our souls is interested in this event. For wherever tyranny is established, immorality of every kind comes in like a torrent. It is in the interest of tyrants to reduce the people to ignorance and vice. For they cannot live in any country where virtue and knowledge prevail. The religion and public liberty of a people are intimately connected; their interest are interwoven, they cannot subsist separately; and therefore they rise and fall together.”

We do not win elections by watering down our message; we win election by communicating our principals with pride. We do not win elections by being cowards, afraid to run for office “because” the outcome is not assured. We win elections by understanding that we may lose today, but we win tomorrow in the arena of ideas.

For you see, in the words of President Reagan, the issue for this election is….

Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

The Republican Party, our party, must offer the kind of leadership that grows and takes its strength from the people. Any organization is in actuality merely the lengthened shadow of its members. A political party is a mechanical structure created to further a cause. The cause, not the mechanism, brings and holds the members together.

Thank-you

Memorial Day Speech - Why They Fought: The Story of the Fighting 36th

On Memorial Day (May 25, 2009), I was asked to present a speech at a gathering in Market Square, Portsmouth, NH. Below is the transcript.

Why They Fought: The Story of the Fighting 36th
By Jeff Chidester

Today we are brought together to honor those who have given the last full measure of devotion in service to this great and noble country. We gather here today not only to honor their legacies, but to thank them for their sacrifice.

Millions of men and women have died fighting for a belief that all here today share….that America “is that shining city on the hill,” a beacon in the darkness of tyranny and oppression, shining for all those seeking freedom and liberty.

But how can you truly say thanks to those who paid the ultimate sacrifice for a cause they deemed more important than their own life? We thank them by remembering their stories, recalling the reasons why they fought, and above all, by not letting history repeat itself.
Today I would like to share the story of the 36th Infantry Division with you, the Fighting 36th. The Fighting 36th was one of the first units called into service as the fascist armies of Italy and the socialist armies of Nazi Germany swept across Europe and Africa.

The boys of the Fighting 36th would challenge the armies that fought in service of their tyrannical leaders, Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, for four long years.
The Fighting 36th would take the fight for liberty to the sands of North Africa, the beaches of Sicily, the countryside of France, and would later be part of a force that liberated the Dachau Concentration Camp.

The Fighting 36th was a National Guard Unit in Texas prior to the start of World War II, but whose history dates back to the Alamo in 1835 and the Rough Riders of 1899. As the war in Europe progressed, their ranks would be filled with patriots from every corner of our country.
One such patriot was a young man by the name of Edward Dahlgren, from right up the road in Portland, Me. Sergeant Edward Dahlgren would later go on to win the Silver Star, three Bronze Stars, a Purple Heart and the Medal of Honor for heroic actions while serving in the Fighting 36th Infantry.

Edward Dahlgren would leave the Army as a Lieutenant, and would work the next 40 years as seed potato inspector for the State of Maine. Lieutenant Dahlgren represents the thousand of men who served as brothers in the Fighting 36th, many who did not return.
But why did they do it? Why did each of these men of the 36th Infantry Division leave their families and the safety of their homes to fight in far off places with names such as Arzew, Rabat, Paestum, and Mannheim.

The questions seem complicated, but the answer is simple, and can be found in the power and solace of the words of Patrick Henry:

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

The people of Europe were in chains, and had been enslaved by the worst kind of evil. This fate would befall America unless good people did something. Good people like those of the Fighting 36th.

On September 9th, 1943, the Fighting 36th would carry Patrick Henry’s words with them into battle as they spearhead the invasion of Italy, in what would become known as one of the bloodiest campaigns of the war.

I have no doubt that as the GI’s of the 36th climbed down into the landing craft that they thought much about how, as the first act of seizing power, both the German and Italian governments nationalized the banks “for the good of the masses.”

Nor do I believe that the men of the 36th thought much about the fact that most major industries were either seized or placed into a “public trust” by the National Socialist Party of Germany and the National Fascist Party of Italy.

What did it matter to the members of the 36th Infantry whether automaker Alpha Romeo built cars based on the wishes of Il Duce Mussolini, or that Chancellor Hitler forced Mercedes Benz to build cars based on Herr Fuhrer’s designs.

As the landing crafts carried the warriors of the 36th Infantry closer to the beaches of Paestum, a loudspeaker could be heard from the landing area proclaiming in English: "Come on in and give up. We have you covered." Yet they stormed the beaches anyway, undeterred by the propaganda.

It is unlikely as these brave souls of the 36th dodged the hail of machine gun fire, that they were thinking about how the oppressive governments under Mussolini and Hitler used similar misinformation to turn their fellow citizens against each other.

The Fighting 36th had more important things to do than worry about how class-envy, perverting religion, and invoking race all were used to divide the people of German and Italy, all under the guise of a change for the better, and a hope for a new and improved country if they would just let the State take care of everything.

