Topic: Education
We Are What We Repeatedly Do According to the words of Aristotle this is something we are unable to avoid. By our very human nature we become the people we are by continually doing the things we do. The founders understood this concept and we also should understand it.by Gary Wood
(conservative libertarian)
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
How long does it take us to form a habit? One popular theory is the "21 Day Habit Theory" which was first introduced by Dr. Maxwell Maltz. As a plastic surgeon he noticed it took amputees 21 days to stop having sensations as if the limb removed was still there. This led to further analysis and development of countless self improvement programs which have embraced Dr. Maltz's theory. (You can begin looking into some of the discussion at Aristotle; Your Personal Mentor.) Accepting the idea of 21 days for creating a habit this still isn't enough time to create who we are. We cannot practice the piano for 21 days to become a pianist. However, we can create the daily desire to practice the piano which done repeatedly can lead us to the ultimate goal of becoming a pianist.
On a group basis there was a fascinating theory called "The 100th Monkey Theory." With the recent success of "The Secret" and emergence of "The Law of Attraction" this theory once again is being used to show the wonders of group paradigm shifting. According to Ken Keyes once a group of monkeys new habit of washing their sweet potatoes to improve the taste was performed by the 100th monkey it the group it mystically was transmitted to groups of monkeys around the world. "But notice: A most surprising thing observed by these scientists was that the habit of washing sweet potatoes then jumped over the sea...Colonies of monkeys on other islands and the mainland troop of monkeys at Takasakiyama began washing their sweet potatoes."
Elaine Myers wrote a brief essay, "The 100th Monkey Theory Revisited" which better illustrates what scientists really observed with the group of monkeys washing their sweet potatoes.
Instead of an example of the spontaneous transmission of ideas, I think the story of the Japanese monkeys is a good example of the propagation of a paradigm shift, as in Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The truly innovative points of view tend to come from those on the edge between youth and adulthood. The older generation continues to cling to the world view they grew up with. The new idea does not become universal until the older generation withdraws from power, and a younger generation matures within the new point of view. It is also an example of the way that simple innovations can lead to extensive cultural change.
Without delving into a metaphysical debate over our ability to share spontaneous transmissions or thought interactions what I do want to focus on is the paradigm shift that took place during the founding of the United States of America under the Constitution as compared to the paradigm shift that has occurred since the turn of the 19th to 20th Centuries leading us into what Joe Sobran calls the "Post-Constitutional America." I hear too often the generalized statements about how people are just stupid or how people just don't care about living free anymore. I find this type of prejudicial thought offensive and believe the fault is not in people being stupid or uncaring but rather the products of what we've done repeatedly for as long as we have been alive.
The founders believed it was critical for each generation to be properly schooled in the science of government, religious virtues and morality, language, and the personal responsibility required to live as free people. Should we fail to teach this from generation to generation founders such as George Washington feared the grand experiment of the United States would quickly erode into just another democracy or republic destined to fail through loose fiscal irresponsibility and large government dependence leading to a form of dictatorship. This was the history and tradition they fought to overthrow. This historical sequence could be changed if we repeatedly taught each generation their responsibility using the tools they left us.
The common paradigm of their day was monarchism and parliamentary control trumped individual liberty and freedom. Although British citizens had certain rights they were subjects of the king. Philosophers of the 16th and 17th Centuries wrote differing theories of government that took root in the hearts, minds, and debates of the 18th Century philosophers and common man. From St. Petersburg to the streets of Paris, from Great Britain to the streets of Philadelphia new theories were considered and weighed against the daily oppressions being felt by the people living in the colonies.
It was really quite simple. People, through the laws of nature given to us by our Creator, were to be free. Free people only needed a government that was barely a government at all, enough only to settle the harms one person may bring upon another. The forming of the grand experiment of the United States of America was based on the promises of the Declaration of Independence and the rules laid down first in the Articles of Confederation and later through this plainly written document known as the United States Constitution.
People granted their states power to govern them. States were independent, sovereign bodies of government. States united to delegate specific, enumerated powers to the general government, the new federal government. A major concern of the people of the several states was the federal government would somehow usurp authority through tyrannical actions and attempt to nationalize the entire body subjugating states and the sovereign people of the states. The U.S. Constitution was developed to chain the federal government from growing too large and overbearing. As Sobran explains;
The logic of the Constitution was so elegantly simple that a foreign observer could explain it to his countrymen in two sentences. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that "the attributes of the federal government were carefully defined [in the Constitution], and all that was not included among them was declared to remain to the governments of the individual states. Thus the government of the states remained the rule, and that of the federal government the exception."
