Okay, I posted this on the GD board, but after looking at it, I realized that it probably belongs here. I keep forgetting there is a place for the more lengthy essay/article stuff. Sorry 'bout that.
When in the Course of Human Events…
By Andrew L. Yoder (aka Selwynn)A little over two hundred years ago, a group of people made a decision that would change history. They decided that they would stand up against injustice and tyranny at any cost. They made personal sacrifices and put their lives and livelihood on the line because they believed that all human beings ought to live in freedom and have recourse experience happiness and fulfillment. They believed that everyone had equal claim to those rights, and that any person, group or institution that would seek to deprive human beings of this “unalienable” human right must be resisted.
Now, over two centuries later, that equality is yet to be fully achieved. While certain progress is obvious, certain obstacles are equally so. And we currently live in a time where we clearly see American History repeating itself. Perspective is an interesting thing. Two hundred and twenty six years ago, some people decided that certain realities were not tolerable – that their treatment was unjust. While, no one would for a minute suggest that we should declare our independence from the current government today, some of the charges given back then are eerily familiar to the current state of affairs. To clarify, let’s examine these lists of grievances which spawned the birth of a new nation, and discover how they directly describe the current state of affairs today:
“He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” George Bush has refused to enter the Kyoto Accord, the current best hope for meaningful environmental protection which we can no longer afford to live without. He has refused to pursue CO2 emissions standards legislation that was the promise of his campaign. He has been unwilling to endorse healthy trade legislation, civil rights protections, equal employment provisions which would extend existing protection to include discrimination based on sexuality. He has not come out in support of the Hate Crimes legislation when it was in congress. He claimed to have education reform as his number one priority, but has instead chosen to do little other than brow beat teachers and continue to ill-fund schools. He has made no significant move on health care or social security, even though these were his pledges. These are a few examples.
“He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.” While no President of modern times could “dissolve” the representative body of government, Bush has repeatedly taken power away from the representative bodies and given it to himself instead. Bush pushed for trade power that would give him exclusive ability to negotiate internationally without the oversight of Congress. Bush gave an Executive Order establishing Military Tribunals to which a very broad range of individuals could be brought and tried, with no recourse to the civil judicial system. Bush approved the indefinite holding in prison of “suspicious” persons, based on no verifiable evidence; detainees are not subject to the courts, and the detaining process is not under the oversight of the representative bodies. Bush the Justice Department moved to break the very rules of fairness and Justice which this nation is built on when he announced that federal agents should now reserve the right to bug and monitor conversations between individuals and their attorneys – again without Congressional and/or Judicial oversight reviewing the process. These are a few examples.
“He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.” While the nation is established and no effort to undermine its establishment could be made, Bush’s current stance towards immigrants fitting a certain racial profile can be seen as little more than prejudicial and racist. The choice to discriminate against the right of some immigrants to live peaceably in this country, or to enter into this country based on nothing more than color of skin, religious affiliations or personal beliefs is a complete and total setback for this civilized society. That it is being done under the banner of “The War on Terrorism” does not change the cold hard fact that it is discrimination, it is racist, and it is wrong. Moreover, it is a move toward more entrenched nationalistic isolationism wherein we say, “Keep your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, we don’t give a damn about their yearning to be free.”
“He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.” Bush has repeatedly obstructed the administration of Justice by circumventing judicial protections and the rights of citizens to due process and a fair and speedy trial by Jury whenever it is most convenient. He has repeatedly taken steps to make his actions in the judicial system free from review or oversight by any representative body. He has acted as tyrant in global affairs by imprisoning anyone deemed a threat to national interests for an indefinite period of time, and denying them all the rights internationally agreed to be basic and humane, by refusing to label such detainees “prisoners of war” yet also refusing to allow them the basic protections established by both international law and the Constitution of the United States.
“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.” President Bush has instituted the Office of Homeland Security, another office in charge of security and intelligence on the domestic front that has no congressional / representative oversight. He has proposed the massive reorganization of many departments and agencies under the banner of the largest security force in the history of the nation without any clearly defined checks and balances and without the counter-balancing resources of the courts in cases of abuse of power. Bush signed the USA PATRIOT act into law, giving the government unparalleled broad powers for domestic surveillance without the need to show just cause, along with the power to spy indiscriminately on civilians – again with little or no counter-balancing power of proper recourse for people treated unjustly. Under the guise of combating terrorism, swarms of government agencies and intelligence personnel are policing the State.
