The Framers, at least those of who made significant contributions to our founding documents, were staunch advocates of republicanism

and individualism. First, I should say, the message of the Tea Party is by no means a sufficient representation of the Framer¶s views. The party lays claim as a ³grassroots´ movement [a certainly vague concept], which allows the ignorance of its membership to spread far and wide. However, Neo-Conservatives make up a large part of this group. Neo-Cons are those who support an immoral foreign policy [nation-building and policing the world], and also tend to bring faith and religion [unconstitutionally] into the political arena. They are the traditionalists and social conservatives who favor the status quo. They say they want small government, but then support policies and mandates that keep it growing. Typically, today¶s use of the term ³liberal´ means ³contrary to the status quo.´ So hey, let¶s all be liberals if the status quo is ³Neo-Conservatism.´ What people do not understand is the difference between classical liberalism and modern day liberalism. U.S. Framers were NOT conservatives in their historical context of the term. Conservatives were those in support of centralized, monarchial rule [like Britain]. They were traditionalists or social conservatives [sound familiar?]. Our Framers were ³liberal´ because they were advocates of LIBERTY. Today¶s liberals however, are an advocate of a soul-killing socioeconomic philosophy [sorry, that may sound vituperative], which elevates the ³Will´ of society, i.e., the collective good or welfare of the people, over the freedom of the individual. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, et cetera, were opposed to that idea, be it the Will of God, the Will of a group, or the Will of King±freedom means the inviolate sanctity of the individual. When the framers of the American republic spoke of ³the people,´ they did not mean a collectivist organism one part of which was authorized to consume the rest. They meant a sum of individuals, each of whom²whether strong or weak, rich or poor²retains his inviolate guarantee of individual rights. Throughout history the state had been regarded, implicitly or explicitly, as the ruler of the individual²as a sovereign authority (with or without supernatural mandate), an authority logically antecedent to the citizen and to which he must submit. The Founding Fathers challenged this primordial notion. They started with the premise of the primacy and sovereignty of the individual. The individual, they held, logically precedes the group or the institution of government. Whether or not any social organization exists, each man possesses certain individual rights. And ³among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness´²or, in the words of a New Hampshire state document, ³among which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; and in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness.´ In other words government is to be a neutral institution, one that must never deal with opinion or preference, but only with action; namely, to protect individuals against force and fraud, and to promote and protect trade. It [government] must never endorse race or religion. An individual is FREE. He or she may be a racist and a bigot who claims there is no god but the Christian god; he or she may be a well-educated and thoughtful atheist [like myself] who craves economic freedom and civil liberty for their country; he or she may be flamboyantly homosexual and recycle too much. Doesn¶t matter. The government is not to be in the business of determining or favoring social values. People and government officials should also look up the difference between a Democracy and a Republic. The constitution protects individuals and states¶ rights. The U.S. is

.still a Republic. even if our political process is democratic. The American public has a great deal to learn and let¶s hope they do before the next election.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful