Tea Party Tyrants

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) called the tea party ”tyrants” in a tweet on August 7 because its members supposedly blocked a bigger and better deal from being approved.

Disregarding what effect the tea party had on the debt ceiling negotiations, there is absolutely no comparison between the tea party and tyrants. Aristotle writes:

A tyrant, as has often been repeated, has no regard to any public interest, except as conducive to his private ends; his aim is pleasure.

The tea party has not promoted a single idea to promote its “private ends.” Instead, it has promoted ideas that it believes would benefit the entire nation. Democrats may disagree with the tea party’s agenda, but it is ridiculous to assert that the tea party’s “aim is pleasure.”

I can hear the liberals complaining that Aristotle’s definition of tyrant is old and out-dated. Let’s turn to a more modern and American definition. A definition that was essential in the creation of the Constitution and our republican. James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 47:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

Let’s see here. The tea party controls none of the branches of government. In fact, the Republicans do not even fully control a branch of government. (They control half of the legislative branch and 5 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices could be considered Republican, but the Senate is Democrat as is the President.)

But James Madison wrote that more than two hundred years ago. Many liberals don’t think the Constitution and our Founding Fathers are relevant any more. So let’s check an even more recent definition, Merriam-Webster:

1
a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution
b : a usurper of sovereignty
2
a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally
b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power

Hmm, the tea party fits none of those definitions either. The tea party is not an absolute ruler, has not usurped the nation’s sovereignty, is not a ruler with absolute power acting oppressively or brutally, and is not an oppressive ruler acting harshly.

I’d be very interested to hear by what definition the tea party are tyrants.

– Michael E. Newton is the author of the highly acclaimed The Path to Tyranny: A History of Free Society’s Descent into Tyranny. His newest book, Angry Mobs and Founding Fathers: The Fight for Control of the American Revolution, was released by Eleftheria Publishing in July.

Could a Nazi-type takeover happen in America?

The Kindertransport Association (my grandfather and his brother were on the kindertransport) recently asked, “Could a Nazi-type takeover of our Federal government happen in America. Why? Why not? Could it happen in Western Europe?” My response made the front page of their newsletter:

History teaches us that society is always at risk of losing its freedom and descending into tyranny because there are always people who wish for and actively seek to rule over others and profit at their expense.

With the separation of powers and checks and balances, western civilization has created systems, best exemplified by the United States Constitution, designed to prevent demagogues from gaining power. However, when people think the political system no longer functions properly, they will demand change, thinking that “anything else will be better than this.” At this point, a demagogue may convince them that he will fix the nation and bring prosperity to all with relative ease. These demagogues tell the people that all they need to do is vote for him and their problems will be solved.

Demagogues seeking to take over the government create or find an enemy to attack and blame. The demagogue informs the public that it is not their fault the economy is bad, they lost in a recent war, or that they are poor. Instead, it is somebody else’s fault. Hitler’s blamed Germany’s problems on both the communists and capitalists, with the Jews supposedly supporting both groups. Julius Caesar blamed the Roman Senate. The Communists in Russia blamed both the Czar and the democrats. With the recent economic weakness and increased partisanship in the United States and Western Europe, there has been a lot of blame bandied about, especially by politicians looking to win election.

Weak economies, a wide disparity between rich and poor sparking class warfare rhetoric, and the perception of a broken political system open the door for an eloquent demagogue to trick the people into voting for him, increasing his power, and paving the way for him or his successor to become a tyrant.

So it is possible for a Nazi-type takeover in the United States or Western Europe? Most certainly. In fact, we have already seen something similar happen just recently in Venezuela, which had been a prosperous western-style nation until the late 1980s when an economic crisis and political corruption paved the way for Hugo Chavez and his Bolivarian socialism.

Fortunately, the Founding Fathers of the United States created a system specifically designed to prevent one man or faction from gaining too much power. Western Europe has largely copied that system, with some alterations. Additionally, our long tradition of liberty is not one that people will throw away lightly. However, an eloquent demagogue promising peace and prosperity at no expense amid economic and political chaos may, at times, be able to overthrow the delicate political, economic, and social system we have. This happened in ancient Greece, ancient Rome, ancient Israel, Russia in the 1910s, Italy in the 1920s, Germany in the 1930s, and Venezuela in the 1990s, to name just a few of the most notable examples.

Only through eternal vigilance against demagogues, their false promises, and their scapegoating of minority groups can we prevent Nazi-type takeovers in the United States and Western Europe.

