AMERICAN POLITICAL THEORIES – RECENT TENDENCIES, Merriam, 1920, pp. 332-333.
“In conclusion, it appears that recent political theory in the United States shows a decided tendency away from many doctrines that were held by the men of 1776. The same forces that have led to the general abandonment of the individualistic philosophy of the eighteenth century by political scientists elsewhere have been at work here and with the same result. The Revolutionary doctrines of an original state of nature, natural rights, the social contract, the idea that the function of the government is limited to the protection of person and property,—none of these finds wide acceptance among the leaders in the development of political science. The great service rendered by these doctrines, under other and earlier conditions, is fully recognized, and the presence of a certain element of truth in them is freely admitted, but they are no longer generally received as the best explanation for political phenomena. Nevertheless, it must be said that thus far the rejection of these doctrines is a scientific tendency rather than a popular movement. Probably these ideas continue to be articles of the popular creed, although just how far they are seriously adhered to it is difficult to ascertain. As far as the theory of the function of government is concerned, it would seem that the public has gone beyond the political scientists, and is ready for assumption of extensive powers by the political authorities. The public, or at least a large portion of it, is ready for the extension of the functions of government in almost any direction where the general welfare may be advanced, regardless of whether individuals as such are benefited thereby or not. But in regard to the conception of natural right and the social-contract theory, the precise condition of public opinion is, at the present time, not easy to estimate.”
Tom Krannawitter Brooks: “I’m not sure which is more remarkable: How thoroughly academicians and social scientists have rejected and abandoned the ideas of the American Founding, or the fact that this book was originally published in 1903 (it was re-published in 1920).
This is part of the reason why I try to explain to Americans that the attacks on the principles of the Founding came long, long before Barack Obama or anything in modern politics. Social scientists abandoned the ideas of the Founding more than a century ago, and they’ve been teaching their progressive doctrines in our universities and colleges for more than a hundred years.
Keep in mind that Merriam — who was a celebrated academician, author of many books and scholarly articles, chair of the political science dept at the Univ of Chicago, and President of the American Political Science Association — was mainly describing not merely his own views, but the book is a SURVEY of past American political thought and current (for his time) thought.
At the same time, when one goes back and reads the early progressives, one finds that there is little that’s new in the progressive Left today. I’ve yet to hear any original thought from any progressive politician or political theorist that was not explored and advanced a century ago. In this regard, there’s nothing new or progressive about progressivism. It’s old hat by now.”
I had the great fortune to make a friend in Hong Kong last April from a random meeting while waiting for a table at a restaurant. Subsequently we visited one evening over a couple bottles of wine and a duck. We began to write each other. This is from his recent letter. The lesson to America couldn’t be more clear:
“Hong Kong is a small place. What has made Hong Kong a city actually serving the world as a genuinely global financial center are: the common law system in the city, English proficiency, a free vote, a free way of life, convertibility of the currency, simple and low tax regime – there is no value added tax (VAT) for exchange of goods, and personal income tax stands at only 12%. 99% of the population are formerly refugees escaping from Chinese Communism in the mainland.”
Fast forward to Steyn’s keynote speech. It’s amazing.
Sheriff Heap is good for Elbert County and should be retained.
Also, term limits are a necessity in today’s electoral politics.
Therefore voters should support a measure that would temporarily waive the imposition of a term limit requirement for the office of sheriff, with the proviso that the measure would sunset shortly after the election and thereby reinstate the term limit requirement for the office of sheriff for future elections.
It’s entrenched politicians calling for the elimination of term limits. The people, however, are more protected from political overreach if they use waivers as required, and leave the hard-won default term limit in place.
Saturday evening, these two young antelope and a couple others left the herd to chase this hare up the hill toward our house. The hare grazed near the house while the antelope watched him from the fence. They wouldn’t come into the yard. After a couple minutes the antelope lost interest and ran back to rejoin the herd.
Some of the other visitors on Sunday. . . .