Home Home THE CASE FOR AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM

THE CASE FOR AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM

148
0
SHARE

Empirical Evidence for the vindication of Manifest Destiny?

The Globalist philosophy, especially favored, in the Silicon Valley high-tech immigrant community and among trendy San Francisco Bay Area liberal civil servants is that nationalism is an archaic posture of the historical past and that globalism-a world without States, boundaries, and national or religious identity are the future for this planet. The main world view, of this arrogant high-tech community, creates a push for more Visa’s, less border control, greater borderless States and free international concourse, without restrictions. Clearly, this vision of the United States and Europe benefits high tech corporations and their international pool of workers, but does such a philosophy of international globalism, benefit working class America or Europe?

The inquiry put forth differently asks does a stateless, borderless, nationless, migratory civilization, benefit humankind and create a climate beneficial to freedom and economy?

It is exactly, one’s answer to the aforementioned inquiries and each individual’s response to their understanding of the empirical evidence, which leads to a political position.

For example, the more radical membership of La Raza, Black Lives Matter, and Muslim’s, which embrace and endorse,  Islamification and Sharia law are diametrically opposite in philosophy to “American Exceptionalism” and the companion tenet of “ Manifest Destiny”. Hence, a reasonable inquiry should arise, do such immigrants embracing these anti-American and opposite philosophical doctrines really deserved or are sufficiently worthy to be embraced and endorsed by America? The follow-up inquiry should be does the United States government and American citizens have a legitimate interest in denying access to immigrants who embrace the overthrow of American institutions, Government, and Civilization?

Most Americans will resolve the matter by placing reasonable limitations on immigration. However, those who have adopted a variation of “ Àztlan”, “ Reconquista”, “ Sharia Law and Islamification”, “Anti-Western, White-Genocide” will view massive immigration of untoward, Anti-Western, anti-American migrants as a way to dramatically transform the demographic dynamics of America.

Ponder the following assertions of philosopher, John Locke, who promulgates the idea that when law ends, tyranny begins.

“Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another’s harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and, acting without authority, may be opposed, as any other man, who by force invades the right of another. This is acknowledged in subordinate magistrates. He that hath authority to seize my person in the street may be opposed as a thief and a robber, if he endeavors to break into my house to execute a writ, notwithstanding that I know he has such a warrant, and such a legal authority, as will impower him to arrest me abroad. And why this should not hold in the highest, as well as in the most inferior magistrate, I would gladly be informed. Is it reasonable, that the eldest brother, because he has the greatest part of his father’s estate, should thereby have a right to take away any of his younger brother’s portions? or that a rich man, who possessed a whole country, should from thence have a right to seize, when he pleased, the cottage and garden of his poor neighbor? The being rightfully possessed of great power and riches, exceedingly beyond the greatest part of the sons of Adam, is so far from being an excuse, much less a reason, for rapine and oppression, which the endamaging another without authority is, that it is a great aggravation of it: for the exceeding the bounds of authority is no more a right in a great, than in a petty officer; no more justifiable in a king than a constable; but is so much the worse for him, in that he has more trust put in him, has already a much greater share than the rest of his brethren, and is supposed, from the advantages of his education, employment, and counsellors, to be more knowing in the measures of right and wrong.” (see:  John Locke states in Section 202 of Chap. XVIII “Of Tyranny” in Book II of the Two Treatises of Government that even magistrates must abide by the law)

The advocates, such as Kevin De Leon, (D-LA) in the California Legislature, who aggressively assert a borderless, Stateless society allowing for free migration and an abdication of American sovereignty, ignore the solemn pronouncements of lawlessness that philosopher John Locke alludes in his seminal work, “Two Treatises of Government”.  The end result, of California Legislator, Kevin De Leon’s and his compatriot’s political agenda will be subversive lawlessness and rejection of the government of the United States.

In the American Republic, many pundits, immigration advocates, liberal college professors and pampered civil servants focus on the potential “tyranny” of the Executive Branch, but Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, argued that a disorderly, mob-driven, tyranny of the legislative branch can inject disorder, chaos, confusion and lawlessness into a republics system, if not, appropriately checked, by the Chief Executive. Consider the following statements, by Montesquieu, from his well-respected work, “Spirit of the Laws”.

“Were the executive power not to have a right of putting a stop to the encroachments of the legislative body, the latter would become despotic; for as it might arrogate to itself what authority it pleased, it would soon destroy all the other powers. …

But it is not proper, on the other hand, that the legislative power should have a right to stop the executive. For as the execution has its natural limits, it is useless to confine it; besides, the executive power is generally employed in momentary operations. The power therefore of the Roman tribunes was faulty, as it put a stop not only to the legislation but likewise to the execution itself; which was attended with infinite mischiefs. As all human things have an end, the state we are speaking of will lose its liberty, it will perish. Have not Rome, Sparta, and Carthage perished? It will perish when the legislative power shall be more corrupted than the executive… 

It is not my business to examine whether the English actually enjoy this liberty, or not. It is sufficient for my purpose to observe, that it is established by their laws; and I inquire no further…  

Neither do I pretend by this to undervalue other governments, not to say that this extreme political liberty ought to give uneasiness to those who have only a moderate share of it. How should I have any such design, I who think that even the excess of reason is not always desirable and that mankind generally find their account better in mediums than in extremes? “(see: From Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, vol. 1, trans. Thomas Nugent (London: J. Nourse, 1777), pp. 221-237, passim.) See video at end of article.

