“No greater immediate responsibility rests upon the members of the church, upon all citizens of this republic and of neighboring republics than to protect the freedom vouchsafed by the Constitution of the United States.” (The Instructor, August, 1953)

In the days of the Prophet Noah, men had no greater immediate responsibility than to repent and board the Ark. Now in our day, the day of the Prophet David O. McKay, he has said that we have no greater immediate responsibility than to protect the freedom vouchsafed by the Constitution of the United States.

At the last general conference of the church (October 1966), President McKay, in his opening address, said,

“Efforts are being made to deprive man of his free agency — to steal from the individual his liberty…. There has been an alarming increase in the abandoning of the ideals that constitute the foundation of the Constitution of the United States.”

Toward the close of his talk, our Prophet, quoting Paul’s letter to Timothy regarding the preaching of the word, said,

“There should be no question in the mind of any true latter day saint as to what we shall preach… the gospel plan of salvation.”

Then President McKay lists the areas our preaching should cover and admonishes us to include in our preaching what governments should or should not do in the interests of the preservation of our freedom.

Do we preach what governments should or should not do as a part of the gospel plan, as President McKay has urged or do we refuse to follow the Prophet by preaching a limited gospel plan of salvation? The fight for freedom cannot be divorced from the gospel — the plan of salvation.

We sing that we are thankful to “God for a Prophet to guide us in these latter days.” By commandment of the Lord we assemble in general conference twice a year to get that guidance from the Lord’s representative. Do we realize that in the last five years prior to October Conference, the Prophet has key noted three of these conferences with an opening discourse on freedom and given nine other addresses in the conferences that touched on freedom?

Do we see any patter here? Can we name any other gospel theme that has received as much emphases from the man who holds the keys as has the theme of freedom?

We do not need a prophet — we have one. What we need is a listening ear, a humble heart, and a soul that is pure enough to follow his inspired guidance.

I was out at a stake conference some months ago, and I had with me a very fine welfare worker, one of the choice men of this Church. But he was very timid; it was very hard for him to speak in conference. He went to the morning session expecting to be called upon, and he was not called because there were so many returned missionaries. And as we came to the stake president’s home for lunch, our visitor didn’t have much of an appetite. It’s always easier to speak when you’re not overly loaded with food, and so as they passed the food around he passed the potatoes by; he took just one carrot, practically no meat, and nibbled a little at his salad. In fact, he refused some lemon pie that was offered for dessert – and that takes real resistance. We went to meeting. After the meeting was over – the mother of that home had a young babe and had to miss the meeting – the son about fifteen years of age returned from the meeting, and the mother who had worried about this good welfare worker said, “Well, how did Brother So and So do?” And the son said, “Aw mom, he just as well a et.”

I have one story I want to tell you. Brother Wilkinson is a very distinguished attorney. I mean that. I wish he were free today: probably if I didn’t love this Institution so much, I’d almost insist that he be released to accompany me back to the nation’s capital. He’s the kind of man that I’d like to have as solicitor in the Department of Agriculture – one of the great departments of the Government, 78,000 employees. In the presence of Brother Stephen L. Richards the other day, I heard this story. A very fine gentleman, a Christian man, was on his death bed. Knowing that his hours Were few, he called in his attorney. He also called in his doctor. And these two distinguished men, seated on either side of his bed, visited with him briefly, and he didn’t give them anything of any great importance to consider, and finally the attorney said, “Why have you invited us here?” And this man said, “For one purpose. I’ve always been a great admirer of the Great Teacher, the founder of Christianity; I’ve always tried to pattern my life after his, and I thought, as I near the end I’d like to die between two thieves.” Well, Brother Wilkinson will forgive me for telling that story, but I heard it when we were back in Washington a few days ago.

Now, my brothers and sisters, it’s a great honor to be here this morning. I feel very humble as I look into your faces and particularly as I contemplate the assignment which has come to me so unexpectedly. I want you to know how deeply grateful I am for all the influences which have touched my life and have helped to shape my character. I’m grateful for my noble birthright, for my parentage, for the great pioneer stock from which most of us have come. I’m grateful for the opportunity of attending this institution. I’m grateful for the spirit which is here, the spirit of the Gospel. I’m grateful for the men on the faculty who have touched my life with their influence – I shall ever be indebted to them.

But more than to anyone else, this morning, I’m grateful to the girl who has been at my side now for twenty-six years. Brother Wilkinson didn’t tell you very much of the part she’s played. She has always been an inspiration to me and to our children, and if they ever accomplish anything in life, and we expect them to, she’ll be entitled to at least two-thirds of the credit. She’s carried more than half the load all the way through. She married a man who was heavily in debt. She knows what it is to live on $70 a month and maintain a home. Coming from a family of some means, she turned her back on all of that and was willing to sacrifice, to become a farmer’s wife, to go out on the experiment farm at Iowa State College, and glean squash from the field and pick nuts in order to cut down on the food bill. She’ s  been true all the way, and I pay tribute to her today. No man could ever have had, or now has, a truer companion. You know, it’s so common for us men to be in the limelight. We receive the plaudits of men, we’re honored, we’re recommended; but very often the other part of the team is hardly referred to. I’ve thought of that a great deal the past week.

Now I presume, my brothers and sisters, that you’ll be disappointed – well I

know that you’re going to be disappointed anyway, but you’ll be even more disappointed if I don’t tell you something of the rather intimate situation in connection with this call. And if I can, in just a few words, I’d like to do it for you because I feel so close to this institution. And I hope you’ll understand that it isn’ t done in any spirit of boasting, but in the hope it may be helpful. Since the call has come I have felt more like praying than anything else. Of course, I’ve done a great deal of it, and I hope I’ll have your faith and prayers because this honor is not an honor to an individual member of the Church. It’s not an honor alone to the Council of the Twelve – the leadership of the Church. I look upon it as an honor and a tribute to the Church as a whole. It is an evidence that, at last, people have come to recognize us for what we are – to recognize our standards, our ideals, our philosophy, the principles for which we stand. And so you share in this honor, and you also share in the responsibility, and to that end I seek your faith and prayers in the days ahead.

Now it has come as a great surprise. It is true that four years ago I was approached regarding a cabinet post by one of the candidates who expected to be elected – expected it with sure confidence, at least a confidence that I have never witnessed in an election – but frankly this time the matter had never entered my mind. In a telephone call from Senator Watkins on Thursday night, the 20th of November, he asked if I knew that there was developing a great “ground-swell” as he called it, of support for me as Secretary. This was my first intimation that I was being considered. I said no, I knew nothing about it. And I was truthful. I had been in Washington only a few days before. It had not been mentioned. I was there on business with Brother Stephen L. Richards. We’d had Interviews with representatives of the Indian Service, the Department of State, General Hershey of Selective Service. We participated in the dedication of the Chevy-Chase building. I had called at some of the offices of national farm organizations. But nothing was said about it. Brother Watkins wanted to know what the attitude of the Church would be. I replied, “There’s only one man who can answer that, and that’s the President of the Church. I don’t know what his attitude would be. My life is devoted to this work, but I’d be glad to try and do anything the President of the Church asks me to do.”

The next morning as I parked my car on the parking lot at the Church Office building, I met Brother McKay as he was parking his car. We have a habit of  going down rather early in the morning. Very seldom do I get there before he does. And he said, “I received a very important telephone call last night. ” And he said, “Brother Benson, my mind is clear on the matter and if the opportunity comes, I think that you should accept. I said, “Brother McKay, I can’t believe that it will come,” and gave my reasons. The next day Brother Mark Peterson and I started for Provo to attend to some business incident to the division of the Sharon Stake. On arrival in Provo the call from Eisenhower Headquarters, that my wife had predicted earlier, came and reached me in this city. And when I learned of it the first place I thought of was the campus of the B. Y. U. where I could get by myself in some little office and quietly consider the matter. I talked to the President of the Church before I even accepted the telephone call, because they said that General Eisenhower’s office was calling. The call was simply a request to come to New York City for an interview, and frankly, even then, I thought that probably they were considering several men and they wanted a chance to look at some of them with whom they were not acquainted. I took the plane that night and went to New York City for the interview.

I can say to you frankly, my brothers and sisters, I didn’t ‘want to be Secretary of Agriculture. I can’t imagine anyone in his right mind wanting it. Because I know something of what it entails; I know something of the crossfires, the pressures, the problems, the difficulties. Because as Brother Wilkinson has been good enough to indicate, I was rather close to the Department of Agriculture, although not a part of it, while living for five and a half years in Washington. I’ve always feared, in a way, getting into politics. I’ve never had any particular desire in that direction. I’ve always had a deep interest in seeing men elected to office who represented the ideals and standards which have meant so much to me in my life, and I would always rather support someone else than to actually hold political office. It was with that feeling in mind that I went in to meet, for the first time, General Eisenhower. I’m sure that he would not object if I told you very briefly what transpired. His brother, Milton Eisenhower, whom I had met, was there. He at one time was in the Department of Agriculture; he at one time was president of Kansas State College, and now is president of  Pennsylvania State College, both of them land-grant colleges .We were together for about thirty minutes, and at the outset it was made very clear that the decision had been made. There was no one else under consideration.

Then I gave three or four very good reasons, I thought, why I should not be a member of the Cabinet. In the first place I indicated ,that I had been a supporter of Senator Taft. Although not an active supporter, I had lent my name to a Citizens for Taft Committee. I thought Senator Taft was well qualified. I’d know him in Washington, admired his integrity, and his capacity. And I said to the General, “It isn’t because I haven’t admired you, but I haven ‘t known you; I’ve never seen you until today. And I’ve always thought it would be a little better, other things being equal, not to have a military man in the White House. Now I want you to know that.”

He said, “That’s perfectly all right.”

I said for my next reason, “I come from a state that is usually considered rather unimportant agriculturally. Even my native state of Idaho is not one of the leading agricultural states. It’s been the custom to select the Secretary of Agriculture from the great farm belt of the Middle West. What’s going to be the reaction if you select a man from Utah to be your Secretary of Agriculture when we’ve only got about three percent of our land under cultivation? I know there are several good men in the Middle West who would like to be secretary. And at least three of them I could wholeheartedly support; they’d make good secretaries, and they’ve been working hard for you and surely you owe them something.” And fourthly I said, “I wonder about the wisdom of calling a clergyman, a minister of the Gospel, to be a Secretary of Agriculture. What will be the reaction from other religious groups, from people generally?”

And he said, “Suppose we consider the last question first. ” Then he added, “Surely you believe that the job to be done is spiritual. Surely you know that we have the great responsibility to restore confidence in the minds of our people in their own government – that we’ve got to deal with spiritual matters.” Then he went on and answered the rest of the objections. When he came to the end he said, “We’ve got a great job to do. I didn’t want to be President, frankly, when the pressure started.” But he said, “You can’t refuse to serve America! We’ve got a great job to do and I want you on my team.”

Well, my brothers and sisters, no true American could refuse such a request from the President elect, even though I told him I had already received, what in my eyes was a greater honor than he could bestow. So of course, I accepted. Now I know that many of you who are here today have supported the Governor of Illinois. I know many of you have supported Senator Taft and others, and that’s perfectly all right; that’s our great American privilege. I hope and pray that we always have freedom of choice, one of the great eternal principles that the God of Heaven intends his children to enjoy. But now, the American people have spoken, and General Eisenhower is to be inaugurated, January 20th, and on that date he becomes our President. And regardless of our political affiliation, regardless of where our sympathies have been, it becomes, in my humble judgement, our obligation, our duty as American citizens, as Latter-day Saints, to give him our faith and prayers because he’ll need them. And so I ask for that support for him, for all the members of the Cabinet, for all of those whom you have elected, representing the people of the United States to serve in positions of leadership in this great nation. With that support, with your faith and with your prayers, we cannot fail – without that support, we cannot succeed. I know that as I know that I live.

I love this great country. I always get a thrill when I go to the nation’s capital. I know, many people say that’s one place they wouldn’t live. I love Washington, D.C. This may sound almost like treason, but I had no desire to move back West to live, I was so happy there with the work I was doing. I don’t know that I’ll be so happy again there in this position, But I love all that is associated with Washington – the ideals of our Government, the great men who have represented us there, the great statesmen. I get a thrill every time I go into the Nation’s Capital, and on Friday night when I was there just before the Chevy­Chase Building was, dedicated, I did something I have wanted to do for years. I went into the Capitol and I stood there in the great Statuary Hall, and I noticed to my great joy, over in one corner, under a lovely light, a statue of the great pioneer Mormon leader, the Prophet of God, Brigham Young. And I recalled that, a few years before while living in Washington I had gone there frequently and sometimes stood there meditating, wondering if the time would ever come when the people of this country would permit Utah to be represented in one of her favorite sons. I remember one time while standing there, that one of the Senators came through – as I remember now it was Senator Ashhurst from Arizona – and he greeted me, and I said to him, “Senator, why is it that Utah is not represented here in the Hall of Fame?”

He said,  “Mr. Benson, surely you know why.”

I said, “I think I do, but I’d like to hear it from your lips. You’ve been a friend of our people.”

And then he told me that even during his service in the Senate, an effort had been made at one time to get approval from a certain committee for President Brigham Young to represent Utah. At that time the prejudice was still in existence, and the committee apparently refused to approve it. But as I stood there on the 20th of this last month, I thrilled as I saw President Brigham Young’s likeness there taking his place in the circle among the great. And then I did something – as I mentioned – that I wanted to do. I walked from the Capitol Building, down straight through the mall, on the grass, down to the Washington Monument, and from there down to the Lincoln Memorial. ‘It is one mile and a quarter from Capitol Building to the Washington  Monument, three-quarters of a mile from there on. As I walked, I reviewed in my own mind the history of this, the greatest nation under heaven. And I hope, my young brethren and sisters, that you do not this Institution without taking a good course in American History. I mean that sincerely. I think one of the weaknesses in our educational system today in many parts is the fact that students leave the institutions where they get their education knowing but very little about our American Background, the fundamental, basic concepts of our American way of life.

You may recall, those of you who have been in Washington, that between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial there’s what is called a “reflecting pool”. And I stood there on the side of it and could look in one direction and see the Lincoln Memorial reflected in the water. This time the sun had gone down and the lights were on. Looking in the other direction the Washington Monument was visible. Then by stepping over to one corner, I could see all three reflected in the pool – the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington  Monument and the Capitol Building. Then I went up into the Lincoln Memorial and I read those inscriptions on the wall. I presume that never in my life has there come to my heart such a feeling of gratitude and thanksgiving for my citizenship in this land, choice above all others. It’s a great blessing to live in America. It’s a great blessing to have the opportunity to enjoy the freedoms which are ours today. I have seen people, thousands of them, who have lost the freedom which is ours, where they can no longer meet, as we meet here this morning, and express themselves  as  they  see fit, where they no longer have freedom of movement,  freedom  to  select their  own  jobs, their own educational opportunities, freedom to speak their minds, to write what they wish – freedom of enterprise. In many parts of the world today these rich blessings of freedom no longer exist.

I don’t know how you feel, my brethren and Sisters, but I’d rather be dead than lose my liberty. I have no fear we’ll ever lose it because of invasion from the outside, but I do have fear that it may slip away from us because of our own indifference, our own negligence as citizens of this land. And so I plead with you this morning, that you take an active interest in matters pertaining to the future of this country. And if the time should come when you are associated with groups that take delight in tearing down our American way of life, then they seem to enjoy pointing out the weaknesses of our free enterprise system – and it has weaknesses; it has weaknesses because it’s operated by men and women who are full of weaknesses – but when those times come, when our system is criticized, just keep in mind the fruits of the system, the great blessings that have come to us because of our American way of life. No group of people have ever attained the standard of living which is ours. And so let’s become acquainted with what has been accomplished. It’s all right to criticize; it’s all right to try and improve our American way of life; but in doing so, 1et’s not surrender, let’s not give up, let’s not jeopardize that system which has made America great.

Just one further thought, and then I won’t tire you longer. I have great hope for the youth of Zion. I believe firmly, my brethren and Sisters, that there’s no group of young people in the whole world who have the opportunities which are yours. I believe firmly that in the days ahead this nation is going to demand and need the leadership of men and women who have’ been trained in the home, in the church, in the school as you have been trained, who have your ideals, who are guided by the principles which guide your lives. You are going to be needed in positions of leadership. And I am confident that, while the world may not live our standards, in the days ahead they are going to look for men and women to fill positions of trust, who have the courage, the faith and the good common sense to live according to the teachings and standards of this great Church, the only true Church upon the face of the whole earth – God’s Kingdom restored again to bless mankind.