And the members of the 36th Infantry could not envision the horrors that awaited them in Dachau, as they fought their way one inch at a time from Italy, through France, into Germany.
Many in the 36th could not image the horror one human could do to another in the name of science, and that one of the willing participants in this evil was a judiciary that answered to the “living rules” of the State, not to the common sense of the law.

But the members of the 36th Infantry would see the devastating affects that an all powerful centralized government could have on the people first hand.
What the members of the 36th did know is that they were fighting for liberty. They were fighting for everything America stood for, and fighting against everything socialist Germany and fascist Italy represented.

The soldiers of the 36th Infantry couldn’t lose because the greater cause is not what you fight against, but what you fight for.
It is not what we fight against that is noble; it is what we fight for that determines defeat or victory. Tyranny never sleeps; it reinvents itself and hopes that people will forget history. There will always be someone yelling from the beach “Come in and give up. We have you covered.”

The questions is - are you going to honor those brave members of the 36th Infantry and fight for liberty, or are you going to be like those who went with the flow in Germany and Italy and suffered totalitarianism? Will you fight for a cause greater than yourself? The choice is yours……..

The Character of Conservatism Part Four: A Universal Morality

“In what direction can we say that Americans are going? Are we, as a people, going on the high road of the universal morality or on the low road of the universal immorality?”

This was the question legendary Conservative Clare Boothe Luce asked in 1978, but it is also fair to say that each generation has grappled with the moral direction facing America.

Clare Boothe Luce was an amazing person. Playwright, author, congresswoman, ambassador and Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient. If it weren’t for the fact that Clare Boothe Luce was a Conservative, she would be hailed as a modern feminist pioneer. But somehow she might consider that distinction as less than a badge of honor.

The truth is that to ensure the acceptance of a universal morality, there must be many more in society that demand its adherence, than there are those that would delight in its demise.

Is the new morality destroying America?

Clare Boothe Luce

I was honored-as who would not be?-by the invitation to address this Golden Circle of remarkable IBM achievers. But I confess I was somewhat floored by the subject your program producer assigned to me. He asked me to hold forth for a half-hour on the condition of morality in the United States, with special reference to the differences between America's traditional moral values and the values of the so-called "New Morality." Now even a theologian or a philosopher might hesitate to tackle so vast and complex a subject in just 30 minutes. So I suggested that he let me talk instead about, well, politics or foreign affairs, or the Press. But he insisted that your convention wanted to talk on a subject related to morals.

Well, the invitation reminded me of a story about Archbishop Sheen, who received a telegram inviting him to deliver an address to a convention on "The World, Peace, War, and the Churches." He replied: "Gentlemen, I am honored to address your great convention, but I would not want my style to be cramped by so narrow a subject. However, I would be glad to accept if you will widen the subject to include `The Sun and the Moon and the Stars."' So I finally agreed to talk if I could widen my subject to include, "The Traditional Morality, the New Morality, and the Universal Morality."

There's another trouble with talking about morals. It's a terribly serious subject. And a serious talk is just one step away from being a dull, not to say a soporific one. So I won't be offended if, before I finish, some of you leave. But please do so quietly, so as not to disturb those who may be sleeping.

The theme of this convention is "Involvement." Now there is one thing in which all Americans, including every one of us here, are already deeply involved. Every day of our lives, every hour of our waking days, we are all inescapably involved in making America either a more moral or a more immoral country.

So this morning, let's take a look at the direction in which we Americans are going. But first, we must begin by asking, "What are morals?"

Morals, the dictionary tells us, are a set of principles of right action and behavior for the individual. The "traditional morality" of any given society is the set of moral principles to which the great majority of its members have subscribed over a good length of time. It is the consensus which any given society has reached on what right action and decent behavior are for everybody. It is the way that society expects a person to behave, even when the law-the civil law-does not require him (or her)* to do so.

One example will have to suffice. There is no law that requires a person to speak the truth, unless he is under oath to do so in a court proceeding. A person can, with legal impunity, be an habitual liar. The traditional morality of our society, however, takes a dim view of the habitual liar. Accordingly, society punishes him in the only way it can-by social ostracism.

The person who believes in the traditional principles of his society, and who also succeeds in regulating his conduct by them, is recognized by society as a "moral person." But the person who believes in these principles-- who knows the difference between "right and wrong" personal conduct, but who nevertheless habitually chooses to do what he himself believes to be wrong-is looked upon by his society as an "immoral person."

But what about the person who does not believe in the traditional moral principles of his society, and who openly challenges them on grounds that he believes to be rational? Is such a person to be considered a moral or an immoral person?

Today there are many Americans who sincerely believe that many of our traditional moral values are "obsolete." They hold that some of them go against the laws of human nature, that others are no longer relevant to the economic and political condition of our society, that this or that so-called "traditional moral value" contravenes the individual's Constitutional freedoms and legitimate pursuit of happiness. Others believe that while a moral value system is necessary as a general guideline for societal behavior, it cannot, and should not, apply to everybody. Every person is unique; no two persons are ever in exactly the same situation or "moral bind"; circumstances alter moral cases. These persons believe, in other words, that all morals are "relative," and all ethics are "situational." They argue that what is wrong behavior for others is right behavior for me, because my circumstances are different. The new principles of right action and behavior which such persons have been advancing and practicing today have come to be called "the New Morality."

