An Election Disaster
September 24th, 2012 // 4:19 pm @ Oliver DeMille
There are six weeks to go before the 2012 election, and currently President Obama is way ahead.
If the election were held today, according to the average of polls, not only would President Obama be re-elected but he would sweep the election.
This election will come down to the top swing states, as I’ve stated in the past, and right now President Obama leads in all eight of the biggest swing states.
He’s eight for eight.
He’s also ahead by 7%, 5% and 5% in the top three swing states, Florida, Ohio and Virginia, respectively.
In presidential politics, 3% is a landslide and 5% is a huge mandate for change.
The reason for this increasing lead by President Obama is simple.
Latino voters believe the Republican party in general, and Governor Romney specifically, is not on their side—not in favor of more open immigration and, in contrast, likely to take a harder line against immigrants.
The short-term concern for Republicans is that Romney has a lot of ground to make up and not much time to do so.
The bigger worry for Republicans but also for independents is that this will lead to House and Senate elections that give a lot more seats to Democrats and bring increased taxes, a bigger national debt, larger deficits, and more runaway spending and regulating in the next four years.
The long-term problem for Republicans is that as a Party they are seen as anti-Latino.
The sad thing about this is that most Republicans who are anti-immigrant and anti-Latino are just plain wrong—like the South was wrong about slavery before the Civil War.
Freedom should be extended to everyone, regardless of race, religion, gender or country of birth.
If you don’t believe this, you don’t really believe in freedom.
America used to be the beacon of freedom to the world, and the Statue of Liberty invited all immigrants to come to America and get freedom.
Two things killed America’s role as the light of freedom to the whole world: 1) we became a welfare state, and 2) we stopped being an open society that passionately encouraged immigrants to come here.
To solve our current direction away from freedom and into decline, we need to adopt two grand strategies: (1) stop giving welfare to anyone and basing a government on the welfare ideal, and (2) drastically open immigration to any honest, hard-working people around the world who are seeking freedom.
We should implement the first change wisely and in stages in order to do it right, but the second one can be enacted almost immediately.
In short, we need a rebirth of free enterprise and the widespread freedom and prosperity it always brings.
America needs to stand for freedom again, not build walls to keep people out.
And as for the future of the welfare state, unless Republicans change their position to wildly pro-immigration, the Democrats are going to keep winning and expanding a welfare society.
The three upcoming presidential debates may be interesting theater, but unless Republicans get serious about being the freedom party there isn’t much chance they’ll win the White House on November 6.
Something could change in the weeks ahead, but unless it does the Republican leadership is going to have to take a good hard look at itself if it wants any success in 2014 or 2016.
Anti-Latino parties aren’t going to win much in the United States today.
In all of this, independents are rightly frustrated because one party stands for more welfare, and the other stands for building fences that keep freedom limited to those who already have it.
That makes neither party the party of freedom, and neither the party of progress.
The only solution is to put as many anti-welfare and pro-immigrant candidates as possible into the Senate and House, as well as into state and local governments.
And in the long-term, it’s time to get over the desire to withhold freedom and opportunity from immigrants.
It’s time for America to once again stand for freedom for everyone—immigrants and everyone else—and to do so boldly and without apology.
We either stand for freedom, or we don’t.
And freedom means freedom for everyone, or it really isn’t freedom.
***********************************
Oliver DeMille is the chairman of the Center for Social Leadership and co-creator of Thomas Jefferson Education.
He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.
Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.
Category : Blog &Citizenship &Current Events &Featured &Government &Independents &Leadership &Liberty &Politics &Statesmanship
We Have a Problem; We Have a Huge Problem!
September 4th, 2012 // 12:53 pm @ Oliver DeMille
The recent energy and posts about my article on why it is important to vote once again reinforced that we have a seriously, lasting, structural problem in America. Almost everything about the election is promoting this same message, though few have recognized it.
