Well it is May 6th. Yesterday was China's annual Day of the
Child. While it may seem a bit of an anomaly, I thought I might use
this example of a national celebration to focus on the decision we
must make this November.
Why China’s day of the child? As a corporate executive I
used to make frequent trips to various parts of the world including China.
One of my favorite leisure things to do in the morning was to
arise early and go for long brisk walks. There are few better ways to get
to know a society than to watch it wake up each morning. I would wander
into neighborhoods to see the local flavor and watch as people started their
day. Of all the places that I had conducted these walks, two stand
out as most unique. Hong Kong, and
Shanghai, China. Both Asian cities, both
now under governmental rule of China, although Hong Kong has for many years
enjoyed a period of much greater economic and individual freedom as it had been a
protectorate since the war and only recently returned to the governmental
oversight of China.
It was interesting to note the differences in daily individual and
economic process as the cities would wake up each morning. While there were many stark differences, I
would like to focus on the children, as it is in the children that we can see
the influential effect of societal norms on the shaping of the future perspective
of the citizenry. One must note that
prior to the war, both of these cities were essentially the same from a
societal perspective. The differences
have come in only the last 2 generations and are now at risk of reassimilation as
the Chinese Government tries to deal with a somewhat westernized Hong Kong
economy. But the children, oh the
children, what wonderful and strikingly differences, are found in the children. Both cultures maintain a
wonderful respectful presence of family.
In Hong Kong families were free to have and raise children as their
circumstance and desire would allow, while in Shanghai, family meant parents
and one child except where an exception by the government allowed for
additional children which are few. As I
walked the streets of Hong Kong I would often be met by curious children,
walking as groups to their schools.
Regularly I would be stopped and asked one question or another as to who
I was, where I was from, did I like Hong Kong, etc., once I was even asked by a
group of children to come with them to their school.
The first thing at schools in China is assembly and exercise, not a
recess as occurs at our schools but a structured time of gathering, recognition of
their presence, some good muscular stretching to help prepare them for their
period of learning and for announcements.
It was at this assembly that the children wanted me to be present. I consented and they presented me to their
school master who asked if I would speak to the students about our company and
activities there. It was a great
experience and I was so impressed with the want of the children to learn, to
grasp at new opportunities, with their kind respectful, want for improvement. In Shanghai, the children are beautiful as
well, kind and respectful, but largely without the influence of sibling relationships. My
experience in Shanghai, much like any number of other Chinese cities was
starkly different from that in Hong Kong.
Children still left and walked to school, but often led by an adult
leader as in a procession, not as friends or families but more as subjects. I
was occasionally met on my walks with curious looks and smiles from children,
but never asked a question except by their leader, often out of,
suspicion. I was on occasion challenged
as to why I would be out walking in the area and even was stopped by authorities
twice. Why, so different experiences? Shanghai is actually the most westernized of
all the mainland China cities, but what a very different youth perspective on
their role in society. I was never asked
to a school in China but I did stand outside a school and watch a morning
assembly. It was in some respects
similar to that in Hong Kong but much more sober, directive and regimentive,
almost militaristic. I would have liked to been in both cities yesterday as
they celebrated the day of the child. I
am quite sure of what differences I would have saw as I have been in each on
prior days of celebration. In Hong Kong there would have been festivals and fun
activities, much like our fairs and children’s activities. In Shanghai there would have been assemblies
and instructive discussion about the strength of the nation’s youth, their
future and the strength of the nation. The difference is stark, while in both
cases, the family values their children/child, in Hong Kong, there is a sense
of individual worth and love of life itself while in Shanghai, the worth of an
individual is defined by his value to the government. Those who choose a path
of individual progress are in many ways regarded as inferior.
So why do I describe these two scenarios of children in China when
this blog post is about our election choices?
It is because what we do in our elections is not about what will occur
tomorrow, it is about the path of what our country will become, in the
future. Like the differences in the
world view of the Chinese children in Hong Kong and in Shanghai, our
perspective is shaped by the policies, laws, and political processes of our
country.
For many years, certainly beyond the life span of our current
generations, we have become a people of ever increasing influence of political
power in our daily lives. Some say this
is a natural progression of our country as we grow. That may be, but it was the
very concern of our founding fathers, that which they tried to create a system
of government that by it’s very form would prevent such intrusion from
happening. But as we have ceded freedom
for assistance, government has become a mechanism not for the preservation of
liberty, but of increasing control and influence bent on maintaining control
and increasing power, at the expense of individual liberty.
How, you say, can a government sworn to uphold the constitution
and preserve the God given rights defined in our founding documents, have
become the regulatory spending machine we fund today? It was not by chance, it was by
design. A political philosophy shared by
some that has been worked on by many over time, even by those with varied
purposes and ideas but all feeding the monster without considering the result. There are really only two points of view at
the extremes of our political discussion with many do-gooder thoughts in
between. The first point and the thought on
which most constitutions, and political foundations throughout history have
been based is that Government is and has complete authority. It wields that
authority to maintain society normalization.