And I hope and pray, my brethren and sisters, that as those calls come we will be true to the great trust that God has placed in us, and we can only be true to that trust if we are true to the principles and standards for which this Church stands – because those standards and those ideals are part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They are true. They are the way of life which the God of Heaven has prescribed for his children, and their foundation is spirituality, faith in God, faith in all that’s pure, good, holy and uplifting. God help us to prepare ourselves for the assignments ahead and to measure up in every particular, guided always by the eternal principles upon which the Church and Kingdom of God have been established, and upon which this nation has been founded, and this great educational institution.

As I close I think of the words of the Apostle Paul, as he stood before King Agrippa making his defense – Paul, a persecutor of the Saints, converted to Christianity through a glorious manifestation. And there as he stood before King Agrippa in chains, the king permitted him to make his own defense. And I remember that as he made his defense, outlining the mission of Christ, referring to this thing called Christianity, he said in substance, to the king, “Surely, King, you must have heard of this new movement, for,” he said, “this thing has not been done in a corner.” How well that applies to Mormonism today. Yes, persecutions have come in the past. Our people have endured much. I think of the Prophet in Liberty Jail. I think of the brethren who were shot down by mobs. I think of the missionaries and the persecutions that met them.

I think of that great struggle referred to by Brother Wilkinson when Senator Smoot was trying to take his seat in the Senate. The hearings went on for weeks. I went through those hearings a year ago, four great volumes with one thousand pages each of testimony. It was easy to see before I had read very far that it was not Reed Smoot who was on trial; it was the Church and people whom he represented. Our Standard Works, private papers of the First Presidency, confidential items were placed in the records. Finally the President of the Church was placed on the witness stand, not for hours but for days. And I wonder if the Lord didn’t have a hand in it. I sometimes think, too, that one of the reasons why he permitted, yea, directed some of the early leaders of the Church to enter into the sacred relationship of plural marriage was for the purpose of publicizing his people. Men’s ways are not God’s ways. Maybe it’s his way of getting Mormonism before the world.

No, “this thing has not been done in a corner”. The hand of God has been directing His Church and His people. And so it will be in the future. While honors may come to us conferred by men, and those honors are important, of course they are. No honor will ever come to a member of this Church in the political world that will equal or even approach the honor which comes to a man when he is ordained to a high office in the Church and Kingdom of God – when he has conferred upon him the holy priesthood, that which is eternal, that which is most priceless. God help us, my brothers and sisters, to cherish the priceless blessings which are ours through membership in the Church, that our testimonies may continue strong, that we may love the priesthood, love the Church and all that it stands for. And may we at the same time be true Americans, true to our way of life, true to the eternal principles upon which this nation has been established, I humbly pray, thanking you, and thanking my Heavenly Father for this privilege of looking into your faces this morning. I pray God’s blessings to attend you always in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

Last April my Church duties took me to Albania. Elder Hans B. Ringger and I were some of the first Western visitors to that newly opened country. We conferred with government officials about the reception our church’s missionaries would receive in Albania, which had banned all churches in 1967. They told us the government regretted its actions against religion, and that it now welcomed churches back to Albania. One explained, “We need the help of churches to rebuild the moral base of our country, which was destroyed by communism.” During the past months I have heard this same reaction during discussions with government and other leaders in Bulgaria, Romania, Russia, and Ukraine.

In contrast, consider what we hear about religion from some prominent persons in the United States. Some question the legitimacy of religious-based values in public policy debates. Some question the appropriateness of churches or religious leaders taking any public position on political issues.

Provoked by that contrast, I will use this occasion to speak about the role of religion-based values and religious leaders in public policy debates.

Questions of Right and Wrong

Fundamental to the role of religion in public policy is this most important question: Are there moral absolutes? Speaking to our BYU students earlier this year, President Rex E. Lee said:

“I cannot think of anything more important than for each of you to build a firm, personal testimony that there are in this life some absolutes, things that never change, regardless of time, place, or circumstances. They are eternal truths, eternal principles and, as Paul tells us, they are and will be the same yesterday, today, and forever.” 1

Unfortunately, other educators deny the existence of God or deem God irrelevant to the human condition. Persons who accept this view deny the existence of moral absolutes. They maintain that right and wrong are relative concepts, and morality is merely a matter of personal choice or expediency. For example, a university professor reported that her students lacked what she called “moral common sense.” She said they believed that “there was no such thing as right or wrong, just good or bad arguments.” 2 In that view, even the most fundamental moral questions have at least two sides, and every assertion of right or wrong is open to debate.

I believe that these contrasting approaches underlie the whole discussion of religious values in public policy. Many differences of opinion over the role of religion in public life simply mirror a difference of opinion over whether there are moral absolutes. But this underlying difference is rarely made explicit. It is as if those who assume that all values are relative have established their assumption by law or tradition and have rendered illegitimate the fundamental belief of those who hold that some values are absolute.

One of the consequences of shifting from moral absolutes to moral relativism in public policy is that this produces a corresponding shift of emphasis from responsibilities to rights. Responsibilities originate in moral absolutes. In contrast, rights find their origin in legal principles, which are easily manipulated by moral relativism. Sooner or later the substance of rights must depend on either the voluntary fulfillment of responsibilities or the legal enforcement of duties. When our laws or our public leaders question the existence of absolute moral values, they undercut the basis for the voluntary fulfillment of responsibilities, which is economical, and compel our society to rely more and more on the legal enforcement of rights, which is expensive.

Some moral absolutes or convictions must be at the foundation of any system of law. This does not mean that all laws are so based. Many laws and administrative actions are simply a matter of wisdom or expediency. But many laws and administrative actions are based upon the moral standards of our society. If most of us believe that it is wrong to kill or steal or lie, our laws will include punishment for those acts. If most of us believe that it is right to care for the poor and needy, our laws will accomplish or facilitate those activities. Society continually legislates morality. The only question is whose morality and what legislation.

In the United States, the moral absolutes are the ones derived from what we refer to as the Judeo-Christian tradition, as set forth in the Bible—Old Testament and New Testament.

Despite ample evidence of majority adherence to moral absolutes, some still question the legitimacy of a moral foundation for our laws and public policy. To avoid any suggestion of adopting or contradicting any particular religious absolute, some secularists argue that our laws must be entirely neutral, with no discernable relation to any particular religious tradition. Such proposed neutrality is unrealistic, unless we are willing to cut away the entire idea that there are moral absolutes.

Of course, not all moral absolutes are based on traditional religion. A substantial segment of society has subscribed to the environmental movement, which Robert Nisbet, a distinguished American sociologist, has characterized as a “national religion,” with a “universalized social, economic, and political agenda.” 3 So far as I am aware, there has been no responsible public challenge to the legitimacy of laws based on the environmentalists’ set of values. I don’t think there should be. My point is that religious values are just as legitimate as those based on any other comprehensive set of beliefs.

Religion and the Public Sector

Let us apply these thoughts to the role of religions, churches, and church leaders in the public sector.

Some reject the infusion of religious-based values in public policy by urging that much of the violence and social divisiveness of the modern world is attributable to religious controversies. But all should remember that the most horrible moral atrocities of the twentieth century in terms of death and human misery have been committed by regimes that are unambiguously secular, not religious.

Even though we cannot reject religious values in law-making on the basis of their bad record by comparison with other values, there are examples of hostility to religious values in the public sector. For example, less than a decade ago, the United States Department of Justice challenged a federal judge’s right to sit on a case involving the Equal Rights Amendment on the ground that his religious views would prejudice him. The judge was Marion Callister. The religious views were LDS. In that same decade, the American Civil Liberties Union took the position that any pro-life abortion law was illegitimate because it must necessarily be founded on religious belief. 4

A few years ago some Protestant and Jewish clergymen challenged a federally financed program to promote abstinence from sexual activity among teenage youngsters. The grant recipients included BYU and some Catholic charities in Virginia and Michigan. The ACLU attorney who filed this challenge declared that “the ‘chastity law’ is unconstitutional because it violates the requirement for separation of church and state” because taxpayer dollars “are going to religious institutions, which use the funds to teach religious doctrines opposing teen-age sex and abortion.” 5 In the meantime, the “value” judgments that permit public schools to distribute birth control devices to teenagers supposedly violate no constitutional prohibition because the doctrine that opposes chastity is secular.

During this same period, Professor Henry Steele Commager criticized the Moral Majority and the Roman Catholic Church for “inject[ing] religion into politics more wantonly than at any time since the Know-Nothing crusade of the 1850’s.” Writing in a New York Times column, this distinguished scholar asserted that “what the Framers [of the U. S. Constitution] had in mind was more than separating church and state: it was separating religion from politics.” While conceding that no one could question the right to preach “morality and religion,” Commager argued that churchmen of all denominations crossed an impermissible line “when they connect morality with a particular brand of religious faith and this, in turn, with political policies.” 6

Apparently, churchmen can preach morality and religion as long as they do not suggest that their particular brand of religion has any connection with morality or that the resulting morality has any connection with political policies. Stated otherwise, religious preaching is okay so long as it has no practical impact on the listeners’ day-to-day behavior, especially any behavior that has anything to do with political activity or public policy.

As we know, the idea that there is an absolute right and wrong comes from religion, and the absolute values that have influenced law and public policy are most commonly rooted in religion. In contrast, the values that generally prevail in today’s academic community are relative values.

I have read serious academic arguments to the effect that religious people can participate in public debate only if they conceal the religious origin of their values by translating them into secular dialect. In a nation committed to pluralism, this kind of hostility to religion should be legally illegitimate and morally unacceptable. It is also irrational and unworkable, for reasons explained by BYU law professor Frederick Mark Gedicks:

“Secularism has not solved the problem posed by religion in public life so much as it has buried it. By placing religion on the far side of the boundary marking the limit of the real world, secularism prevents public life from taking religion seriously. Secularism does not teach us to live with those who are religious; rather, it demands that we ignore them and their views. Such a ‘solution’ can remain stable only so long as those who are ignored acquiesce in their social situation.” 7

Fortunately, the Supreme Court has never held that citizens could not join together to translate their moral beliefs into laws or public policies even when those beliefs are derived from religious doctrine. Indeed, there are many sophisticated and articulate spokesmen for the proposition that the separation of church and state never intended to exclude religiously grounded values from the public square. For example, I offer the words of Richard John Neuhaus:

“In a democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more disqualified for being ‘religious’ than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb. There is no legal or constitutional question about the admission of religion to the public square; there is only a question about the free and equal participation of citizens in our public business. Religion is not a reified ‘thing’ that threatens to intrude upon our common life. Religion in public is but the public opinion of those citizens who are religious.

“As with individual citizens, so also with the associations that citizens form to advance their opinions. Religious institutions may understand themselves to be brought into being by God, but for the purposes of this democratic polity they are free associations of citizens. As such, they are guaranteed the same access to the public square as are the citizens who comprise them.” 8

No person with values based on religious beliefs should apologize for taking those values into the public square. Religious persons need to be skillful in how they do so, but they need not yield to an adversary’s assumption that the whole effort is illegitimate. We should remind others of the important instances in which the efforts of churches and clergy in the political arena have influenced American public policies in great historical controversies whose outcome is virtually unquestioned today. The slavery controversy was seen as a great moral issue and became the major political issue of the nineteenth century because of the preaching of clergy and the political action of churches. A century later, churches played an indispensable role in the civil rights movement, and, a decade later, clergymen and churches of various denominations were an influential part of the antiwar movement that contributed to the end of the war in Vietnam.

Many sincere religious people believe there should be no limitations on religious arguments on political issues so long as the speaker genuinely believes those issues can be resolved as a matter of right or wrong.

I believe that questions of right and wrong, whether based on religious principles or any other source of values, are legitimate in any debate over laws or public policy. Is there anything more important to debate than what is right or wrong? And those arguments should be open across the entire political spectrum. There is no logical way to contend that religious arguments or lobbying are legitimate on the question of abstinence from nuclear war by nations but not on the question of abstinence from sexual relations by teenagers.

Church Participation in Political Debate

What limitations should churches and their leaders observe when they choose to participate in public debate on political issues?

I emphasize at the outset that I am discussing limits to guide all churches across a broad spectrum of circumstances. I am not seeking to define or defend a Mormon position. As a matter of prudence, our church has confined its own political participation within a far smaller range than is required by the law or the Constitution. Other churches have chosen to assert the full latitude of their constitutional privileges and, in the opinion of some, have even exceeded them.

Where should we draw the line between what is and is not permissible for church and church-leader participation in public policy making?

At one extreme, we hear shrill complaints about political participation by any persons whose political views are attributable to religious beliefs or the teachings of their church. The words “blind obedience” are usually included in such complaints. Complaints there are, but I am not aware of any serious or rational position that would ban religious believers from participation in the political process. The serious challenges concern the participation of churches and church leaders.

Perhaps the root fear of those who object to official church participation in political debates is power: They fear that believers will choose to follow the directions or counsel of their religious leaders. Those who have this fear should remember the celebrated maxim of Jefferson: “Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” 9 Some may believe that reason is not free when religious leaders have spoken, but I doubt that any religious leader in twentieth-century America has such a grip on followers that they cannot make a reasoned choice in the privacy of the voting booth. In fact, I have a hard time believing that the teachings of religions or churches deprive their adherents of any more autonomy in exerting the rights of citizenship than the teachings and practices of labor unions, civil rights groups, environmental organizations, political parties, or any other membership group in our society.

I submit that religious leaders should have at least as many privileges as any other leaders, and that churches should stand on at least as strong a footing as any other corporation when they enter the public square to participate in public policy debates. The precious constitutional right of petition does not exclude any individual or any group. The same is true of freedom of speech and the press. When religion has a special constitutional right to its free exercise, religious leaders and churches should have more freedom than other persons and organizations, not less.

If churches and church leaders should have full rights to participate in public policy debates, should there be any limits on such participation?

Of course there are limits that apply specially to churches and church officials, as manifest in the United States Constitution’s prohibition against Congress’s making any law respecting an establishment of religion. Some linkages between churches and governments are obviously illegitimate. It would clearly violate this prohibition if a church or church official were to exercise government power or dictate government policies or direct the action of government officials independent of legal procedures or political processes.

Fundamentally, I submit that there is no persuasive objection in law or principle to a church or church leader taking a position on any legislative matter, if it or he or she chooses to do so.

Now, relative to church participation in public debate, when churches or church leaders choose to enter the public sector to engage in debate on a matter of public policy, they should be admitted to the debate and they should expect to participate in it on the same basis as all other participants. In other words, if churches or church leaders choose to oppose or favor a particular piece of legislation, their opinions should be received on the same basis as the opinions offered by other knowledgeable organizations or persons, and they should be considered on their merits.

By the same token, churches and church leaders should expect the same broad latitude of discussion of their views that conventionally applies to everyone else’s participation in public policy debates. A church can claim access to higher authority on moral questions, but its opinions on the application of those moral questions to specific legislation will inevitably be challenged by and measured against secular-based legislative or political judgments. As James E. Wood observed, “While denunciations of injustice, racism, sexism, and nationalism may be clearly rooted in one’s religious faith, their political applications to legislative remedy and public policy are by no means always clear.” 10

Finally, if church leaders were also to exhibit openness and tolerance of opposing views, they would help to overcome the suspicion and resentment sometimes directed toward church or church-leader participation in public debate.

In summary, I have pointed out that many U.S. laws are based on the absolute moral values most Americans affirm, and I have suggested that it cannot be otherwise. I have contended that religious-based values are just as legitimate a basis for political action as any other values. And I have argued that churches and church leaders should be able to participate in public policy debates on the same basis as other persons and organizations, favoring or opposing specific legislative proposals or candidates if they choose to do so.

Politicians sometimes seek to use religion for political purposes, and they sometimes even seek to manipulate churches or church leaders. Ultimately this is always self-defeating. Whenever a church (or a church leader) becomes a pawn or servant of government or a political leader, it loses its status and the credibility it needs to perform its religious mission.

Churches or their leaders can also be the aggressors in the pursuit of intimacy with government. The probable results of this excess have been ably described as “the seduction of the churches to political arrogance and political innocence or even the politicizing of moral absolutes.” 11

The relationship in the world between church and state and between church leaders and politicians should be respectful and distant, as befits two parties who need one another but share the realization that a relationship too close can deprive a pluralistic government of its legitimacy and a divine church of its spiritual mission. Despite that desirable distance, government need not be hostile to religion or pretend to ignore God.

On 25 June 1988, in Williamsburg, Virginia, I signed the Williamsburg Charter on behalf of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 1 Written by a group of farsighted U.S. religious, political, and community leaders, that charter celebrates and reaffirms religious liberty as the foremost freedom of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The sponsors’ invitation to participate explains that they were seeking “a fresh articulation of the ground rules for relating religion and public life in our time.”

