DEFENSE ABROAD
The maintenance of military forces is expensive, as George Washington quickly discovered in his efforts to resist the British. Today the cost of military readiness is huge, and there are many who wish to reduce those costs by decreasing American military presence throughout the world.
The advocates of a small military should remember, however, that strong defensive capabilities decrease the likelihood of attack. As the world becomes more complex, with threats from various places, it is imperative that we equip ourselves with a military force capable of facing multiple enemies simultaneously. This does not mean that we have to expend all of our resources on the military, but it does mean we must efficiently use resources adequate to “provide for the common defence.”
Our country, as well as the rest of the world, faces an enormous threat from ISIS and other radical Islamic terrorist organizations that aspire to achieve world domination. These were the same aspirations held by the followers of Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. Our government must recognize the importance of directly and vigorously confronting these forces of evil. We must not make the mistake of avoiding necessary conflict; we did not get involved in World War I or World War II until we felt that American interests were directly threatened, and this proved to be the wrong choice, though we eventually were victorious.
If a vicious enemy that is willing to decapitate people, burn people alive, and even crucify children is allowed to grow with only minor to moderate resistance, it will only become a more formidable adversary in the future. If during this period of tepid responses to terrorist expansion the radical Islamists manage to acquire nuclear weapons, providing for the common defense will take on an entirely new different meaning. The longer we wait to eliminate the threat, the more difficult that task will become and the more dangerous the world will be for our children and grandchildren.
We must use all necessary resources to protect the lives of our people. Given the existence of enemies who have a stated goal of destroying our nation and our way of life, one way to provide for the common defense is to hide, which in our case would not be possible. A better option is to try to eliminate the threat, and the earlier the threat can be eliminated, the fewer lives will be lost in the conflict.
Unfortunately, these days our elected officials are slow to recognize the urgency of providing for the common defense. When the commander in chief has difficulty even publicly identifying the enemy, defending our people and territory is going to be exceedingly difficult. Our Constitution does not provide a mechanism to override poor defensive decisions by the president, perhaps because our founders could not imagine a situation where the people would be more desirous than the government of effective military action.
If the people are able to see the growing threat, but the government is resistant to acting, it is the right and responsibility of the people to peacefully protest and demand action. We are quite used to seeing protests against war, but a protest against an inadequate response to a threat that could destroy our nation may become one of the most difficult and important actions ever taken by the American people. I hope that before it is too late the government of the United States will realize that its duty to provide for the common defense includes the responsibility to implement a plan to thwart the goals of radical extremists who wish to destroy Western civilization. Our military forces are capable of achieving victory, especially when allowed to carry out their missions without micromanagement by government officials with little or no knowledge of military strategy. Unfortunately, our soldiers’ job is made doubly complex when those government officials threaten to prosecute them if, in the opinion of some, they violate certain rules of ethical warfare. In the unrealistic world of the ivory-tower elites, war is like a game that has rules to which you must adhere regardless of what the other side is doing. Most of these people have never been in a war or associated with people who have experienced the horrors of war. If they had, they would recognize that in a war you must do whatever you have to do in order to survive. You do not have time to consider the ramifications of every move you make; time-consuming analysis can cost lives. If one of our soldiers makes an honest mistake during combat, the last thing he should have to worry about is being prosecuted by his own country. If we are to be successful in combat, we cannot have a fearful and confused fighting force.
The progressive movement will scream bloody murder and say I wish to abolish the rules of the Geneva Conventions and all vestiges of common decency. To that I respond that we have complex brains, and we are capable of observing common decency while simultaneously having the backs of our combatants. Providing for the common defense means protecting Americans from attack—and protecting those who lay down their lives to keep us safe. We can act both forcefully and ethically, and we must act boldly.
DEFENSE AT HOME
Threats abroad are one thing, but what happens if there’s a need for defense on America’s shores? Our founders recognized that “we the People” could represent a significant fighting force if necessary to repel an invasion by foreign forces. They also knew that an armed population would discourage government overreach. The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The founders feared an overbearing central government might attempt to dominate the people and severely curtail their rights. This, in fact, is the primary reason that the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights.
Most people in the United States would think it ludicrous to imagine our federal government trying to seize unconstitutional power and dominate the people. James Madison did not think this was so far-fetched; he said, “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.”1 He could foresee a day in America when radicals might assume power and try to impose upon America a different system of government. His hope was that the establishment of such a different way of life would be difficult in America, because American citizens, having the right to keep and bear arms, would rebel.
The idea that an armed citizenry was necessary for maintaining democracy is an old one. In discussions about the Constitution, Noah Webster said, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed.”2 True to Webster’s observation, American citizens have been armed for hundreds of years and they have been free for hundreds of years.
On the other hand, German citizens were disarmed by their government in the late 1930s, and by the mid-1940s Hitler’s regime had mercilessly slaughtered six million Jews and numerous others whom they considered inferior. Through a combination of removing guns and disseminating deceitful propaganda, the Nazis were able to carry out their evil intentions with relatively little resistance. Atrocities involving the murder of millions of people were also carried out against the people of China, the USSR, Uganda, Cuba, Cambodia, and Turkey, among others, after the people had been disarmed by tyrants.
Given our long history of freedom and the history of domination and tyranny in nations where guns have been removed from the populace, we should heed Thomas Jefferson’s warning: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”3 Only law-abiding citizens are affected by legislation imposing gun control. The criminals really don’t care what the law says, which is why they are criminals. Confiscating the guns of American citizens would violate the Constitution as well as rendering the citizenry vulnerable to criminals and tyrants.
Some will say that they see no problem with small handguns and hunting rifles, perhaps even shotguns. They are opposed t
o more powerful weaponry such as assault rifles and armor-penetrating ammunition. I too was a member of that camp until I fully recognized the intent of the Second Amendment, which is to protect the freedom of the people from an overly aggressive government. This means the people have a right to any type of weapon that they can legally obtain in order to protect themselves. They would be at a great disadvantage if they were attacked by an overly aggressive government and all they had to defend themselves with were minor firearms.
Freedom is not free and it must be jealously guarded and fought for every day. In his first inaugural address in 1789, George Washington said, “The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the Republican model of government are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.”4 The experiment President Washington was talking about was our system, which depends on the people to adhere to the Constitution and require their representatives to do the same, rather than accepting major unconstitutional edicts issued by smooth-talking politicians in the name of some higher social good. It was the eloquent C. S. Lewis who said, “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.”5 In America we can count on many voices calling for various types of gun control after any massacre, especially when it involves children. This seems noble but is just the kind of thing that our founders feared.
Rather than trying to control or confiscate guns, it might be smarter to offer free, public gun-safety courses. In countries like Switzerland, every man within a certain age range is required to possess a gun and to know how to use it, and Switzerland has one of the lowest gun homicide rates in the world. It is clear that guns do not kill people by themselves. Rather, people who are determined to kill will find whatever means are available to accomplish their mission.
We can talk about gun-safety issues and ways to decrease the likelihood of insane people obtaining guns, but we can never compromise the intent of the Second Amendment to accomplish any other goal. It is the people who are the guardians of freedom, not the government. The power of the nation resides with the people and depends on their vigilance. The great Daniel Webster put it this way:
There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. . . . Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit confidence in their public servants, and fail to properly scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing.6
This chilling warning was written sixty-one years after the Declaration of Independence but still is relevant today.
We must be particularly wary in a hyperpartisan atmosphere of being, as Webster puts it, “dupes of designing men.”7 Those designing men will frequently take things that are matters of liberty and conscience and recast them as political issues. If the party faithful accept this politicization without appropriate analysis, liberty then becomes a partisan issue, and our freedom is at stake. This is one of the reasons why hyperpartisanship is so dangerous to the long-term viability of our nation. We must be intelligent enough to recognize the forces of division that are busily pitting against one another people who should actually be friends and join forces to solve problems. Many who are pulled into the politics of division actually do not recognize that they are dupes or, as Vladimir Lenin purportedly put it, “useful idiots.” When people become well read and learn to think for themselves, they are less likely to move away from providing for the common defense.
WHEN IS DEFENSE TOO MUCH?
In the age of terrorism, many have advocated that we sacrifice our rights to privacy for the sake of providing early detection of terrorist activity. Our founders would be horrified; they were gravely concerned about sacrificing privacy for the sake of security. This is one of the reasons why the Fourth Amendment became part of the Bill of Rights.
