Because of our current representatives’ corruption, many Americans no longer trust the federal government. Some refuse to analyze the reasons for this distrust and prefer to think about other things, like sports, entertainment, and lifestyles of the rich and famous. We have the choice of continuing to be distracted by trivialities or of faithfully watching for and responding to abuse of the Constitution. If we choose the former option, our descendants will be faced with much less pleasant options.
When we the people do our job, we pay attention to how our representatives vote. We compare what they say with what they do. We hold people of both parties accountable. We refuse to succumb to apathy or trust others to monitor for us. And we turn that vigilance into action.
EXERCISING POWER BY VOTING
American citizens need to remember that members of Congress serve at our pleasure and can be voted out of office anytime the electorate becomes dissatisfied with their performance. The founders anticipated that the federal government would have to be reined in by average American citizens who were willing to educate themselves and vote intelligently.
“We the People” of America are actually at the pinnacle of power. We need not feel like victims or that things are out of our hands. America can become a land characterized by despotism only if the people relinquish their power as voters. Apathy has destroyed other nations before ours, and it can destroy this nation as well if we neglect to involve ourselves in elections.
Our power resides in informed voting. Informed voting isn’t voting the party line or voting based on what political pundits say or on what friends and family tell you to do, but rather voting based on your own values and principles. It means actually taking the time to think about what you believe and what is important to you. It means knowing who your congressional representatives are and how they have voted. Not how they claim they have voted, but how they have actually voted. (There are excellent resources available to obtain this information, including free online resources in my book One Vote.)
We must remember that freedom is not free. We have to regard it as a prized possession that must be fought for and protected every day. If preserving freedom means spending time researching politicians, so be it. If it means remembering to vote in local elections, do what it takes to remind yourself. If it means going to the nursing home and getting your bedridden grandmother registered to vote by absentee ballot, so be it. If you need to help her fill it out, help her fill it out. If we are lazy, fearful, or uncaring, all that so many have fought for will be lost, and our children and grandchildren will suffer the consequences.
EXERCISING POWER BY SPEAKING UP
Finally, we the people exercise power by speaking our minds. Many of the early patriots in our nation had experienced tyranny that prevented them from expressing their opinions. They could not speak against the king or against the established church. They knew that America’s citizens would need to be free to express themselves if they were to rule. Thus they set in place the Constitution’s First Amendment, guaranteeing the freedom of speech and expression.
We’ve preserved this freedom so that our government doesn’t usually try to prevent the people from speaking. Recognizing this achievement, many assert that there is no restriction of speech in the United States and that everyone is completely free to express themselves. Unfortunately, this is a naive claim. Today the political correctness (PC) police are the biggest threat to America’s freedom of speech, and they are doing their best to squelch the opinions of “we the People.”
There is not an officially established PC police force, but its members exist in government, throughout the media, in educational institutions, etc. Members of the PC police are those who carefully monitor the speech and behavior of anyone they consider to be a threat to their leftist ideological domination. The PC police do not care that people disagree with them, as long as those people remain silent. But if someone openly disagrees with them, they demonize that person with ridicule and infantile name-calling. This kind of speech policing has created fear in a large portion of our populace, causing them to remain silent rather than face the repercussions of expressing themselves honestly.
When people become reluctant to express themselves because they may be persecuted or ostracized, they almost might as well be living under a tyrannical government. This repression can be stopped only if large portions of the American population are committed to speaking out against attempts to shut down freedom of expression. For instance, when we hear about a local school trying to take the words “under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance, we should personally get involved in voicing our opposition to such censorship.
Recently, teachers in Lincoln, Nebraska, were told not to refer to pupils as “boys” or “girls” because it is bad to teach students gender disparity.2 I believe this is taking political correctness to another level of absurdity, and I have loudly voiced my opposition to such foolishness. The vast majority of Americans understand that there is a difference between male and female—and long live the difference, which adds to the spice of life. It is eminently possible to recognize that there is a difference between boys and girls without introducing sexism or any other type of unfairness. It is much better to deal with these issues logically and with respect for tradition than through the emotional lens of the politically correct ideology of the moment. Introducing a speech code or stifling traditionalists—or failing to speak up when others do—is not the way to go.
Whatever the dangers, remaining silent is a huge mistake on the part of those desirous of freedom. Ayn Rand put it this way: “Do not keep silent when your own ideas and values are being attacked. . . . If a dictatorship ever comes to this country, it will be by the default of those who keep silent. We are still free enough to speak. Do we have time? No one can tell.”3 If we allow ourselves to be cowed by the PC police, we are the ones to blame for the bad policies that result.
