Home of the free? Or land of the slavish?

Americans take pride in being the world’s freest people. We celebrate freedom on Independence Day. We sing of it before our sporting events. But haven’t history’s most brutal regimes concealed tyranny behind veils of patriotism and rhetorical allusions to liberty? After all, dictators don’t gain power while pledging chains and slavery. They gain power with glowing promises to free the masses.

Any 20th Century communist regime you’d care to name has followed this model. Hitler did, too. Islamic republics boast of the liberation wrought via their revolutions. And Hugo Chavez is utilizing this game plan to solidify his hold on Venezuela, much as did his Cuban hero, Fidel Castro.

To argue that the United States now mirrors Venezuela or the defunct Soviet Union is premature. However, it’s seems clear that Americans have less regard for liberty--and less liberty for that disregard--than did our forebears. Certainly our political leadership holds individual liberty in low esteem. We have ignored Benjamin Franklin’s wisdom and surrendered large chunks of liberty in return for temporary security. Just as Franklin warned, we have less liberty and security to show for our submission. To confirm the point let’s look at traits common to the free and slavish mind.

Free people revere the rule of law and its role in preserving civility. Yet it’s also understood that law enforcement’s prime purpose is to investigate crime scenes after the fact. Seldom are police able to foil crimes in progress.

Liberty requires it’s possessors to shoulder the burden of self-defense. Toward that end free people rely on some combination of mental preparedness, physical strength and weapons proficiency. These qualities, especially regarding arms, are paramount to that defense.

The slavish mentality accepts nothing related to self-preservation. Personal protection means petitioning governments to restrict or abolish the legal possession of arms. Ignored is the reality that criminals, by definition, disregard such laws. In absence of self-preservation the slavish person will demand surveillance cameras on every street corner. The just and the unjust are then treated as equals, which is the greatest of inequalities.

Freedom asks nothing more than an opportunity; a free person seeks only a chance. Liberty’s desire is to utilize individual talent, ingenuity, initiative and intellect to their greatest capacity and profitability. There are no guarantees and success is unpredictable. Whatever the results may be, that which was gained was earned, not granted.

The slavish mentality wants government to alter the starting line. It isn’t opportunity that slavish minds demand; it is advantage based on known or arbitrary criteria. What’s more, there must be an artificial outcome. Predictability, even when producing poor returns, is preferable to the risks of an unknown future. The product is invariably the equal distribution of mediocrity, which is considered preferable to the “inequalities” of the bourgeois meritocracy.

Personal responsibility is tantamount to the free individual. Meeting obligations is as natural as drawing breath. That may mean working one job, two jobs, or launching a primary or secondary business. Conversely, one spouse may drop from the work force to raise children, accepting the corresponding loss of income and necessary reduction in expenditures.

No so for the slavish. Only so much responsibility is acceptable. They will generally tolerate the burden of providing for their leisure and entertainment. But beyond that the onus rests on government. Nearly everything under the sun has become a collective concern. It is the state’s responsibility to keep human needs adequately supplied.

The fact that government can provide nothing to the slavish and indolent without first confiscating it from the free and productive is immaterial. Tragically, the demands of the willingly dependent eventually enslave the free as well, despite their best efforts to maintain independence.

Whether America remains the land of the free or becomes the home of the slavish rests on which mentality prevails. The free must love, protect and incessantly preach liberty. We haven’t yet descended into irreconcilable servitude. But we stand at the precipice.

Life isn’t fair, not even for the perfect

What a shame for Detroit’s Armando Galarraga. Veteran umpire Jim Joyce missed a call and the 21st perfect game in major league history vanished into the mystical land of what might have been. Even worse, the errant call occurred on the game’s 27th out.

This could’ve been one of the worst moments in baseball’s storied history. Instead, it’s one of the finest. Joyce publicly accepted responsibility for his error and Galarraga was gracious to a fault. Both men dealt with the situation like, well, men. Joyce and Galarraga treated us to an epiphanous event that transcended sports to reflect positively upon the human soul. Predictably, there are calls to obliterate the moment by “fixing” the injustice.

On the Oakland Press website a respondent wrote, “I think that MLB should give Galarraga a 28-out perfect game.” That writer’s isn’t alone. However, there’s no such thing as a 28-out perfect game. Therefore, awarding a perfect game where one doesn’t exist is wholly unworkable.

Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig was absolutely correct not to reverse Jim Joyce’s call. What would become of the 28th batter? Would he be what George Orwell referred to as an “unperson?” That batter must go somewhere. And that isn’t the only reason to leave matters alone.

Suppose the bad call were made with one out in the fifth instead of two out in the ninth? Should the league office reverse that call? What if the 28th batter, Trevor Crowe, had homered and the Cleveland Indians had rallied to victory? