Some time ago, I was pursuing a poorly-managed blog and came across a statement from a young lady (actually, an obvious airhead) that attempted to discredit the founding of America, and the elegant documents produced by that process by exclaiming “it was just a bunch of rich old white guys trying to protect their wealth”.
Oddly enough, what she meant as a slur would have been an impressive insight, had the airhead possessed the ability to be insightful. In a word, she summed up the situation with great precision. How I know she was an airhead is that she did not follow up with the obvious questions: 1. Why would this be so? And 2. Wasn’t this a good thing?
Then let us ask them ourselves and then try to come up with answers to those and to the follow-on questions that arise.
Second things first – clearly is was a good thing and it made us the greatest nation the world has yet seen.
We all know that what the founders sought was political liberty. There should be no surprise in the notion that rich people would want to protect their wealth from confiscation by an overreaching government. Then why should it be surprising that “rich old white guys” would be the seekers of political liberty? I submit that is is surprising only to those who misunderstand political liberty to the point that they don’t even realize it is one of the perquisites of prosperity.
People who lack prosperity seldom have the luxury of being greatly concerned about political liberty. Their ability to be concerned is saturated with concern over how they will put food on the table; over whether their children will return home safely from what passes for a school; over whether they will be able to keep their job, if they have one or whether they will be able to find a job if they don’t. I could list a hundred more examples here but I think you make have gotten the point – prosperity is a necessary condition for seeking political liberty.
If you doubt this, consider the plight of American slaves in the mid nineteenth century. While in slavery, they certainly had no political liberty – or any other kind for that matter. Then Lincoln supposedly “liberated” them. Yet, for decades after, most of them still lacked political liberty. Why? Because they lacked prosperity. And, further, most of them lacked the education and the property necessary to generate their own prosperity. Tragically, many of them have still not been able to escape.
To me, the link between political liberty and prosperity are so obvious as to not require further discussion. However, this linkage does raise some interesting questions. One of the most interesting, to me, is that almost every time a foreign regime does something we claim not to like, we immediately slap economic sanctions on them, thereby making it nearly impossible for the victims of those regimes to gain the prosperity necessary to demand political liberty. If you doubt this, you need look no further that 90 miles south of our very shores, where the Castro regime has been able to stay in power solely because of American economic sanctions. The same may well be the case in North Korea, Iran and who knows where else.
Why would our government do this when the outcome is so predictable? Could it possibly be that the puppet-masters who actually run things want it that way?
Taking this line of thinking a bit further, could it possibly be that the American military is being used all over the world, not in the cause of political liberty, but in the cause of a new world order?
Is it possible that that “bunch of rich old white guys trying to protect their wealth” were trying to give us a message that we failed to grasp, and that we have fallen into tyranny ourselves because of this failure?
Might be worth thinking about.
Troy L Robinson