|
"One if by land, two if by sea." Few American children would
fail to recognize the legend of Paul Revere and the idea of "Minutemen"
who were prepared to spring into action on a moment's notice to defend
against the expected attack by British forces at the start of the
Revolutionary War. |
|
Historians can argue about the folk legend, as spread by Longfellow's
famous poem, but facts are often one of the first casualties in wartime.
The point is that patriots were expected to awaken to the threat and
spring into action to defend the liberty which they now wanted to
achieve, despite the dangers. |
| They
were, after all, a somewhat disorganized network of individuals facing
what was largely the undisputed government superpower of the world of
their time, with vastly more resources available. It was
remarkable that the objective of that legendary ride was to gather
quickly to stand and fight the British, rather than to simply run away
from the danger and try to harass the British as best they could.
The idea that they could ever defeat British troops in
open warfare, regardless of their tactics, was about as unthinkable as
expecting the scattered and divided Afghan mujahideen to ever defeat the
Soviets.
There were certainly times during the Revolutionary
War when it looked as though the dream of independence was a lost cause.
There have been other times in our history when the outlook was bleak.
Freedom was not easily won, nor easily sustained. It has required
constant vigilance ever since. |
| The
point is that, in terms of defending the freedoms which have been so
fundamental to the remarkable success of this country for over 200 years
now, we are our own worst enemy. We have little to really fear
these days other than ourselves. Are we surrendering our freedoms
too easily to our government? |
|
Are we now surrendering to the liberal social model and values of the
Europeans? Why? We still face
implacable enemies in the world today, but the real threat to our
homeland security is that we will devastate our own homeland
economically from within. If we implement societal changes now
which will set this country on a fundamentally different course than our
legacy, then countless Americans may have defended our liberty in vain
at great sacrifice during these 200+ years. |
| We
need to recognize the modern threats to our dream of continued
prosperity. Our success does not diminish the potential
success of others. We welcome the economic development of other
countries, and we aspire to maintain friendly relationships among them.
We do not view the success of other countries as a necessary threat to
our own prosperity. That depends on their intentions. We
can't make that choice for them. They may choose to be a threat to
our interests, or they may not. We have to assess their
capabilities and intentions, and remain well-prepared defend our
interests if necessary. |
| Our
choice, however, needs to be to maintain our economic leadership in the
world so that we need not fear the rise of others. They should
likewise have no reason to fear our intentions toward them unless they
choose to threaten us. It was never true that
"we have nothing to fear but fear itself". We had much less to
fear because of our enormous economic strength and flexible industrial
capabilities, as our adversaries perceived and soon regretted. We
still defend our freedoms vigorously when challenged. The danger
is that we won't defend them as vigorously against subtle new threats by
our own elected leaders. |
| The
problem is that we aren't paying enough attention to these more subtle
threats from within - through the growing powers of our own federal
bureaucracy as a threat to our freedom and economic prosperity.
Regardless of good intentions, that can be a larger internal threat than
any external ones we face. Just as we need to remain vigilant
about foreign threats, we need to remain vigilant about domestic ones
from our own elected leaders. That's the threat which may be
harder to recognize until it is too late. |
| We
don't face a "fifth column" of saboteurs or terrorists. The
greater danger is that people with good intentions will guide us down a
path to economic weakness in what remains a very dangerous world.
Our enemies need not stand and defeat us on a battlefield, nor is
terrorism an existential threat. The liberal insurgency from
within may already be the larger and more subtle threat to our future
prosperity. Cloaked in patriotic rhetoric and
liberal ideals of creating a more "fair" society through government for
one group over others, the danger of a house divided against itself is
already at hand. Regardless of apparent good intentions at the
time, the risk is that this creeping threat to our prosperity won't be
easily reversed. |