This simplicity began to erode when the Supreme Court and our modern two-party system started tweaking the rules after the 14th Amendment. Those favoring a progressive, national power base started expressing the idea our Constitution was a living document evolving over time. As FDR began a second term and the Supreme Court began to more favorably treat his efforts of federal power the chains of the Constitution were broken. By having a Supreme Court willing to work with Congress and the President they could simply change the interpretations people would be taught to accept as first precedence and then tradition. The judiciary shifted from the least dangerous to the most dangerous as described in Federalist Paper No. 78 by Alexander Hamilton:
Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary . . . may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.
This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two . . . that . . . the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean, so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislative and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers." And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments . . . and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.
The three federal branches were to separate the limited, specified powers while the states were to oversee this limitation through the Senate and the people were to oversee this limitation through their House. We shifted the paradigm, ignored the keystones of the 9th and 10th Amendments, abandoned the limited, enumerated powers of the federal government and allowed our state governments to be dictated to based on poor interpretations by the Judicial Branch at the urging of the Executive and Legislative Branch. It should surprise no one the Supreme Court has not found a single action of the Congress (no longer with a Senate representing the States thanks to the 17th Amendment) to be unconstitutional for over 70 years.
Among their rulings we can find the shredded beliefs of the founders regarding the teaching of virtue and morality in public schools. Not only can Benjamin Franklin's core religious ideals not be taught in public schools as they once were, students are not even allowed to bow their heads in prayer. Our public schools do such a poor job teaching the science of government most of us no longer understand the careful checks and balances placed at the federal level to insure usurpation of power did not occur. Most students coming from public schools barely are able to identify the branches of federal government let alone the history behind the reasoning of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. We are not stupid. We are not uncaring. We are poorly educated in the fundamental areas each generation needs if we are to maintain liberty.
As we see the stimulus bill rammed through Congress and rushed to President Obama's desk for signature it is not surprising many are not alarmed by this. It is the same scenario that played out in the early 1930s with FDR's Emergency Bank Act. In our Post-Constitutional world our paradigm has shifted due to our experience and education. Our country has become what it has repeatedly done. The old have died off and the young carry on with their understanding, or misunderstanding as the case may be. If we are to reverse this march toward dependency, nationalism, and the dictatorial nature democracies evolve into then we must first understand the basis of "The American Constitutional Paradigm" with a focus on the simplicity as well as the language of the day. We must restore virtue and morality in our public schools and we must restore the federal government to the enumerated, specific powers once sovereign states granted it. The people must once again take an active role in running their sovereign states as sovereign people do.
All of these and more we must be willing to do. Although each of them are simple none of them are easy. The American Revolution was as much a fight against tradition and dependency as it was a struggle for liberty. There was rampant fear over the idea of leaving the security of King George III and the British Empire. We do not need to take up arms as they did. We do not have to risk being hung as traitors as they did. We do need to be willing to buck tradition and dependency while restoring the original paradigm left to us from this enlightened, old generation.
The younger generation maturing with renewed understanding can fulfill the dreams of our founders; a more perfect union allowing each citizen our inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We are what we repeatedly do. In the next 21 days start the habit of studying our true history using the language of our founders. Push back against our Post-Constitutional American traditions and dependencies while embracing our spirit of liberty through responsibility once again. Measure the actions of government against your renewed understanding and you will easily see the usurpations while being able to identify actions necessary to restore the grand experiment for our posterity.
Remember our history, not our modern traditions that are moving us toward representative democracy. Here is some recommended reading to help begin the stirring of our memory. Study these with friends and family as if you were studying the scriptures of your religion or the stats of your favorite sports team.
The views expressed in this
article are those of Gary Wood only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Gary Wood is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Outstanding article! It is a sad situation we are in now, because we have forgotten (never been taught), the true majesty of the Constitution of the U.S. which is the Founders Freedom Formula. Gary's use of examples, quotes, and facts is outstanding! I agree that we need to learn the language of the Founders and restore the communication! I appreciate the other articles listed for study. Thank you.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
ensations as if the limb removed was still there. This led to further analysis and development of countless self improvement programs which have embraced Dr. Maltz's theory. (You can begin looking into some of the discussion at 
d more we must be willing to do. Although each of them are simple none of them are easy. The American Revolution was as much a fight against tradition and dependency as it was a struggle for liberty. There was rampant fear over the idea of leaving the security of King George III and the British Empire. We do not need to take up arms as they did. We do not have to risk being hung as traitors as they did. We do need to be willing to buck tradition and dependency while restoring the original paradigm left to us from this enlightened, old generation.