Michael E. Newton, KT3

– Michael E. Newton is the author of the highly acclaimed The Path to Tyranny: A History of Free Society’s Descent into Tyranny. His newest book, Angry Mobs and Founding Fathers: The Fight for Control of the American Revolution, was released by Eleftheria Publishing in July.

Mubarak and Gaddafi were in it for the money. Tyrants always are.

Just in! Muammar Gaddafi has grown rich on the back of the Libyan people.

The dictator’s dough: Astonishing wealth of Gaddafi and his family revealed

The astonishing wealth of Libyan tyrant Muammar Gaddafi and his family has been laid bare as countries around the world begin freezing billions of dollars worth of their assets.

The U.S. alone has seized $30billion (£18.5bn) of their investments, while Canada has frozen $2.4bn (£1.5bn), Austria, $1.7bn (£1bn) and the UK, $1bn ($600m).

These assets appear to be just the tip of the iceberg, as no one is yet certain exactly what the family owns around the world.

Story continues here…

Previously, we learned the same thing about Hosni Mubarak in Egypt:

Mubarak family fortune could reach $70bn, say experts

President Hosni Mubarak’s family fortune could be as much as $70bn (£43.5bn) according to analysis by Middle East experts, with much of his wealth in British and Swiss banks or tied up in real estate in London, New York, Los Angeles and along expensive tracts of the Red Sea coast.

Story continues…

But then we learned those estimates were too high. Nevertheless, Mubarak was still quite wealthy.

Hosni Mubarak’s Wealth: He’s a Thief, But Not That Big a Thief

Egypt’s Former President Worth ‘Only’ $5 Billion, Says U.S. Intelligence; Family Wealth Estimates Range Up to $70 Billion

Newly deposed Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and his family have a fortune of $1 billion to $5 billion stashed in foreign banks, according to U.S. intelligence estimates — a significantly lower figure than most recent estimates of the wealth accumulated by Mubarak during his 30 years in power.

Some experts have estimated that the Mubarak family has a net worth as high as $70 billion, while others have reported $40 billion, but U.S. intelligence sources told ABC News that the real number is probably much lower.

Story continues…

Surprised? I assume you are not and you shouldn’t be. Aristotle warned us that tyrants are like this:

As of oligarchy so of tyranny, the end is wealth; (for by wealth only can the tyrant maintain either his guard or his luxury). [Aristotle, Politics Book 5 Part 10.]

Another practice of tyrants is to multiply taxes, after the manner of Dionysius at Syracuse, who contrived that within five years his subjects should bring into the treasury their whole property. [Aristotle, Politics Book 5 Part 11.]

Just in case some didn’t believe Aristotle, a quick look at relatively recent history demonstrates the same. (Quotes from my book.)

Regarding the Soviet Union:

Stalin and his cronies, though, did not share in the people’s suffering. In fact, Stalin and other leading Communists lived in houses that had belonged to Russia’s wealthiest families before the revolution.

And in Nazi Germany:

As in all tyrannies, many of the Nazi leaders used their power to amass vast wealth. Hermann Goering used his power as commander of the Luftwaffe, administrator of the Four Year Plan, and Hitler’s designated successor to acquire mansions and create an enormous industrial enterprise called Hermann Goering Works. As Reichsminister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels received gifts from the media, including a house given to him by the film industry. He also used his power to seduce several female film stars.

Arabs waking up? We shall see.

One political analyst told AP:

Arab peoples used to fear their authoritarian regimes. Things have changed and now Arab leaders fear their peoples.

Reminds me of a famous, often misattributed, quote by John Basil Barnhill:

Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.

Let us hope and pray these authoritarian regimes are replaced by something better. As I write in The Path to Tyranny:

Furthermore, once tyranny is established, it is difficult to abandon. Most often, upon the death or overthrow of one tyrant, another tyrant takes his place. Aristotle points out that “a tyranny often changes into a tyranny, as that at Sicyon changed from the tyranny of Myron into that of Cleisthenes.” Sian Lewis gives an even more impressive example: “When one looks before a tyrant such as Pittacus or Cypselus to see what kind of government they replaced, one tends to find not aristocracies or monarchies, but an infinite regress of tyrants, each apparently overthrown by a successor in the name of liberty: at Mytilene, for instance, Pittacus overthrew the tyrant Myrsilus, who had in turn overthrown Melanchrus, and before Melanchrus we hear of Megacles, who put down the rule of the club-wielding Penthelidai.”