But before we undertake to discuss the differences between the traditional American morality and the so-called "New Morality," let us ask a most important question: Is there any such thing as a universal morality? Is there any set of moral principles which apply to everybody-everybody who has ever been born, and which has been accepted by the majority of mankind in all places and in all ages?

There is, indeed, a universal morality. It knows no race, no geographical boundaries, no time, and no particular religion. As John Ruskin, the English social reformer, wrote, "There are many religions, but there is only one morality." Immanuel Kant, the greatest of German philosophers, called it the Moral Law, which, he said, governs all mankind. Kant compared this Moral Law to the Sublime Law that rules the movement of the stars and the planets. "We are doomed to be moral and cannot help ourselves," said Dr. John Haynes Holmes, the Protestant theologian.

When we study the history of human thought, we discover a truly remarkable thing-all the great minds of the world have agreed on the marks of the moral person. In all civilizations, in all ages, they have hailed truthfulness as a mark of morality. "The aim of the superior man," said Confucius, "is Truth." Plato, the Greek philosopher, held that "truth is the beginning of every good thing both in Heaven and on earth, and he who would be blessed and happy should be from the first a partaker of truth, for then he can be trusted." "Veracity," said Thomas Huxley, the English scientist, "is the heart of morality." In Judeo-Christian lore, the Devil's other name is "The Liar."

Another mark of the moral person is honesty. "An honest man is the noblest work of God," wrote Pope is his Essay on Man. "Every honest man will suppose honest acts to flow from honest principles," said Thomas Jefferson.

The moral person is just. "Justice is the firm and continuous desire to render to everyone that which is his due," wrote Justinian. Disraeli called Justice "Truth in action." The moral person is honorable. At whatever cost to himself-including, sometimes, his very life-he does his duty by his family, his job, his country. "To an honest man," wrote Plautus, the great Roman poet, "it is an honor to have minded his duty." Two thousand years later, Woodrow Wilson voiced the same conviction. "There is no question, what the Roll of Honor in America is." Wilson said: "The Roll of Honor consists of the names of men who have squared their conduct by ideals of duty."

If, in an hour of weakness, the moral man does a thing he knows to be wrong, he confesses it, and he "takes his punishment like a soldier." And, if he harms another, even inadvertently, he tries to make restitution. He takes responsibility for his own actions. And if they turn out badly for him, he does not put the blame on others. He does not, for example, yield to the post Freudian moral cop-out of blaming his follies and failures, his weaknesses and vices, on the way his parents treated him in childhood. Here I cannot resist mentioning the case of Tom Hansen, of Boulder, Colorado, a 24-year old youth who is living on welfare relief funds. He is presently suing his parents for 350,000 dollars damages because, he claims, they are to blame for lousing up his life, and turning him into a failure. Adam was, of course, the first man to try to shift responsibility for his behavior onto someone else. As there was no Jewish mom to blame, he laid it on to his wife Eve.

"Absolute morality," wrote the English philosopher, Herbert Spencer, "is the regulation of conduct in such a way that pain will not be inflicted." The moral person is kind to the weak and compassionate with those who suffer.

Above all, he is courageous. Courage is the ladder on which all the other virtues mount. Plautus, a true nobleman of antiquity, wrote, "Courage stands before everything. It is what preserves our liberty, our lives, our homes, and our parents, our children, and our country. A man with courage has every blessing."

There is also one moral precept that is common to all the great religions of history. It is called the Golden Rule-"Do unto others as you would have them do to you." When Confucius was asked what he considered the single most important rule for right conduct, he replied, "Reciprocity."

The "universal morality" is based on these virtues-truthfulness, honesty, duty, responsibility, unselfishness, loyalty, honor, compassion and courage. As Americans, we can say proudly that the traditional moral values of our society have been a reflection, however imperfect, of this universal morality. All of our great men, all of our heroes, have been exemplars of some, if not all, of these virtues.

To be sure, different cultures and civilizations have placed more emphasis on some of these virtues than on others. For example, the morality of the early Romans heavily stressed courage, honor, and duty. Even today we still call these the manly virtues, and we tend to associate them with another value we call "patriotism." In contrast, the morality of the Judeo-Christian cultures of the West have placed their heaviest emphasis on altruism, kindness, and compassion. "Though I speak with the tongue of men and angels, and have not charity," St. Paul wrote, "I am become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal." Americans, whose traditional morality reflects the Christian virtue of compassion, donated thirty billion dollars last year to charity. Americans also tend to consider compassion for the underprivileged a greater virtue in politicians than either honor or courage.

Now, if all these virtues do indeed represent the universal morality, then what do their opposites represent? Well, lying, dishonesty, dereliction of duty, irresponsibility, dishonorable conduct, disloyalty, selfishness, cowardice, cruelty and hypocrisy represent, of course, the universal immorality.