Everyone is entitled to their private thoughts and musings without fear of exposure. Creative thinking is much more likely to occur in a setting where private documents cannot be seized arbitrarily based on the suspicions of some authoritarian figure. In this cyber age, the right to privacy is more important than ever, since hackers and the government can monitor your online activities without your knowledge. Surreptitiously tracking phone calls, purchasing activity, Web site visitation history, and a host of other activities is tantamount to the illegal search and seizure forbidden by the Fourth Amendment.
The government consistently denied its involvement in such activities until it was exposed by an informant. Attempts were made to excuse such invasions of privacy by emphasizing their importance in monitoring potential terrorist activities and thereby keeping all of us safe. That might be a legitimate rationale, but it should be remembered that government authorities can easily obtain a court order on a moment’s notice, even in the middle of the night, when legitimate concerns are presented to the appropriate judicial authorities. Once again it will be up to “we the People” to put an end to such practices by raising our voices and utilizing the ballot box in an educated fashion.
PROTECTING OUR FUTURE
The specific threats against America’s existence have changed since the founders wrote the preamble, but the enemies of liberty remain the same. As we take America forward, a strong military is still necessary for defense against threats from abroad. Human nature has not changed, so we still need an armed citizenry to defend against tyranny at home. And we should never forget that this defense is a defense of liberty—any actions that claim to improve safety while destroying our freedoms should be rejected. Because we have been vigilant on these fronts, our union still exists today. Let’s be sure to maintain our defenses for the sake of our children tomorrow. If our common defense allows them to live in peace, they will be even more able to cultivate the “general Welfare” of our citizens, which was the next goal of the founders.
CHAPTER 7
PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE
“Do not withhold good from those who deserve it when it’s in your power to help them.”
Proverbs 3:27
Looking out for the good of others is one of the basic ideals that characterizes American society. Neighbors help neighbors. We do our best to enhance the prosperity, health, and happiness of others in our communities. Essentially, as private citizens we “promote the general Welfare” of our neighborhoods.
According to our Constitution, our government is also to promote the general welfare, but the avenues appropriate for government assistance are slightly different from those appropriate for private citizens. For one thing, it is fine for individuals to help only those individuals closest to them—we should all do the best we can to serve everyone, but our means are limited, and we sometimes have to prioritize. The federal government, on the other hand, must look out for everyone—the general welfare—not just an elite few or the members of a particular party. As private citizens, we can and should give to those in need, and we are free to give with no strings attached. The government, though, shouldn’t just dole out support in a way that increases dependency—it is to promote the welfare, not secure it. The government should use every constitutional means to improve the situation of all Americans, caring about truly public issues such as the environment and monetary policy, but it is ultimately the responsibility of the people to maintain their own welfare.
THE GENERAL WELFARE—NOT SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION
Whenever the government chooses one particular group of people to help, we end up with injustice. The laws and policies of our government should be good for all of the people, and we should not choose favorite groups for the receipt of special favors, whether those favors are monetary or legislative. The founders of our country would be horri
fied if they could see the influence of special-interest groups upon the legislative process in our nation’s capital. So many groups receive handouts or preferential treatment in return for campaign contributions or political influence that it becomes difficult for legislators to discern the difference between what is good for their constituents and what is good for the interest group. As a result, our legislation is bloated with unnecessary pages accommodating special interests.
Many special-interest groups do need accommodation, but their needs should be balanced with the needs of the rest of Americans. This is a concept easily understood in the medical field. Most neurosurgeons wisely focus their careers on remedying the most common problems. Extraordinary cases may arise, but it makes more sense to refer those cases to experts than for all neurosurgeons to try to be prepared for all types of cases. Trying to be an expert in everything results in shallow knowledge and less expertise in every area.
I saw this firsthand in 1987 when I was privileged to lead a medical team in an unusual procedure: an attempt to separate conjoined twins from West Germany. The two were joined at the backs of their heads, and no twins joined in that manner had ever before been separated and both survived. The involved operation required seventy members and twenty-two hours of surgery. The teamwork was impressive and both twins survived. Ten years later I was called upon to lead a team in South Africa in an attempt to separate twins joined at the top of the head. There had been thirteen previous attempts to separate such twins without great success. The conditions were not optimal, but the twenty-eight-hour surgery yielded two neurologically intact boys who will soon be graduating high school.
A More Perfect Union: What We the People Can Do to Reclaim Our Constitutional Liberties Page 6