Baron Montesquieu pointed out that the British system was effective, because of the inherent checks and balances, incorporated, into the British form of government, creates the balance necessary to effectively govern. Of course, this was the form of government inherited from the English, by the American Republic. In times of national security, such as controlling the nation-states sovereign borders the executive branch of government should be given precedence, lest the legislative branch become tyrannical and chaotic. Montesquieu adopted the philosophy that a strong nation state with a deliberative legislative body and a strong executive would produce the greatest happiness for the polis or the people subject to national governments. This design of the “social contract” between governments and people are in opposition to the stateless and borderless globalist ideology adopted by many Silicon Valley immigrants connected to the high-tech industry and accepted by numerous California civil servants.

Rousseau postulates that people are most happy between and betwixt the primitive tribal Amazonian-type state and the international globalist status. That is, the state of sovereignty, as found in the nation-state. Consider Rousseau’s reflection on the matter as follows:

“Hence although men had become less forbearing, and although natural pity had already undergone some alteration, this period of the development of human faculties, maintaining a middle position between the indolence of our primitive state and the petulant activity of our egocentrism, must have been the happiest and most durable epoch. The more one reflects on it, the more one finds that this state was the least subject to upheavals and the best for man and that he must have left it only by virtue of some fatal chance happening that, for the common good, ought never to have happened. The example of savages, almost all of whom have been found in this state, seems to confirm that the human race had been made to remain in it always; that this state is the veritable youth of the world; and that all the subsequent progress has been in appearance so many steps toward the perfection of the individual, and in fact toward the decay of the species.”  (see: Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1754), “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, part two”, The Basic Political Writings, Hackett, p. 64-65)

Rousseau suggests, that moderate civil constraint is in the greatest benefit for the happiness of the governed. Two much so-called progressiveness towards a stateless, borderless, globalist society leads only to decay and destruction.  The siren song of the globalists and immigration advocates may lead to the disintegration, dismantling, and dismemberment of the American Republic.

One of the infusing beliefs of the American Republic is the idea of “American Exceptionalism”, a corollary belief from “Manifest Destiny” Consider this statement from Wikipedia regarding, American Exceptionalism:

“American exceptionalism is one of three related ideas. The first is that the history of the United States is inherently different from that of other nations. [2] In this view, American exceptionalism stems from the American Revolution, becoming what political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset called “the first new nation”[3] and developing the uniquely American ideology of “Americanism”, based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, republicanism, democracy, and laissez-faire economics. This ideology itself is often referred to as “American exceptionalism.”[4]
Second is the idea that the U.S. has a unique mission to transform the world. Abraham Lincoln stated in the Gettysburg address (1863) that Americans have a duty to ensure that “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
Third is the sense that the United States’ history and mission give it a superiority over other nations.

The term exceptionalism entails superiority, neoconservative and other American conservative writers have promoted its use in that sense. To them, the U.S. is like the biblical “City upon a Hill”, a phrase used by British colonists to North America as early as 1630…” (see: American Exceptionalism, Wikipedia)

 

The notion of “American Exceptionalism” is much more than a feeling of “superiority”, but rather, a belief of a God-given, “Manifest Destiny”, which as Rousseau, Locke and Montesquieu assert will provide the greatest happiness to the governed or the people, respectively. To view, the idea of “American Exceptionalism” as simply an idea of superiority fails to give ultimate credence to the founding fathers’ vision of America. “Manifest Destiny is a nineteenth-century belief that the United States had a mission to expand westward across the North American continent, spreading its form of democracy, freedom, and culture.” (see Manifest Destiny – New World Encyclopedia)

Oft times, the only way to empirically test a hypothesis, such as “Manifest Destiny”, is to review the historical and factual evidence. In this case, is the American Southwest better off under United States sovereignty than it would have been under Mexican sovereignty?  This will elucidate the correctness of the competing theorem of “Manifest destiny versus “Reconquista”, by Mexico or the creation of “Aztlan”. Empirical evidence will often resolve conflicts between competing ideology or theories.

 

Hence, the idea of American” Manifest Destiny” rooted in “American Exceptionalism” has at the core principles, and the infused precepts, the spirit that the American system has the potential to provide the greatest happiness to the people. This means a profound respect for American sovereign boundaries as opposed to lawlessness and chaos brought about by a borderless and stateless condition.

By Jeffrey E. Elliott, Esq.

 

Add Your Comment

comments