Is Welfare American?

In short yes. And no.

There was welfare at the founding of this great Nation. The founding fathers struggled with this idea since welfare is at odds with both a free market and a limited Government. However, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are fundamental rights upon which the nation was founded.

President Jefferson wrote that strict adherence to the law during times when that very adherence would imperil the nation would be tantamount to “sacrificing the ends to the means.” In other words, the Government relies upon laws to secure itself so that it may secure its people. If those laws would imperil the people then the laws must be foregone, not the people.

This creates a tension between the right to possess property and the right to acquire property. Your right to necessity and self-preservation supersedes my right to property. However, this supersession ends with necessity and self-preservation and does not extend to luxury.

There were indeed welfare houses in those early years. They provided the bare necessities and, in some circumstances, required those who received aid to work the land and facilities. There were even systems in place where the Government would pay private entities to care for the needy. Again, this was mere care, not to the point of luxury. The welfare system of the 18th century was installed to facilitate independence and work ethic.

Our welfare system today has far outpaced the welfare envisioned (and morally required) by our forefathers. Today, the impoverished are entitled to luxury. Those on welfare have entertainment, designer clothing, cars, and enough food to feed 5 times as many people as are present (I have been on welfare, I know what the struggle thereof entails). This is a system of dependence, not a system of independence.

Welfare is so good these days that there are people who refuse to work more than a few hours a week because if they did so, they would lose some of their welfare dollars. This hurts the person, hurts the welfare rolls, hurts the economy, and hurts the taxpayers. It is a loss for all.

There are, of course, situations where the recipient is unable to provide for himself. In such cases, I believe some luxury is par for the course since this citizen has no way to acquire such a thing without aid. However, this is not a common circumstance, and we should be legislating for the general welfare of the citizenry (as stated in the Constitution) rather than legislating for the specific welfare of specific, amorphous classes of citizen.

Further, the Federal Government has no business dealing with welfare. That is a matter left to the States and to the People as implied by the 9th and 10th Amendments of the US Constitution. There is no legitimate argument for a set of unelected bureaucrats in Washington DC setting rules for how Texas manages her impoverished. The climates are different, the resources are different, the economies are different, and the cultures are different.

Welfare is, indeed, American; however, the system we have today is bloated and detached from reality. The system today places too much power into the hands of people who live outside the community and breeds a brand of dependence that consumes entire bloodlines rather than uplifting the lowest of us all in their time of need that they may strengthen themselves and rise to the new challenges tomorrow brings. We are instituting political slavery through welfare. Welfare is deeply American, but the style we wear in our time is an abomination.

History of Freedom

Recently, Ann Coulter was interviewed by Vivek Ramaswamy. Many took offense with Coulter’s statement that an understanding of freedom requires cultural history, so she would not vote for Ramaswamy to be President. Ramaswamy, with the poise he has become known for holding, responded with probative questions. I have never been a fan of Ann Coulter, but she raised some valid and interesting points that every Conservative must understand in order to make effective choices at the polls.

Can a person who was not raised in the privilege of freedom understand that privilege? Can a person whose parents were not raised therein understand the same? How many generations does it take to understand freedom? History can prove to be informative here.

The salient question here is “What does it mean to understand freedom?” Surely, our Founding Fathers were raised under British Tyranny and their fathers before them. However, they understood freedom. How could this be? The question lies in the history of French, British, and Indigenous Providence for this region.

For the first roughly 150 years of European occupation, the French and British were at constant odds with one another. It was difficult for either to take or hold territory. For these early years, before American Independence, the British were more lenient, more appreciative, and more passive. The British had to be because the American colonial subjects were fighting the French to hold the line. The amount of fighting warranted self-government because this was before telephone, radio, and internet. It took more than a month to get word from one side of the ocean to the other.

After the so-called French and Indian War, the dynamic changed. The French rulers were driven out of the land (although their system of Government and language persists to this very date). With the French gone, the fighting was lessened, but the people - who were still then British subjects - had a history of self-government and freedom that could not be stamped out.

The King proceeded to disband legislatures, install soldiers in homes, and engage in all manner of political violence against the colonial Americans. When the Americans asked why they should not be ruled by legislators of their own choosing as all men are born equally free, the King responded by dismissing the request and argument outright. He responded informing Americans that they were born subjects, so it was their duty to obey him; and he was born King, so it was his duty to take care of them. He explained nothing could abdicate either from these duties. Clearly he had missed the point entirely.