We get all up in arms about this candidate or that, we emotionally buy in to one candidate and then label everyone else by which candidate they support, and we spend a lot of time actively engaged in politics. We blog, we argue, we discuss, we read, we talk politics to friends, family, co-workers and anyone else who will engage.
All of that is great. None of that is the problem. The more energy we give to politics in election years, the better (within the bounds of decency, of course).
No, the problem is that on November 7 most of this passion and behavior will stop. Oh, the most zealous participants in the 2012 election will still be griping or celebrating well into January, but within a about 100 days after the 2013 inauguration, no matter who wins, nearly all Americans will give little thought to politics for the next four years. A few will get involved again during the 2014 midterm election, but the large majority won’t. It won’t be polite anymore to discuss politics at dinner, and most people won’t.
So yes, Houston, we have a problem. As a nation of citizens we mostly ignore our government, a respectable few get excited during elections, and a lot get involved briefly in presidential elections. But we turn off our citizen-passion when elections are over and its time to govern.
And that is precisely the worst time to do it. During elections, candidates are much more likely to listen to the people, to care what the citizenry thinks. So if you’re going to take a break from politics, do it right now. Stay with me and let me tell you why.
The election will come and go, and the leaders of both parties and at all levels (national, state, county, and local) will listen to the people. Here’s the kicker: Then, when the people get back to ignoring politics, the dangerous time will begin. Politicians will focus on governing, and terrible policies that reduce our freedoms will be passed–month after month.
This is how freedom is lost.
The best-case scenario is for the citizens, at the least the vocal ones who care (and you can tell who they are right now during the election season), to be passionate, vocal and deeply involved during elections and also every day between elections.
That’s called citizenship. And it is the basis of all lasting freedom.
No elite group (politicians or a wealthy class or any other) is going to protect the freedom of the people as well as the people. And it doesn’t take 90-100% of the regular people, just about 10-20% who are passionate and vocal. Again, if you are one of those people right now in this election season, you are one of those we need between elections.
In fact, we need you even more between elections, and we need you to be even more vocal, passionate and daily involved than we do now.
“But right now, the politicians will listen, so isn’t this the most important time?” someone will ask.
Answer: Yes, this is a vital, an essential time to use influence while the leaders listen. But when the elections are over and the leaders stop listening, your influence and voice and focused participation will be even more, way more, necessary–because most people like you won’t be doing anything.
WE HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM, and it will begin in earnest on November 7, 2012. We need you to be part of the solution.
I’m not suggesting you do less during the election. I’m suggesting, in fact, that you give it your very best.
Then, starting November 7 and running for the next four years, America needs you to do even more–a lot more.
***********************************
Oliver DeMille is the chairman of the Center for Social Leadership and co-creator of Thomas Jefferson Education.
He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.
Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.
Category : Blog &Citizenship &Culture &Current Events &Government &Independents &Leadership &Liberty &Mission &Politics &Statesmanship
What About Paul?
September 4th, 2012 // 12:19 pm @ Oliver DeMille
I got a lot of responses to my article on why everyone should vote. Most were in agreement, and readily shared it on social media. Of those who took exception, the concerns they expressed boiled down to two main thoughts:
1. What about Ron Paul?
2. But Romney’s not really for limited government!
Both have real merit.
1. What About Paul?
First, I think Ron Paul is a great man, and I have been a fan of nearly all his suggestions and policies since I first read a book by him clear back in, I think, the 80’s. He is right about so many things. I have a few disagreements with him too, but less than with the two major candidates.
As you will note from my article, my main point was that everyone should vote, and if you don’t like the main candidates then write in a name. If this is your plan, I think Ron Paul is an even better write-in than those I suggested in the article (mostly tongue-in-cheek, as I did not want to promote a particular candidate per se). My point was to vote, but to be aware that a write-in vote is more for being able to argue your case for good government over the next four years than for actually swaying the election. A vote for Ron Paul does just that.
If you want to sway the election, do two things: first, already be a voter in a swing state, and second, vote for one of the main candidates. If you don’t meet these requirements or don’t want to vote for either major candidate, by all means, write someone in.