In passing, hypocrisy, which has been called "the compliment that vice pays to virtue," has been viewed as the height of immorality in all civilizations. "Of all villainy," cried Cicero, "there is none more base than that of the hypocrite, who at the moment he is most false, takes care to appear most virtuous." The English philosopher Henry Hazlitt called hypocrisy "the only vice that cannot be forgiven." Jesus cursed only one category of sinner, saying, "Oh woe to Ye, scribes and hypocrites!" Even the cynic and agnostic Voltaire, cried: "How inexpressible is the meanness of being a hypocrite!"

So now we are ready to ask: In what direction can we say that Americans are going? Are we, as a people, going on the high road of the universal morality or on the low road of the universal immorality?

The question is a crucial one for the future of our country. All history bears witness to the fact that there can be no public virtue without private morality. There cannot be good government except in a good society. And there cannot be a good society unless the majority of individuals in it are at least trying to be good people. This is especially true in a democracy, where leaders and representatives are chosen from the people, by the people. The character of a democratic government will never be better than the character of the people it governs. A nation that is travelling the low road is a nation that is self-destructing. It is doomed, sooner or later, to collapse from within, or to be destroyed from without. And not all its wealth, science and technology will be able to save it. On the contrary, a decadent society will use, or rather, misuse and abuse, these very advantages in such a way as to hasten its own destruction.

Let us then face up to some of the signs which suggest that America may be travelling the low road to its own destruction.

Campus surveys show that one-third of our college students say they would cheat if they were sure they would not be caught. Forty-five percent say that they do not think that it is necessary to lead a moral life in order to be happy or successful. Sociologists note the extraordinary increase in blue and white-collar dishonesty, such as sharp business practices, dishonest advertising, juggled books and accounts, concealment of profits, and the taking and giving of bribes. These are all practices which rip-off the buying public.

Unethical practices in the professions are becoming common. Honorable members of the Bar are today appalled at the increase of shysterism in the practice of law. A recent Congressional investigation of medical practices turned up the horrifying fact that American doctors, greedy for Medicare fees, are annually performing thousands of unnecessary operations. They are dishonoring their Hippocratic oath by inflicting unnecessary pain on helpless and trusting patients for profit. The public's increasing awareness of the lack of professional integrity in many lawyers and doctors is certainly what encouraged President Carter to make his recent attacks on these two professions.

According to the polls, the majority of our citizens think that politics-- and, yes, post-Watergate politics-are riddled with graft, kick-backs, payoffs, bribes and under-the-table deals. Polls also show that our people think that most politicians have no compunction about lying their heads off in order to get elected. A great number of Americans also question the accuracy and objectivity-in short, the integrity-of journalists. They think that far too many politicians and journalists are hypocrites---quick to expose the "immorality" of those who do not hold their own political views, but quicker by far to cover up the wrong-doing of those whose views they favor.

Addressing Harvard University's graduating class in June, Alexander Solzhenitsyn said: "A decline in courage may be the most striking feature an outsider notices in the West . . . such a decline in courage is particularly notable among the ruling groups and the intellectual elite, causing an impression of the loss of courage by the entire society.... Should one point out that from most ancient times a decline in courage has been considered the beginning of the end?"

A recent TV documentary about the morale of our volunteer army and our armed forces in Germany was a shocker. It revealed that one-third of our enlistees quit after a few months, finding service in the best-paid army on earth too hard on their heads or feet. One-third of our troops in Germany freely admit that they would beat it out of the forces as fast as they could the moment they thought a war was coming, and a majority of them felt that they could not trust their comrades in battle. The officer who did the commentary on this documentary said, "What we're getting is an army of losers." The Pentagon has recently told Congress that quotas for the armed services cannot be filled unless more women are taken in, including into the combat forces. So much for the condition of the manly virtues of duty, honor, courage in America's volunteer army.

Now I am sure that we would all agree that a rise in the crime rate indicates a weakening of society's social fiber. The staggering increase in the crime rate, especially in the rate of violent-and often utterly senseless crime among American youth is surely a significant sign of moral decay. An even more significant sign is the impotence of our courts to cope with the enormous volume of crimes being committed. For example, of the 100,000 felony arrests made in New York City each year, 97,000 or more cases are either dismissed, diverted for some non-criminal disposition, or disposed of through plea-bargaining. The average criminal who is sentenced is generally back on the streets in very short order. Studies show that most defendants arrested for serious crimes-including murder-go free. A society indifferent to the pervasiveness of crime, or too weak or terrified to bring it under control, is a society in the process of moral disintegration.

There is one other phenomenon in our society which has historically made its appearance in all decaying societies-an obsession with sex.

