Our in depth examination and discussion about the fallacy of security in the United States of America continues.
The deception of America’s security begins in the words of the Declaration of Independence with the suggestion that "all are…equal." Recall Thomas Jefferson’s meaning that all are equal in rights and not necessarily in abilities. Although this myth of equality was vital when instigating rebellion it was not considered important enough to be explicitly included as part of our Constitution. In the Preamble ‘equality’ is overtly implicit as a sub-text lending support to American security mythology.
The Preamble is unambiguous in its assertion that we, the people, did ordain and establish our constitutional framework. Principally for the purposes of organizing a system and process of government to provide security for life, liberty, and property. It is a legal and binding social contract. The framers agreed that the ends of government are to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare. All of which are aspects of either domestic or national security. They also pledged to devote resources to creating a more perfect union and ensuring liberty’s blessings.
Citizens first learn about the American Revolution and the writing of the Constitution in school. This process generally includes memorizing the Preamble. As a result, the natural and logical inference one draws is that all this security, protection, justice, and the supposed blessings secured by government are for every member of the group. That is to say, Americans believe this Constitutional contract must apply equally to all citizens, private and corporate. Therein one discovers the fraud, the deception and ultimately, the myth.
The plain unvarnished non-mythologized truth is that our independence was declared, our Revolution instigated, and our United States Constitution was constructed and ratified by and for the benefit and protection of the property and interests of an elite wealthy minority faction; not for ALL. The only role common citizens and poor farmers had in establishing this nation was the actual fighting and winning of the Revolutionary War.
In Passionate Declarations, re-titled and re-published in 2003 by Perennial, an imprint of Harper Collins Publishers, Inc., New York, historian, activist, and author, Dr. Howard Zinn, discussing the opening phrase of our Constitution’s Preamble writes:
"The Constitution thus looked as if it were written by all the people, representing their interests. … In fact, the Constitution was drawn up by fifty-five men, all white and mostly rich, who represented a certain elite group in the new nation."
Dr. Zinn also writes about this extensively in A People’s History of the United States, first published in 1980 by Harper Collins Publishers, Inc., New York, and revised most recently in 2003. He notes that, "In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison argued that representative government was needed to maintain peace in a society ridden by factional disputes." Disputes caused from, as Madison says, "the various and unequal distribution of property."
According to Zinn, Madison saw the real problem threatening survival of the United States going forward as one of "minority faction." The solution offered by the Constitution was a large republic ranging over thirteen states. Madison then says: " It will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other… The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but [it] will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States." Madison reasoned that, any rabble-rousers, or even someone with a legitimate cause, if separated – isolated, could be controlled and ultimately shut down. Thereby keeping the peace and security for those with wealth and property.
But Professor Zinn asks, "[Is] it the aim of government simply to maintain order…? Or is it that government has some special interest in maintaining a certain kind of order, a certain distribution of power and wealth, a distribution in which government officials are not neutral… but participants?"
In Federalist #10, James Madison is direct about whose peace he supports. He remarks: "A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it." [Emphasis added.] James Madison impugns common citizens’ redress for economic stimulus, for relief that had been assured, and a demand to have equal access, opportunity, and protection by designating our purported inalienable rights of citizenship to be both improper and wicked. This act exposes his true aristocratic nature and loyalty to the powerful status quo.
Madison was a member of the original American pseudo-aristocratic class that also included Hamilton, John Adams, Jefferson, and Washington. Most of our constitutional framers were an elite cohort of men that were already established in positions of wealth and power. The group also included lawyers, shipping tycoons, slave traders, speculators and moneychangers. This minority faction instigated rebellion and revolution for less than altruistic or compassionate ends. Upon attaining victory this minority acted to institutionalize its position, power, and priority interests as synonymous with our new nation’s objectives by assigning exclusive authority and privilege to themselves and the minority faction they represented at the Constitutional Convention.
In A People’s History of the United States, Professor Zinn refers to historian Charles Beard’s early twentieth century book, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, in which Beard points out that, "for their own interest, the rich either have to directly control the government or the laws by which government operates." By studying the political ideas and economic backgrounds of the fifty-five men who assembled the Constitution, Charles Beard discovered that most of them were wealthy, and that most had some direct economic interest in establishing a strong federal government.
Mr. Beard also noted that four groups were not represented in the Constitutional Convention: slaves, indentured servants, women, and men without property. I would add native people to the list. Because those groups were not represented, the Constitution did not reflect their interests. But, according to Zinn, Beard wanted to make it clear that, "he [Beard] did not think the Constitution was written merely to benefit the Founding Fathers personally. Rather, it was to benefit the groups the Founders represented, the ‘economic interests they understood and felt in concrete, definite form through their own personal experience.’" Charles Beard also warns us that government, including our own, is not neutral.Government always represents the dominant economic [and I would add religious] interests and shapes their constitutions to serve these interests.
By examining the political clauses of our Constitution and the economic interests that created them, it is very easy to recognize it for what it is. The United States Constitution is not the work of wise men simply trying to establish the security of a decent and orderly nation. The final draft language clearly demonstrates that certain parts of society arranged things for their security in order to hold on to their established privileges, power and wealth, while, as Dr. Zinn says, "giving just enough rights and liberties to enough of the people to ensure popular support." From the very beginning of our nation the government has been arranged to divide and control.
That ours is a nation dedicated to providing justice, domestic tranquility, common defense and general welfare for all citizens is the myth of America’s security. The truth is that ‘All’ is narrowly defined and includes primarily wealthy and powerful religious, political, and corporate interests. The remaining 90%-plus of citizens must be content to rely on our rugged individualism and, in deference to our pseudo-aristocratic government and the wealthy donor-class, we should be grateful to live in the greatest, most powerful, most secure and free nation in the history of the world. The security objective of the elite status quo is to protect its own position, power and profit, not all the citizens of the United States.
We have traded our liberties for lawyers and our integrity for the myth of security. The illusion and structure of America’s traditional Homeland and National Security model protected and defended thus far by the status quo offers some insight into the deleterious stupor of credulity and cupidity infecting the spirit and character of United States citizens.
Something for readers to consider. More to follow in my next posting. Until then...Give Peace a chance.
James B. Tinsley, B.A.
No comments:
Post a Comment