Say Anything Blog

Recently, while watching the eponymously-named HBO special John Adams, I was struck at the scene where Adams presents himself as Ambassador from the newly-formed America to the just-defeated King George III.  Before Adams meets with the King he is instructed on how to properly genuflect before the “royal presence.”

I thought to myself, “There is no way an American citizen would tolerate having to behave that way in front of a President.” And then I realized: Adams, in presenting himself before King George, probably wasn’t used to behaving himself as a citizen just yet.  The King himself undoubtedly expected Adams to continue acting as a subject.  But Adams was no longer the King’s subject, but rather an independent citizen.

That’s a distinction I think we’re starting to forget today.  After all, what makes a citizen?  Is the most basic definition not choice? In that, as citizens, we can choose to live where we want?  Eat what we want?  Say what we want?  Worship as we want?  Vote for who we want?  Read what we want?  And on and on?  This power to choose stands in stark contrast to life as a subject to a monarchy where people were forced to practice certain religions, prevented from reading certain books, prevented from criticizing the monarchy and nobility, prevented from living certain places and even eating certain foods.

So if the most basic definition of what it means to be a citizen - at least a free American citizen - is choice, what can we say of political movements policies that seek to deny us choice?  Movements such as the one that would deny us any choice in health care except government-run hospitals?  Movements that take away the choice private property owners have as to whether or not to allow smoking?  And how about policies that remove our choice when it comes to retirement money?  Social Security, for instance, confiscates large amounts of our paychecks every payday and forces us to put them in a national fund.  We are told that we have to do this for our own good.  Our own retirement.  But why don’t we have the choice to save for our retirements in our on way?  Using methods of our own choice?

This movement to deny us of our power to choose, also known as “liberalism,” is moving us closer and closer to being subjects to an elite ruling political class rather than independent citizens who, collectively, are the ruling class.

Unfortunately, though, far too many Americans are content to give up their power to choose in exchange for government services.  What they don’t understand is that by doing so they lose the right to call themselves citizens.  What’s worse, the put themselves so thoroughly under the government’s control that they must now spend the rest of their lives fearing change in political leadership which may rob them of the services they’ve become dependent on.

Thomas Jefferson once said: “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” So when farmers spend months fearing changes to key farm legislation, is that liberty or tyranny?  When a working class dad fears changes to the tax code that might impact his ability to make ends meet, is that tyranny or liberty?

It seems to me that it would be better to maintain our freedom, and our status as independent citizen, then to sell that freedom away to the politicians in exchange for ag subsidies and government-run health care.  For as Thomas Jefferson also said: “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

This column originally appeared in the Dakota Beacon.  If you’re not a subscriber, you should be.