Our church was one of six “prominent American faith communities” whose representatives were invited to make brief statements as they signed the Charter. This is what I said on that occasion:

“The people called Mormons have known the sting of official repression and the lash of popular fury. We endorse the need and join in this celebration and reaffirmation of religious liberty.

“The Declaration of Independence had posited these truths to be ‘self-evident’: that all men ‘are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights’ and that governments are instituted ‘to secure these rights.’

“The first words of the Bill of Rights provide the dual guarantees of religious liberty. The subsequent words that guarantee the freedoms of speech, press, and assembly provide the means to make our liberties secure, but it is the initial guarantee of religious freedom that explains why all these other liberties are desired.

“In our nation’s founding and in our Constitutional order, religious liberty is the motivating and basic civil liberty.

“In its Articles of Faith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints declares: ‘We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.’ ” (A of F 1:11.)

Freedom of Religion: The Basic Civil Liberty

The Williamsburg Charter declares: “The First Amendment Religious Liberty provisions have both a logical and historical priority in the Bill of Rights.” Indeed, religious liberty is the oldest of the internationally recognized “human rights,” providing motivation, precedent, and support for the growth of other freedoms, such as the freedoms of speech, the press, and assembly. For many of the Founding Fathers, and for many Americans today, religious liberty is the basic civil liberty because faith in God and his teachings and the active practice of religion are the most fundamental guiding realities of life. Thus, for many citizens, religious liberty provides the reason all other civil liberties are desired.

The Declaration of Independence affirms that governments are instituted to secure the inalienable rights with which men and women are endowed by their Creator. The United States Constitution was established to provide a practical and official guarantee of those rights. Its provision securing religious liberty was divinely inspired, not only to bless the inhabitants of this nation but also to stand as an example to all the nations of the world.

Though a fervent believer in these things, I am certainly not naive about the realities of constitutional law. As a law clerk in the United States Supreme Court, I saw its nine justices grapple with the task of interpreting the First Amendment. Later, as a lawyer and law professor for more than twenty years, I did some of that grappling myself. As legal counsel, I helped draft the Bill of Rights for the Illinois Constitutional Convention of 1970. As a Justice of the Utah Supreme Court for three and a half years, I had the sworn duty to uphold and interpret the constitutions of our state and nation. What I have to say about the subject of religious liberty draws upon those experiences.

Restoring Religion to an Honorable Place in Public Life

The Williamsburg Charter reminds us that despite our constitutional prohibition against establishing a state religion, in many areas of the United States during the nineteenth century there was “a de facto semi-establishment of one religion in the United States: a generalized Protestantism given dominant status in national institutions, especially in the public schools.” In contrast, the Charter continues, “In more recent times, and partly in reaction, constitutional jurisprudence has tended, in the view of many, to move toward the de facto semi-establishment of a wholly secular understanding of the origin, nature, and destiny of humankind and of the American nation.”

Over time, these “wholly secular understandings” have attained “a dominant status,” until there is a “striking absence today of any national consensus about religious liberty as a positive good.” The Charter concludes: “The renewal of religious liberty is crucial to sustain a free people that would remain free.”

Support for the Williamsburg Charter is not a renunciation of the secular or a suggestion that one must choose between religion on the one hand and the whole body of secular learning on the other. That is a false dichotomy.

The hundreds of signers of the Williamsburg Charter, who come from every segment of life in the United States, are seeking to offset the symbol and pattern of hostility to religion and indifference to religious liberty that have characterized many court decisions, much media publicity, and some public understandings for more than a quarter of a century. They seek to restore religion to an honorable place in public life.

To “Live with Each Other’s Deepest Differences”

That task is nicely characterized by the question posed in the Charter, “How do we live with each other’s deepest differences?” In the United States, we have seen what the Charter calls “a breakdown in understanding of how personal and communal beliefs should be related to public life.” Recapturing that understanding is a task that will require a high order of intelligence, tolerance, and goodwill, but it is vital that we do so.

Learning how to “live with each other’s deepest differences” is very important for Latter-day Saints, whose mission requires them to be gracious in the few areas where they are in the majority and welcomed as considerate and productive in the rest of the world, where they are in the minority.

The Law: Hostile or Neutral toward Religion?

In my view, our current condition is rooted in the 1962 United States Supreme Court decision that the New York State Board of Regents could not require public school children to recite a prayer authored by the Regents. The essence of that decision was expressed in this sentence from the Court’s opinion:

“It is neither sacrilegious nor anti-religious to say that each separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers and leave the purely religious function to the people themselves, and to those the people choose to look to for religious guidance.” 2

Elsewhere in its opinion the Court explained: “Government in this country, be it state or federal, is without power to prescribe by law any particular form of prayer which is to be used as an official prayer in carrying on any program of governmentally sponsored religious activity.” 3

When the school prayer cases were decided, I interpreted them to forbid state-authored and state-required prayers. As such, the cases, I thought, were correctly decided. What I did not foresee, but what was sensed by persons whose vision was far greater than my own, was that these decisions—defensible and probably even essential as rulings on the facts before the Court—would set in motion a chain of legal and public and educational actions that would bring us to our current circumstance, in which we must reaffirm and even contend for religious liberty.

In short, many understand the law today as being hostile rather than neutral toward religion—as forbidding all public prayers rather than simply prohibiting state-authored and state-required prayers in public schools. Instead of just preventing instances of state-sponsored religion in the public schools, the school prayer cases have unleashed forces that have sometimes been used to prevent the free exercise of religion.

At the time the first school prayer cases were decided, President David O. McKay saw the direction of those decisions with prophetic vision. In December 1962, he said: “By making that [New York Regents’ prayer] unconstitutional, the Supreme Court of the United States severs the connecting cord between the public schools of the United States and the source of divine intelligence, the Creator himself.”

Then, he offered this farsighted caution: “By law, the public schools of the United States must be non-denominational. They can have no part in securing acceptance of any one of the numerous systems of belief regarding God and the relation of mankind thereto. Now let us remember and emphasize that restriction applies to the atheist as well as to the believer in God.” 4

Six months later, just after the Supreme Court’s decision forbidding Bible-reading in the schools, 5 President McKay said:

“Recent rulings of the Supreme Court would have all reference to a Creator eliminated from our public schools and public offices.

“It is a sad day when the Supreme Court of the United States would discourage all reference in our schools to the influence of the phrase ’divine providence’ as used by our founders of the Declaration of Independence.

“Evidently the Supreme Court misinterprets the true meaning of the First Amendment, and are now leading a Christian nation down the road to atheism.” 6

It is clear from President McKay’s references that he was concerned about the direction and long-range effect of these decisions. History shows that his concern was well founded.

A Developing Gulf between Religion and Public Life

In the beginning, eminent legal scholars like Dean Erwin N. Griswold of the Harvard Law School ridiculed the idea that the Supreme Court’s school prayer decisions would lead to a great gulf between religion and public life. In a notable lecture published in the University of Utah Law Review, Dean Griswold said: “To say that [these great provisions of the First Amendment] require that all trace of religion be kept out of any sort of public activity is sheer invention.” 7

However, as time went by, the combatants on both sides of this debate took more and more extreme positions. They joined issue on controversies that compelled the courts to rule on ever-more-technical details on the offering of prayers or the use of religious symbols in public places.

What the legal scholars did not foresee is the extent to which the school-prayer and Bible-reading decisions would shift the burden of proof with respect to religious practices in public life. In the past, religion had been an accepted part of public life in the American tradition; it now became something that had to prove its right to remain in the public square. The principles first announced in the early 1960s had by the 1970s hardened into mechanical constitutional formulas that could be interpreted in ways that were hostile to religion. Too many of the lawyers trained during this period have come to accept these wooden formulas as axioms, with the result that constitutional notions of religious liberty have been impoverished.

For example, the observance of a moment of silence as an alternative to school prayer was first suggested in a United States Supreme Court opinion. Twenty years later, after legislatures in nearly half of the states had passed laws authorizing a moment of silence in the public schools, the Supreme Court held one such law unconstitutional. 8

Gradually, what had been a supportive relationship between church and state (and at times excessively so) has become what many perceive as a hostile one. Now many see religion as suspect, while many others see government as repressive toward religion. It is now essential that a wise and public-spirited group like the Williamsburg Charter Foundation come forward for a purpose that would have seemed remarkable a century ago—to remind us of our religious heritage and to declare the value of religious liberty to a nation that was, in truth, founded to protect it.

The Need for Education on the Role of Religion in a Pluralistic Society

The Williamsburg Charter Foundation has wisely begun its effort by focusing on public education. Affirming that education is incomplete if it does not give attention to the role of religious liberty in American life, the Foundation has called for the public schools to teach about religious liberty in a pluralistic society and has prepared materials for doing so.

The need for such teaching should be obvious. As a result of misunderstanding the importance of religious liberty in our Constitutional order, many citizens and even some educators have come to consider it bad taste or even illegal for public school teachers even to mention religious influences or commitments. No wonder we suffer an appalling ignorance of our political and cultural origins.

In a study done for the Department of Education, New York University psychologist Paul Vitz documented the extent to which textbook authors have avoided references to God or to religion. Vitz concluded that many students could never learn from reading their history textbooks “that religion has played a significant role in American history.” For example:

• One American history textbook defines pilgrims as “people who make long trips.” Another text lists three hundred important events in American history, and only three of the three hundred have anything to do with religion. No religious event is listed after 1775—an apparent judgment that each of the other items, including the appearance of an electric streetcar on the streets of Richmond, Virginia, in 1886, was more important than any religious event in America since 1775.

• A reader for sixth-graders includes an Isaac Singer story in which a boy with a problem prays to God for himself and his goat, and when the problem is resolved, the boy thanks God. But the public school text omits the name of God and declares that the boy thanks “goodness.”

• Textbook discussions of pre-Civil War abolitionism and the recent civil rights movement commonly skim over or totally omit the religious origins of these great forces and the religious motivations of many who furthered them. 9

Removing the name of God and ignoring the influence of religious motivations distort facts and cloud understanding. If gold were someone’s God (and there are such people), could you give an accurate account of the western U.S. settlements attributable to the Gold Rush without mentioning the word gold?

The Williamsburg Charter Foundation is not the first group to call for more public school study about religion. In a 1986 editorial, the Washington Post called attention to a study by People for the American Way, which showed that American history textbooks hardly mention religion as a force in U.S. history. The Post observed: “The absence of any discussion of a subject that has motivated, inspired, and, at times, torn apart important elements of the population is ridiculous. … A student who has no curiosity about the beliefs of others will never be an educated person.” 10

In 1987 the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, an influential public education group, called for action by educators, textbook publishers, and civic leaders to halt what they called the “rigorous exclusion” of religion from school textbooks and curricula. 11

I have been gratified at the rapidity with which a supportive consensus has developed on this subject. It has caused me to wonder whether this consensus just grew rapidly in the last few years or whether it was always there—hidden, but too shy to emerge in an atmosphere of hostility and distrust.

I prefer to believe that individuals have always had the good sense to understand that a person cannot be educated without understanding religious traditions and conflicts. One cannot understand the great music of the Western world, such as music composed for the mass or Handel’s Messiah, and one cannot understand the great art of the Western world, such as the religious themes of the masters of the Middle Ages, without understanding the religious beliefs and traditions of the people by whom and for whom those works of art were created. It is surely true that a reader cannot understand the language and imagery of the great literature of the Western world without understanding the Bible.

The Williamsburg Charter Foundation proposes a public school curriculum titled “Living with Our Deepest Differences—Religious Liberty in a Pluralistic Society.” In this course of study, (1) the curriculum approach to religion is academic, not devotional; (2) the school strives for student awareness but does not press for student acceptance of religion; (3) the school sponsors study about, not practice of, religion; (4) the school exposes students to a diversity of religious views but does not impose any particular one; (5) the school educates about all religions but does not promote or denigrate any of them; and (6) the school may inform about various beliefs but does not seek to conform the student to any particular one. In my opinion, this is an appropriate program. It would serve the interests of the United States and its citizens.

Misunderstandings about Prayer in Public Settings

I conclude by referring to a current controversy that I think exemplifies the public misunderstanding from which we need to be liberated by educational efforts such as those of the Williamsburg Charter Foundation.

Initially, the United States Supreme Court’s school prayer decision outlawed only state-authored and state-required prayers. Later, the courts forbade any prayers in public school classrooms, even those that were privately composed or optional. The courts were concerned with the possibility that impressionable young students would be coerced by such publicly sponsored religious exercises. In contrast, the Supreme Court has clearly held that prayers at the beginning of a state legislative assembly are not forbidden. The Court reasoned that, unlike school children, legislators are adults, “presumably not readily susceptible to ‘religious indoctrination.’ ” 12

Despite the absence of coercion from prayers in adult settings, and despite the fact that prayers are frequently offered in legislative and other public meetings in every state in the union, 13 some have continued their efforts to force the abolition of prayers at government or other public meetings. As a consequence, immense resources of time and money have been devoted to thrashing out the constitutional limits on prayer in public places.

The Williamsburg Charter contains an insight that should help resolve such controversies: “It is false to equate ‘public’ and ‘government.’ In a society that sets store by the necessary limits on government, there are many spheres of life that are public but non-governmental.”

Similarly, I believe that much of the controversy over prayer in public places suffers from a failure to distinguish between governmental action and accommodation of private expression in a public place. The fact that prayer or other religious expression occurs in a public setting does not mean that the government is endorsing religion. It only means that public officials recognize the reality that many citizens have religious beliefs and care about religious matters.

A decision outlawing prayers in public school classrooms, which are tax-supported government institutions responsible for instructing impressionable youth, does not forbid prayers by and for adults in settings that are merely public, such as town meetings, patriotic programs, Parent-Teacher Association functions, and the like. Though offered in a public place, such prayers are personal—not governmental—devotions.

Some Recent Controversies

That distinction has been overlooked in some recent controversies in Utah.

A little more than two years ago, the American Civil Liberties Union pressed for the elimination of prayers at the beginning of Salt Lake County Commission meetings. The A.C.L.U. objected to the fact that most of the people who offered such prayers concluded them “in the name of Jesus Christ.” They claimed that this prayer language constituted an official government endorsement of the majority faith in Utah, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose members pray in that way. In what many interpreted as a generous and appropriate response to that concern, the county commission enlarged its list to invite representatives of every religious organization in the county to take a turn, in rotation, in offering prayers at commission meetings. This apparently settled the issue. 14

More recently, similar controversies have arisen over prayers offered in Utah high school graduation exercises. A suit filed on behalf of two students in one school district objected that the prayers were “denominational,” since they mentioned the name of Jesus Christ. The suit asked that such prayers be “non-denominational.” 15

Interpreting this as a plea for a court order requiring that the name of Jesus Christ not be used in prayers offered at a public high school graduation exercise, I thought of the first school prayer decision. In that case, the Supreme Court said government had no power to author prayers to be offered by its citizens. Before we acquiesce in the use of judicial power to indicate what words cannot be included in a prayer, we should remember that if it is no part of the business of government to write a prayer, then it is no part of the business of a court to censor a prayer.

The United States Supreme Court voiced that principle just six years ago in rejecting an argument that the prayers in a state legislative assembly were illegal because they were always offered by a chaplain of one religious denomination. The Court said: “The content of the prayer is not of concern to judges where, as here, there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief.” 16

Using this reasoning, I concluded that the attempt in Utah to have a court dictate what could not be included in a prayer would not succeed. But even a winning case can be expensive to defend, and in the graduation-exercise case, economic pressure forced a decision upon the school board. They evaluated the costs of resisting what would likely be a long court battle and concluded that it was not in the best interests of the school district to use its scarce resources in that way. Consequently, they announced that the high schools of that district will no longer have prayers as part of their graduation exercises. 17

A neighboring district announced that they would retain prayers in their schools’ graduation exercises, but they said they would be more careful to request “non-denominational prayers.” Similarly, the first district announced that they would continue to open their board meetings with prayer, but opened that particular session with what they called “a generic prayer.” 18

It is no part of the business of government to prescribe prayers or to censor them. Prayer is too sacred for its content to be the subject of a lawsuit. When the threat of a lawsuit causes someone to modify the content of a prayer, we are in desperate need of a Williamsburg Charter to remind us of the importance of religious liberty.

Tolerating Each Other’s Differences

If citizens of the United States cannot tolerate differences in the way others pray, we have suffered a tragic loss in the vitality of religious liberty. I am disappointed that anyone of any faith would abandon his or her chosen manner of prayer and offer a so-called “generic” prayer because someone threatened a lawsuit. Despite my own strong preferences, I would not even consider trying to influence a person of another faith to change the content of a public prayer, and I object to any use of legal pressures to accomplish such changes by anyone.

After I expressed this opinion in a speech last year in Boise, Idaho, a friend sent me a publication reporting a related opinion by a respected Protestant theologian. The newly-appointed chaplain (and former dean) of the Harvard Divinity School, Krister Stendahl, reportedly observed that in his school, with its tradition of pluralism, “it wasn’t quite kosher to mention Jesus [in a prayer]. You become so conscious of using a language which would be for everybody, so nobody was at home.” He reacted by stating his intent to “guard fiercely the freedom of every person to pray and speak in ways important to him or her—lest the specter of ‘pluralism’ mute authentic expression of devotion.” 19

Chaplain Stendahl made the following suggestion, which I believe is an appropriate procedure for one invited to offer a prayer in a public meeting containing persons of various faiths:

“It can never be wrong to pray in the presence of people of other faiths. But when one does that, one cannot use the word ‘we’ in an absolute sense, because that would mean that I surmise that only those who think like me are with me.”

Instead, he said, when preaching among those of other faiths—in a synagogue, for example, as he sometimes does—he is careful to speak in the first person. “I might say, ‘and this I pray, in the name of Jesus, who brought me into communion with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.’ I think it’s quite fair to mention my Jesus in the synagogue, but I should speak my own language and not we it.” 20

The Legality of Graduation Prayers

Appellate court opinions issued in the last several years have split on the legality of prayers at high school graduation exercises. 21 Judges are divided on the question, and the United States Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the controversy.

I am hopeful that the United States Supreme Court will reaffirm the attitude of accommodation voiced in its decision sustaining the constitutionality of released time for public school students to attend religious classes. In that case, decided in 1952, the Court said:

“We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary. We sponsor an attitude on the part of government that shows no partiality to any one group and that lets each flourish according to the zeal of its adherents and the appeal of its dogma. When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.” 22

Some Possible Solutions

As the law stands today, school boards who are challenged on the legality of prayers offered on public ceremonial occasions have several alternatives.

They might continue to have such prayers and risk the possibility of expensive litigation, though the costs might be shared with other districts similarly situated.

They might abandon a long-standing practice of having such prayers and risk being seen as having been manipulated by a litigation strategy rooted in the reality that lawsuits are cheap to begin but expensive to defend. A small but determined minority can use the cost of litigation as an instrument of intimidation to coerce a majority to accept minority social, cultural, or even religious standards that could not or at least should not be imposed by legal process in a fully litigated case.

A school district might substitute a moment of silence in which all are invited to offer private devotions, but this could be seen as a compromise unacceptable to anyone.

In my view, the one alternative that is entirely unacceptable is for a school district to attempt to prescribe or censor prayers to be offered at any function in the district.

I close in the spirit of the Williamsburg Charter, by quoting the First Presidency in a statement made more than ten years ago:

“Those who oppose all references to God in our public life have set themselves the task of rooting out historical facts and ceremonial tributes and symbols so ingrained in our national consciousness that their elimination could only be interpreted as an official act of hostility toward religion. Our constitutional law forbids that.

“As the ruling principle of conduct in the lives of many millions of our citizens, religion should have an honorable place in the public life of our nation, and the name of Almighty God should have sacred use in its public expressions.” 23

May it always be so!

My dear brothers and sisters, I welcome this opportunity to speak to a sabbath audience at America’s Freedom Festival at Provo. This evening I wish to speak about some responsibilities of citizenship. My message consists of personal opinions and is not an expression of an official position.

Introduction

About two months ago my wife, June, and I traveled from Brazil to Chile. En route we stopped at Iguaçu, Brazil, to see the world’s largest waterfall.

We approached the falls first from the downstream side. We were awed by the thunderous avalanche of water spilling over the rocky precipice and cascading over 200 feet into the cataract below.

Later we walked through the state park several hundred feet above the falls. Here the wide Iguaçu River flows serenely between low forested banks, with only an occasional ripple of white to mark a few boulders in its path. Here the river appears placid and inviting. As we looked down stream toward what we knew to be the location of the mighty falls, we could see nothing to warn of their presence. From this point a boatman with no knowledge of the falls would have only a strange, distant roar to warn him of imminent disaster.

As I viewed this scene I thought of the circumstances of our nation. Prophetic voices have sounded warnings of a downfall ahead, of hazards that could deprive us of our freedom. Yet, as we look about us at this point, the flow of events seems serene, with only an occasional ripple. To see the danger we must rise above the immediate scene and tune our senses to identify changed conditions that threaten the future of our nation.

Responsibilities

A few months ago I received a letter from an old friend whose name and work should be familiar to all of us. Dr. Kenneth D. Wells is the founder of the famous Freedom Foundation at Valley Forge. Though now 85 years of age, this respected patriot, a convert to Mormonism, continues to do all that he can for the future of our nation. His letter, sent to many of his friends, cites the obvious malignancies that afflict our nation and concludes with these words:

In my heart and mind and soul, I know only as our consciences turn us to “Responsible Personal Conduct” will the dream that is America have any chance of survival. (Kenneth D. Wells, letter of March 30, 1994.)

Some of the responsible personal conduct that is necessary to save America is the kind of conduct that is enforceable by law and legal process, but much of it can only be encouraged. In the end, many of our most important personal, family, civic, and church responsibilities are entirely voluntary. As Elder Neal A. Maxwell said in his address at this Freedom Festival last year, “Our whole society really rests on the capacity of its citizens to give ‘obedience to the unenforceable.’”

At a time when most of our public discourse concerns rights, it may seem strange to speak of responsibilities. But a democratic republic needs patriotic citizens who are fulfilling their responsibilities as well as claiming their rights. No society is so secure that it can withstand continued demands for increases in citizen rights without producing corresponding increases in the fulfillment of citizen responsibilities. Responsibilities like honesty, respect for personal and property rights, self-reliance, and willingness to sacrifice for the common good are basic to the governance and preservation of our nation.

This evening I will speak of three fundamental responsibilities of citizenship in a democratic nation. In my lifetime each of these has been significantly compromised in theory and practice, and our nation has been significantly weakened in the process. One of these responsibilities has been undercut by the political Left. One has been undercut by the political Right. The third is being undercut by both the Left and the Right. These three fundamentals are the citizen responsibilities of (1) serving in the military, (2) paying taxes, and (3) participating in democratic government.

A Special Introduction for Church Members

Before I address these three responsibilities, I will provide a short introduction that I believe is needed by some members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The twelfth Article of Faith commits Latter-day Saints to “being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates,” and to “obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” This belief is not unique in Christendom. The apostle Paul told the early Christians to be “subject to principalities and powers, [and] to obey magistrates” (Titus 3:1; also see Rom. 13:1). The apostle Peter taught “submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake” (1 Peter 2:13).

This principle is embodied in the LDS Declaration of Belief in the Doctrine and Covenants, which reads:

We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments. (D&C 134:5.)

Some Church members have questioned the meaning of the last clause. Some who have written me have claimed to be excused from their scriptural obligation to “sustain and uphold” their’ government because the government has not protected them in their inalienable rights. One letter included this statement:

What about the resistance movement during the conquering of Hitler’s National Socialist war machine? I personally know of an LDS family who during World War II defied the Nazis by secretly saving lives of people (many of them were Jews) by hiding and transporting them by boat from Denmark to Sweden. Yet today they are still faithful members of the Church. Are they under condemnation for not obeying and sustaining the totalitarian government they were under?

I feel sorry for persons whose knowledge of the relative actions of Nazi Germany and modern United States of America is so incomplete that they put these two governments in the same category in depriving their citizens of inalienable rights. We should all be able to recognize the difference between abuses that are individualized, and we surely have some of these in the United States today, and those that are deliberate government policy, as in Nazi Germany. A person who cannot tell the difference between a rat and a rhinoceros will be a poor source of advice on the control of animals.

At a clear and extreme level, violations of inalienable rights by a government might excuse citizens from the performance of some obligations of citizenship. But the history of Latter-day Saints’ relations to their governments shows that any such exceptions would have to be far more extreme than anything we have experienced in this country.

Even when victimized by what they must surely have seen as very severe government oppressions and abridgments of freedom, the Mormon people and their leaders have remained loyal to their government and its laws. Think of the persecutions in Missouri, the expulsion from Nauvoo, and the repressions suffered in the Utah Territory. As long as a government provides aggrieved persons an opportunity to work to enlarge their freedoms and relieve their oppressions by legal and peaceful means, a Latter-day Saint citizen’s duty is to forego revolution and disobedience of law. Our doctrine commits us to work from within. Even an oppressive government is preferable to a state of lawlessness and anarchy in which the only ruling principle is force and every individual has a thousand oppressors. (See D&C 134:6.)

Church members who seek to use LDS doctrine as a basis for concluding that government infringements on inalienable rights have excused them from obeying the law seem to have forgotten the principle of following the prophets. Until the prophets invoke this principle, faithful members will also refrain from doing so. We remain committed to uphold our governments and to obey their laws.

Military Service and Taxes

I come now to the first two fundamental citizen responsibilities that have been compromised in my lifetime in the United States: serving in the military and paying taxes.

Modern opponents of compulsory military service and of enforced payment of taxes have this common objection. Both claim that the government compulsion to do these unpopular things interferes with freedom. The issue, they say, is freedom versus slavery.

The problem with this argument is that it proves too much. It would take us back to the toothless Articles of Confederation from which our inspired Constitution rescued us. A government that cannot compel military service or a government that cannot compel the payment of taxes is not much of a government.

At root, these objections to government compulsion are objections to the whole idea of government. Such objections are contrary to Christian doctrine. Jesus did not preach sedition. He taught his followers to “Render… unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s” (Matt. 22:21). His apostles taught the same, as I have already noted.

Of course, there are legitimate technical objections to laws requiring military service and to certain tax laws, but these are objections to the terms of the law, not to the idea of compulsion. Technical objections should be presented in the forums provided by law.

During the Vietnam War, when I was a professor of law at The University of Chicago Law School, I knew some young men from the political Left who had a second type of objection to military service. They said they did not object to compulsory service in the military, but they did object to serving in the war in Vietnam because they opposed that war. The law, which must give equal protection to all citizens, did not recognize that kind of objection. Citizens cannot pick and choose which wars to support or which laws to observe. But there were many young men who asserted this objection, and there were times during the Vietnam War when the extent of draft evasion on this basis posed a serious problem for our nation.

Today there is a comparable objection to the payment of taxes, but this objection comes primarily from the political Right. People who object to some of the ways the government spends its tax revenues contend that they should not be forced to pay taxes to support activities they condemn. This picking and choosing which laws to support is the same legal approach the young men of the political Left used to try to avoid military service during the war in Vietnam.

One does not have to approve of all of the uses of military power nor all of the uses of tax revenues to see that taxpayers and young men of military age cannot resist compulsion on the basis of disagreements with some of the policies of the government that seeks to compel them. A government could not survive if the enforceable responsibilities of its citizens were divisible according to their individual preferences. We cannot be expected to welcome military service or to relish the payment of taxes, but we should recognize these as essential responsibilities of citizenship, even where we disagree with some of the actions of the government we support.

I know of no better commentary on taxes and big government than the consoling observation attributed to Will Rogers: “We’re just lucky we’re not gettin’ all the government we’re payin’ for.” I also enjoy most of the good-humored jokes about the Internal Revenue Service, which definitely does not qualify as everyone’s favorite bureau. Someone said that the IRS has solved the problem of what to give to the man who already has everything: give him an audit!

So much for politics. I come now to objections based on some type of legal theory.

The first legal objection is that the basic law is unconstitutional. I do not remember such arguments being made against the draft law during the Vietnam War. However, for reasons I cannot explain, some persons are now arguing that the federal income tax is unconstitutional.

Church members involved in various forms of tax protest have sent me many legal memoranda that purport to justify their positions. For the first several years of my service as a General Authority, I did a good deal of personal research to evaluate these legal theories in view of the principles I had learned during a quarter of a century in the legal profession, including several years teaching tax law in a major law school. In not one single instance have I found any merit in the legal theories asserted as a basis for these tax protests. Yet, some good people are still being misled by them, and their mistaken reliance on false theories is wrecking havoc with their financial prospects and even their spiritual lives.

A claim often made by protesting taxpayers is that the IRS is afraid to challenge them. Some who have written me have claimed that the merit of their position is evident in the fact that they have not filed a tax return for many years and nothing has happened to them. I received one such a letter from a prominent tax protestor in Utah, and then, a few months later, read a press account of his beginning service of a long prison sentence in a federal penitentiary. The wheels of justice grind slowly, but exceedingly fine.

For many in this audience, the ultimate mortal authority on religious doctrine is the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Just last year, the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve gave this instruction:

Church members in any nation are obligated by the twelfth article of faith to obey the tax laws of that nation (see also D&C 134:5) …. A member who refuses to file a tax return, to pay required income taxes, or to comply with a final judgment in a tax case is in direct conflict with the law and with the teachings of the Church. (Bulletin, 1993-2, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; also see General Handbook of Instructions, p. 11-2.)

There is nothing inappropriate in taking political action to reduce taxes or in pursuing well-founded court challenges to a particular application of the tax laws. In their 1993 statement, the Church leaders declared:

If a member disapproves of tax laws, he may attempt to have them changed by legislation or constitutional amendment, or, if he has a well-founded legal objection, he may challenge them in the courts. (Ibid.)

However, contrary to the position of some tax protestors, this statement provides no justification for a general and persistent failure to pay taxes or to refrain from filing tax returns. The courts that our Constitution and laws have established to rule on such matters have uniformly upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax law and have regularly rejected assertions that wages and salaries are not taxable, that federal reserve notes do not count as income, and that individuals or businesses can elect not to comply with the income tax laws. As a result, failures to obey the income tax law that are based on these and similar theories must be regarded as actions without “a well-founded legal objection” and therefore unacceptable to persons committed to uphold and sustain the law.

Theories to Free Citizens from the Authority of Governments

Other variations on the avoidance of citizen responsibilities are the recent theories that purport to allow persons to free themselves from the authority of federal, state, or local governments.

The first of these theories was espoused by the so-called Township Movement. Under this theory, a person could execute some kind of document that would excuse him or her from any compulsory government authority other than the so-called township government this person had participated in electing. This theory purported to be based on common-law precedents going back to the earliest of times. Its defect is its ignoring or denying of the authority of the federal and state constitutions and laws adopted in this nation. The proponents of the Township Movement view history through a peephole that shows nothing but the subjects they desire. Their legal claims have no merit whatever.

The second theory that purports to allow a person to free himself or herself from paying taxes or being subject to other federal or state laws is the so-called state citizenship movement, which makes prominent reference to sovereign citizenship or common-law citizenship. This theory starts with a valid principle, the sovereignty of the people, but it misapplies that principle and reaches an erroneous conclusion.

One of the most important of the great fundamentals of our inspired Constitution is the principle that the sovereign power is in the people, not in a state or nation just because it has the power that comes from force of arms. Along with many other religious people, Latter-day Saints affirm that God gave the power to the people, and the people consented to a Constitution that delegated certain powers to the federal and state governments and reserved the rest to the people.

However, it does not follow from this principle that each citizen is free to determine which laws he will obey or that one or more citizens are free to redefine the concept of sovereignty. That would result in anarchy, a system in which the only source of power is the sword. In that system, no person is free. The United States Constitution and the constitutions of the several states have defined the powers citizens have granted to their governments, the procedures for amending those grants, and the means by which controversies over the exercise of those powers can be resolved.

Now to the theory of state or sovereign or common-law citizenship. A knowledgeable proponent of this theory, whose recent, long letter to me purported to be representative of large numbers of adherents in California and across the nation, some of whom are members of my church, gave this description of the theory (letter of Mar. 15, 1994): The 1783 Treaty of Paris (which concluded the Revolutionary War) granted sovereignty to the people of the thirteen colonies. The sovereign people of these colonies (later states) had no national citizenship. There was no national citizenship in the United States until 1868. The citizenship granted by the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 gives national citizens only “subject status,” not sovereignty. As a result, there are different classes of citizenship in the United States today, depending upon whether one’s citizenship is based on the inferior status conferred by the Fourteenth Amendment or on the inherent sovereign citizenship that devolved upon residents of the various states as a result of the 1783 Treaty of Paris.

There are four major problems with this theory. First, the Treaty of Paris did not grant sovereignty to the citizens of the thirteen colonies. It is a treaty between countries,” Great Britain and the United States of America. The treaty acknowledges the independence of the thirteen “states,” as it calls them, but it refers to them collectively “the United States of America.” Moreover, the treaty was ratified by the Continental Congress, not by the legislatures of the thirteen states.

Second, the theory of state citizenship ignores the effect of the United States Constitution, which was ratified five years after the Treaty of Paris. That constitution established an entirely new relationship between the states and the national government. and the citizens of the states and the nation ratified that relationship by the procedures they had specified.

Third, the argument that there was only state citizenship prior to the Fourteenth Amendment ignores over 75 years of congressional and judicial action defining the separate incidents of federal and state citizenship. (See James H. Kettner, The Development of American Citizenship 1608-1870 [Univ. No. Carolina Press, 1978].)

Finally, the asserted theory also ignores the effect of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which defines national citizenship for all citizens of this nation and its constituent states.

Persons who believe in the so-called “state citizenship movement” are encouraged to sign and publicly file three “legal documents,” including a “Declaration of Citizenship and Status as a Common-law Citizen.” These documents are supposed to revoke the signers’ national citizenship and free them from tax and other legal obligations to the United States. Considering the care with which these meaningless documents are drafted and executed, I am reminded of a wise aphorism: “A task not worth doing at all is not worth doing well.”

One recent letter to Church headquarters even suggested that such persons have no legal need to get a marriage license, and therefore should be able to have a temple marriage without one. Persons who claim the right to pick and choose which laws of the land they will observe are not far from claiming to choose which laws of God they must observe.

I feel sad that persons can be so misled. The wise will beware of teachings on the Constitution that are based on peephole history and selective readings of historic documents. They should also beware of the related advice of persons who advocate private armies or the collection of heavy weapons or extraordinary quantities of private arms. Responsible citizenship has no shortcuts when the going gets tough–not draft avoidance, not tax evasion and not eccentric theories that purport to free us from the obligation to be subject to t constitutions and laws of our states and our nation.

Participating in Democratic Government

The solution to many of the major problems in our nation is for more citizens to participate more actively and more effectively in democratic government, by their votes and by their letters and other communications to elected representatives. This fundamental responsibility of citizenship is a prerequisite for the perpetuation of freedom.

I will cite three major national problems that I believe would yield, long-term. increased citizen participation.

1. The budget deficit. We know that our national government cannot continue indefinitely to spend more than it receives. If the citizen-voters of this nation continue to demand the current level of government expenditures that produces our deficits, then our citizen-taxpayers must accept the tax increases necessary to fund them. If we won’t raise taxes, we should accept cuts in various expenditures. We cannot continue much longer to fund our current levels of government expenditures by increased borrowings.

This problem cannot be solved by the popular but superficial action of merely opposing all tax increases. It cannot be solved by the phony solution of proposing spending cuts on every government program except our various personal favorites. This familiar approach shatters working coalitions and imposes gridlock on progress toward reducing deficits. Citizen-taxpayers have endured the resulting government paralysis on deficit reduction for years, until we are about to drift over the fiscal falls from the effects of the national debt.

Citizen-voters should demand that our elected President and lawmakers act decisively and courageously to reduce the steeply increasing debt we are leaving to our children and grandchildren and the progressively paralyzing proportion of current income our government must pay as interest on that debt.

2. The allocation of power between federal and state governments. For more than a half century, our national government has been acquiring additional powers by assuming functions previously left to state and local governments. This trend has now gone so far that the national government is beginning to direct what state and local governments must do and even how they must spend their limited revenues. This trend must be stopped and reversed, or we will cease to be the federal republic established in our inspired Constitution.

I am glad that some of our state governors are challenging this trend. I welcome their leadership in objecting to congressional action that commandeers the legislative and regulatory processes of the states to carry out federal directives not financed by the federal government. I hope many citizens will respond to such leadership and work to assure that state governments and their subsidiary local governments will continue to have a strong and effective role in our nation.

It is imperative that state governments have the power and the fiscal resources to respond to local needs and to capitalize on local strengths. That is the essence of federalism. But if federalism is to work, state governments must be willing to move against local and regional problems, such as clean air and water, and not wait for every such initiative to come from the national government. The current imbalance between the national and the state governments is just as much a product of state inaction as it is of national overreaching.

The balance I advocate between national and state powers is mandated by the Tenth Amendment, which provides:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Tenth Amendment’s reference to powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution leads me to a third subject of concern.

3. We need to reestablish the constitutional principle that our federal government is a government of limited powers.

A government of limited powers was the central premise of constitutional law during the first century and a half of our nation’s history. Constitutional discussions of that period generally focused not on questions of individual rights but on whether the Constitution granted power to authorize the government activity that was challenged.

In the aftermath of the great depression and World War II, this traditional assumption of limited federal government powers was gradually displaced by the idea that the national government presumably possesses law-making powers except to the extent prohibited by some person’s defined constitutional right. As a result of this change, current legal and political debate over excessive or undesirable government regulation tends to focus on whether some individual constitutional rights have been invaded.

In effect …. [this] shifts the burden of proof concerning the appropriateness of an exercise of government power from the state to the rightholder. New assertions of government power are no longer suspect. Where no constitutional right is clearly available as a shield, new assertions of government authority meet passive acquiescence.

… [We] need to revitalize the old wisdom that the protection of individual freedom often requires limiting government powers in ways that go beyond merely vindicating individual rights. We must cage the lion as well as arm the spectators. (W. Cole Durham, Jr., and Dallin H. Oaks, “Constitutional Protections for Independent Higher Education: Limited Powers and Institutional Rights,” in Church and College: a Vital Partnership. Vol. 3. Accountability, pp. 71-72 [National Congress on Church-related Colleges and Universities, Austin College, Sherman, Texas, 1980].)

Because it requires changing deeply held assumptions and fundamental constitutional interpretations, this third major problem will be the most difficult to resolve. But it is also the most important. In the pantheon of ideas in our divinely-inspired constitution, the idea that the government is limited to the powers expressly and impliedly conferred by the Constitution is second only to the principle that the people are sovereign.

I have advocated greater citizen participation to resolve three major problems: (1) our massive and increasing national deficits, (2) the need for states to reacquire powers and initiatives taken away by the federal government, and (3) the need to reestablish the principle that the federal government is a government of limited powers.

A Caution on Citizen Participation in Single-Interest Groups

Even as I call for greater citizen participation to resolve national problems, I must voice one caution about citizen participation. I believe that citizen participation in single-interest groups is actually weakening representative government.

Interest groups are inevitable and desirable in a democratic government. For example, political parties are interest groups, comprised of persons with many different specific interests. Political parties blunt the extreme effects of their constituent special-interest groups as those parties compel the internal compromises necessary to mold their constituencies into a working coalition. In contrast, single-interest groups confront government directly with uncompromised demands on a narrow spectrum of issues. These groups are so specialized that they lack the perspective to move against the large problems, and they also lack the incentive to make the pragmatic compromises that are the enabling force of democratic government in a pluralistic society.

Some of the most powerful influences in the government of our nation in this last decade of the twentieth century are the multitude of single-interest groups. Whether the subject is gun control, medical care, criminal punishment, welfare reform, government aid to this or that, or whatever, these single-interest groups are a formidable force in lobbying, in fund-raising, and in citizen involvement. None of these groups is powerful enough to steer the ship of state by itself, but many have sufficient power to prevent the vessel from being steered toward the solution of more general problems. In other words, single-interest groups are not able to lead toward the solution of general problems, but they are commonly able to block such solutions. And what they block can be the solution of the large general problems that affect the entire body politic, such as deficit-spending or others I have mentioned.

Contrast the example of the founding fathers. The United States Constitution could never have been drafted or ratified if each of the delegates to the convention had focused on his own special interest and had demanded full satisfaction as the price of his support. The history of our Constitution is replete with examples of far-sighted statesmen who were willing to support a document that failed to implement many of their personal preferences. For example, influential Thomas Jefferson, who did not serve as a delegate because he was in Paris negotiating a treaty, felt strongly that a bill of rights should have been included in the original Constitution. But Jefferson still supported the Constitution because he felt it was the best available at the time. Benjamin Franklin described that same approach when he said: “The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good.” (Notes of the Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787. Reported by James Madison, p. 653.)

In other words, we must not go into blocking tactics when a representative body fails to satisfy us fully on our favorite special interest. We should not expect all our personal preferences in government action that must represent a consensus. Americans are well advised to support the best that can be obtained in the circumstances that prevail. The conduct of the most important business of our nation must not be held hostage to the fulfillment of every preference of every powerful special interest group. In a democracy and a society committed to pluralism, we must be willing to compromise on public policies from year to year, and then apply ourselves diligently to the tiresome tasks of education and persuasion and lobbying in order to obtain our way to an increasing extent as we win agreement from our fellow citizens.

One aspect of our current single-interest politics that is a special worry to me is the fear that many Americans will have their only political activity through a particular single-interest group. If most who are politically active see the political process and the future of our country only through the keyhole of one particular special interest, where will we get the vision and perspective necessary to guide the ship of state on the largest and most important issues that confront us? Responsible citizenship requires that we see our venture in self-government in broader terms than merely through the lens of one special interest, however important and however strongly felt.

I do not suggest that anyone refrain from pressing whatever special interest is important to him or her. But I am bold enough to suggest that no person should limit his or her political activity to a single subject. For example, a person who strongly supports one special interest should also make a conscious effort to help resolve larger government problems on which that person can unite with some of the same persons who are the opposition in the area of special interest. There are plenty of areas for general citizen participation on subjects not usually classified as single interests. In addition to deficit reduction and the other topics mentioned earlier, I would include education policy, transportation policy, environmental concerns, and the necessarily broad-based activities of political parties at the local, state, and national levels.

General citizen cooperative action that transcends special interests can also be achieved through the multitude of private volunteer organizations that are unique and so important to our nation. A partial list of these will include activities familiar to everyone in this audience.

1. The celebration of citizenship, patriotism, and national holidays and values, such as hundreds of volunteers do so well in this Freedom Festival.
2. Volunteer work in hospitals, museums, public radio and television, and various arts organizations such as symphony, ballet, and theater.
3. Assisting the great system of private education that is unique to the United States of America, at the elementary, secondary, and college/university level.
4. Helping to clean up the air, water, and soil that support us, including such simple yet meaningful tasks as recycling materials and picking up trash along the highways.
5. Working with activity and athletic programs for young people, such as Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Little League, and Special Olympics.
6. Supporting and helping in the charitable projects of numerous community, social, and fraternal organizations.

Responsibilities and Heroes

I have spoken about citizenship responsibilities. I close with some observations about the relationship of responsibilities to the matter of heroes. (I use the word heroes to include both male and female.)

My friend, President George Roche of Hillsdale College, gives many important insights in his book, A World without Heroes (Hillsdale, Michigan: Hillsdale College Press, 1986). Seeking to answer the important question of why our current generation seems to have no heroes, Dr. Roche observes that a hero gains that stature by courageously overcoming significant obstacles to make an extraordinary achievement that is generally recognized as a good thing. He observes that “The hero seeks not happiness but goodness” (Ibid. p.4).

The kinds of persons who are idolized in our current society, including sports figures and movie or rock stars, are substitutes for heroes, but they are not heroes. The current idols stand for a self-serving pursuit of happiness, not an unselfish sacrifice for goodness. A materialistic or self-serving world cannot produce heroes because such a world has no generally accepted measure to tell us what we should do in the service of others. The genuine hero achieves that status by accomplishments measured against a consensus of what is good and praiseworthy. We cannot have heroes without clear common ideas of what is good or right.

My nominees for heroes are the good mothers and fathers who sacrifice to bear and nurture the leaders of future generations. I wish we had a national consensus on the appropriateness of that characterization, but we live in a time when our national leaders cannot even state a consensus on the definition of family.

As I read Dr. Roche’s stimulating ideas on heroes, I found myself translating his ideas into the common terms of the law with which I am most familiar. I thought of rights and responsibilities.

As noted earlier, the last half-century of legal and public discourse has concentrated strongly on the language of rights. I suggest that there are few heroes in a world that focuses on rights. Is a person a hero for getting his or her rights? There is justice in that accomplishment, but its only service is self-service. On exceptional occasions some persons can rise to hero status by securing the rights of others, such as the civil rights volunteers of the sixties who put their lives in jeopardy in securing the voting rights of black citizens in the South. But most commonly the gladiators who fight for the rights of others are well paid by legal fees or by public office or prominence. No, the pursuit of rights is rarely the stuff of which heroes are made. And so, in a time of preoccupation with rights it should not surprise us that we live in a world with few heroes.

Heroes win that status by distinction in the fulfillment of responsibilities. If we could resurrect the prominence of responsibilities in our society, we would resurrect the framework of belief and the measures of distinction by which heroes can be recognized and honored.

The citizen responsibilities I have discussed provide such an opportunity. I therefore join my voice to the plea of Dr. George Roche:

If this tired old planet is to be healed, it will be the old-fashioned way, one by one, with each of us finding the best within us. We all have to be heroes! (Ibid., p. xviii.)

May God bless us in our efforts to fulfill our responsibilities and to rise to the best that is in us.

Because so many millions of Americans finally realize that something is seriously wrong with the way the government is handling our affairs, people are continually asking: “Do you think there is still time to turn it around?”

When you ask, “Still time before what?” they usually reply: “Before total disaster overtakes.”

For those who wonder about such things the answer is this: “Yes, there is still time, but not much.”

The next question is: “What can we do to get America turned around and regain our national sanity?”

The answer is: “Elect a President and a majority in Congress who still believe in the Constitution and will fight to return America to her original moorings.”

Identifying Constitutional Candidates

“But how can you tell when a candidate for political office is really a Constitutionalist?”

If the candidate is already in office he will have a voting record which will clearly show whether or not he is a Constitutionalist. Several organizations monitor the Congress and publish the results.

However, if the candidate is a newcomer to politics you will have to test his knowledge of Constitutional principles by asking a few questions.

What Kind of Questions Should Be Asked?

We are listing a few of the many questions which might be addressed to a candidate in order to determine whether or not he stands for those basic principles advocated by the Founding Fathers.

As we go through these questions you will note that nearly all of them can be easily answered by anyone who has attended the “Miracle of America” seminars on the Constitution. In the text for this course the answers to all of these questions are explained and documented. If your candidate does not know the answers, invite him to take a Constitutional seminar at the earliest possible date. The thirteen hours required for this study may turn out to be the best investment in political orientation he could find. No American should run for public office until he has studied the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers.

Questions on General Principles

1. Under the Constitution, who has the sovereign authority to govern?

The founders said it is in the people “by God’s own allowance”. No branch or agency of the government should be allowed to operate in violation of the expressed will of the people. Their collective will is set forth in the Constitution and the laws passed by the people’s representatives.

2. In what way are “all men created equal?”

All humanity are equal in three ways: 1. equal before God, 2. equal before the law, 3. equal in their rights. In all other respects people are different.

3. What is an inalienable right?

An inalienable right is one which comes as an “endowment from the Creator” and cannot be violated without coming under the judgment of God.

4. Which inalienable rights were listed in the Declaration of Independence?

The Declaration of Independence lists the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

5. What did the founders mean by the “pursuit of happiness?”

This is a collective phrase designed to cover all of the other inalienable rights.

6. Give an example of an inalienable right which is essential to the pursuit of happiness.

The Founders believed, for example, that human happiness requires that each of us enjoy the right to acquire, develop and dispose of property. They believed that without the protection of property rights, all other rights are placed in serious jeopardy.

7. What are some of the other inalienable rights?

The inalienable rights of mankind include such things as the right of self government; the right of human beings to beget their own kind; the right of parents to rear their children free from outside interference (unless there is criminal abuse or neglect); the right to freedom of belief; the right to freedom of speech; the right to assemble; the right to petition; the right to change residence; the’ right to change jobs, etc.

8. What is the purpose of government?

The Founders said the basic reason for creating a government is to protect the inalienable rights of the people. The government is to provide “liberty under law,” which means that no law should be passed unless it is specifically designed to protect the freedom, liberty. and well-being of the people.

The American Structure of Government

9. What is a democracy?

A democracy is a government wherein decisions are made by the masses of the people rather than by elected representatives.

10. What is a republic?

A republic is a system in which the laws are passed and decisions made by the elected representatives of the people.

11. Why did Jefferson call the American system a democratic-republic?

Because the system allows the masses of qualified voters to participate in the election of their officials (democracy) and then the people’s elected representatives enact the laws and administer the affairs of the people under majority rule but with the equal protection of individual rights (a republic).

12. Is it a mistake, therefore, to call the United States a democracy?

Yes. The only part of the American system which is borrowed from “democracy” is the popular election of government officials. Except for this, the Founders strongly emphasized the republican aspects of the American system. A republic places the responsibility for sound government and decision-making on the people’s elected representatives rather than allowing the fluctuating and superficial emotions of the people to override law and order or the rights of minorities. The classical example of government functioning on republican principles and prevailing over “pure democracy” would be the case of a sheriff protecting a prisoner against a lynch mob.

The Task of Controlling Power

13. Why is separation of power safer than concentration of power?

Government is “force” which Washington compared to “fire” and said government is a “dangerous servant” and a “fearful master.” Power should be dispersed among the people where they can keep it under control.

14. How should the powers of government be separated?

First of all the Founders wanted political power separated vertically. They considered the principal power base of society to be the family. However, there are a few things which a community of families can provide better than a single family (police, fire, water, utilities, etc.). Power to perform these functions is therefore delegated to the community. Then there are a few things which groups of communities can do better than the single community. These tasks are assigned to the higher level of the county. There are also a few things that a group of counties can do better than a single county and these are assigned to the State level. The Founders also discovered that there were certain matters dealing with foreign affairs, problems of war and peace, imports, etc. which need to be handled in behalf of all the states. These responsibilities are therefore assigned to the Federal Government. It should be noted that the Founders’ pyramid of power provided that the greatest number of responsibilities should rest with the family. Only a few responsibilities were assigned to the levels of government above the family and the Federal Government was to have the least of all. 1

15. What remedies did the Founders provide if government officials violated the channel of power assigned to them?

Administrative pressures from other departments are provided and if his offenses are serious he can be impeached for treason, bribery, high crimes or misdemeanors.

16. Why did the Founders want the powers of government to flow from the bottom up rather than the top down?

Jefferson stated that a political unit governs best which governs least. In other words, the services which the people need from government are relatively simple and when circumstances are normal the people like to conduct their affairs with as little interference from the government as possible. Consequently, in the Founders’ original plan for a happy and prosperous society, the functions of government were designed to be relatively simple and remarkably cheap.

17. Then why do we have such a complicated and expensive government today?

The professional politicians learned that in a war, depression, or a serious crisis, the people will endure higher taxes and a far greater concentration of authority on the higher levels of government. Certain politicians therefore set out to exploit every emergency as an excuse for the acquiring of more power. During most of the twentieth century ambitious politicians trumpeted the message that the government can solve practically all problems better than the people. Today, as a result, Americans are being literally “programmed” to death. And taxes have skyrocketed.

Separating Power Horizontally

18. How did the Founders separate power horizontally?

There are three functions of government at each level of society. One function is to make the law, another is to administer the law and a third is to interpret the law. These are all on the same horizontal level and are referred to as the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of government. The Founders wanted these three functions to be separated into equal, independent departments. At the same time, they wanted to coordinate these functions so that one department could not function without the other two. Each department was therefore assigned to serve as a check on the others. The idea of the Founders was to have these functions of government “coordinated but never consolidated.” This was one of the most ingenious devices contributed by the Founders.

19. What happens if the separation of powers breaks down either vertically or horizontally?

The Founders warned that if the vertical separation of power should ever break down so that all power began to be concentrated in Washington, there would be a severely arrogant abuse of the people by government officials. They also said that if the legislative executive and judicial departments failed to act as a check on each other, there would be tyranny and the people would lose their freedom. For more than one full generation this is what has been happening.

Americans Experiment with Another System

20. Is the consolidation of government functions the trend today?

Yes. Consolidation of power is gravitating toward Washington at a pace which would have greatly alarmed the Founders.

21. What has caused this?

Beginning around 1900 certain wealthy influential groups lost confidence in the original American system and began propagandizing the people into believing that a “redistribution of the wealth” by the government would greatly improve the American life style. This theory of economics with its concentration of political power at the center of government is usually referred to as socialism. Samuel Adams vigorously warned against these principles. He said socialism violates equal protection of rights and completely destroys the concept of limited government. In fact, he said the Founders had done everything possible to make these collectivist policies “unconstitutional.”

22. What has been the result?

These policies launched the United States on a wild and dizzy trajectory which has resulted in run-away inflation; a huge burden of national debt; taxes which are devouring nearly half of the peoples’ earning power; a serious invasion of individual rights; and a virtual collapse of states rights.

23. Has socialism or “collectivism” worked anywhere in the world?

Unfortunately, it has not. In fact, the militant forms of socialism such as Communism, Nazism, and Fascism have caused more wars and shed the blood of more human beings than any system of government in the history of the world. Even the so-called “peaceful” forms of socialism such as Democratic Socialism and Fabian Socialism, have proven counter-productive and have continuously crept along the razor’s edge of perpetual bankruptcy. Americans have sent over hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid trying to help the socialist nations survive. Now we are bordering on bankruptcy ourselves.

24. How did the Founders structure the American system so that socialism would be unconstitutional?

They did it by setting up a “limited” form of government with carefully enumerated powers. Jefferson called these limitations on government the “chains” of the Constitution.

American Leaders Began to Abandon the Founders Success Formula

25. Does this mean Theodore Roosevelt was In error when he said the President could do anything except that which the Constitution forbids?

Yes, he was turning the Constitution upside down. The President and all other officials of the government are only allowed to do that which is expressly authorized. The Founders referred to any exercise of power outside of these Constitutional chains as “usurpation.”

26. Was President Woodrow Wilson also in error when he said the United States should become involved in the political and economic affairs of the world?

Yes. The Founders had continually warned against foreign, entangling alliances. The Founders believed the United States should try to be friendly with all nations, but beholden to none. They knew that political interdependence leads to the development of power blocs, and power blocs ultimately lead to war.

27. Was Franklin D. Roosevelt in error when he structured the New Deal?

Yes. The New Deal was structured on collectivist principles designed by such men as Harry Hopkins who saw socialism as a tremendous vehicle to acquire power over the people and their resources. His famous formula was “tax, tax — spend, spend — elect, elect!”

28. Was Lyndon Johnson in error when he said, “We will take from the haves and give to the have nots!”

The Founders would certainly have called it an error. There is absolutely no Constitutional authority for the government to engage in any such invasion of private property rights. Throughout history it has always been popular for governments to pretend they are going to “soak the rich,” but such programs have always ended up with government officials using this newly acquired power to violate the inalienable rights of both rich and poor. It is a political trick to build bigger government with bigger debts and bigger taxes.

29. Was President Nixon in error when he continually tried to involve the United States in a “New World Order”?

Yes. It is extremely dangerous for Americans to enter into foreign engagements where decisions for Americans are made by non-Americans. The Founders believed that we should coordinate but never consolidate our free and independent society with foreign nations.

30. Was President Carter in error when he began meddling in domestic affairs of foreign nations?

Yes. The Monroe Doctrine specifically promised that the United States would never undertake to meddle in the domestic affairs of other countries. Any President or Secretary of State who has followed a policy of “interventionism,” has operated outside of his Constitutional authority.

Presidential Violations of the Constitution

31. What about executive orders which are treated as laws after being published in the federal register?

In the eyes of the Founders these would be considered unconstitutional. The President can issue executive orders to the administrative branches of government under his supervision but he has no authority whatever to make “laws” for the people since the Constitution assigns that authority exclusively to the Congress. An act of Congress could stop this whole illegal procedure.

32. What about executive agreements between the President and heads of foreign governments?

This procedure is also unconstitutional. The Founders provided that all agreements with foreign nations must have the advice and consent of the Senate. Since American Presidents began holding summit conferences with the heads of foreign governments, they have been entering into secret engagements which very often never see the light of day let alone receive the advice and consent of the Senate. Each year there are many more executive agreements signed by the President than there are treaties ratified by the Senate.

Judicial Violations of the Constitution

33. What about new laws laid down by the Supreme Court?

This is called “judicial legislation.” This occurs when the Supreme Court creates a new law by pretending to interpret an old one. In the Federalist Papers the Founders specifically warned against this type of arrogance by the Supreme Court.

34. How is the Supreme Court supposed to interpret the Constitution?

The Founders made it very clear that the Supreme Court would be violating its assignment if it substituted its own opinions for that of the Founders. Until recently it has always been an established principle that the

Constitution must be interpreted the way the Founders intended it and not according to the whims or caprice of modern justices.

35. Is there any way to curb the Supreme Court from exercising its power in an unconstitutional manner?

Yes. A Judicial Reform Amendment would allow any Supreme Court decision to be overturned by two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate. A decision could also be overturned by concurring resolutions from three-fourths of the State Legislatures. Had this procedure been available the States would have’ undoubtedly outlawed forced busing of school children at least twenty years ago.

Unconstitutional Edicts of Regulatory Agencies

36. Is it Constitutional for an agency of the Federal Government to write rules and regulations which are enforced in the courts as “laws?”

No. This is a recent development in governmental procedures. It is called “administrative law.” The Founders provided no power in any agency of government to make laws except the Congress.

Blurring the Founders’ Division of Labor Between

the States and the Federal Government

37. How did the Founders intend to divide the problem-solving powers between the States and the Federal Government?

James Madison spelled it out in the Federalist Papers, No. 45. He wrote: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined…. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and the properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

38. How did the Founders know whether to assign a problem to the State or Federal Governments?

If a problem involved foreign relations (war, peace, treaties, etc.) or matters which could not be handled by any one of the states (regulating interstate commerce, crimes on the high seas, navigable waters, naturalization, etc.) it went to the Federal Government. All other powers were retained by the States.

39. How many areas of power were ultimately assigned to the Federal Government?

The Constitution gives the Federal Government twenty powers. These are set forth in Article I, Section 8.

40. What if the Federal Government thinks it needs more power?

The government cannot legally exercise any powers except those which are specifically granted to it by the Constitution. The only way Washington can get any additional legitimate power is by an amendment.

41. Where does it say that the Federal Government is specifically restricted from exercising any power not granted to it by the States?

The Tenth Amendment

42. Then how did the government get so much power?

The dominating arrogance of the Federal Government today came about primarily through three channels: 1. outright usurpation of power, 2. an edict by the Supreme Court in the Butler Case in 1936 reversing the original meaning in the Welfare Clause, and 3. distorting the Commerce Clause as the means of shattering the restrictive chains of the Constitution and expanding Federal jurisdiction into hundreds of areas never intended by the Founders..

Subverting Two Important Constitutional Clauses

43. What was the Butler Case?

In this decision, Justice Roberts included in his opinion a dictum that the Congress would no longer be restricted in its taxing and spending powers so long as it was in the “general welfare” of the nation. This immediately opened the U.S. Treasury to looting for all kinds of give-away programs which politicians began using to buy votes.

44. In what way has the Commerce Clause been distorted to give the Federal Government unconstitutional powers?

This clause was simply designed to give the Federal Government sufficient power to insure the “free flow” of commerce so that the States would not interfere with inter-state shipments as they had done in the past. Since 1936 the original intent of the Founders has been expanded to include Federal control over practically everything which affects inter-state commerce either directly or indirectly. This usurpation of authority by Congress (which has been upheld by the Supreme Court), has shattered some of the most important restrictions on Federal intervention in the business and commercial life of the nation.

Some Practical Questions

45. Doesn’t the more complex nature of modern society require a far more extensive control of the economy by the Federal Government?

No. The more complex society becomes the more it needs the automatic problem-solving devices of a free-market economy operating with the least possible interference from government. As Adam Smith pointed out, government interference only adds to the complexity of the system and results in a serious deterioration of individual freedom.

46. What is a modern example of the Founders’ original success formula solving some of the highly complex problems of a modern society?

No nation could have had a much more complex situation than West Germany right after World War II. Every major city in Germany was bomb-gutted and the people were surviving in basements and make-shift hovels. Chancellor Konrad Adenauer of West Germany took over in 1949 and immediately initiated the basic economic principles advocated by the Founding Fathers. By using freedom instead of heavy-handed government regulations, West Germany achieved the highest standard of living in Western Europe within eight years. The West Germans were not only fully employed but importing foreign labor besides. Clothing, food and housing were abundant and cheap. West Germany became so prosperous she was the envy of socialized Sweden. It will be recalled that Sweden wasn’t even in the war and had boasted of the superiority of her socialist controls. However, in Sweden a young married. couple has to wait ten years to get a one-room apartment because of the government monopoly over housing. It was obvious West Germany had chosen a better way.

Questions About Money and the Budget

47. What happened to the Federal budget after the “Butler” case?

In 1936 (the year of the Butler case) the Federal budget was around six billion dollars. By 1980 the looting of the American taxpayer had pushed the Federal budget to more than six hundred billion dollars!

48. Is it Constitutional for the government to spend more money that it takes in?

Yes. The Constitution allows the government to borrow in emergencies. Unfortunately, during the last 50 years Congress has continually found excuses to borrow whether there was an emergency or not. The only way to stop this is to replace the big spenders in Congress with Constitutionalists who recognize that we are presently on a disaster course.

The National Debt

49. How much is the national debt today?

The U.S. National Debt is nearly a trillion dollars (extremely higher today!) requiring interest payments which cost more each year than the entire cost of World War I. Future liabilities to which the government is already committed will require taxation of an additional six to seven trillion.

50. How does the U.S. debt compare with the debts of other nations?

The United States now owes more than all of the rest of the nations of the world combined.

51. Why would the Founders have considered this gigantic indebtedness immoral?

The Founders said that no generation should go so deeply in debt that it becomes guilty of squandering the next generation’s inheritance. They said such extravagance is immoral. All past generations tried to pay off all the debts accrued during their time. Ours is the first generation which has deliberately squandered the inheritance of its children.

What About Welfare?

52. But hasn’t much of our money been spent for welfare and other Important social programs?

This was the main excuse for sky-rocketing taxation and deficit spending. Tragically, however, the money has been squandered primarily to build a vast bureaucracy. It is amazing how many of the government’s multibillion dollar social programs have provided only a pittance to trickle down to the poor, the sick and the elderly.

53. But didn’t the government have to try to do something to help those in need?

The Founders specifically warned against this type of political deception where the compassion of the people is exploited to build big government and raise taxes. They said that all types of charity and welfare should be handled on the local level where abuses could be quickly detected and corrected.

54. But what if the states do not provide needed services?

The existence of a need on a State level does not create a power on the Federal level. When a State fails to fulfill its obligation the pressure should be exerted on the State, not the Federal government. Jefferson said there is no way to preserve freedom if all political power gravitates to Washington.

The National Debt and Foreign Aid

55. In view of America’s tremendous national debt, why do we continue giving foreign aid to over a 125 countries?

This whole procedure violates the Constitution and common sense. What started out as part of the defense program in the interest of the United States has turned into an international Santa Claus give-away program. similar to the extravagant give-away programs at home. Tens of billions given away each year automatically add to the national debt.

Social Security

56. Is Social Security an insurance plan or a welfare plan?

The Supreme Court has held that it is a welfare plan. This means that it can be terminated at anytime. It also means the government can distribute its proceeds arbitrarily. The contributor to social security payments acquires no rights and receives only what the government condescends to distribute to him as “payments” if he qualifies under the government’s arbitrary poverty level.

57. Is there a better way?

Yes. It is called an annuity program. If the money contributed by an employee (and his employer) between 25 and 65 were invested in American industries under an annuity plan, the fund could be built to a quarter of a million dollars by the time he retires. An annuity fund of this kind would permit an employee to retire at $1,200 to $1,500 per month. Furthermore, the money is his. He does not have to be poor to get it. If he dies it goes to his widow and children. He earned it. He owns it. [these figures would be higher now]

58. Is the Federal Income Tax Constitutional?

Yes. The Sixteenth Amendment was adopted according to the requirements of the constitution.

59. Is this the type of tax which the Founding Fathers would have employed?

No. They provided that direct taxes be apportioned to the States according to population, not according to the incomes of the people.

60. Has income tax been administered uniformly?

No. A graduated income tax violates the equal protection of rights. It violates the principle of uniformity required by the Constitution and makes the property of accumulated wealth less sacred than those who have less.

61. Is it possible to administer the Income Tax fairly?

No. This could only be done by setting up a universal monitoring system similar to a “police state.” This would violate all of the basic rights guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment.

62. Would it ever be possible to repeal the Federal Income Tax?

Yes. By phasing out governmental activities which are clearly outside the Constitution, the cost of government would be greatly reduced and the income tax could be safely eliminated.

63. Would the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment interfere with defense and other legitimate Federal responsibilities?

No. Corporate taxes and other sources of Federal revenue would more than adequately provide for the legitimate expenses of the Federal Government if its unconstitutional expenses were phased out. Who knows, there might even be a surplus!

64. What about the thousands of Federal-aid programs covering nearly every aspect of American life?

Federal grants are unconstitutional unless directly related to some power specifically delegated to the Federal Government. A strict interpretation of the Constitution would probably wipe out at least 95% of the Federal-aid programs presently plaguing the nation.