The other, unique to our constitution and those that have tried to model
themselves after it, maintains that authority, freedom, and right of individual
is preeminent and government is a necessary function meant to protect and
preserve God given rights and personal liberty.
All other views are modifications along the political spectrum and
unfortunately negatively influence individual freedom when enacted upon
society. Our founders shaped our
government based on preserving individual liberty. The actions of others, be
they with good intentions or for political power have only served to decrease
individual liberty and limit the potential of the individual serving the interest of the other end of the spectrum that holds that the ideal is a societal norm and preferential to individual freedom. This
is the difference observed in the children of Hong Kong, and Shanghai, It is the result of the two different ideas at play in our political spectrum although not readily observed because of the slow rate of deterioration of liberty in America over time, from our early citizenry and our society today. The difference here is reflected in the divided opinion of the citizenry as to what the role of our government in our daily lives should be.
Our decision at this election comes at a time when the loss of
individual liberty is increasing at an exponential rate, our willingness as a people to
accept political intrusion, be it financially or otherwise is at an all time
high and our ability to reverse the effect of socialistic policy on our
republic is nearing an end. We are now
at a level of servitude, due to debt and a learned reliance on governmental programs, that nearly if not already completely engulfs us in an irrefutable, and
unbreakable bond of servitude to our government, who is nearing an edge of an abyss
of debt to foreign powers. If we fail to
correct our course, a course that we have been guided to by design of those who
disagree with the vision of our founding fathers, we will lose what is left of
our individual liberty, and potentially even our national sovereignty. Are we to remain a "free people" and potentially return to a
people with freedom and liberty as was envisioned by our founders? Or are we resigned to accept the will of
political forces who, by nature of the beast are bound on control, power, and ever
increasing spending in order to appear to be serving the constituency.
The real question is: do we need government to save us from
ourselves? This is the age old question,
even the question that our founders had to answer in crafting our
republic. They believed that man was
endowed from God with certain inalienable rights. That man was meant to be
free, that our government was not meant to regulate, tax, and control our
citizenry, but to protect our borders and keep us from the intrusion of foreign
powers. Obviously we have departed
drastically from that vision. The
departure was by design, and now those that have been complicit in that design
would have us believe that our republic, the vision of our founders, has
failed. They would have us believe that we cannot self govern, that we should be subject to governmental, even
world powers, in short, that we are not, cannot be, should have never regarded
ourselves as a exceptional society, a free people. Rather we are, must be, and are better off as
a collective of normative, regulated mass of humanity, subject to the will of governmental
bureaucracy.
This November we have the opportunity to once again participate in
our elective process which hopefully remains, as flawed as it is, a representative
process in enacting the will of the people.
The question remains: what is the will of the majority of the American citizenry? Have we reached the tipping point of the influences of social and collective or
communistic policies where our preference is not to pursue the opportunity of
excellence, but prefer the mediocrity afforded by social planning, at least
while somebody else’s money allows for its continuation; and what then, will we,
like the citizens of Greece trade order for violence when the dole of the government
runs its course? Never in the history of
modern government, has a country achieved the level of economic and social success
as has our republic, but as we deviate further from the vision of our founders
and succumb to the socialistic policies of other governments, we find ourselves
weakened and for want of the care of others.
While our choices at this time appear to be limited and the
ideals of the ends of the spectrum are not entirely found in either of our
presidential candidates, there are at least distinct differences between the candidates
that can clearly define our election. In
2008, it was all about “hope and change” although what that change was to be
was never clearly defined, and everyone always hopes for a beter future. Now, though, the direction of change is
clearly evident for the Obama administration.
Their new slogan is: “Forward”, in reality it should be “fast forward”! The goal of the Obama administration is
cradle to grave regulation of life by the government, call it socialism, Marxism leading to communism, the new World Order or whatever you like. It is the path
to the extreme intrusion of governmental regulation on our lives.
The other choice, Mitt Romney, is less of a known. What we do know is he believes in American
exceptionalism, individual freedom, and the individual pursuit of success. Will he turn the path entirely? Possibly not, but he will change the course
and has shown that he can work effectively with opposing influences, he is a
problem solver, a known commodity as far as overcoming economic obstacles. So what do we as Americans want? Are we willing to fast forward to a loss of our exceptional
republic, the republic that has stood as the light of the world for two
centuries, the republic to which more people have strived to become a part of, for want of opportunity and freedom, from every part of the earth? or do we want
to return to exceptionalism, to solve our economic issues, to return lost
freedoms and regain our liberties? Mitt
Romney may not be the answer to all of our woes, but he is a clear choice to the current administration and
will change the course if given the congress that will work to enact the
necessary reforms to restore the American vision. There is no longer an option to stand on the
sidelines. A failure to act at this
point in history is a vote for complacency, mediocrity, the “fast forward”
direction of the current administration toward the abyss, the ruin of our
republic, and complete destruction of the vision of our founders.
