America in decline: Revolution redux?
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes,” wrote Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.
But, he added, it is the citizens' duty to fight despotism, “to throw off such Government and to provide new Guards for their future Security.”
Is America at that point again? Is it the time, from the “time to time” to which Mr. Jefferson referred several years later, for “the tree of liberty” to be “refreshed ... with the blood of patriots and tyrants”?
Former avowed liberal but now popular conservative/libertarian pundit Roger L. Simon pondered just that scenario this week in a posting on his popular pjmedia.com site. And his partial bill of contemporary particulars is no less onerous than that of the Founders:
• An “incompetent presidency” burdened by “an unprecedented number of scandals”
• The “looming monster of monsters, ObamaCare,” which few wanted and few understand but stands to bankrupt us;
• The “totalitarianism” of the Internal Revenue Service, “a kind of post-modern American Gestapo, asking not just to examine our accounting books but the books we read.”
“Everywhere we look this July 4th sees a great civilization in decline,” Mr. Simon writes. “Tahrir Square anyone?”
Or as Jefferson put it, in 1787, “(W)hat country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.