by Fred Kelly Grant

Studs Terkel believes that Americans suffer from “national Alzheimers disease.” The contemporary American historian has spent eight decades interviewing thousands of the “blue collar” people who seek, and live, the American Dream. He regrets that Americans ignore the lessons of history as though they did not exist. He wonders whether, in so doing, “Are we courting death?”

His words are appropriate as we turn our thoughts to a great American founder, Benjamin Franklin. The lesson of history is that Franklin, and his revolutionary cohorts, created this nation because they believed that liberty could survive only where individual rights were paramount, only where government served the very limited function of protecting those rights. That lesson has been too long ignored in America.

The cardinal principles of liberty, the protection of naturally inherent rights such as the right to acquire and own property, form the American Dream which lures the poor, the downtrodden, the “free at heart” from all the world. From the birth of this Nation, they have correctly believed that if only they could get to America, they could worship in peace, speak freely, be free of unwarranted government intrusion, and be able to own their own, private, property. The latter gives form to all the others—private ownership of property provides a base of economic independence which makes it possible to enjoy the benefits of all rights. Milton Friedman, an economist-historian at the opposite pole of political philosophy from Studs Terkel, says in Capitalism and Freedom, that “History suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. ...Economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom.”

Many Americans have lost touch with our history. They work at their jobs, meet family commitments, balance the household budget and benefit from liberty, without concern for the steady erosion of the principles of liberty which support their opportunities.

It is politically correct to attack private property rights. Maryland’s Governor urges sacrifice of property rights for the good of society, as he proposes to preserve openness at the expense of rural owners. Representative Don Young of Alaska refers to property owners as “kooks” as he threatens to run them over to gain passage of his CARA bill. Critics of the developing Bush administration castigate defenders of property rights as “ultra right wing radicals.”

As we witness mushrooming governmental disdain for property rights, Congress passes CARA to allow governments to spend millions of tax dollars to buy private property, by condemnation where there is no willing seller. CARA also supports species protection more adverse to property rights than any authorized under the Endangered Species Act. Supporters of CARA include Clinton, Gore and Bush, so the lack of concern for protecting private property is not limited by party affiliation.

We are also witnessing an attack on private property through unprecedented expansion of executive power. A Clinton adviser bragged that it was easy to ignore Congress and make law “with the stroke of a pen.” He thought the power was “cool.” A series of executive orders (1) created ecosystem designations, federally managed to set the land aside from human use and development, (2) set aside 3,000 square miles in southern Utah to seal the fate of economic interests and property rights attached to mining, ranching, and timber, and (3) commenced final dismantling of the western forest industry, closing down roads in the national forests. Executive agencies launched assaults against century old private water rights, and challenged rights of way created by Congress in 1866 in order to shut down access to water rights, mining claims, and in-holdings of private property.

Executive power was unleashed against all America. The American Heritage Rivers Initiative established federal control of activities which could affect designated rivers. Imagine the impact on private property throughout the Mississippi River Watershed alone—encompassing over 30% of the land mass of the 48 contiguous states. Agencies targeted private property for wildlife preserves, and scenic easements, endangering prime farm ground in Ohio and historic New River properties in West Virginia. “Wetlands” and Endangered Species regulations were aimed at property rights from upper New York to the deep southwest, from coast to coast, border to border.

Congress could have resisted the executive attack on property rights, but refused to do so. Mr. Justice Jackson pointed out in concurrence to an historic United States Supreme Court decision regarding executive power, that only “Congress itself can prevent power from slipping through its fingers...” Congress has capitulated to a strong and wilful executive, and the check-and-balance system designed to limit the federal government has eroded.

To quote a popular phrase used a decade ago, “We’ve come a long way baby,” from the birth of our Nation, inspired by the need for protecting property rights, Historian Daniel Boorstin points out that the American Revolution was fought to separate from a Crown which had ceased to protect such rights.