Sex-the procreative urge-is a mighty force. Indeed, it is the mightiest force. It is the life force. But since the dawn of history, what has distinguished man from the beasts is that he has made conscious efforts to control his lustful impulses, and to regulate and direct them into social channels. There is no primitive society known to anthropologists, no civilization known to historians, which has ever willingly consented to give its members full reign-bestial reign-of their sexual impulses. Sex morals, mores and manners have varied enormously from age to age, and culture to culture. But sexual taboos and no-nos, sex prohibitions (and consequently, of course, inhibitions) are common to all human societies.

Now the fact that mankind has instinctively sensed that there is a right and a wrong way of handling its procreative energies strongly suggests that there may be a universal sexual morality. And so there is. And when we examine it, we find that it is this very morality that has made all human progress, and what we call civilization, possible. It is the morality that protects and preserves the basic unit of society-the family. The family is the foundation on which mankind has built all his societies. Jean Jacques Rousseau called the family "the most ancient of all societies," and "the first model of political societies."

Humans, like all animals, instinctively mate. And the male instinctively protects his mate and her offspring. If this were not true, the human race would have long since perished. For in the entire animal kingdom, there is nothing more vulnerable than a pregnant human female, or a human female giving birth. The human female carries her fetus longer, and her young remain helpless longer, than the females and young of any other species.

But although humans, like all animals, instinctively mate, or pair-bond, they are not instinctively sexually faithful. Both sexes are promiscuous by nature. They come together naturally, but they do not naturally stay together. Marriage is a man-made institution. We do not know-or at least I do not know-its origins. They are lost in the mists of time. Marriage probably evolved by trial and error, as the most satisfactory way of both controlling the promiscuous impulses of the sexes, and satisfying the procreative urge in an orderly, uninterrupted basis. Bernard Shaw wittily remarked, "Marriage offers the maximum of temptation, with the maximum of opportunity."

Marriage is also the enemy of man's worst enemies-loneliness and lovelessness. In any event, marriage has been the most serviceable, perdurable and, on the whole, popular of all mankind's institutions. Thousands of years ago, the poet Homer spoke in praise of marriage: "And may the Gods accomplish your desire," he sang to the unwed maidens of Greece. "A home, a husband and harmonious converse with him-the best thing in the world being a strong house held in serenity where man and wife agree."

Marriage customs have varied greatly throughout history. But what we know about the ageless custom of marriage is this: Whether a man took unto himself one wife, or like King Solomon, 1,000 wives, whether he "courted" his bride, or bought her from her father like a head of cattle, once he took a woman to wife his society expected him to assume the primary responsibility for her welfare and the welfare of their children. The first principle of the universal sexual morality is that the husband should protect and provide for his wife and his minor offspring as long as they need him. In many cultures, the man has also been expected to assume responsibility for his illegitimate children, or bastards, and for the fatherless or motherless children of his near relatives.

The second principle of the universal sexual morality is, in the words of St. Augustine, that "They who are cared for obey-the women their husbands, the children their parents." St. Augustine adds, however, that "in the family of the just man . . . even those who rule serve those they seem to command; for they rule not from a sense of power, but from a sense of the duty they owe to others; not because they are proud of authority, but because they love mercy."

In all human undertakings, responsibility and authority go-as they must go-hand in hand. In order for a husband and father to discharge his responsibilities, it was necessary for him to have some measure of authority-let us call it the final "say-so"-over his family. The patriarchal family has been, up to now, the family pattern of all of the world's civilizations. It will remain so until the vast majority of women are completely self-supporting.

The third principle of the universal sexual morality is that spouses should be faithful to one another. Certainly this principle has always been more honored in the breach than in the observance for the simple reason that the animal side of human nature is promiscuous. But the fact remains that the faithfulness of both spouses throughout time, has been considered the ideal of marital conduct.

You may search through all the great literature of the world and you will find no words extolling marital infidelities. While it is true that the "sins of the flesh" have always been more readily forgiven to husbands than to wives, all human societies have taken a very harsh view of men who seduce-or rape-the wives or daughters of the men of their own society.

When the Trojan, Paris, ran off with Helen, wife of the Greek King Menelaus, Greece fought a seven-year war against Troy, to protest the seduction and abduction of Helen. King David's abduction and seduction of Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, the Hittite, scandalized his court. It also caused that God-fearing monarch great agonies of repentance. In passing, King David's repentance produced some of the world's greatest poetry-perhaps, an early proof of Sigmund Freud's theory that all the creative works of man, all his art, poetry, architecture, even his proclivity for money-making, political power and Empire building, are au fond, sublimations of his consciously or subconsciously repressed sexual desires.

The fourth, and most important principle of the universal sexual morality is that moral parents, in addition to supplying the physical and emotional needs of their children, should educate them to become moral adults.

"Train up the child in the way he should go; and when he is old he will not depart from it," says the Bible. John Stuart Mill wrote, "The moral training of mankind will never be adapted to the conditions of life for which all other human progress is a preparation, until they practice in the family the same moral rule which is adapted to the moral constitution of human society." In the universal family morality parents who neglect, abuse or desert their young or who fail to train them to become moral citizens are bad parents.