This succession of one tyrant followed by another makes it all the more important to avoid the first tyrant. Plutarch reports that Solon “uttered the famous saying, that earlier it had been easier for them to hinder the tyranny, while it was in preparation; but now it was a greater and more glorious task to uproot and destroy it when it had been already planted and was grown.”

Overthrowing authoritarianism and replacing it with republicanism will not be an easy task. But for the first time in recent history, it appears that the Arabs desire and are willing to fight for true freedom.

NASA’s James Hansen attacks democracy, supports totalitarianism

The Washington times reports that NASA’s laboratory head James Hansen is:

Citing the Chinese government as the “best hope” to save the world from global warming. He also wants an economic boycott of the U.S. sufficient to bend us to China’s will.

“I have the impression that Chinese leadership takes a long view, perhaps because of the long history of their culture, in contrast to the West with its short election cycles. At the same time, China has the capacity to implement policy decisions rapidly. The leaders seem to seek the best technical information and do not brand as a hoax that which is inconvenient.”

“After agreement with other nations, e.g., the European Union, China and these nations could impose rising internal carbon fees. Existing rules of the World Trade Organization would allow collection of a rising border duty on products from all nations that do not have an equivalent internal carbon fee or tax.”

“The United States then would be forced to make a choice. It could either address its fossil-fuel addiction … or … accept continual descent into second-rate and third-rate economic well-being.”

Does Mr. Hansen really believe Chinese totalitarianism is better than American democracy? Does he really support an economic boycott of his own country? And what is the source of his ideology? Does he really favor these positions because it would help the environment? Or is he just interested in political power?

I’m not sure which is worse: 1) a demagogue using the environment to control the country or 2) an ideologue who is willing to adopt a political system responsible for death and destruction to save the environment.

I must thank James Hansen for his comments. He is showing the world what the “experts” in global warming really want: to control us.

The oldest and best warning against big government

From Samuel I Chapter 8:

¹⁰ Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. ¹¹ He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. ¹² Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. ¹³ He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. ¹⁴ He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. ¹⁵ He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. ¹⁶ Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. ¹⁷ He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. ¹⁸ When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”

Notice the progression in the king’s oppression. As I write in The Path to Tyranny:

Samuel’s warning in the Bible follows a logical progression. He starts by predicting the king will impose a military draft, a reasonable decree when the people desired a king to defend the country and defeat the Philistines. But the situation worsens with time as the king soon drafts men to farm his land and then women to cook, bake, and make perfume. Then the king takes away the people’s land followed by their servants and their livestock. Finally, “you will be his slave. On that day you will cry out because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves – but God will not answer you on that day.”

I analyze Samuel’s warning in even more detail in The Path to Tyranny. Also note that Thomas Paine comments on Samuel’s warning in Common Sense and W. Cleon Skousen does as well in The 5000 Year Leap.

President Obama: The Health Care Tyrant

The incoming governor of South Carolina challenged President Obama to repeal the health care bill. TheSunNews.com reports:

Obama rejected Haley’s request to repeal the health care bill – but said he’d consider letting states opt out of its mandates if they ran exchange programs, banned insurance firms from denying coverage of pre-existing conditions and enabled people to pool together for better rates.

Now, I must admit that I did not read the 2,600 page health care bill, so I don’t know if there is a provision that allows the President to issue such exemptions under those terms. Either way, this is very disturbing.

According to this story which is based on Nikki Haley’s comments afterward (there is no way to know what exactly the President said), President Obama “said he’d consider letting states opt out of its mandates…” He apparently is under no obligation to do so even if a state complies with his demands.

According to Obamacare or the government interpretation and enforcement of it, the President has dictatorial powers. The President can grant exemptions to whomever he pleases and deny exemptions to others who comply with the very same provisions.

We have already seen the government issue exemptions for individual corporations, but I was under the impression that there were strict rules to follow and those who follow those rules and apply for an exemption would get one. But now, at least with the states and maybe on the corporate side as well, the exemptions require Presidential approval and the President can make up his own rules.

Hail to the Health Care Tyrant!

Britain on the path to tyranny?

The title of my book and the blog is The Path to Tyranny. The book describes how the demand for free gifts from the government leads to tyranny. But this road does not always lead straight to tyranny. It often falls into anarchy first.

Today’s headline at Drudge Report:

So how exactly does anarchy lead to tyranny? First, I’ll share a couple of quotes from some people much smarter than me.

John Adams in A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America:

The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.