Federal Regulatory Agencies

65. What about EPA?

The Environmental Protection Act involves problems which the Founders delegated exclusively to the States where local supervision could prevent abuses and deal with over-regulation more readily. Today, federal control over air, water, and land environment is strangling the economy and suppressing the development of energy and natural resources.

66. What about OSHA?

Occupational safety and health are important responsibilities but they should never have been delegated to the Federal level. The Founders knew that government is too big, and the legal machinery too expensive for most citizens to handle. They therefore endure the disruptive and oppressive edicts of this agency because it has been too big for the average citizen to fight.

67. What about the Federal Communications Commission?

This agency was designed to “police” the traffic on the air waves but the FCC has used its licensing power to control the editorial content of programs. This is in direct violation of the First Amendment.

68. What about the Pure Food and Drug Administration?

There is no authority for this agency under the Constitution. If it is in the national interest to have such an agency it should have been authorized by an amendment. There is already a wide-spread criticism of the arbitrary manner in which this agency has exercised its broad spectrum of power.

69. What about Consumer Protection?

Here again we have an exercise of power unauthorized by the Constitution. Do we really want that much power allocated to the Federal level where the agency is so big and powerful that not even the largest corporations are able to cope with its abuses?

What About the Government Setting Up Business Operations?

70. Is there any authority in the Constitution for the government to set up tax-exempt corporations or business operations to compete with tax-paying citizens?

The answer is no, unless the corporation or business is directly connected with an area of Federal responsibility enumerated in the Constitution. For example, an independent government corporation to provide mail service would be constitutional. However, a corporation set up to compete in the production of electricity, the manufacturing of clothes, or the operating of a chain of public restaurants, would not.

71. How many corporations and businesses does the government operate at the present time which are unauthorized by the constitution?

Around 700 corporations and 11,000 businesses. [much higher now]

72. Are all of these tax-exempt?

Yes. They are not only tax-exempt but most of them are being subsidized out of tax funds because they are not being operated efficiently.

What Caused the “Sagebrush Rebellion?”

73. Shouldn’t all of the states have been admitted to the Union on an equal basis?

Yes. This was set forth by Congress in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.

74. Which states were strong-armed into accepting statehood without being admitted on an equal footing?

All of the Western States and Alaska.

75. In what way were they forced to accept statehood unequally?

Large regions of these states were retained by the Federal Government for purposes not authorized by the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.

76. About how much of the land did the Federal Government usually withhold from these states?

The government retained around 50% of the land in most Western States, but 79% of Nevada and 96% of Alaska.

77. Are any of these states attempting to get this land back?

Yes. The press has labelled this effort the “Sagebrush Rebellion,” but it is not a rebellion. These states are simply following the legal and Constitutional procedures necessary to have this land turned back to them.

What About Locking Up State Territory As Wilderness Areas?

78. Does the Constitution authorize the President and the Secretary of the Interior to lock up large blocks of land within a state as a “wilderness reserve?”

No. This violates the express provisions of the Constitution but was upheld by the Supreme Court on extremely tenuous grounds.

79. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to have a national forest within the confines of a state?

No. This is not included in the list of territories which the Federal Government is allowed to occupy with the consent of the State. (See Article I, Section 8, Clause 17) The Supreme Court had to distort the Constitution to justify it. Historically, the States have had fewer forest fires and have maintained the State forests on a higher level than the national forests.

80. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to have national parks within the confines of a State?

No. For the same reasons as those cited above, the Supreme Court should have disallowed them. It has been observed that as a rule State Parks are better maintained and provide better facilities than those operated by the Federal Government.

What About Federal Control of Energy Resources?

81. Does the Constitution authorize the government to control, regulate, or inhibit the production of energy resources within a state?

No.

Problems with Government Monopolies

82. What about the widely expanded activities of the Interstate Commerce Commission?

The Founders never intended the “regulation of commerce” to include cartel monopolies, fixing prices, fixing routes, and regulating industries into bankruptcy. The recent deregulation of airlines dramatically demonstrated the advantage of free-market competition over a system of unconstitutional governmental regulations.

83. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to set prices?

Not in time of peace.

84. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to set wages?

Not in time of peace.

The National Labor Relations Board

85. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to enter into labor-management disputes in the private sector?

No. This area of Federal usurpation occurred during the “New Deal” days by completely distorting the original intent of the Commerce Clause.

The Department of HEW

86. Is there any Constitutional foundation for the extravagant and wasteful expenditures of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare?

No. Each of the agencies under HEW has developed since the Butler Case. The dictum in this case authorized the general welfare clause to be interpreted in a manner which extended government intrusion into areas specifically excluded from Federal jurisdiction by the Founders.

87. About how much of the Federal budget Is spent each year on these unconstitutional activities?

Around 201 billion dollars in 1980 which is approximately 1/3 of the Federal budget.

88. Would it require an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate the Department of HEW?

No. An act of Congress could dismantle this extremely costly department which has probably been more wasteful and nonproductive in its assigned area of activity than any other branch of the government.

The Equal Rights Amendment

89. Why are so many millions of American women now opposing the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment?

In the beginning nearly everyone assumed that this amendment was designed to provide equal rights for women. This supposed objective was widely approved. It was only after 30 states had ratified this amendment that it was realized that the simple wording of this amendment would actually destroy a broad spectrum of rights which American women already have.

90. What are some of the rights of American women which ERA would destroy?

At present American women enjoy both the common law right as well as the statutory right to be supported, along with their children, by their husbands. ERA would not only destroy this right but also eliminate many rights relating to employment, maternity leave, insurance and survival rights which are presently provided by law.

91. Would passage of the Equal Rights Amendment give women any more rights than they now have?

No. All of the rights which the advocates of ERA claim they are getting for women through the passage of this amendment are already provided by law.

92. Would the passage of ERA further damage the original separation of powers instituted by the Founders?

Yes. For example, it would transfer a large percentage of cases involving family and other domestic problems from the State courts to the Federal judiciary which is already smothered with legal problems.

Abortions

93. Is Federal funding of abortion a violation of the Constitution?

Yes. The specific and limited authority granted to the Federal Government does not include any funding for abortions.

The Gold and Silver Standard

94. Was the United States taken off the gold and silver standard in violation of the Constitution?

Yes. The gold standard is written into the Constitution (Article I, Section 10, Clause 1) and was removed by several acts of Congress without an amendment to the Constitution between 1934 and 1964. From the Founding Fathers standpoint this whole procedure was illegal.

The Federal Department of Education

95. Is it Constitutional for Federal funds to be used in the financing of local schools?

No. The Founding Fathers warned against the funding of schools by the Congress. In fact, education in the U.S. has seriously deteriorated since Federal funding began. James Madison equated the Federal funding of schools as extremely dangerous and said it was almost as bad as funding and controlling the churches of the nation.

96. Should the members of State and educational associations be required by law to pay dues to the National Educational Association?

No. The NEA is a private lobby with an annual budget of nearly $60 million dollars. It succeeded in getting the States to pass a law requiring the educators in State associations to pay dues to the NEA. These laws should be repealed. Teachers find themselves compelled to pay dues to this private organization which often advocates policies that are inimical to the best interests of American education.

Taxes on Dividends

97. Should stockholders be required to pay income taxes on their dividends when the corporation has already been subject to a corporate tax?

No. The stockholders are the owners of the company. They have already paid around 48% tax on the company’s earnings. The residue should be distributed among the stockholders as funds on which the required tax has already been paid.

Control of Firearms

98. Should the Federal Government pass laws providing for the control of guns?

No. The Founders left gun control under the exclusive jurisdiction of the State. They felt it was extremely dangerous to allow the Federal Government to “infringe” on the right to bear arms even in the slightest degree.

The Modem Method of Electing Senators

99. Should the Seventeenth Amendment be repealed?

The Founders would undoubtedly say yes. They set up a House of Representatives to represent the people and set up a Senate to represent the individual States. Senators were originally appointed by State legislatures and were the watchdogs of States rights. The Seventeenth Amendment took away the authority of the State Legislatures to appoint Senators. and therefore required Senatorial candidates to appeal to the people in a popular election. This resulted in the Senators frequently ignoring States rights in an effort to get more money for their States just as Congressmen do. States’ rights have been seriously deteriorating since the Seventeenth Amendment was adopted in 1913. It destroyed an important element of balance which the founders built into the Constitution.

The BLM

100. Should the Bureau of Land Management be abolished?

Yes. This bureau has been rapidly phasing out the traditional grazing rights of ranchers and setting up impossible regulations on land which should have been turned over to the States when they were admitted into the Union.

Government Expenses

101. Can you find out how the government spends its money?

Yes. A complete breakdown of government spending is published each year by the Government Printing Office. This is required by the Constitution.

Conclusion

Now, as nearly as we can ascertain from the writings of the Founding Fathers, this is about the way they would have answered each of these 101 questions. We have also tried to reflect the line of reasoning which their writings portray when similar questions were raised in their own day.

It is believed their point of view deserves careful consideration in view of the rather calamitous consequences which modern Americans have encountered as a result of following a different line of thinking. The socialist or collectivist formula has not worked for Americans; nor any one else for that matter.

It is believed this generation of Americans could earn the eternal gratitude of their descendants if they would immediately undertake to restore the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers.

About the author: W. Cleon Skousen was educated in Canada, the United States and Mexico. He received his law degree from George Washington University and was admitted to practice law in the District of Columbia. He served in the FBI 16 years, became a member of the faculty of Brigham Young University in 1951, and was given a leave of absence to become Chief of Police in Salt Lake City in 1956. In 1960 he became the Editorial Director of LAW and Order, the most widely distributed police magazine in the U.S. He is also the author of several books including The Naked Communist and So You Want To Raise a Boy?. In the last two years Mr. Skousen has traveled and lectured in 29 foreign countries and 43 of the 50 states. His largest audience was 15,000 in the Hollywood Bowl.

Political terms like medical terms can be very misleading unless they are carefully defined. Today we hear frequent reference to “those on the right” or “those on the left.” These are common political terms, but what do they mean?

It is surprising how few there are who can accurately distinguish between Communism and Fascism, or Nazism and Socialism. What place does each of these occupy on the world’s political spectrum?

When I was attending college a professor told us that Communism is on the left, Fascism is on the right, and the democracies are somewhere in the middle. I subsequently attended law school and was half-way through a course in Constitutional law when it suddenly dawned on me that the political formula given to my political science class was completely erroneous.

Government is defined in the dictionary as “a system of ruling or controlling” so it seemed that the best way to identify any particular form of government should be in terms of the amount of power or systematic control which that government exercises over its people.

In this connection, it is most important to recognize that labels given to various forms of government are often superficial and misleading. For example, Communists claim their system is a true democracy, which of course it is not, and in Europe today some of the most ardent advocates of socialism are in parties which have claimed to be conservative.

So, in the final analysis it is not the name which is important but the quantity of power or coercive control which a government represents. Let us therefore set up a slide rule to measure the coercive control in each form of government and then fix it in its appropriate place on the world’s political spectrum.

For this purpose we will start with no government or anarchy on the right and total government on the left:

On this slide rule monarchies, dictatorships and other totalitarian governments are all on the extreme left, while anarchy, civil war and lynching mobs are on the extreme right. An “extreme rightist” then is one who tries to operate outside the orderly ranks of government. He is one who tries to take the law into his own hands.

It should be appreciated, therefore, that when a person opposes left-wing movements with speeches, study-groups, and by working through his congressmen, he is operating entirely within the American constitutional framework. If left-wing elements call this kind of person “an extreme rightist” it is a smear tactic.

Monarchy vs. Anarchy

Now let us consider one of the oldest forms of totalitarian government, called a monarchy. This word comes from a Greek term meaning “to rule alone.” Whether Pharaoh, Caesar, Kaiser or King, one-man rule has an odious place in history.

During the development of the European kingdoms, the monarchies adopted the doctrine of “divine right of kings.” This was supposed to give some color of religious sanction to any desperate character who could buy enough mercenaries or rally around him enough desperadoes to seize a throne and hold it. It was contended that such schemes of assassination, conquest or conspiracy would not have succeeded without God’s blessings and therefore the winner must hold his office by “divine right.” The fraudulent nature of such a preposterous doctrine soon became apparent during the Renaissance or Age of Enlightenment. Great forces began to manifest themselves in many countries to overthrow the monarchies or make them the executive branch of the government with merely administrative authority to carry out the laws passed by the people’s parliament or assembly.

In fact, some people decided the whole human race would be better off if there were no governments at all. The anarchists were those who believed men could govern themselves by voluntary association and there was no need for any formal system of government. Thus, Prodhoun in France, Godwin in England, and Kropotkin in Russia all came out for the abolishment of organized government. Many anarchists formed terrorist organizations to disrupt existing governments by any means possible, fair or foul.

Experience soon demonstrated, however, that no government is a chaotic condition which society cannot endure. There is no security, justice or protection of rights at the hands of a mob of vigilantes. So if the extreme left is occupied by the evil power of a self-appointed potentate it is no solution to rush to the extreme right where unorganized mob-rule prevails.

On our slide rule or political spectrum these extremes appear as follows:

Shifting Position on the Political Spectrum

Orderly government, whatever its form, is a delicate and complex device. It is no easy task to shift a monarchy from its position of totalitarian power on the extreme left to a more moderate position nearer the center of the political spectrum. It took England several centuries to achieve it.

But we had an entirely different situation in the French Revolution. The French Revolution was designed to overthrow a profligate monarchy and set up a republic but the revolution got out of control and went all the way to the extreme right; in other words, from monarchy to anarchy, or from total government to a collapse of government. Instead of merely dethroning the king and queen, the revolutionists executed them and then recklessly guillotined 3,000 members of the aristocracy. Then they turned on one another. Before they were through it is estimated that more than 20,000 Frenchmen went to the guillotine or were otherwise executed. By this time the specter of anarchy and disorder was so great that no rights seemed to exist for anybody. Everywhere there was a frantic anxiety to find someone who could restore order. Eventually they thought they had found such a man in one of their brilliant military leaders. His name was Napoleon. The people rallied behind him and the next thing they knew he had made himself emperor and plunged France clear back along the political spectrum to a monolithic dictatorship. He turned out to be as imperialistic and opulent as any monarch they had ever known.

France has been swinging back and forth across the political spectrum in extreme arcs ever since. Even today she is still trying to find that position of security and strength in the delicately balanced center of the political spectrum.

A Lesson From the American Revolution

The American Revolution was also designed to break free from an abusive monarchy but this revolution avoided many of the pitfalls which befell the French. When Friedrich Gentz wrote his famous treatise, “The French and American Revolutions Compared,” he pointed out that the American founding fathers were not revolutionists at heart but statesmen. They wanted peace and spent ten years trying to persuade George III to desist from his unconstitutional abuse of authority. Only when he and his ministers began dissolving the colonial governments and declaring American ships to be the booty of war did the colonists finally assert their right to defend themselves as a separate and free people.

And then, as the first free people in modern times, the American leaders cautiously explored the political spectrum for the best form of government. At first, they settled down too far to the right — too near to anarchy and chaos — by attempting to survive as a nation under a flimsy alliance called the Articles of Confederation. Under this confederation, the Continental Congress was so feeble that it left Washington and the revolutionary army stranded time after time. Washington swore he would work for a stronger central government, once the war was over, and he did.

The U.S. Constitution, therefore, was designed to establish the American eagle right in the center of the political spectrum. With cautious precision, the founding fathers hammered out the framework of the Constitution during the sultry summer months of 1787. It was to be a government of the people with enough power to preserve order and security, but not enough central authority to abuse the people.

To make certain of this, Madison persuaded these political architects to adopt Montesquieu’s unique theory of separation of powers. Thus, the American eagle was given three heads — executive, legislative and judicial — with each one completely sovereign in its own sphere. Therefore, if one gets out of line and begins to usurp authority, the other two are able to combine their strength and pull the obnoxious one back into position. The genius of this plan is to put down an abusive branch of government without requiring the people to resort to force of arms to achieve it.

So here is the position of America’s three-headed eagle on the world political spectrum:

The Two Wings

The American Eagle developed into a two-winged creature. Wing #1 is the progressive wing. Both Democrats and Republicans will be found on this wing. It is the wing which says, “We can do things better! We can do something about education. We can do something about our roads. We can do something about our aged sick. We can do something about our youth.”

Wing #2 also has Democrats and Republicans on it. This is the wing which says: “You folks on #1 have some fine ideas, but we will only go along if you satisfy two conditions: first, can we afford it? Second, can we get it without sacrificing or jeopardizing a significant portion of our freedom?”