“He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.”President Bush has continuously sought to increase the size, scope and budget of the Military while at the same time making it less open to direction by either Congressional representation or the direct will of the public. He has proposed the highest military spending increases in decades; he favors the escalation of nuclear tensions by funding proliferation in the form of “Missile Defense” and in the open and willful dismissal of standing ballistics treaties. His stance on the place of the Military in society places it above the common welfare of the people he purports to represent in a de facto manner, by refusing to place greater emphasis on programs of social worth such as employment and housing programs, health care reforms, the encouragement of labor organizing and support of the rights of workers, civil class and race discrimination legislation, meaningful and immediate education reform, and so on.
“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:“ As indicated above, President Bush has introduced countless decrees, executive orders and even legislation (passed by a congress afraid to ask questions of a “wartime” President) that is completely foreign to the Constitution and unacknowledged by the laws. He has undermined the checks and balances of the judicial system, and the recourse to due process and judicial fairness, he has undermined the public’s claim of the right to privacy, and he has undermined the public’s claim to free and unfettered speech, assembly, association and movement. Instead, he has instituted a very subtle police state in which all these things are carefully monitored and minority and/or dissident expressions are harassed. As indicated above, President Bush has undermined the right of Trial by Jury to a non-citizen and reserved the right of indefinite detention without charge for citizen and non-citizen alike. Anyone and everyone who falls into the very large, non-specific, and unregulated category of “aiding terrorism,” is at risk, and there is insufficient oversight as to how these terms are applied and to whom they are applied.
“For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments“ Be it through judicial “reforms” or privacy “reforms” or immigration and naturalization “reforms” or security “reforms” or military “reforms,” it is clear that President Bush has fundamentally altered some of our more foundational beliefs and cornerstone principles on which this nation was founded. These “reforms” would have been considered absurd, anti-American and un-constitutional only two years ago, and it is immoral and reprehensible to use the tragedy of September 11 as a vehicle to ram through decrees and legislation of a constitutionally shredding nature, via the intimidation tactics of accusing anyone who voices concern as un-Patriotic, or as “aiding terrorists” – something which in the current state of U.S. affairs could result in an outspoken opponent of institutional misuse of power being imprisoned indefinitely and/or placed before a Military Tribunal, rather than handed over to the rightful judicial process, and charged with ambiguous crimes centered on “aiding terrorism.” Freedom is being stripped away, but not by terrorists.
These were among some of the grievances were made over two hundred years ago, and yet now despite all this time they still apply today. We can now add more modern ones to the list. We could talk of the growing disparity between poor and rich, or the continuing strangle hold corporate interests have over the people, or the ongoing and unending evidence of greed and selfishness winning out over human decency and concern for fellow human beings. And we could talk of how these grievances have moved well beyond being social problems and have become pervasive institutional problems from the ground up. Clearly the problems of today are not the result of godless communist liberals alone or red-blooded gun-toting conservatives alone. That is a dismissive generalization no matter if it is made form the “left” or the “right.” The pervasiveness of institutional and social problems cannot be reduced to the fault of one political party. And if George W. Bush was not the President of the United States, someone else would both face and most likely aid the same problems along in their growing severity. What then, can be done?
Those grievances stated so long ago were preceded by the famous words, “When in the course of human events..” The Declaration of Independence did hundreds of years ago establish precisely what should be done in to rectify such troubling problems then and now:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.Clearly, a forceful revolution in this country is not currently a logical or logistical possibility. It is also an avenue of violence that any reasonable individual should desire to avoid. And it is not clear that such a revolutionary upheaval would be at all beneficial. However, the first option when confronted with such grievances is not violence. Rather, the first option, according to the authors of the Declaration of Independence, is for the people to stand strong and fight to alter those elements of government that are ineffective, tyrannical, oppressive, contrary to Constitutional Rights, discriminatory or otherwise unjust. The alteration of such things would happen in the following way:
- First, it would require an awakened attitude of the people, shaken out of their complacency and instilled with vigor in the struggle for social reform and justice.
- Second, it would require popular activism of a united fashion in the form or outspokenness, responsibility in the electoral process, the lobbying of representatives, the organizing and demonstrating for issues deemed vital to said cause of social Justice.
- Third, it would require a commitment of the highest level for each individual – a commitment to the greater good of people, even if such a stance occasionally requires personal sacrifice. It would require individuals to work together within the sphere of legal recourse whenever possible, but it would also require a willingness to practice civil disobedience whenever the establishment makes legal recourse to justice impossible.
- Fourth it would require a deprogramming of institutional self-centeredness so common in society today and a newfound appreciation of community responsibility and social concern as timely and achievable goals.
- Fifth, it would require all individuals to make use of their circumstances, natural abilities and resources on a personal level in a focused and directed effort to effect change. This would not have to mean shunning personal life goals, including choice of employment be that direct non-profit activism, entertainment, technology, or any other vocational choice. Nor would it require any individual to relinquish the struggle to achieve a decent and satisfying quality of life for person and family. Rather, it would require a shifting of mindset so that a fair and reasonable balance was more universally maintained between personal comfort and investment in the form of time, money and personal gifts toward the causes of social reform and justice.