It is not just the fear of speaking one’s opinion that is eroding freedom in our nation, but also the fear of retaliation for contributing to organizations that are targeted by government agencies like the Internal Revenue Service. In 2013 the IRS finally admitted that it screened organizations’ tax-exemption applications for terms like “tea party” and “patriotic,” targeting groups using those words for closer scrutiny. The IRS claimed that this type of targeting was evenhanded and only coincidentally appeared to be aimed at conservative groups. The media tried to make the scandal into a political issue between Democrats and Republicans, but it should be offensive to anyone in favor of freedom in America. Even though politicians and portions of the media will attempt to sweep this dark episode in American history under the rug, the American people must be vigilant and make certain that this affront to freedom is never forgotten. Justice dictates that we get to the bottom of this illegal action and make sure that it never occurs again.
Although the First Amendment protects us from the PC police in government, it does not give us a way to rid ourselves of their influence in other sectors. Fortunately, their only real weapon is intimidation, so we can gain enormous freedom by simply ignoring them and expressing ourselves with the same kind of courage that characterized our ancestors. Courage begets courage, and a few brave citizens can inspire others to stand up and join civil conversations about tough issues. It is these discussions that will result in societal advancement, particularly when both sides can speak without fear of intimidation or reprisals. On the other hand, guarded conversations between people with different opinions severely limit the likelihood of progress being made.
Many will completely agree with all of the preceding statements but will fear there is nothing they can do as individual concerned citizens. This fear is misguided. You can make a difference if you stop being afraid to speak up. Speak with the full knowledge that our Constitution protects your speech. If there are repercussions, seek legal recourse and voice your complaints. If enough people begin to do this, it will have
a chilling effect on the PC police and eventually these people will begin to reform their ways. You can also make your congressional representatives aware of the oppression of free speech you have observed. When they see a pattern, they will be encouraged to take up the fight on your behalf. This is the way our representative government was designed, but it only works when there is active participation by the people.
Protecting the rule of the people means having open and frank discussions with people in your sphere of influence about what kind of nation we want to pass on to the next generation and what we are willing to do to preserve it. This is exactly what our ancestors did in the prerevolutionary days of America. By speaking with one another about the tyranny they were experiencing under the British, they gained the courage to act against King George III and his overwhelming forces.
PRESERVING OUR POWER
Our Constitution was established to ensure the permanent freedom of the American people, not to provide guidelines for management of the people by the government. The American people will decide the destiny of America, and that decision is a weighty responsibility. It is sobering when looking through the annals of history to notice how many free societies became subject to brutal tyranny in a short period of time because people were not paying attention or simply refused to believe that their freedom was in jeopardy. As former president and great patriot Ronald Reagan said, “Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people.”4
Historically Americans have not been quitters. We may not always be right, but we have always fought for our beliefs with bravery and strength. It was that kind of bravery that allowed us to prevail over the Axis powers during World War II and to achieve an even less likely victory over the British in the Revolutionary War.
There will be ups and downs, but we can never despair or give up. We now are the keepers of the flame of liberty and justice for all. As he left the Constitutional Convention, Ben Franklin was asked what kind of government the founders had created. “A republic, if you can keep it,”5 he responded. By the grace of God, we will not only keep our republic and preserve our freedom but also enhance it for those following us and for all of humanity.
CHAPTER 4
IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION
“A house is built by wisdom and becomes strong through good sense. Through knowledge its rooms are filled with all sorts of precious riches and valuables.”
Proverbs 24:3–4
Unity improves almost every situation. I saw this firsthand in the medical field. I was fortunate to train as a neurosurgeon at the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, where many of the neurosurgeons were some of the most highly regarded medical practitioners in history. The neurology department at Hopkins was well known, as was the psychiatry department. Each department had highly effective administrators and support staff who contributed to their greatness. In the seventies some of the new leaders in these departments began to recognize that if they combined their administrations, they might achieve significant cost savings and improvements in efficiency. The medical school and the university agreed, and the concept of a neuroscience center was born. The rest is history, as the neuroscience studies at Johns Hopkins achieved worldwide recognition. The strength that was gained through unity was much greater than the individual strength of each separate department.
Recognizing the power of unity, the Constitution’s framers wrote in the preamble that they desired to “form a more perfect Union.” Our nation had begun as a loosely associated collection of states, each of which acted like a small nation unto itself. There was no central authority to coordinate the collective defense or to facilitate mutually beneficial commercial activities. This left the states vulnerable and directionless in a dangerous world of greedy, predatory nations.