This idea that all men are created equal was so strongly held that George Washington went to Europe in an attempt to plead themselves out of war. The points of Washington were so misunderstood by the Crown that Washington, before the end of the meetings, sent a letter home informing America that the war would be waged.

This idea that all men are created equal was so strong that they wanted to abolish the institution of slavery, but in a compromise, instead, merely denounced it and attempted to legislate against the practice. Thomas Jefferson included an anti-slavery passage in the Declaration of Independence; he was outvoted, and the passage was stricken. He, too, drafted numerous laws when he was Governor of Virginia before the time of his Presidency attempting to ban slavery, but those laws fell to the majority as well.

If we fast forward to the time of Lincoln’s leadership, we see similar effects but more pronounced. These effects were so outsized that a war broke out to determine the size of freedom afforded within these United States. Many of the North argued for the abandonment of the practice, many (including slave-owning blacks) of the South argued for its durability. Slaves, who had no cultural history of freedom, were difficult to free. Harriett Tubman is quoted (without proper verification) stating, "I freed a thousand slaves; I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves." We hope this quote is factual. It shows exactly what kind of mindset a person born into generational bondage held.

We see this generational bondage in China, India, Russia, Iran, and throughout the World. The fact of the matter appears to be, that an understanding of freedom is a cultural trait, not a learned ability. Of course there are outliers. There are people who are 7th+ generation in the US who would give their liberty to Government in exchange for security (we often call them Leftists). There are people who are multi-generational children of oppressive regimes who understand exactly why the Constitution and Bill of Rights are written as they are: for example Lily Tang Williams and Garry Kasparov. these are, indeed, outliers.

I believe Ramaswamy understands liberty and freedom at a deep level. He may not have a history of freedom in his family, but his deeds show a deep and abiding commitment thereto.

Reason and Passion

These two (very broad and general) senses were of top importance to the founders of our great Nation. They taught that these two forces were constantly at play within the human spirit causing us to act upon the world to both good and bad effect.

Reason ought to prevail in matters of general welfare and, thus, in matters of Government. Passion hasn’t much place in the Government. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers are among the best political writings of all time. They in great deatail explain the necessary, the sufficient, the negative requirements as well as productions of the systems of Government under which humans had lived to that point. They, then, explain - also in great detail - a new system of government that would become the system under which we live today in these United States.

Our founders surmised that pure Democracy devolves into a constant swinging of statutory measures. these swings move with the Passions of the ever-changing majority leading to the tyranny of the many. Our founders also concluded that the pure Republic could lead to the tyranny of the few. Of course, a feudalistic, aristocratic, theologic, noble, or royal Government would fall to similar Passions and devolve into Tyranny. They supposed there must be some way to take the good parts of all forms of Government and give Reason the best chance of prevailing. Here, our form of Government is born.

To bring Reason ahead of Passion, we combine all systems in clever ways. We use the Democracy to give Reasonable consent to be governed. If the majority wants a Government, then a Government shall exist; if the majority wants anarchy, then so too we shall have it. We use the Republic to give a distilled and Reasonable voice to the Passions of the people. The people elect by majority a representative; that representative is then sent to the Halls of Government to voice the collective opinions of the constituency. In so doing, we have taken the ever-swaying Passions of the people and separated those Passions from the Government under the authority of the Legislature.

When power becomes necessary to hold order and protect individuals, we take from the more Tyrannical forms of Government to uphold law and order. A lawful order from a Police Officer places a person under a strict and abiding suspension of Civil Rights and Liberties. If the system calls one to Justice, one must answer; this is the Government side of the Doctrine of Equal Protection Under the Law. To balance this, we have provided for the doctrine of Due Process of Law to allow one so called to Justice to defend oneself against a potential Tyranny conducted by Law Enforcement. Law Enforcement is Passion and Power based under authority of the Executive, Due Process bends only to Reason behind Judge and Jury under the Authority of the Judiciary.

Then, at final cause our Founders have provided that any powers not so invested into the Government are retained by We, the People. The Government is positively empowered rather than negatively weakened. That is to say, their powers are strictly enumerated rather than strictly taken. This gives to We, the People, and the States all the powers that the Federal Government is not given by express, written permission. these are our 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution.

Humans are full of Reason and full of Passion. There are times when either may be of good use. Governments and laws should change only on Reason; protection and duty may be more deftly applied through the use and application of Passion. Our system of Government allows the expression and temperament of both these human motivations toward a great end.