2. But Romney’s not for Limited Government!
Second, presidential politics always come down to imperfect votes. If you want a perfect candidate, look to your House of Representative election and get a candidate that is truly ideal to your wants. If there isn’t such a candidate, you’ve got two years to help find one and help him/her get elected.
That said, for those who don’t think Romney is much of a limited government candidate, I have two words for you: Barack Obama.
President Obama has shown that he is a committed big-government president, and the next four years under an Obama Administration will be a massive move to bigger government, more regulation, etc. If you want the bigger government choice, vote for Obama. If you want a possibly limited, but definitely more limited than Obama, government, I have two words for you: Paul Ryan. We need major fiscal responsibility, and soon. If that’s what you want, you have two choices: Romney/Ryan, or a write in candidate to make a statement, but not actually derail the Obama candidacy. That said, there is a great American tradition of protest voting.
If you are in a swing state, your vote could decide the election. Do you want bigger government? Vote Obama. Do you want a growing government in the Bush/Bush style, possibly better but maybe not, but not massive growth Obama government: vote Romney/Ryan. Do you want real limited government: get seriously involved in getting the right House of Representatives in, now or in 2014, and decide whether Romney/Ryan is a good start in your mind or if a protest vote that says “Reagan or Bust” is better.
***********************************
Oliver DeMille is the chairman of the Center for Social Leadership and co-creator of Thomas Jefferson Education.
He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.
Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.
Category : Blog &Citizenship &Current Events &Government &Independents &Politics &Statesmanship
Façade Society, Façade Politics
July 31st, 2012 // 9:15 am @ Oliver DeMille
John Adams on How to Fix Washington D.C. in 1791 and 2012
“Odd, that so many should favor frames that seemed to be trying to outdo the art they held.”
~Brandon Sanderson, The Alloy of Law
In the old American West, a façade town featured two- and sometimes three-story buildings lining Main Street, so visitors to the town would be impressed with how up-and-coming the community must be.
But when a person walked around to the side and back of the buildings, it turns out they’d find mostly one-story structures—sometimes little better than shacks or huts.
A few were even a façade built on the front of a rickety lean-to.
Some were respectable buildings, but they were usually made of adobe or pine rather than the fine hardwood edifices promised by their Main Street facades.
And, as I mentioned, they were only one story tall despite their appearance from the front.
Indeed, the only purpose of the two- or three-story façade was to impress.
In modern times, the idea that perception is reality has reached the level of myth.
It is taught in various circles as unquestioned truth, parroted in movies and television programs as a lasting principle, and often used to scold would-be individualists into working harder to conform and fit in.
“We must impress others to get ahead in the world,” the common wisdom seems to assure us.
C.S. Lewis lambasted this view in his classic, “The Inner Ring.”
If you spend your life trying to impress and fit in, as almost everyone does, he warned, you’ll waste a lot of time and energy and miss many of the important things that really matter in life.
Moreover, he predicted, you’ll fail to appeal to the only real society of substance, the other people who ignore trying to impress and fit in and instead set about doing good things in the world without worrying what others think.
He called this group the true inner ring, whose motto was something along the lines of “perception is merely perception—truth, reality, integrity and quality are what matter.”
John Adams wrote about this topic in his little-known and seldom-read classic, Discourses on Davila, which may be his best book next to Defence of the Constitutions of the United States (in fact, he referred to Davila as the fourth volume of Defence).
He said that nearly every person is plagued by a debilitating desire to be esteemed by others, to impress and fit in, to be admired, and that this is the basis of many human flaws including jealousy, envy, ambition, vanity, hatred, revenge, pride, and most human pain.
These are Adams’ specific words.
Adams said this desire for admiration is as real as hunger, and the cause of more suffering, anxiety, stress and disappointment than famine.
In contrast, the really good things in life, including virtue, nobility, honor, loyalty, wisdom, service, strength and so on, may or may not increase the admiration of others, but are often valued only to the extent that they do.