Plato’s Republic:

And so the probable outcome of too much freedom is only too much slavery in the individual and the state… from the height of liberty, I take it, the fiercest extreme of servitude.

Montesquieu explains exactly how anarchy leads to tyranny in his Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline:

For in a free state in which sovereignty has just been usurped, whatever can establish the unlimited authority of one man is called good order, and whatever can maintain the honest liberty of the subjects is called commotion, dissension, or bad government.

I already expounded upon this quote in a previous blog post:

This is the real reason so many today advocate anarchy and anti-globalization. They do not really want anarchy. Instead, they want to establish a situation which would call for immediate order, to be established by the government and “intellectual elites.” First stage is anarchy, second is totalitarianism. These “anarchists” hope they can direct events towards socialism, as they successfully did in Russia in the 1910s and attempted to do in Italy and Germany, though other collectivist regimes beat out the socialists and communists, though both the Fascists and Nazis adopted socialist platforms to win favor among the people.

The ultimate result of the anarchy spreading through Europe is not yet known. History shows that this often, but not always, leads to tyranny.

The situation reminds me of Germany in the 1920s, except that all of Europe and the United States is in a similar situation to the Weimar Republic with huge deficits and debts that cannot be paid off. That led to the tyranny of the Nazis. Will we be able to avoid the mistakes of the past?

Classic quotes about Liberty vs. Safety

Montesquieu: No tyranny is more cruel than the one practiced in the shadow of the laws and under color of justice… [Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline]

Benjamin Franklin: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Alexander Hamilton: Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of…national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. [Federalist #8]

John Basil Barnhill: “Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.” [1914]

The Path to Tyranny featured on Conservative Bookstore!

The Conservative Bookstore is featuring my book, The Path to Tyranny: A History of Free Society’s Descent into Tyranny, on their site this month.

W.J. Rayment of the Conservative Bookstore posted the full review at Conservative Monitor. Here is the full review for you enjoyment:

Even in the days of ancient Greece, political science was a subject earnestly studied and remarkably well-understood. The multiplicity of city states allowed philosophers to discern patterns in the ebb and flow of historical events. What the Solon’s of the age noticed was that when pure democracy was allowed to reign in any state that the inevitable result was a rapid destruction of the economy and a sudden move to tyranny coupled with an almost complete loss of liberty.

Michael E Newton in his seminal work, The Path to Tyranny: A History of Free Society’s Descent into Tyranny, we are treated to historical examples of what happens when a society allows rampant, uncontrolled democracy to subvert constitutional balance within a government. Newton begins with ancient Western Civilization where in both Greek and Roman society broke down because the mass of people figured out they could violate property rights through the government. When this happened, productivity was discouraged by ever rising taxation. The declining availability of goods and services caused the frustration of the under-classes (because that an exploited economy could not support their demands). Thus, they would resort to a demagogic dictator who would ring society dry for the support of the masses in the aggrandizement of his own wealth and power.

As The Path to Tyranny so ably illustrates, in example after example, the ultimate result of this process is the loss of freedom, the degradation of the economy, and general misery. This is one of those history books where Santayana’s famous quote rings loud and rings true, “Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it.” There are lessons here for America. Mr. Newton’s clear and concise writing style makes them crystal clear.

This is the great thing about this book. It can be understood by both the academic as well as the layman. As a student of history myself (I wrote a textbook on Modern European History), I found myself gesticulating, scribbling in the margins, and generally agreeing with point after point. I kept thinking that this book is irrefutable. I can’t imagine an academic or politician arguing intelligently with Newton’s assertions or his conclusions. Of course, there are three self-interested groups who would argue that America’s present course is a good one. They would be those who believe they will benefit from government largesse in the form of welfare payments, “free” health care, and social security. Then there are those academics who arrogantly think they are smart enough to manage a centralized economy better than Smith’s invisible hand. Finally, most ominously, there are those politicians who wish to harness the lazy greed of those who would suck off the system, using it to propel their own political careers in a tyrannical direction…Ironically, in the U.S. most of these politicians are currently called Democrats.

The Path to Tyranny is well-documented – with ample citations, a bibliography, and a comprehensive index. Besides ancient Greece and Rome, it covers ancient Israel, Communist Russia, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and of course the current state of affairs in the United States. In a fascinating section, Newton also nails the dictatorship of Hugo Chavez. After reading this book anyone who subscribes to the democratic agenda, must be stupid, delusional, or a demagogue!

Must Read!

Thank you Mr. Rayment for your great review. I’m glad you enjoyed the book.

ELEFTHERIA I THANATOS!