There are several other aspects of the universal sexual morality which should be mentioned. Although incest is natural among all the lower animals, and has correspondingly also made its appearance in all human societies, none has ever considered incest moral. Even in most primitive societies incest is viewed with horror. The 3,000 year-old story of Oedipus Rex is the tragic story of the "guilt complex" of a man who slept-albeit accidentally-with his own mother.

History does tell us, however, that sodomy, homosexuality, and Lesbianism-virtually unknown in the lower orders-have been widely practiced, though seldom condoned, in all civilizations. But history also tells us that wherever incest, perversion, or marital unfaithfulness have become rampant, and whenever sex becomes, as we would say today, "value-free," the family structure is invariably weakened; crimes of all sorts increase-especially among the neglected young; and then more or less rapidly all other social institutions begin to disintegrate, until finally the State itself collapses. Rome is perhaps the most famous example.

In the time of Christ, when Imperial Rome was at the very height of its wealth and power, when the brick structures of the old Roman Republic had all come to be faced with gleaming marble, Rome had become a city obsessed with the pursuit of sensual pleasures. The Emperor Augustus Caesar, seeing the breakdown of the Roman family that was consequently taking place, tried to shore up the institution of marriage by passing laws making divorce more difficult and increasing punishments for adulterers, rapists, and abortionists. It was already too late. Those monsters of iniquity, perversion and violence, Caligula and Nero were already in the wings, impatiently waiting to succeed him, and to hasten the decline and fall of the Empire.

So now let us come to "sex" in America. There is no doubt that what most Americans mean when they speak of "the new morality" is the "new" sexual morality which holds that "anything goes" between consenting adults in private-and that almost anything also goes in public. The English critic Malcolm Muggeridge had America muchly in mind when he wrote, "Sex is the ersatz, or substitute religion of the 20th Century."

The social results of this new American ersatz religion are best seen in statistics most of which you can find in your Almanac. Today 50% of all marriages end in divorce, separation, or desertion. The average length of a marriage is seven years. The marriage rate and the birthrate are falling. The numbers of one-parent families and one-child families are rising. More and more young people are living together without the benefit of marriage. Many view the benefit as dubious. Premarital and extra-marital sex no longer raise parental or conjugal eyebrows. The practice of "swinging," or group sex, which the ancients called "orgies," has come even to middle-class suburbia.

Despite the availability of contraceptives, there has been an enormous increase in illegitimate births, especially among 13-15 year-olds. Half of the children born last year in Washington, the nation's capital, were illegitimate. The incidence of venereal diseases is increasing. Since the Supreme Court decision made abortion on demand legal, women have killed more than six million of their unborn, unwanted children. The rate of reported incest, child molestation, rape, and child and wife abuse, is steadily mounting. (Many more of these sex-connected acts of violence, while known to the police, are never brought into court, because the victims are certain that their perpetrators will not be convicted.) Run-away children, teen-age prostitution, youthful drug-addiction and alcoholism have become great, ugly, new phenomena.

The relief rolls are groaning with women who have been divorced or deserted, together with their children. The mental-homes and rest-homes are crowded with destitute or unwanted old mothers. These two facts alone seem to suggest that American men are becoming less responsible, less moral, and certainly less manly.

Homosexuality and Lesbianism are increasingly accepted as natural and alternative "life styles." Ms., the official Women's Lib publication, has proclaimed that "until all women are Lesbians, there will be no true political revolution." By the same token, of course, until all men are homosexuals, the revolution will be only half a revolution. In passing, the success of the Lesbian-Gay revolution would end all revolutions-by ending the birth of children.

But the most obscene American phenomenon of all is the growth of commercialized sex and hard and soft-core pornography. In the last decade, hardcore film and print porn, which features perversion, sadism and masochism, has become a billion dollar business. It is a business which is not only tolerated, but defended by the press in the sacred name of "freedom of the press." One would find it easier to believe in this noble reason for defending the filth that is flooding the nation if the newspapers did not reap such handsome profits from advertising and reviewing porn. In my view, newspaper publishers who carry X-rated ads are no better than pimps for the porn merchants. Billy Graham may have been exaggerating when he said "America has a greater obsession with sex than Rome ever had." But he was not exaggerating very much.

Now when we examine the "new" sexual morality, what do we discover? We discover that the new sexual morality comes perilously close to being the old universal sexual immorality, whose appearance has again and again portended the decline and fall of past civilizations. Jane Addams once said, "The essence of immorality is the tendency to make an exception of myself." The principle on which the new sexual morality is based is sexual selfishness, self-indulgence, and self-gratification. Its credo is I-I-I, Me-Me-Me, and to hell with what others call sex morals.

In the 1976 Presidential campaign-for the first time in American history-the moral condition of the American family became a political issue. Candidate Jimmy Carter gave the problem particular stress.