Sadly, many people seek these things only if, and the degree that, they increase admiration from others.
Far too many things are sought by mankind only because they attract “attention, consideration, and congratulations…” Adams said.
Likewise, too many good and important things are not pursued by many people because they do nothing to boost one’s status or station.
By the way, the point of Adams’ book on Davila is to show that because of basic human nature—built on this inner drive of nearly all men and women to rise in station, and not just to rise, but to rise above other people—there will always be conflicts in human societies and institutions.
His solution was to create separate branches of power, and to set up the government so these branches could check and balance each other in a way that no one government entity could become too powerful.
The result, he said, would be that the people in the nation would be able to live free of overreaching government.
In the process of making this argument he spends a great deal of time showing that this drive to fit in, impress, and in fact outdo other people (by being more impressive and fitting in better than them), was a serious obstacle to human happiness in families, schools, business and all facets of society.
When people become more knowledgeable and learned, for example, they tend to engage in more, not less, conflict with other learned persons.
He was not talking of debate, but of serious conflict.
Thus our schools and great universities, which could be the salvation of society in many ways, are distracted from their potential because their leading inhabitants are constantly striving for Reputation, Notoriety, and Celebration.
These three words are those used by Adams, which he capitalized for emphasis in his book.
Likewise, Adams laments, our branches of government are unable to truly lead because those who should be our best hope for great progress immediately, upon being elected or appointed to office, set out to compete with all other officials for more Fame, Glory, Reputation and Credit.
Again, these are Adams’ words.
Voters send representatives, presidents and others to do their will, to improve things, but the real work of most man and women lifted to leadership is to win this contest with each other.
“Improve the Nation, or Impress the Nation. That is the question.”
And the drive to impress nearly always wins the day.
Adams wrote of humanity’s so-called honors in withering terms:
“What is it that bewitches mankind to marks and signs? A ribbon? a garter? a star? a golden key? a marshall’s staff? or a white hickory stick?”
He is mocking us now.
“Though there is in such frivolities as these neither profit nor pleasure, nor anything amiable, estimable, or respectable, yet experience teaches us, in every country of the world, they attract the attention of mankind more than…learning, virtue, or religion.”
Furthermore, Adams continues, they are sought by the poor, who believe such honors will lift them to equal status with the rich, and they are sought by the rich, who believe that without these symbols they will be lowered to the status of the poor.
This is the great challenge of human progress—we ignore our great potential to focus on silly attempts to impress.
We do it as children, as youth, as adults, and in old age.
The solution, in the case of academia, is to closely avoid putting scholars or administrators in charge of education, but leave oversight to the parents.
For government, the fix is to allow the people to frequently replace their officials at the election booth—to remove them as soon as they forget to do what the people sent them for.
Adams points out that ribbons, medals, titles, and other symbols of man’s honor, including the white hickory sticks of certain secret societies, aren’t of much use in real life.
Though if you are freezing the hickory stick can at least be ignited and bring some warmth.
But these ornaments are nevertheless widely sought because they are symbols of acceptance, fitting in, and impressing others.
Such symbols show that, in fact, the Status Motive is even stronger in humanity than the Profit Motive.
Indeed, giving war heroes and others who accomplish great acts of heroism large sums of money, cars, vacations or estates would be seen as crass by most modern eyes.
Yet these are exactly what many of the ancients gave their champions and heroes, though chariots and carriages were more in vogue than cars.
We give symbols for the highest achievements, precisely because their lack of monetary value communicates just how highly we esteem them—far above money.
For Adams, the honors and symbols are frivolities only because we seek the honors and symbols rather than the actions for which they are awarded.
This is deep insight into human nature, because for true heroes the ribbons and medals mean much less than simply knowing what they did.
It is wonderful to honor heroic acts that truly merit our admiration and thanks, but too often, as Adams puts it, the “great majority trouble themselves little about merit, but apply themselves to seek for honor…”
This is a serious indictment.
He further says that most people try to gain such honors not by going out and serving in ways that merit them.