It will be seen that Wing #2 is instinctively opposed to a reckless concentration of power in a central government which might violate states rights or wipe out local control of the many phases of life which the Constitution intended to leave with the people. So while wing #1 is dedicated to human improvement and social progress, wing #2 is dedicated to fiscal sanity and the preservation of individual liberty.

Now, as long as these two wings both function, the American eagle is able to fly higher and straighter than any other society in existence. However, if either wing fails to fill its proper function, the eagle starts to swing left or right and loses its precious position in the center of the spectrum.

Recent American history will demonstrate that Wing #1 tends to solve its problems by rushing to the left, trying to seize control of the people, and then using legislative authority to force them to “do what is good for them.” On the other hand, Wing #2 tends to become indifferent to changing times and the need for adjustment and therefore runs the risk of degenerating toward the right and losing the confidence of the people because of the chaos created by unsolved problems.

So this is why it is important to recognize that both wings are essential to the upward flight. Neither wing can say to the other, “We have no need of thee!” Let the progressive wing dream up its marvelous schemes for dynamic progress and then let it patiently hear the demands of the freedom-preserving wing which despises both bankruptcy and slavery as much as it does the lack of progress. If each wing has respect for the other there is no limit to the heights which the American eagle can continue to fly.

An excellent example of how the two wings help each other occurred when Medicare first came up. Wing #1 insisted that something had to be done for elderly people when they became helpless and sick. It was important to recognize this problem. But, having made this essential contribution, Wing #1 could not figure out a way to solve the problem by traditional American methods. It therefore came up with a program called Medicare which had a lot of the earmarks and defects of the left-wing nationalized health services advocated by European socialists.

Wing #2 (which didn’t have the imagination to see the problem originally) did have the imagination to figure out a way to solve the problem in a more traditional American way. Before they were through, the supporters of Wing #2 had come up with a free-enterprise plan which was cheaper than Medicare, covered more people, provided more service, and didn’t involve the Government except as a minor participant.

This demonstrates how the two wings of the Eagle complement each other.

The Extreme Left

Now let us take a look at the proponents of total power which occupy the spectrum on the left. Since the monarchies have become either limited or eliminated, other forces have moved in to advocate total coercive power in government. These have taken the form of several different types of dictatorships.

The first is the International dictatorship. This is the group who believe that Karl Marx was right when he proclaimed that it would be impossible to have universal peace and universal prosperity until the entire earth — with all its human resources and all its natural resources — is forcibly controlled by a single, monolithic, world-wide dictatorship. To achieve this these Marxists advocate the overthrow of all existing societies by revolutionary violence and the establishment of the same type of police state as that which presently exists in the Soviet Union. So this is the program of International Communism. This scheme is the ultimate in political planning to conquer the whole earth. It therefore occupies the most extreme position to the far left:

The One-Country Dictatorships

Right next to the Communists is another group of Marxists who believe in the basic ideas of Marxist theory but they don’t think they have to wait for an international dictatorship. They think Marxism can be forced to work under the dictatorship of individual countries. Even Lenin said a lot about “Socialism in one country” after the Communists seized power in Russia, so disciples of Marxism picked up the same theme in other countries. In Germany it became known as National Socialism under the leadership of Adolph Hitler. In Italy it was called Fascism under the leadership of Benito Mussolini.

It often comes as a great shock to some people to hear that the Nazi-Fascist dictatorships are Marxist movements and occupy a position on the political spectrum right next to International Communism. As far as Nazism is concerned, its Marxist framework is the theme of a whole chapter in Frederick Hayek’s book, The Road to Serfdom. On page 169 he says:

“From 1914 onward there arose from the ranks of Marxist socialism one teacher after another who led, not the conservatives and reactionaries, but the hardworking laborer and idealistic youth, into the National Socialist fold. It was only thereafter that the tide of nationalist socialism attained major importance and rapidly grew into the Hitlerian doctrine.”

As for Mussolini, his entire political development was as a left-wing Marxist Socialist. He was a friend of Lenin and only turned away from the theme of international Marxism, when he saw the opportunity to set up a socialist dictatorship in his own country.

Both Hitler and Mussolini quarreled with the Communists, often fought with them, but this must not be misunderstood. They were not quarreling over ultimate ends but over the means. They were resisting the Moscow forces of international leadership. Often they collaborated together as Dr. Stefan T. Possony points out in his book, A Century of Conflict, pp. 198-199:

“It is not without interest to remember that during 1931 and 1932 the German market was flooded with books pleading for German-Russian collaboration and extolling the similarities between the bolshevik and the nazi revolutions. Nazism was indeed described as the German form of bolshevism, and an elusive phenomenon called ‘national bolshevism’ was hailed as the nemesis of senile, tottering capitalism.”

Therefore, on the political spectrum, the one-country Marxist dictatorships properly belong on the extreme left, right next to international Communism.

It is interesting that a Communist will nearly always refer to his enemies as “rightists and Fascists.” Now Fascism is to the right of Communism but only about half an inch! Observe that from the point of view of the American eagle both Communism and Fascism are extreme left-wing.

The Social Democrats

Now there is one other group of Marxists who have proclaimed their devotion to Marx but have insisted that there is no need for revolution and violence. These Marxist socialists believe that if they move slowly and shrewdly they can get people to voluntarily give up their property and their liberties “gradually.” This is their doctrine of gradualism. And it is amazing how well it has worked.

At first, Marx bitterly resisted this soft approach to the seizure of power but in 1872 he admitted that perhaps it might be possible in England and the United States.

Social Democrats have always been embarrassed by the violence and noise of the Communists and often they have resisted them on matters of strategy. However, authorities agree that underneath they have the same common denominator. The close association between Communism and the Social Democrats is emphasized by many authorities on the subject. Dr. Carew Hunt of Oxford makes a typical statement in his book, The Theory and Practice of Communism, pp. 5-6:

“Yet where the ends they seek are concerned, Socialism and Communism are virtually interchangeable terms, as anyone who consults the Oxford English Dictionary or any standard text-book will discover…. Indeed Lenin’s party continued to call itself ‘Social Democratic’ until the 7th Party Congress of March, 1918, when it substituted the term ‘Bolshevik’ as a protest against the non-revolutionary attitude of the socialist parties of the West.”

Dr. Broadus Mitchel spells it out with equal clarity in his chapter on socialism in the book, A Preface to Economics, pp. 556-557:

“Confusion is greatest as to the difference between socialism and communism. The distinction between these two is not one of object, but of means of attainment of the object; it has to do with strategy and procedure, and not with essential theory. Socialism, properly so-called, in its modern phase, looks forward to the setting up of a collectivist society through constitutional means. That is to say, socialism would accomplish the transition from capitalism and private profit to common ownership and production for use, through political channels. The state, the government, is to be captured — gradually, by orderly, parliamentary methods — by the actual producer’s….”

The Communists look upon the Socialists as important allies who run interference for the ultimate Communist touchdown. As the well-known writer, John Strachey, says in his book, The Theory and Practice of Socialism, p. 121:

“We also saw that it is impossible to establish communism as the immediate successor to capitalism. It is, accordingly, proposed to establish socialism as something which we can put in the place of our present decaying capitalism. Hence communists work for the establishment of socialism as a necessary transition stage on the road to communism.”

As we have already mentioned, the Communists are often embarrassed by their Communist bed-fellows so they frequently disavow any sympathy or relationship. It is most easily demonstrated, however, that the Socialists belong on the political spectrum with the rest of the Marxist bloc:

Communists Expect Socialists to Run Interference for Them

In 1960, the 81 Communist parties made it very clear in their latest manifesto that they expected the Social Democrats to serve as their Marxist allies in softening up the free-enterprise democracies and preparing them for a Communist coup:

“Communists regard Social Democrats among the working people as their class brothers. They often work together in trade unions and other organizations, and fight jointly for the interests of the working class and the people as a whole. The vital interests of the working class movement demand that the Communists and Social Democratic Parties take joint action on a national and international scale….” 1

Down through the years, Social Democrats have condoned Communism to an amazing degree. Some Social Democrats have boldly expressed sympathies for the Soviet Union which amounted to open disloyalty toward their own countries,

During World War II, British Socialist G.D.H. Cole stated: “I would much sooner the Soviet Union, even with its present policy unchanged, became dominant over all Europe, including Great Britain, than see an attempt to restore the pre-war States to their futile and uncreative independence and their petty economic nationalism under capitalist domination. Much better be ruled by Stalin than by the restrictive monopolistic cliques which dominate Western civilization.” 2

Similar attitudes among Social Democrats in many parts of Eastern Europe actually facilitated the conquest of those countries by the Soviet Union after the war. 3

Even in the United States pro-Socialist mentalities have had a profound influence on U.S. foreign policy, especially in dealing with the Soviet Union. Many of the most serious miscalculations and diplomatic blunders originated with Marxist-oriented minds who saw the USSR not as an enemy to be overcome but as an ally which must be forced to co-operate in socializing the world.

An American Proponent of Socialism Speaks

A rather shocking example of this type of thinking is found in the words of Dr. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., who presently serves as advisor to the White House and State Department. Mr. Schlesinger often denies that he is a Socialist per se, and even claims that he is definitely anti-Communist, but his writings contain statements such as these:

On Socialism:

“… there is no inherent reason (in the United States) why democratic socialism should not be possible.” 4

“Socialism, then, appears quite practicable within this framework of reference, as a long-term proposition.” 5

“There seems no inherent obstacle to the gradual advance of socialism in the United States through a series of New Deals.” 6

On American Democracy:

“A democracy is politically unreliable at best; the American democracy is notoriously unreliable on all questions of maintaining a continuous foreign policy.” 7

On American Businessmen:

“But the American business community continues to resist radical democracy, like a drowning man threshing out at his rescuer. In so doing, it may destroy the possibility of a peaceful transition to socialism.” 8

On Organized Labor:

“The trade union movement is as clearly indigenous to the capitalist system as the corporation itself, and it has no particular meaning apart from that system. In a Socialist society its functions are radically changed: it becomes, not a free labor movement, but a labor front…. Unions inevitably become organs for disciplining the workers, not for representing them.” 9

On Religion:

“Official liberalism … dispensed with the absurd Christian myths of sin and damnation and believed that what shortcomings man might have were to be redeemed, not by Jesus on the cross, but by the benevolent unfolding of history.

Tolerance, free inquiry and technology, operating in the framework of human perfectibility, would in the end create a heaven on earth, a goal accounted much more sensible and wholesome than a heaven in heaven.” 10

On the Soviet Union:

“… the United States must not succumb to demands for an anti-Soviet crusade nor permit reactionaries in the buffer states to precipitate conflicts in defense of their obsolete prerogatives.” 11 Note that Dr. Schlesinger considers the longing for freedom in the satellites to be merely the dreams of “reactionaries” longing for their “obsolete prerogatives!”

“The United States must maintain a precarious balance between complete readiness to repel Soviet aggression beyond a certain limit and complete determination to demonstrate within this limit no aggressive U.S. intentions toward the USSR. It must commit itself economically, politically, and militarily to the maintenance of this balance over a long period. Given sufficient time, the Soviet internal tempo will slow down.”

On Secret State Department Policy:

“Though the secret has been kept pretty much from the readers of the liberal press, the State Department has been proceeding for some time somewhat along these lines. Both Byrnes and Marshall have perceived the essential need — to be firm without being rancorous, to check Soviet expansion without unlimited commitments to an anti-Soviet crusade, to invoke power to counter power without engaging in senseless intimidation, to encourage the growth of the democratic left. The performance has often fallen below the conception; but the direction has been correct. Men like Ben Cohen, Dean Acheson, Charles Bohlen, have tried to work out details and whip up support for this admittedly risky program. 12

Such thinking was “risky” indeed. Under this program the U.S. and her allies lost 750 million people to Communism in 5 years!

Throughout his writings, Dr. Schlesinger expresses the conviction that the Communist dictatorship will somehow “mellow” and abandon its brutality. They would then become more like genuine Social Democrats (which is the party Lenin supported up to the Russian Revolution of 1917). Dr. Schlesinger then suggests that if the Democracies would give up their “antiquated” concepts of liberty, private property and private planning they could become Social Democrats, too. This is what he means by encouraging “the growth of the democratic left.” All of this is intended to bring the Communists and the Democracies together at the point on the political spectrum presently occupied by the Social Democrats.

Meanwhile, Dr. Schlesinger believes our policy should be to contain Communism but not smother it. In fact, our policy should be to force the Communists to be friends. We should contain them and pamper them all at the same time.

In 1962, precisely the same kind of thinking was submitted to the President in a secret memorandum which was “leaked” to the press by officials who were shocked with its contents. The memorandum was written by Dr. Schlesinger’s friend and colleague, Dr. Walt Rostow, chairman of the Policy Planning Council of the U.S. State Department. A summary of this memorandum is set forth in Congressional Record for July 30, 1962, p. A-5846. The highlights are as follows:

1. Recognize Red China.

2. Compel Chiang Kai-shek to surrender Matsu and Quemoy to Red China.

3. Admit Red China to the U.N.

4. Pull back bases and military forces from the Iron Curtain.

5. Attempt merely to restore status quo if Soviets fire on U.S. or her allies.

6. Refuse to give aid or encouragement to satellites seeking liberation.

7. If Russia refuses to negotiate on arms control and disarmament, then adopt a program which does not require negotiations.

All of this is appeasement and surrender to Soviet Union demands. Dr. Rostow is also one of those who gave pleasure to the Soviet leaders by recommending that the United States disarm and turn over her military weapons to the U.N.

To most Americans this kind of thinking seems completely out of touch with reality.

Left-Wing Mentality Is “Reactionary”

When the American founding fathers set up the first open and free society in modern times they knew they had made the greatest advance in political science since governments were first instituted. It provided the maximum opportunity for people to solve their problems through freedom of choice; and that is all freedom really is: the chance to choose. They instituted the open market to increase the freedom of choice economically. They instituted the open market of ideas with public education, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and broad participation in government to insure freedom to choose politically and spiritually,

However, Marxist-oriented minds have manifested open contempt for most of these basic principles and have set up reactionary forces to oppose them. They have sought to introduce into the open society its worst enemy — monopoly. They would give to central government the monopoly of power to make most of the choices; to force the people to do what the planners might feel is best for them. They would reduce the opportunity to exercise private initiative, reduce the freedom to compete, the freedom to buy, the freedom to sell, the freedom to produce.

This is all done on the assumption that central planners can calculate the needs of the people better than the people can. Nowhere in the whole world nor in all history has this ever proven to be so. In fact, West Germany demonstrated immediately after World War II that even a country which had been prostrated by war could become one of the richest countries in Europe within ten years by turning the people loose. With even less financial aid than other countries received, West Germany used free-enterprise to develop the greatest period of prosperity she had ever known. Her prosperity became the cornerstone for a United States of Europe movement with a common market economy. By 1959, even the Social Democrats of Germany decided to abandon their traditional claim that prosperity could only be brought about by the nationalization of major industries. Free enterprise had out-produced the socialized industries on every level.

In the face of these facts, it should not seem difficult to chart the course for a future world of peace and prosperity. The basic ideas which allowed Americans (with only 6% of the earth’s population) to produce nearly half of the world’s wealth is not exclusive to any people. Given time and effort these principles can be made to work anywhere. However, in spite of these obvious facts of history, left-wing reactionaries continue to plead for centralized monopoly. They therefore become the brakes on progress, the reactionaries against the expanding freedom of all men. A reactionary mentality inevitably gravitates to the left-wing side of the political spectrum where faith in force prevails over faith in humanity. Even the Social Democrats admit their intention to use force if humanity does not respond to their demands voluntarily. So as we examine the left-wing side of the spectrum we discover that in the struggle for world peace, freedom and prosperity –

Monarchists are reactionary.

Communists are reactionary.

Nazis are reactionary.

Fascists are reactionary.

Socialists are reactionary.

Conclusion

It is entirely understandable why reactionary minds would use cybernetic bullets or smear tactics to prevent the public from discovering what is going on.

In our time, nothing has panicked the extreme left-wing forces as much as the Freedom Forums, seminars, home study groups and courses on Communism in the schools. These public education programs rallied so much support that they began to have unexpected impact on the United States Congress.

The liberals, “fronters” and Communist Party members immediately made violent protest shouting “Fascists! Rightists! Extremists!” For awhile this caused some confusion, but today more people are becoming informed. More Americans are beginning to see the basic issues involved and are anxious to hear authorities who know the problems and have developed some constructive answers.

Those who try to keep traditional, standard-brand Americans from finding out the truth will have increasing difficulty. Americans don’t stay muzzled very long. They are beginning to find out what is on the left and what is on the right. They are also beginning to realize that the happy and abundant way of life which Americans have enjoyed for so many years is in serious jeopardy.