August 5th, 1305: A hero of his country is betrayed, and marches to his execution. His last defense is simple and true: “I can not be a traitor…” Grieved beyond words, a whole nation rises up for its independence and a declaration of grievances is published. Read more on Landmarks of Liberty.
E. Wesley- Mackinac Center Intern
Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern
I was reading through The Road To Serfdom by F.A. Hayek last night, and stumbled across a fantastic passage: “In a competitive society the prices we have to pay for a thing, the rate at which we can get one thing for another, depend on the quantities of other things of which by taking one, we deprive the other members of society. This price is not determined by the conscious will of anybody. And if one way of achieving our ends proves too expensive for us, we are free to try other ways. The obstacles in our path are not due to someone’s disapproving of our ends but to the fact that the same means are also wanted elsewhere. In a directed economy, where the authority watches over the ends pursued, it is certain that it would use its power to assist some ends and to prevent the realization of others.”
By D. Pontoppidan, Summer Fellow at the Mackinac Center
We’ve all seen what has been described as the “biggest unrest in Iran since 1979” unfold on television for the past week. What we haven’t seen, however, is the United States of America or President Barack Obama take an active stance in the conflict. So far, the world has heard very little from the leader of the free world in the matter of Iran.
This provides grounds for some thoughts over the foreign policy of the current party in power – the Democratic Party.
Historically, the Democratic Party was an interventionist party that believed in spreading freedom around the world. It would seem, however, that it has changed its principles radically since the failure of the Iraq war, and taken a more isolationist stance on foreign issues, which is a shame. As a European, and in particular as a Dane, I have always seen America as a historical liberator of oppressed peoples around the world. FDR to me was never the president of the Great Depression or the president of Social Security, but the president who gave the famous Garden Hose speech to persuade Congress to pass the Lend-Lease Act. FDR’s phenomenal leadership made it possible to persuade a largely isolationist country to lend military equipment, and later manpower, to European countries that defended themselves against the Axis powers. If not for the Democratic Party, I would have been speaking German today – not Danish. That counts for something in my book.
A few weeks ago, President Obama spoke at the 65th anniversary of D-Day and stated: “Friends and veterans, what we cannot forget — what we must not forget — is that D-Day was a time and a place where the bravery and selflessness of a few was able to change the course of an entire century”. This bravery was apparent in the men who died at the front fighting for freedom and democracy – but it was also part of the political leadership and the Democratic Party at the time. And just as it was then, it should be today.
Should we declare war on Iran? No. The price would clearly be too high to pay. But what about taking a stance for democracy? For the past week, the Iranian government has violently and brutally cracked down upon any dissent from peaceful protesters that have protested the disputed results of the Iranian Presidential Elections from June 12 2009. Protesters have been killed and assassinated, political prisoners have been taken, cell phones and internet connections have been shut down, and the Iranian people’s desire for free assembly and free speech is being grossly set aside. What we are seeing unfold is a victory for totalitarianism – not democracy. According to Der Spiegel, as many as 5.000 Lebanese Hezbollah militiamen have been recruited to fight the protesters, happily traveling the distance from Lebanon to Iran to destroy the spirit of democracy and keep an Islamic extremist in power.
Recognizing the right of the Iranian people to have open, democratic elections as well as the right to protest peacefully against blatant electoral fraud would not be a hard thing for the United States to do, but it would be significant in providing a united stand against the corrupt Iranian regime. Echoing French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the United States could demand that the Iranian election results must be subject to immediate nullification, and that no international country should recognize the results until an international probe into the Presidential election’s process has been conducted. The United States could refuse to speak to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and thereby refuse to recognize him as leader of his country. Through the United Nations’ Security Council, a resolution could be passed imposing sanctions on Iran, or at least it could be attempted. And as a president widely seen by the world community as a symbol of hope and change, Barack Obama could attempt to unite the world just as he united his own country. The statement “Yes we can” did not go around the world because it was a smart campaign slogan. It went global because of its universality and belief in certain basic truths, as fundamental as those described in the Declaration of Independence. The belief that change can be achieved.
To recognize Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as President is to recognize violence and fraud as valid measures in a country that proclaims itself to be democratic but clearly is not. The Iranian election process, having been manipulated from the beginning, did not intend for Mr. Hossein Mousavi or any other possible reform candidate to win. We now have the chance, however, to help the Iranian people in ensuring a more prosperous future, and rise up against a totalitarian system. I recall the words of former U.S. President John F. Kennedy, who in his Inaugural Address stated: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty”.
Words of wisdom for the leadership of today.
www.clevelandpeople.com
Per Scriptum,
E. Wesley — Mackinac Center Intern
June 15th should go down in history as a cornerstone in the freedom movement in the West. Although the Magna Carta didn’t apply to all men and women when first crafted, it implemented the concept of fundamental human rights into political reality. In the West, it was arguably the first step towards forming a society with explicit rights for humanity, and limitations on how a ruler can rule over his subjects. We ought to remember the strife that determined the fate of such a vital document.