Such service would be too difficult, or dangerous, or risky.
Besides, just meriting great honors doesn’t ensure that one will receive them.
After all, perception is reality.
So many people decide that a much better course is to ensure the world’s admiration the old-fashioned way, by directly seeking prestige and hiring publicists, PR firms, and commissioning scholarly studies.
Adams says it this way:
“…by displaying their taste and address, their wealth and magnificence, their ancient parchments, pictures, and statues, and the virtues of their ancestors; and if these fail, as they seldom have done, they have recourse to artifice, dissimulation, hypocrisy, flattery, empiricism…”
But this is more than an interesting philosophical discussion about human nature.
It actually cuts to the very heart of reality.
Because of our thirst for honors, and because façade honors are easier to obtain, all our manmade institutions eventually fail.
Adams mourns that government cannot solve the problems of humanity, nor will institutions of commerce and business.
Families and churches come the closest, but even here we spend the generations warring about whether husband or wife should be the head, how long fathers should maintain dominance over their sons, and whether newly married couples now report to paternal or maternal grandfathers.
Likewise, too many churches in history took up arms against unbelievers, and various religions and secular groups resort to violence when they fail to convince in other ways.
Indeed, as soon as men create institutions of any kind, they usually begin to war—within the institution and/or with other institutions.
The solutions, the real fixes to our challenges, Adams teaches, will not come from manmade institutions.
We should set up the best institutions possible, but we can’t rely on them for everything because man’s hunger for approval and applause is always at work undermining progress.
Adams quotes the English poets to make his point:
“The love of praise, howe’er conceal’d by art,
Reigns, more or less, and glows, in every human heart;”
—Edward Young
“All our power is sick.”
—William Shakespeare
All our power is sick. If so, how can mankind progress?
It turns out there is a solution, and Adams is excited to share it.
In the cases of family, church, relationships and business, one should simply dedicate one’s life and efforts to truly serving in genuine, if challenging, ways that really make a positive difference.
This was also recommended by C.S. Lewis, who said to ignore trying to impress and instead set out to genuinely serve.
Both Adams and Lewis note that such service is only authentic when we give up concern about getting the credit.
But Adams wants our political leaders to do the same.
He sees real government leadership as deep, committed service, devoid of seeking credit or reward.
He doubts that many will truly forget their drive to impress and seek only to frankly serve, but he holds out hope that a few will rise to such heights of true leadership.
The best honors for such exceptionally great leaders aren’t the praise or baubles of men but the highest of all tributes—emulation.
And in this Adams gives us mankind’s solution to its biggest challenges.
Specifically, while mankind limits itself from great achievements to fight the petty battles of impressing others, becoming more impressive than others, fitting in, and fitting in better than others, the solution is to emulate those who do it better.
Parents who emulate great parents are the hope of the world, as are great teachers, inventors, artists, statesmen, entrepreneurs and others who emulate the greats.
Emulation includes improving upon the best of the past, and as generations of parents and other leaders emulate the best and improve upon it, the world drastically improves.
This, as Adams puts it, is a desire not to impress and fit in, “but to excel,” and “it is so natural a movement of the human heart that, wherever men are to be found … we see its effects.”
Moreover, Adams assures us, it blesses communities and society as much as it helps individuals succeed.
For those who are religious, nothing is more effective than trying to emulate the Son of God, the great prophets, Buddha, and other examples of charity, service and wisdom.
We fall short in many ways, but in trying to answer the question, “What Would Jesus Do?,” as the modern saying goes, we reach for our very best.
Our greatest heroes, regardless of our views on religion, should be the great men and women of history whose sacrifice and greatness makes them most worthy of emulation.
Emulation is as strong an emotion as seeking admiration, and in fact most children learn emulation first.
Which brings us to the topic of this article—How to fix Washington and put America back on track as a standard for freedom, opportunity and goodness in the world.
