Authored by William Robert Barber
The apologue of exceptionalism… as I envision. Note, I have no empirical evidence that my interpretive was the actual so perhaps I should confess that the following is my penny’s worth of what I’d wish and probably not exactly what it was…
The ethos of American exceptionalism was created in 1776 and took substantive form in 1789; the government was founded on the a priori belief that individual liberty is the optimal reality of man’s inalienable right to live free. It was also understood, as expressed in the spirit and explicitness of subsequent documents that the ceding of individual freedoms is tolerable but only if deemed in the interest of thwarting a physical threat or if congress, after acknowledging in good faith the concerns of the minority, procedurally agrees that such ceding of freedoms is necessitous.
The ceding of individual freedoms to government authority was considered a solemn act. Therefore, in unison with ceding these freedoms, was an automated caveat: Less a declared war, regardless of the particular necessity, individual liberty may not be trumped, disregarded, or denigrated. Before the concept or ideal of “exceptionalism” was defined as a sense of being qualitatively different from other nations, Americanism obliged the measures of their government to be limited and targeted in scope, spirit, and means; otherwise, thought the descendants of Washington, the tenaciousness of freedom would be at risk of perverse revision or outright rescission.
Well, so much for my vision of the improbable… in fact:
Contrary to constitutional intent the three branches of government (since the election of 1800) have consistently acted to enrich and empower the domination of the federal government while cavalierly diminishing the veracity of individual liberty. Indisputably, the federal government has proven to be limitless in scope and insatiable in appetite — withstanding this blatant truism — the electorate have (by voting or not) endorsed legislation to enhance the coercive latitude and longitude of centralized authority. I do believe that individual liberty has been consistently traded for the deceptive perception of economic security, the comfort of disengagement from civic responsibility, and the myth that democracy is self-sustaining.
Although my vision of American exceptionalism is far more wish then reality, “hope runs eternal;” but, hope is hopelessly besieged by the common-to-human forces of self-interest, greed, and compulsory behavioral disorders. If that is not sufficient there is the legacy of presidents’ Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower, Nixon, Johnson, Bush, and the frothy overzealous current administration of President Obama wherein his liberal progressive compatriots are fixated and insistent on instituting the statist-tenets of progressivisms. There is the ordinary politically inspirational theme that tunes to every (withstanding political allegiance) administration; all and sundry juxtapose fairness, ever encroaching collectivism, and justice for all as the equivalency of liberty. The republic has, in the interest of winning the chariot race, given way to the placation of the voting constituency for favors and promises; fraudulent inducement (i.e. the ACA) has passed for policy; distortions of fact, for a politician, is considered the acceptable norm.
For purely political incentives laws of the land is rendered “at the discretion of the executive branch; the capricious, contrarian, and political correctness have deleted the traditional values akin to American sensibility. Governing under the character of prudence and due diligence is considered outrageous possibly racist. For the Obama progressives winning an election is the predominate goal; therefore, (as exampled by specific union demands) facilitating the needs of a particular special interest is justified because for President Obama the means are always subordinate to the attainment of the ideological result.
Liberal progressives via the outsmarting of Republicans on talking points, tactics of economic-class divisiveness, advantaging the rules of the Senate, have convinced the media to prism their reporting from a liberal-biased visual. Finally, in a manner Machiavelli could have designed, no one, it is humanly impossible for anyone, to understand the laws of the land. Interestingly, such ambiguity facilitates the providence of the regulators and certainly allows the president to suggest that insurance is complicated, the bureaucracy is unyieldingly dense, and the process of implementation is difficult.
Our country for reasons digested as necessary America has abandoned the idea that the a priori of a righteous government is individual liberty. That without a policy of stringent adherence to the vales of individual liberty the viability of freedom is at risk of expulsion. In my view American exceptionalism, like King Arthur, Roland, and all of the heroic dragon slayers is a myth. As Benjamin Franklin was credited with saying to a passerby when questioned, “What kind of government do we have?” Franklin responded, “A republic, madam — if you can keep it.”
We have lost our republic. We only have vestiges of what once was…