According to Clifford D. May, the ideals of good governance
are formulated in the American Constitution and Bill of Rights where the rights
of individuals as opposed to the entitlements of groups are guaranteed. Apparently,
this is what makes America
the “best designated driver of the global political and economic order”.
May says so in the article he wrote under the title: “The
ideals of 1776” and the subtitle: “Should we return to them – and can we?”
published on November 1, 2016 in The Washington Times. He also says that the
British historian Andrew Roberts agrees with most of that, except for a few
details where the two diverge a little.
The reason why May brought up the name of Roberts, is that
the latter was recently in New York to give a
talk on America 's
current situation, hence the heading of his lecture: “1776: Would You Like to
Reconsider?” His main beef is that the primary system in America “is broken and urgently needs to be
reformed,” which suggests that America
can no longer pride itself on having the best democratic system in the world.
Clifford May says he agrees with that assessment but differs
with Andrew Roberts in that the latter is optimistic about the future of
democracy in America
whereas May is pessimistic. He explains his pessimism by pointing a finger at
“powerful progressives [who] regard the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as
documents subject to revision” by judges who would infringe on the First and
Second Amendments, for example, while adding others based on notions that they
view as social justice. May does not explain how the judges do that given that
the process of amending the Constitution is an arduous one, involving the
States and the Congress, and requiring several years to complete.
And then there is a president with a pen and a phone who
sidelines the Congress, says Clifford May. When you couple that with a
bureaucracy that makes rules without soliciting or obtaining public consent,
the separation of powers is violated, he explains. If this does not change, we
should be concerned, says he, because of an external threat that is looming on
the horizon; one that threatens “our democratic values”.
Actually that would be the thinking of Roberts who did not
name China
as the external threat, but referred to it as follows: “a totalitarian
state-capitalist model that is dangerously attractive in what it is producing
for its populations.” May quietly accepts this notion but rejects the idea that
Russia , Iran or North Korea “produce anything of
value for their populations.” He then adds cryptically: “Maybe what I want for
my children is not what they want for theirs”.
He now switches the discussion from the domestic scene to
the international one by first mentioning the brief history of Britain 's fall
from its peak to a low point between the two World Wars. That's when the burden
of leadership was transferred to America , he says. It was a good
thing, he adds, because the Soviet Union was on the march, and there is no
telling how far it would have gone had America been absent from the scene.
And so he laments that today, people on the Left and the
Right wish to see America retrench from the world rather than be the driver of
the global political and economic order. He worries that “the rulers of China , Russia ,
Iran and North Korea are
eager to get behind the wheel,” and he rejects President Obama's view that
transnational institutions can and will step in to provide leadership.
As to the American alternative, he concurs with the view of
Andrew Roberts that the ideals of 1776 can still work in the modern world,
except that they will be difficult to implement, says he. The problem at this
point is that Clifford May does not make clear whether he means reviving those
ideals in America only or throughout some kind of an American led alliance or
throughout the world.
Still, he quotes Roberts as saying that “America needs
to double down on the concepts that made her great and modernize the political
system that gave her global hegemony.” But he wonders if the next President
will lead that effort. If not, can the mission be accomplished regardless? He
wants to believe it can, given that the alternative is abysmal. But he wonders
if there exists a determination in America to get in the driver's seat
again.
What to make of this? Nothing much really except to say that
it is vintage Clifford May. He talks about human progress as if nothing existed
before America ,
and so dismisses the alternatives as being abysmal.
He does that as if none of the alternatives contributed an
ounce to what America
inherited two and a half centuries ago before developing into what it is today.
This makes it impossible for him to see that the nations
which used to be backward but are now advancing, will continue to advance till
they are no longer “abysmal,” if indeed they are that now.
Clifford May also ignores the fact that individualism exists
everywhere, not just in America .
That's because it is human nature, a trait we inherited from the lower
primates.