Give me Liberty ?

Today is the anniversary of Patrick Henry's famous "give me liberty or give me death" speech before the Virginia House of Burgess on March 23, 1775. Liberty has become such a little understood term that we seldom use it when referring to political events. In fact in America today the word is used as a insult or pejorative by progressives against "right wing" extremist. But I will leave that debate aside for now and concentrate on something more in the news of late, the various uprisings in the Middle East.

... it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

There is little doubt that many of the demonstrators and rebels in the various countries currently in conflict are struggling for "liberty" from their current leadership. However the liberty of Patrick Henry's time and place and the liberty that the uprisings in the Middle East will bring forth, in the short term, are two entirely different things. We do not hear a call for liberty in the current struggles simply because it is a somewhat foreign concept to the participants. Most often it is called a"Democracy Movement". The left sees this "struggle" as a battle against oppression and the right led primarily by the NeoCons see it as a battle for freedom but will the outcome achieve either of these goals?

It is not unimportant to realize where and to whom Patrick Henry was speaking when he made his historic speech. His audience was the representatives of the Virginia Colony in the existing institution of the House of Burgess, soon to be the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth (state) of Virginia, which operated under well established and institutionalized English Common Law. The Liberty which Patrick Henry was pleading for was just a continuation of centuries of evolving political doctrine well know and understood by the politicians and leaders of that day, and accepted as a "God given rights" by most of the colonist.

Most of the colonies were established by individuals whose primary reason for relocating to the "New World" was to achieve more individual freedom. Whether it was greater religious, economic or personal liberties which they sought, the colonies were primarily populated with the decedents of those seeking liberty. There was a tradition of liberty in America unlike anywhere else or at any previous time in the long history of mankind. It is important to realize this and not, as many do, automatically assume that the practices of freedom is the same as the God given desire for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.

How many times have you heard that you can not really win by just being against something? In order to truly succeed you must be for something. Against will only tear down, For will build something in the ruins. There was little doubt what the Founding Fathers were against (tyrannical rule) and what they were for (individual liberty), the missing ingredient in today's events as they unfold across the Middle East are what are the demonstrators and rebels for?

I have little doubt that the majority of people in the Middle East given the opportunity and security would choose as much freedom as they can get within the confines of their own traditions which in most cases are far more restrictive than ours in America. The question is will they be given the opportunity or the security to achieve maximum individual liberty?

Twenty years after Patrick Henry's speech, the United States of America existed as a representative Republic with George Washington as it's first elected President. Twenty years after the Storming of the Bastille which is considered the beginning of the French Revolution, Napoleon ruled as an absolute Emperor. In today's jargon both started as "Democracy Movements".

In Iraq today there exists a very fragile constitutional democracy created through the overthrowing of a tyrant by American force of arms and established and maintained by the security provided by American military might. As a goal liberty is always a preferable outcome, the question is can liberty be imposed from the outside? The historical record is pretty good that it can be. Japan had no real history or tradition of democratic institutions until after World War 2 we "forced" it on them. To a lesser degree the same could be said of Germany and countries such as South Korea have through the security provided by the United States established their own democratic institutions and traditions.

All of these and others such as Eastern European countries show that democratic institutions and traditions can take hold and grow in former totalitarian states given time and opportunity. That is the rub though, as we all know nature abhors a vacuum and in order for liberty to take hold there can be no vacuum. In political vacuums the most organized political entities will take hold. Unfortunately usually the most organized political entities are also the least democratic, see the Bolsheviks after the Russian Revolution.

As the Middle East is set afire and the Neo-Cons cry freedom and the Leftist cry out for revolution, it might be wise to remember that they are probably not being led by modern day Patrick Henry's. They are also not going to be provided the protection provided by freedom loving presidents such as Harry Truman or even George W. Bush but rather the fate of the "Democracy Movement" lies in the hands of the hesitant and apologetic Barack Oboma.

I suspect that if the world is lucky we will end up with a slew of modern day Napoleons, much like we had. If we are unlucky we will end up with a Middle East ruled by fundamentalist Ayatollahs. What I seriously doubt though is that in the foreseeable future we will find the Middle East, outside of Israel, governed by anything close to a George Washington or even a Barack Obama.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!