One of the main purposes of the Constitution was to form an effective union that balanced unity and liberty. The founders of our country recognized that there was tremendous synergy and strength to be gained if the states were united in a meaningful way. Not only would they have a better chance of thwarting attacks by other nations, but they would also have significantly more power when negotiating treaties and trade agreements throughout the world. This union had to be strong enough to provide a united front.
The union also had to be weak enough not to deprive the individual states of the right to govern themselves. Large states and small states had different needs. Industrial states wanted different rules from agricultural states. Southerners and Yankees thought each other were inferior. A more perfect union would have to be weak enough to allow the states to make their own decisions on some matters.
But before the delegates could unite the states they would need to overcome their own disunity. Many of them disagreed strongly on the details of how the Constitution should be structured. If they could not stop bickering about these individual points, there would be no hope of forging any Constitution at all.
Fortunately, the delegates had two strategies. First, they made the Constitution as broad as possible, leaving out details that might cause disagreement. By doing this they made room for compromise and calmed themselves enough to work together. Second, they gave the federal government supreme power—but only in a limited number of areas. This would allow the states enough sovereignty to tailor their governing styles to their individual needs. By avoiding being bogged down in details and by balancing strength and liberty, the delegates created a true union—one more perfect than that effected by the Articles of Confederation.
ESCAPING THE DETAILS TRAP
Sometimes people get so bogged down in the details and risks of a situation that they miss the big picture that mandates action. I well remember the case of a little girl from Connecticut who fell off a swing in the schoolyard and hit her head, experiencing a postconcussive seizure as a result. No one was overly concerned until she started developing increasingly frequent seizures, up to sixty per day despite medications. After multiple medical consultations, she ended up at Johns Hopkins, where I and the neurology team concluded that she was a candidate for a major surgical procedure to stop the seizures.
After I explained to her parents the risks of surgery, they decided that they would try to live with the seizures. I understood their fear of the risks, but the decision to avoid these potential problems meant that their daughter would be stuck with guaranteed problems—and still not out of danger. I feared that their concern over the surgical risks had kept them from seeing the big picture.
Then that Christmas she had a grand mal seizure. That was enough to persuade her parents to proceed with the surgery despite the risks. Although the surgery went well, she remained in a coma for four weeks, during which time her parents were beside themselves with grief and guilt. Fortunately, she awakened and made a tremendous recovery and even became a model student at school. This would never have happened if she had not had the surgery and if her parents had continued to focus on the risks instead of the big picture. Similarly, those who penned our Constitution focused on the big concepts rather than getting bogged down in minutiae that would have led to endless battles and inaction.
One of the outstanding features of the Constitution is its lack of details. The preamble declares the document’s purpose, and the body of the document provides the structures and mechanisms for governance, all without being overly concerned with every detail of implementation. The framers didn’t describe what “the general Welfare” looked like or set out exactly how national defense should work. They wanted to concentrate on broad concepts rather than minutiae, because they realized that the nation would change and that the little details would have to be changed frequently. Constant squabbling over such details would have been detrimental to our national interests.
Even with the lack of details, there are still many in Congress who simpl
y like to argue over everything without getting much of anything done. They do not seem to realize that some of the problems facing our nation currently, such as a huge national debt, stagnant wages, a demoralized military, a failing public school system, poor access to medical care, and an abysmal business environment, to name a few, are so substantial that if we don’t address them adequately in the near future, the little details over which they are squabbling will become irrelevant.
As citizens, we need to get beyond squabbling with one another about tactics. For example, instead of arguing about how fast the debt should be reduced, we should unite on the common ground that it ought to be reduced at all. As we fight over details, our children’s future is worsening. It’s time to focus on common ground and take swift action based on our agreement before our nation moves beyond saving.
BALANCING FEDERAL AND STATE POWERS
Once the framers agreed to work together, they had to figure out how to create a system that united the states without trampling on the rights of state governments. Arizona’s recent experience with illegal immigration illustrates the importance of this balance of unity and liberty. In 2010 the governor of the state tried to enforce already existent immigration laws, because the state was being flooded with illegal immigrants from south of the border. The federal government, deciding for reasons of its own that it did not want the border laws enforced, initiated a legal action against the state. It is questionable whether that kind of federal interference helps to establish a more perfect union. Fortunately, our system is designed to prevent the federal government from trampling on the rights of states with impunity. The state could file a countersuit, have its legislative branch produce new legislation, or wait for the judicial branch to strike down unwarranted federal intervention.
A More Perfect Union: What We the People Can Do to Reclaim Our Constitutional Liberties Page 4