According to John Adams (and C.S. Lewis, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and many others), the answer is not to turn to leadership from our big institutions, even if they have as much power as the White House, Congress, Wall Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, the Federal Reserve or even the Supreme Court and Madison Avenue.
The solution lies in leadership, but not from the top down.
We will not get back on track as a society until we lead from below, until we become a society of leaders, and the right kind of emulation is our most powerful means of lasting influence and change.
Who you and I choose to emulate—really, truly, deeply, fully—will determine the future.
It is the most powerful symbol, because who we want to be like on the greatest days of our lives will color the rest of time on earth.
But it is much more than a symbol.
Too much of modern life is merely a façade.
Too many of our institutions are hollow shells of what we need them to be—and of what they claim to be.
Too often we choose the path of prestige over the path of quality.
Too frequently we listen to the credible rather than the wise.
Too many of our hours and days are spent on the things that are least important.
It was Nietzsche, I think, who said that modernism began when we started substituting the morning paper for our morning prayers.
Allan Bloom called this the closing of the American mind.
Adams told us that such things are hollow, but in the Information Age the voice of understanding is too frequently drowned out by the roar of the crowd.
In all this, however, there is an anchor.
Who we decide to emulate, and how faithfully we do so, will make the future.
And that goes for Washington as well.
***********************************
Oliver DeMille is the chairman of the Center for Social Leadership and co-creator of Thomas Jefferson Education.
He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.
Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.
Category : Blog &Citizenship &Community &Culture &Current Events &Featured &Government &History &Leadership &Politics &Statesmanship
Covenant Government and the Sacred Trust of Freedom
July 10th, 2012 // 9:45 am @ Oliver DeMille
A friend recently told me that he considers family relationships much more important than politics.
He said marriage is a sacred, covenant relationship, and as such it is a higher priority than civil government.
I had two responses to this thought: First, I totally agree.
I think our families are a sacred trust and take a higher priority than pretty much anything—except our personal relationship with, and allegiance to, God.
Second, I wonder if our modern understanding of government has devolved so far from the time of the American founding that we don’t consider government a covenant or holding political office a sacred trust.
In fairness to my friend, he is a lover of freedom who cares deeply about our nation and the decline of liberty.
He is among the most dedicated students of freedom I know.
Lecturing him on anything related to freedom would certainly be preaching to the choir, and he certainly sees political leadership as a sacred trust.
But his words made me think.
Ideal government is a covenant, and was understood as such by the Israelites because of the teachings of Moses.
It was passed down over the generations and eventually became known as “The Divine Right of Kings”.
John Locke’s political treatises addressed the reality that such a divine right of any legitimate king was long lost by the time of the British monarchs.
The American founders discussed this concept at length, and the words “covenant,” “sacred,” and “trust” were widely used in connection with government.
A search for “covenant politics” in various founding writings and modern political journals will yield many interesting articles.
The word “covenant” is still used in our time—based on the legal tradition of Blackstone –in nearly every state and province of the United States and Canada in the common CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions).
In Anglo-Franco-American law, a “covenant” was originally a specific kind of contract where both parties promise to do something for the other, and the contract is binding on both parties, even if one of the parties fails to perform or defaults.
Thus, there are fundamentally two kinds of contracts in law: Absolute and Conditional.
Conditional arrangements make up over 99% of contracts, where if the other side defaults the contract is void for both parties.
But the oaths of government officials are of the Absolute variety.
The founders made government service a covenant, rather than a simple contractual, arrangement.
Regardless of whether or not the people fulfill their duties, government officials are expected to do theirs—as expressed in their oaths of office.
The law also differentiates between “express” and “implied” covenants—“express” being those that are clearly written out, and “implied” being those that should be assumed by any reasonable standard of duty.
Jefferson used this concept when he sent American troops to protect U.S. citizens against the Barbary Coast pirates without any Congressional declaration of war.
He openly admitted that he had no “express” constitutional authority to take the action, but that the responsibility of presidency gave him an implied duty to protect those he served.
He followed the same line of reasoning when he signed the Louisiana Purchase.