"I find people deeply concerned about the loss . . of moral values in our lives," he said. And like Augustus Caesar, 2,000 years before him, he fingered the cause quite correctly: "The root of this problem is the steady erosion and weakening of our families," he said. "The breakdown of the family has reached dangerous proportions." Candidate Carter also saw the relation between good government and weakened families. "If we want less government, we must have stronger families, for government steps in by necessity when families have failed.... It is clear that the national government should have a strong pro-family policy, but the fact is that our government has no family policy, and that is the same thing as an anti-family policy."

It is far too late in the day to review the curious ideas Mr. Carter put forth in 1976 for the steps the Federal Government might take to strengthen the American family, except to say that they largely consisted in programs for more rather than less government assumption of marital and parental responsibilities. In any event, very little has since come of Carter's promise "to construct an administration that will reverse the trends we have seen toward the breakdown of the family in our country." The truth is that very little can be done by government to shore up the family, although a great deal can be done and has been done to hasten its collapse.

But the real cause of the breakdown is the abandonment, by millions of people, beginning with husbands, wives and parents, of their interior devotion to the principles of the universal morality. To ask what can be done to reverse the trend is to ask, what can the individual members of society do? The answer is-everything.

When Goethe, the great German poet, lay on his deathbed, an old friend asked him what farewell message he had to give to the world. Goethe replied, "Let every man keep his own household clean and soon the whole world will be clean."

If not every American, but just every other American man and woman were to begin today to keep their own households clean, this process of moral decay would immediately be halted.

It is certainly not too late to hope that this will happen. There are still millions of good people in America who try, try, try to remain faithful to the American version of the universal morality, and who also bring up their children to remain faithful. These Americans constitute the true Golden Circle of our country. If they will try to strengthen and enlarge that circle, by only so much as one virtuous act a day, a strong and happy America will make it safely into the 21 st Century.

*Where the words man, he, him, his are used, woman, she, hers and her are also meant.

Clare Boothe Luce reminds us that universal morality should be looked upon as an absolute. The greater harm to society does not rest solely with those who lack the strength of character, choosing instead to “redefine” morality to suit their own selfish needs; regardless of the consequences it would have on society. No, the greatest danger is when those who have chosen the high road allow others to take the low road, blazing a highway for future generations to follow.

The Character of Conservatism: Part Three

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”

- James Madison

Conservatives believe that the foundation of the United States is built on the words, deeds, and principals of our Founding Fathers. We believe that it is the duty of each generation to not only secure the independence passed down to them, but if need be, fight to ensure that future generations are able to live in liberty as it was originally intended. The Declaration of Independence is our soul, the Constitution our heart, and the Federalist Papers our conscience.

As Thomas Jefferson is considered to be the Father of the Declaration of Independence, James Madison holds a similar distinction in regards to The Constitution; therefore it would seem logical that we should look to him when conflicts arise from the interpretation of The Constitution.

Madison became alarmed almost immediately after The Constitution was submitted for ratification, and for good reason. Madison felt that there was an attempt by some to wander away from the original purpose of the document, in particular, their desire for a stronger, centralized form of government. So alarmed was Madison, that along with Alexander Hamilton (first Secretary of the Treasury) and John Jay (first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), the three men wrote a series of essays, under the pseudonym "Publius,” that would be come known as the “Federalist Papers.”

The Federalist Papers were not only meant to serve as a rallying cry for the ratification of The Constitution, but also spell out the true meaning of the document. Just as some have taken a turn away from the original intent of The Constitution, there have been some who feel that The Federalist Papers are “passé,” not longer valid in our modern time; a position I strongly disagree with.

What Federalist Paper #45 is yelling out to America is that we are a stronger nation when we are united by purpose that serves our greater security as a people (such as times of war and conflict), while at the same time respecting the sovereignty of the individual States, and that the United States of America should not be looked upon as indistinguishable mass of land.

Federalist Paper #45, may not be the most important of the Federalist Papers, a right usually reserved for Federalist Paper #10 and Federalist Paper #51, both written by Madison. But #45, talks about the struggle that would exist between the power of the Federal government and the power of the State government, and where the lines of authority should be drawn.

“The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State” – Federalist Paper #45

Federalist Papers – Number 45

The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the United States to the State Governments Considered for the Independent Journal

To the People of the State of New York:

HAVING shown that no one of the powers transferred to the federal government is unnecessary or improper, the next question to be considered is, whether the whole mass of them will be dangerous to the portion of authority left in the several States. The adversaries to the plan of the convention, instead of considering in the first place what degree of power was absolutely necessary for the purposes of the federal government, have exhausted themselves in a secondary inquiry into the possible consequences of the proposed degree of power to the governments of the particular States. But if the Union, as has been shown, be essential to the security of the people of America against foreign danger; if it be essential to their security against contentions and wars among the different States; if it be essential to guard them against those violent and oppressive factions which embitter the blessings of liberty, and against those military establishments which must gradually poison its very fountain; if, in a word, the Union be essential to the happiness of the people of America, is it not preposterous, to urge as an objection to a government, without which the objects of the Union cannot be attained, that such a government may derogate from the importance of the governments of the individual States? Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the government of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty? We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form?