- Sixth, it would require a commitment to said causes as the highest and most noble aim for human life, to be treated as ends with all other concerns understood as valuable and necessary, yet means towards that end. It would require all individuals within society to strive for balance rather than lopsided excess in the matter of personal comfort verses communal/societal/global obligation. This would necessarily be a matter of conviction, the feeling of a personal imperative to support and contribute to the causes of justice and equality. This commitment may happen on the local, national or international level as each individual recognizes his or her abilities and with them also a responsibility beyond just oneself to the greater community and to the world. It is not up to any other person to set clear and rigid definitions of what “balance” should mean in any individuals life – yet it is clear that there must be a balance if there is to be any hope for improvement in society.
To bring all previous points together in summation, altering those elements of government that are ineffective, tyrannical, oppressive, contrary to Constitutional Rights, discriminatory or otherwise unjust would require a fundamental change in the mindset of American individuals away from the notion of absolute autonomy in actions and decision making and towards an awakened understanding of civic responsibility. This is a just and moral duty of all human beings with recourse. A move must be made from a mind which would state, “Why are the struggles of anyone else my concern? I am only interested in my life, my goals, my family, and so on, and I have no responsibility to worry about the quality of life for other people beyond my immediate relations.” Instead a move must be made towards a heart which states the following:
“I am moved to the core by love of human life, and filled with ‘unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind.’ I recognize that part of my own fullness of being lies in my awakened sense of compassion and burden for other human beings. I understand and accept that my moral obligation as truly human must be to strive for health and welfare of people, in particular and in general. While such striving naturally includes my own personal growth and attainment as a person, it cannot under any circumstances be limited to self-interest alone. Moreover, the ultimacy of that personal fulfillment rests in part on my constantly deepening awareness of responsibility to others, as seen through the lens of love and compassion. Therefore responsibility to others, to community, to society and to the world is in fact in my own self-interest.
“I acknowledge the difficult truth that I will never be complete until I accept the elements of my personhood that are fundamentally relational, and as such imply obligations to others. And with that acknowledgement, I accept the responsibility to strive for the greatest possible benefit to the greatest number of people as the meaning of my life. Through my work, through my play, through my family and in full awareness of my personal desires for comfort, fun, happiness and security, I commit fully and completely to the struggle for balance between all personal endeavors and my larger responsibility to human life. May I never forsake either myself or others; rather, may I strive to honor both commitments – always.”
One might choose to argue that these conditions for altering oppressive and unjust elements of Government from within seem purely fantastic, wildly idealistic, insurmountably challenging and therefore practically impossible to achieve. The only response that can be given is that one ought to hope those criticisms are proven invalid, as such a radical change in the hearts of individuals is the only real hope for meaningful and peaceful change.
Sadly the alternatives are uncomfortable. First, either oppression and injustice will grow so pervasive that a violent revolution is the inevitable outcome of a completely displaced people. Or second, a national catastrophe will strike with such magnitude as to force human beings to rely honestly and mutually on one another as the only means for survival. Or third, alternative scenarios of even wilder speculation about future circumstances are entertained. At the very least, there are current examples of community movements for justice and human decency interspaced throughout the national landscape. That alone makes civil participation in the causes of social justice a rightful focus, and one with at least with the beginnings of hope.
Hundreds of years ago, injustice brought about a revolutionary war. Today we see injustice and inequality everywhere we are willing to look. Today a different kind of revolutionary struggle is nearly upon us. It is not being fought with guns; rather it is being fought in the hearts of American individuals. The last, best hope for true social revolution is the American individual, awakened out of the lie he or she has been indoctrinated with for ages – that the individual exists alone, that his or her fulfillment can be attained alone, that he or she bears no moral obligation to the struggles of others beyond his or her immediate circumstances, that he or she is somehow able to absolve himself from responsibility for the sins of the society which he or she co-creates, and in which he or she exists.
The last, best hope for true justice and quality of life for all people lies instead in the awakening of the American individual to a heart moved first and foremost by love and compassion – one that understands that he or she does not exist alone, that his or her fulfillment depends in part on the acknowledgement of responsibility to others, that there exists in fact a moral obligation to the causes of justice and equality beyond his or her immediate circumstances, that he or she is unable to absolve himself or herself from that responsibility, and instead chooses deliberately to be thrust into the struggle to erase the sins of the society which he or she has co-created, and in which he or she exists.
Let us continue to struggle for the rights of all humans, created equal, to the securing of Life, Liberty and Happiness. Let us hope for a genuine awakening of the heart within American individuals, because the alternative to this awakening is grim.
My name is Andrew L. Yoder, and I approve this message. ;)
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