The difference between him and some modern presidents who have taken seemingly similar actions is that he openly admitted that he had no authority, but had acted solely on his sense of duty, and he would not have blamed Congress for impeaching him as a legitimate response.
He acted according to what he considered his implied covenant duty and was willing to accept the consequences for exceeding his constitutional authority.
This clearly established the importance of covenant in governance.
Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison all followed the same course at different times when the chief executive had a duty to protect the national security of the U.S., and the Doctrine of National Preservation was a duty to which they were willing to sacrifice themselves on behalf of the nation.
In these cases Congress refused to exercise their check, impeachment, because they believed the leader had lived up to his Constitutional Oath to guard and “protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.”
The law, again based on Blackstone and English legal tradition, also differentiates between “inherent” and “collateral” covenants.
An “inherent” covenant is the cause of any and all fiduciary responsibilities –meaning, a responsibility that a person takes upon himself automatically by entering into a covenant relationship.
In contrast, “collateral” covenants must be clearly stipulated and understood by all parties involved.
There is a lot more of this, but I won’t bore you with all the details, like: Joint versus Several covenants, Principal versus Auxiliary covenants, Continuing versus Dated covenants, Full versus Partial covenants, Restrictive versus Universal covenants, Usual versus Special covenants, and about 10 others that are foundational in Anglo-Franco-American legal traditions.
One that I should mention is Transitive versus Intransitive covenants.
“Transitive” consists of those which pass the duty on to the covenanter’s agents, successors, and in some cases, posterity.
This is important because it shows why some people might argue that the governance covenant may be as important as the marriage covenant.
Obviously, a covenant is a covenant, a supreme promise, so ranking them by importance is a bit ridiculous.
That said, the marriage covenant is intransitive, meaning that my spouse and I are both bound by it, but when I die, my children don’t become her spouse.
If I held a hereditary government position, such as the anointed kings of old, however, upon my death my oath and covenant of good governance would pass with full responsibilities and duties to my heirs.
Government is a covenant, or at least good, free government is.
Under the U.S. constitutional model, positions requiring an oath are transitive; for example, when a president dies or becomes incapacitated, the responsibilities inherent in the oath of vice-president devolve all presidential duties upon him.
He must receive his full authority by collateral covenant and take an official oath; but if there is a gap between when the president dies and when the oath is taken, he has the full responsibility of the office by covenant.
(Note: Responsibilities, but not authority.)
Again, this is repeated in most military and other government positions that require an oath of office.
There are really only 3 types of government:
1) government by fiat, where the strongest take power by force and rule by might;
2) government by contract, where the government serves as a mercenary, responding to the highest bidder in order to obtain a profit for government officials;
and 3) government by covenant, where the constituents delegate authority tied to responsibility and the leaders put their responsibilities above their authority.
I believe that the marriage covenant is the most important agreement in all of society, second only to our promises to God.
And, in fact, the marriage covenant often included promises to a spouse, society and God.
Marriage has huge ramifications on all facets of society, including law and politics but extending much further.
But let’s not forget that good government is also a covenant.
It isn’t a mere contract, where if the people shirk their duties the officials may simply ignore the Constitution, or where if the officials are corrupt the people can just give up and let freedom wane.
We all have a responsibility to maintain freedom, and this obligation is transitive, meaning that it is our solemn duty to pass on as much, or more, freedom to our posterity as we inherited from our ancestors.
This is, in fact, a sacred trust.
Perhaps Calvin Coolidge said it best when he declared, as the President of the United States, that, “The protection of rights is righteous.”
If this is true, and it is, what would we call the act of destroying rights or of allowing them to be lost through distraction or neglect?
Such questions are extremely relevant right now in modern America.
***********************************
Oliver DeMille is the chairman of the Center for Social Leadership and co-creator of Thomas Jefferson Education.
He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.
Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through Leadership Education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.
Category : Blog &Citizenship &Constitution &Featured &Generations &Government &History &Leadership &Liberty &Politics &Statesmanship