It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter. How far the sacrifice is necessary, has been shown. How far the unsacrificed residue will be endangered, is the question before us. Several important considerations have been touched in the course of these papers, which discountenance the supposition that the operation of the federal government will by degrees prove fatal to the State governments. The more I revolve the subject, the more fully I am persuaded that the balance is much more likely to be disturbed by the preponderancy of the last than of the first scale.

We have seen, in all the examples of ancient and modern confederacies, the strongest tendency continually betraying itself in the members, to despoil the general government of its authorities, with a very ineffectual capacity in the latter to defend itself against the encroachments. Although, in most of these examples, the system has been so dissimilar from that under consideration as greatly to weaken any inference concerning the latter from the fate of the former, yet, as the States will retain, under the proposed Constitution, a very extensive portion of active sovereignty, the inference ought not to be wholly disregarded. In the Achaean league it is probable that the federal head had a degree and species of power, which gave it a considerable likeness to the government framed by the convention. The Lycian Confederacy, as far as its principles and form are transmitted, must have borne a still greater analogy to it. Yet history does not inform us that either of them ever degenerated, or tended to degenerate, into one consolidated government. On the contrary, we know that the ruin of one of them proceeded from the incapacity of the federal authority to prevent the dissensions, and finally the disunion, of the subordinate authorities. These cases are the more worthy of our attention, as the external causes by which the component parts were pressed together were much more numerous and powerful than in our case; and consequently less powerful ligaments within would be sufficient to bind the members to the head, and to each other.

In the feudal system, we have seen a similar propensity exemplified. Notwithstanding the want of proper sympathy in every instance between the local sovereigns and the people, and the sympathy in some instances between the general sovereign and the latter, it usually happened that the local sovereigns prevailed in the rivalship for encroachments. Had no external dangers enforced internal harmony and subordination, and particularly, had the local sovereigns possessed the affections of the people, the great kingdoms in Europe would at this time consist of as many independent princes as there were formerly feudatory barons. The State government will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other. The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. Even the House of Representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the State legislatures. Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them.

On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members. The number of individuals employed under the Constitution of the United States will be much smaller than the number employed under the particular States. There will consequently be less of personal influence on the side of the former than of the latter. The members of the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments of thirteen and more States, the justices of peace, officers of militia, ministerial officers of justice, with all the county, corporation, and town officers, for three millions and more of people, intermixed, and having particular acquaintance with every class and circle of people, must exceed, beyond all proportion, both in number and influence, those of every description who will be employed in the administration of the federal system. Compare the members of the three great departments of the thirteen States, excluding from the judiciary department the justices of peace, with the members of the corresponding departments of the single government of the Union; compare the militia officers of three millions of people with the military and marine officers of any establishment which is within the compass of probability, or, I may add, of possibility, and in this view alone, we may pronounce the advantage of the States to be decisive. If the federal government is to have collectors of revenue, the State governments will have theirs also. And as those of the former will be principally on the seacoast, and not very numerous, whilst those of the latter will be spread over the face of the country, and will be very numerous, the advantage in this view also lies on the same side.

It is true, that the Confederacy is to possess, and may exercise, the power of collecting internal as well as external taxes throughout the States; but it is probable that this power will not be resorted to, except for supplemental purposes of revenue; that an option will then be given to the States to supply their quotas by previous collections of their own; and that the eventual collection, under the immediate authority of the Union, will generally be made by the officers, and according to the rules, appointed by the several States. Indeed it is extremely probable, that in other instances, particularly in the organization of the judicial power, the officers of the States will be clothed with the correspondent authority of the Union. Should it happen, however, that separate collectors of internal revenue should be appointed under the federal government, the influence of the whole number would not bear a comparison with that of the multitude of State officers in the opposite scale. Within every district to which a federal collector would be allotted, there would not be less than thirty or forty, or even more, officers of different descriptions, and many of them persons of character and weight, whose influence would lie on the side of the State. The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them.

The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future Congress will have to require them of individual citizens; and the latter will be no more bound than the States themselves have been, to pay the quotas respectively taxed on them. Had the States complied punctually with the articles of Confederation, or could their compliance have been enforced by as peaceable means as may be used with success towards single persons, our past experience is very far from countenancing an opinion, that the State governments would have lost their constitutional powers, and have gradually undergone an entire consolidation. To maintain that such an event would have ensued, would be to say at once, that the existence of the State governments is incompatible with any system whatever that accomplishes the essental purposes of the Union.

PUBLIUS.

Federalist Paper 45 was meant to serve as a reminder that The Constitution delegated a few, well defined powers to the Federal Government. Federalist Paper 45 was also meant to reinforce with Americans that the State powers were numerous and indefinite, and that the closer the people are to the government (in miles and principal), the stronger liberty is.

“The Constitution was, from its very origin, contemplated to be the frame of a national government, of special and enumerated powers, and not of general and unlimited powers.” (citing from the Federalist Paper #45)

Justice Joseph Story (Supreme Court – 1891)