Then and now, a different perspective

By Jim Killebrew

[February 14, 2015]  A sense of history has been lost over the past forty years within our public educational system. We see that in some of the (not so) humorous segments on television shows where the reporter goes to the person on the street to ask questions about historical events. We scratch our heads when a person in their 20s is unable to pinpoint the century in which the American Civil War was fought. We may find it appalling to hear an 18-year-old high school graduate stammer when trying to name the three branches of the American government. Even current events or facts are sometimes found to be lacking. No knowing who the Vice-President is, or where federal laws come from is not really a matter of humor, but a tragic realization that too many people simply know nothing about their own history.

The problem with not knowing history is the tragedy of actually losing the premises on which our great nation was built. It is not just losing the "what"; it is losing the "why." Consider two quotes; one from the past and one from the present. What are the implications to our modern world? One quote was from Benjamin Franklin and the other from Barack Obama.

Franklin's quote was, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Obama's quote was, "I think it's important to understand that you can't have 100 percent security and then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We're going to have to make some choices as a society."

This led me to thinking about how we compare current leaders with historical leaders and make judgments about the intelligence, sincerity or effectiveness of one beside the other. It is difficult to consider any one of them without some twinge of bias, either for or against. I wonder how much romanticism we ascribe to our heroes of the past that adds weight to their credibility or effectiveness when compared with someone we see each day on national television. But we need to know from what perspective each used in making their respective statements.

When we examine the context of the statements of both men, as well as the culture in which each leader made their respective statements, it should provide some weighted meaning to each statement. For example, when Mr. Franklin made his statement we read it with a backdrop of the Colonies having a tyrant King of another country trying to impose burdensome taxes and laws on the people living in the new world. Within that context the people might have been willing to lose a small portion of their freedom and submit to paying the foreign tax to the King simply just to keep his soldiers from riding roughshod over the citizens of the Colonies. As more taxes were levied and more freedoms were eroded, it is not inconceivable to believe that Mr. Franklin might have surmised that the more freedoms the people allowed the autocratic leader to take just to secure more time living under the duress was something that had surpassed the benefit due to the high cost. Ultimately, when the war began, all security was lost as well as the freedoms that had been given away for the hope of a more lasting security. That seems to be the way it is: The more you give to the tyrant, the weaker you become, and the more he demands.

When Mr. Obama made his statement we read it with a backdrop of the revelation that one of the government's large agencies, the National Security Agency (NSA) was spying on Americans and monitoring private telephone conversations between private citizens. The content of the statement seemed to echo the sentiments that Mr. Franklin had voiced more than 240 years ago. It seemed to be implying that loss of privacy and freedom was a small price to pay in order to provide a certain amount of security. Security in this case, however, was not really a threat from external sources, in fact it was a threat from our own government to abolish a certain portion of our Constitutional rights contained in the Fourth Amendment that provides for our right to privacy and protection from the government seizing that privacy. The statement from Mr. Obama implies each citizen must make the choice regarding their will to tolerate some loss of privacy, devaluing the Constitution and the right to not be suppressed under an ever increasing growth of central government.

Now, perhaps if the NSA had been subverted by an overrun of scoundrels who had taken over and implemented a spy network that surveyed the American citizen clandestinely, and the President found out about it, cleaned house by firing, charging, trying and enforcing court decisions of long sentences for those responsible, he could have come out and rightly quoted Benjamin Franklin's sentiments and most people would have applauded the President. But he didn't; his only action was to tell the American people they should be satisfied with losing a bit of privacy and accept we must spy on Americans simply as a matter of need.

Of course some time has passed since both of these leaders uttered their statements that we can now quote. Since that time our current government has grown to even greater strengths. We now have a federalized health insurance system that is infringing not only on our privacy since the government bureaucrats now have information funneled centrally regarding our health status, but it is infringing on our pocketbooks as well. Like the tax Mr. Franklin was talking about, the healthcare costs have increased exponentially under Obamacare. In fact, our own Supreme Court ruled it to be a tax. Otherwise, they knew, as well as many Americans who also know the Constitution, that the Obamacare is basically un-Constitutional.

There is a disturbing current that runs throughout the sentiments of the two statements these two political leaders stated, each in their own time periods. That disturbing component is the realization that Mr. Franklin was speaking from a perspective of small government, not an overreaching one, an inherent freedom that exists within the heart of each person, and the willingness to speak truth to power when tyranny is being imposed. Not only was the shipment of tea dumped into the Boston harbor, but the pre-Americans raised their voices in unison and fought back the tyrant king who would tax them into total subjection.

The response 240 years later from the people is a bit more tepid. We have grown accustomed to huge government usurping its will on the people, thereby, neutering the power of "We The People" by relinquishing it to a climate of dependency and entitlement. So, the current President is right when he says we "can't have 100 percent security and then have 100 percent privacy." From his perspective "We The People" have become subservient to the power of the federal government.

From this perspective, I wonder if the statements from the two men are not positioned at exactly 180 degrees from each other? Mr. Franklin was thinking of a republic form of government where the people held the power over the sovereign kingship of a foreign country, whereas Mr. Obama was thinking of a socialist form of government where the government officials have the power over the people and will make whatever choices necessary to maintain that power to enact any provisions necessary to remain in power. For him the action he took and the statement he made stood at the peril of the Constitution.

Perhaps in the past 240 years there have been significant changes to which we Americans should begin to pay attention. When we compare the two statements and sentiments 240 years later, we find the President of the United States is no longer aligned with one of our Founding Fathers, Ben Franklin; he seems more aligned with the sentiments of King George, the King of England who wanted to keep the freedoms of the Colonists subservient to the Throne.

[By JIM KILLEBREW]