The link between liberty and property rights was well known to the American colonials. Over five hundred years prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, English noblemen forced King John to sign the Magna Charta, an historic document centered on shielding property rights from royal abuse.

Ironically, the Magna Charta addresses relief from abuse of control of the royal forests. The language reflects protest against the royal tendency to extend the forest boundaries at the expense of private property owners. Sound familiar? It will to property owners who have suffered from Clinton’s expansion of federal monuments and parks, and the executive orders closing down the forests.

The importance of property rights emphasized by the Magna Charta was proven in the first English colonies in America. In Jamestown, Virginia, settlers starved in spite of an abundant supply of seafood, game and fruits. But, once communal ownership of property was converted to private ownership, the settlers “quickly developed what became the distinguishing characteristic of Americans—an aptitude for all kinds of craftsmanship coupled with an innate genius for experimentation and invention.” (The Noblest Triumph, Tom Bethel) The Jamestown colony then thrived.

A few years later, English investors financing establishment of the Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts, ignored the Jamestown lesson and required that property be held in common ownership. Within three years of settlement, the survivors could “barely feed” themselves. Governor William Bradford converted communal ownership to private ownership, and the settlement succeeded.

A century later, heeding these lessons of history, Revolutionary colonists created a government to protect their natural, inherent rights, including the right to own property. In forceful words, Alexander Hamilton persuasively argued for such protection: “[under] freedom...[a man’s] life and property are his own” while under “slavery...they depend upon the pleasure of his master.”

The Founders also created protection of individual rights against abuse by the very government they were creating. Judge Loren Smith, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, has said that the Bill of Rights was designed “to protect the citizen against the government” because the Framers knew that in a world of imperfect human beings, sometimes “imperfect human beings would...be the governors.” The Bill of Rights, includes the Fifth Amendment guaranteeing protection of private property against arbitrary government actions, referred to as an “old friend and a good friend...one of the great landmarks in men’s struggle to be free of tyranny, to be decent and civilized” by the late Mr. Justice William O. Douglas.

To protect against abuse by governing “imperfect humans.” the Framers created a check-and-balance system. James Madison believed that accumulation of power “in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Idaho’s late Senator Frank Church said “If we are to preserve freedom and keep constitutional government alive in America” Congress must maintain a strong check-and-balance with the Executive.

How did we allow erosion of these fundamental principles? Our parents were generally convinced that federal economic programs spawned by reaction to the Great Depression, and expanded federal regulatory power brought on by World War II, demanded sacrifice of individual rights for “the common defense and the common good.” They, and then we, were lulled into accepting the slow, steady growth of governmental power at our individual expense. We, and now our children, have grown up accepting unlimited government developed through the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the Great Society, and, ultimately, the Clinton-Gore Deal. Today, too many Americans expect, and turn to, government to solve problems once handled in the private sector.

It is not as important how we got to where we are, as it is that we now wake up and make the effort to redeem our rights. If we continue to simply stand by, we are “courting [the]death” of liberty. The late Judge Learned Hand said that “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.”

All Americans who love liberty—all American homeowners— ought to remind the Bush Administration, Congress and all levels of government that failure of protection of individual rights lead to the Magna Charta, and to our Revolution. We ought to become activists in a move to redeem rights sacrificed on the altar of the “common good.” We ought to write letters to and telephone editors, educators, and elected and appointed officials, we ought to attend meetings of government bodies and court sessions to show support for or opposition to government action, and we ought to form and join organizations dedicated to protection of rights. As members of such organizations, we ought to insist that our leaders join with other such organizations, rather than acting as splinter factions, in moving toward redemption of our fundamental rights.

Americans must act now. We have come too far from our roots in liberty. The time for redemption may be shorter than we think. Reaching down into our American character, each of us ought to face the challenge of taking back what we have lost with the enthusiasm expressed by John Fitzgerald Kennedy in his inaugural address: “In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it.”