In 1204, King John of England was forced to concede the loss of his French provinces. However, he was determined to regain popularity among the English nobles by continuing renewed military campaigns with France. This necessitated a rise in English taxes to support the foreign wars, which only led to more dissatisfaction among the nobility. Meanwhile, John also disagreed with Pope Innocent III over the Canterbury archbishopric election. The Pope threatened to depose John in 1212, but stopped when John (as a necessary compromise) offered England as a fief to the Church. John, in attempting to save his own power, now became a puppet.
The nobility, now completely enraged at John’s most resent political blunder, began to form a confederacy. Ironically, Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury revealed a copy of Henry I’s charter of freedoms in a meeting of nobility in London. The nobles swore to renew the observance of this charter. Soon, the confederacy spread throughout England and comprised the vast majority of the all the nobility. A much larger meeting was called at St. Edmundsbury by Langton, and the results were the same. It was agreed that after Christmas, they would trek to London for a “petition.” In the meantime, they armed themselves.
At the festival of Easter, when the nobles expected to hear the King’s reply to their petition, 2,000 knights in majestic array (and countless others of inferior rank) formed at Brackley, 15 miles from Oxford. The King, in an angry rant, refused to limit his power. Not a good idea! The confederacy then chose Robert Fitz-Walter as their general. They besieged Northampton castle (though unsuccessfully), marched through the gates of Bedford castle, and rode on to London. Upon reaching London, the nobles issued compulsory orders to other loyal barons to join the fight. The confederacy trashed the King’s palaces and parks, and “loyalists” flocked to their ranks all the more as an opportunity to make their secret hopes of freedom a reality. King John, having only 7 knights left, finally capitulated. In Runnymede, on June 15th 1215, John signed the “Great Charter” into law.
The Magna Carta’s influence is extraordinary. It laid the foundation for local elections in England (originally, only for the nobility). When England began to institute the “election” into society as a legitimate means of governance, it simultaneously spelled doom on its class system. Noble councils became parliaments, and rights to lords became rights to mankind. America would then take these seeds and plant them in a new world.
As of late my view of economics has been narrowed by report after report of “$_____ billion appropriated for ______” and “$____million could be saved if we just_____” to strictly contain dollar amounts. Liberty however is a basic human right not limited to the scope of the financial sector, and the need to economize can be found in nearly every area of life. Consider then, the church.
World Magazine’s Marvin Olasky recently conducted an interviewwith John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, editor-in-chief and Washington bureau chief of The Economist regarding their latest book God is Back. Despite secularization theory, these two men have found that religion looks to be on the rise and that Christianity seems to be doing quite well compared with many other faiths.
The reason for the success of the church? Micklethwait and Wooldridge claim it is competition. Having such a root in free societies, churches are forced to be accountable to parishioners for both the quality of their services and an efficient use of resources. If a church-goer does not think a specific church is making good use of their tithes they are free to find one that will.
These findings should come as no surprise. All over the world, and especially in countries like China that have strict church control by the state, it is underground churches that are flourishing. These unsanctioned institutions provide believers with organizations they can have a say in and hold to account, in strict contrast to state regulated institutions that largely dictate what the church may do. The desire to worship freely apart from state control was in large part what sparked American colonization.
The need for freedom in not restricted to markets or politics. Competition is not something that should be shied away from, even in religion.
Adam Rule – MCPP Intern
President Obama is starting to echo John Keating’s quote from The Dead Poet’s Society,
Now I want you to rip out that page. Go on, rip out the entire page. You heard me, rip it out. Rip it out!
But this isn’t the introduction to a poetry book he’s asking us deface, no this would be the tomes of American law that we are to disregard. The fate of American investment now sits before the highest court in the land to determine if the destruction will go unchecked.
Just over a month ago, Chrysler was forced into bankruptcy by our president, and the whole structure of stakeholders was shaken. What was once a 20% Daimler and 80% Cerberus enterprise is now slated to be 2% Canadian Government, 8% US Government, 35% Fiat, and 55% UAW. A number of secured creditors, who should have been the first in line to receive funds or a stake in the reorganized Chrysler have been left out of the deal entirely.
As a result, several Indiana funds have brought their case before the Supreme Court. While the bankruptcy of Chrysler has moved at an alarming rate, Chrysler, Fiat, and the US Justice Department have each filed a brief with the Supreme Court encouraging it to keep the ball rolling. The briefs collectively urge the court to hurry to a decision as the fate of Chrysler is uncertain past June 15th when Fiat is to close with Chrysler. If Chrysler is not sold on this date, Fiat can withdraw from the deal.
The argument of Chrysler’s continued loss each day the court delays should be countered with the fact that the court is being asked to shake the economy to its core. If the court should establish that the Indiana funds do not have a right to a stake in or funds from Chrysler before the government, investment as we know it will cease to exist. Such a ruling would set the precedent that the rules of investment are subordinate to political wants. President Obama has said of the creditors,
They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices, and they would have to make none,
Mr. President, what you ask for is the sacrifice of freedom, and in its place, government rule. How can you ask us to do that?
Adam Rule – MCPP Intern
Chart Provided by The Heritage Foundation
