The Difference Between America Today and Our Founding

One of the most notable differences between our country today and that of yesteryear (after the Revolution), is that the people then were starting a new country from scratch, whereas we already have a fully developed one. Yes, the King of England had some Governors and bureaucracy in place, and there probably were plenty of edicts, but the seat of power was overseas and not easily accessible, and it was a wide-open country, with only a bunch of indians in the way of unlimited growth.  

The America of the late eighteenth century was also much larger than the British military could subdue given sufficient resistance. How many boatloads of soldiers did the King have to send over to America in order to pacify the restless population? How many boats did the King even have available? No, there were definitely limits to what the King could do; our founders did not have to contend with a fully realized and all-powerful government such as we have today.

But we do. The federal government of the United States is a leviathan, and it is large enough now to do whatever it wants to, without repercussion. If you oppose it, it can crush you. If there is a mass protest, it can crush it. And it has its officers swarming hither and yon. 

If there were another “revolution,” it is debatable about how much of the military would refuse to quell the rebellion. Under previous presidents, I don’t think there was any real worry. But under Obama, one cannot be too sure - he is changing the military in insidious ways, and the leadership is being molded to accommodate a more liberal view of the world. 

Another of the big differences has to do with what it would take to change our country wholesale. It has been said that only six percent of the population actually participated in The Revolution directly. This number is bandied about frequently, as if it would only take about the same amount of participation in a violent revolution to regain our freedoms. 

But I don’t think this is anywhere near the reality today. Let’s investigate the idea a little bit. 

What, exactly, might cause the people to rise up against their government? Some  possibilities are: the confiscation of personal bank accounts and/or retirement accounts; repealing the second amendment either by fiat or even by law (the amendment process or an order of the Supreme Court); or possibly the elimination of elections for Obama himself, with the 2016 election going to him by a Saddam Hussein margin.

Given the difference in the size and power of our government today, I daresay that it would take a direct participation rate well upwards of fifty percent of the people to significantly alter our current relationship with our “leaders.” Given that we barely have a voting rate above that, I don’t believe there will ever be the willpower to resort to extremes. We would, of course, pursue the political process first. If that didn’t work, maybe we would form mass protests. Then, there is the extra-political process of seeking a secession. But in my humble opinion, there just isn’t the will for much of anything beyond - maybe - a mass protest or two; but nothing like theEgyptians had, more like the Tea Party had. 

It is questionable whether our government will be responsive to the citizenry in our future, or will simply be a self-serving tool for those in power, but in any case, it certainly does not appear that we could ever launch a revolution again and be successful. 

Another big difference between then and now is the amount of wealth, and the associated technological advancements we have that enable us to live so much better today. People just are not going to give that up in order to try to “regain” lost freedoms. And, even with Obama, it doesn’t really appear that the left want a totalitarian outcome - they seem to be content with crony capitalism, in which the people work hard, and they take as much from them as possible, without fomenting mass protests. 

Interestingly, a lot of the people who led the revolution were wealthy. But for them this was an intellectual revolution - a revolution of ideas, with the desire to achieve something great: Self-government. They were willing to risk their wealth in that pursuit, and many of them lost it all. Unfortunately, Americans today are generally bereft of those ideals, and have even been propagandized to believe them to be anachronistic, if they understand them at all. 

But worse, they are far too comfortable with their material goods to risk a life of hardship in order to “improve” their political condition. No, I think that our political condition would have to be much worse than it is today for people to get motivated to protect themselves from their own government. 

And neither do we have the same goal as our forefathers:  to achieve a new type of government. What we have, works, even if it is highly deficient and defective in many areas. We all know that America was once a very free country, so why would it be interesting in this modern age to try to repeat that experiment? Why upset the apple cart? We evolved into what we are today because “the changing times demanded it,” and the America of yesteryear no longer applies. 

Can you think of any more differences between today and 240 years ago that make our relationship to our government significantly different than what is was back then? I would love to hear it. 

Copyright notice: All the articles in this blog are written and copyrighted by Thomas M. Kempf, unless otherwise noted. You may link to, copy, use and disseminate these essays in any non-profit capacity so long as the copyright notice and the following links are included.    

http://givinguponamerica.blogspot.jp/p/introduction-to-my-blog-giving-up-on.html    and:   www.ttssfa.com