A new meaning of justice

Now that the election is over and much of the silliness of the American political process has ended, it is time to reflect upon what all that time, money and effort is going to mean, if anything. Many of us seem to be under the impression that "change" is going to sweep the land, and we will see a transformation of the political, economic and social landscape.

As an historian, I would offer to the reader that the seas of change expressed in the election of our 44th president are not new. Instead, they are simply modern reflections of a fundamental redefinition of the concept of "justice" that first emerged approximately 100 years ago. Then and now, this "new" concept is antithetical to the understanding of justice as the founders understood it.

When the founders set about creating a new government after independence, they universally believed in the concepts of the natural rights of man bestowed upon mankind by our Creator. This belief that man enjoys rights bestowed upon him by God is crucial to the Founders' understanding of the proper role of government in this new world.

Thomas Jefferson expressed it concisely in the second sentence of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence with these words: "To secure these rights (inalienable rights of man), governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

In layman terms, that means that as far as the founders were concerned, since governments dispense justice, a government was just if it was protecting the God-given rights of man. The Declaration of Independence spells out those rights in the first sentence of the second paragraph: "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

To any objective student of history, the founding of this republic was to achieve that which had never been done before, i.e. establishing a government to protect each person's liberty and property. Equality was based upon the reality that we are all equal in the eyes of God and accountable to Him equally on our day of judgment. But equality was not the goal of the founders. Liberty was. And essential to liberty is ownership of one's own property. If you cannot own your own property, how can you be free?

For the past 100 years or so, progressive liberals have tried to redefine the meaning of justice. To them, the goal of government is not freedom or protection of property, but to rectify perceived social inequities. Consequently, government must protect the poor, secure everyone's safety in all things, and become involved in the development of its citizens — not through promotion of religion, but through protecting the environment, education and promotion of creative culture.

To do this, government must reject the decentralized approach of the federalism created by the founders and concentrate power in an administrative government dispensing a "nanny state" protective umbrella.

Among ordinary Americans, there still is a strong attachment to property rights, self-reliance, heterosexual marriage and an unapologetic willingness to use armed forces to defend their country.

But to intellectual "elites," those values conflict with their view of government dispensing a new form of justice to benefit the greatest number — a goal which necessarily requires a strong centralized administrative bureaucracy.

The victory of the progressive liberals in this most recent election demonstrates the old adage: "Be careful what you wish for." Because if government is to be the vendor of rights, instead of the defender of our natural rights, it will also become the destroyer of liberty, which was the true objective of the founders of this great republic.

John Fuller, of Whitefish, was the Republican candidate for House District 4.