Freedom has long been the pride and boast of America. We cheerfully accept its necessary limitations, “liberty in law” as the familiar tune goes. The freedom to swing your arm necessarily stops short of your neighbor’s nose; your criticisms short of slander. The first amendment of the US Constitution sought to safeguard our most essential liberties including the exercise of religion, freedom of speech, peaceful assembly and the press. This was considered essential by the framers, who were themselves often at odds with one another.
No system of government enacted by man ever has been or ever will be perfect. The lure of the United States has always been opportunity to succeed based on merit or diligence and liberty of conscience. In no way does this protect you from failure or criticism, quite the opposite. You are free to squander both your time and resources on foolish ideas and bad investments. You are free to contradict and be contradicted. You are free to ridicule, belittle, and even to stay home and pout when you get your own feelings hurt.
It is inevitable that a great portion of what is protected will be found distasteful or worse by any particular individual. Think of the dissent between religious sects or political parties in particular. We do not suppress even that which we consider anathema, knowing full well that should such suppression be allowed we might well find ourselves on the receiving end someday. Instead we trust in reason, truth, logic, and even providence while patiently enduring contradiction.
The present reality reveals a somewhat different state of affairs. By analogy you could say that the goals of our forebears being quite lofty, on approach to them we discovered an overwhelming fear of heights. Before getting carried away with former glories, we might benefit from recalling one of the sayings of Solomon: “Say not thou, What is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not enquire wisely concerning this.” (Eccl. 7:10)
This is not to say that we cannot remember, honor, and gain wisdom from the past. There is much to be learned from history, particularly certain critical epochs. It is a warning against idealizing it and ignoring its negative examples. This deprives it of humanity and makes it harder to relate to, not to mention the effect on credibility or actual truthfulness. The Bible has always been notable as history that deals very bluntly with the faults of its heroes, such as David or Peter.
The era surrounding the formation of the United States of America is edifying and worthy of study. The contentions and wranglings of the framers, their compromises and the philosophical and historical examples they drew upon for guidance are an education in themselves. The transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution in the early years of our nation and the ensuing struggles to define the jurisdiction of each branch of government and the states themselves remain relevant. Our founding documents have been used as the basis for national charters all over the world.
It is significant that it was created by individuals who were suspicious of government, particularly the habit of those in authority to increase their own power. They had suffered personally at the hands of a system that had little regard for their collective rights or resolutions. Thus their desire for “limited” government. Yet the necessity to be responsive to the will of the people and confront new and unforeseen circumstances led to plenty of foibles, missteps, and controversial legislation.
The infamous Sedition Act essentially made it a crime to criticize the policies of the federal government and actually led to the imprisonment of quite a few newspaper editors. It was rebuked as unconstitutional by resolutions from both Kentucky and Virginia, which contain some of the earliest hints towards dissolution of the union as a potential recourse. It was allowed to expire at the end of John Adams’ term, whose presidency it had also effectively ended on account of its unpopularity. It was never reviewed by the Supreme Court, another entity whose exact powers were not yet clearly understood.
Leading directly to the election of Thomas Jefferson, whose proponents had suffered suppression, it was never renewed. While he advocated for its freedom, Mr. Jefferson did not hold a very high opinion of the press as evidenced by the letter reprinted in this magazine. The purchase of Louisiana brought threats of succession from northern states along the Atlantic who feared they would be disenfranchised. No one involved was entirely certain of the legality or constitutionality of the affair regardless of its propriety. The Embargo Act, later in Mr. Jefferson’s presidency, actually prohibited trade with foreign nations. It was both a failure and, as he had to take on far greater authority than he had ever alleged the government to have, somewhat of an embarrassment.
Julius Caesar is credited with the expression, “Experience is the best teacher.” While there is some intellectual prejudice against “anecdotal evidence,” unjustly where veracity is not an issue, none of us easily forget lessons we learn “the hard way.” It was the founders’ experience that led to the limitations they placed on government and their zealous protection of certain rights. We have benefited from their sagacious maxims, but the circumstances from which they were forged are unique.
Our generation faces its own set of unique circumstances. What sort of solutions will our problems beget? Technology is at the forefront with its reach and influence, not to mention the monetary clout of the largest companies. It poses serious issues to some of our fundamental values such as freedom of speech and religion. What sorts of further complications do we create if we conceive of digital communication as a “right” rather than a convenience or a luxury? It invites an avalanche of legislation and government oversight.
One important way in which our time differs is that we are quick to rely on government to solve our problems. Many initiatives in the name of fairness, justice, and compassion are pursued, not because individuals believe in them to the extent that they are willing to personally sacrifice in their support, but because government can order it. The expense can be taken from those most able to afford it or added to the debt that daily resembles a work of fiction. How much more support can initiatives garner if they benefit the citizen directly? While cynical, this assessment is largely the reason our country was conceived as a republic rather than a direct democracy.
To endow oneself tends to prove tempting, just as the government’s proclivity to enlarge itself. Hopefully we will find ourselves to be people of principle instead of trying to have our cake and eat it too. How ironic is it that we live in a time where information is more accessible than ever before and one of our main fears is that the common man is too foolish to discern truth from fiction? It’s like a dark comedy with too few jokes.
Liberty is not in itself a virtue. By its nature it allows many things repugnant to our sensibilities, but this same principle is the only sure defense of that which we hold most dear, the freedom to abide by our conscience before God. We are reaching a time where a sort of useful tyranny is imagined. A benevolent power to quiet harsh rhetoric or suppress dangerous ideas. An advocate for truth to check the facts and limit misinformation. Such a creation among men is an illusion.
No one enjoys contradiction or derision. No one wants to fail. The potential to do so is incumbent in the freedom that provides us opportunity to find success, fulfillment, and truth. This is what will suffer at the hands of limitation. The challenges ahead are of great import. The past has never been perfect and the future never will be short of the kingdom of God. If we are not careful, diligent, and principled stewards we may squander even that which we have.
We should carefully consider just how much power we wish the government to have regardless of who may be in charge for the moment.
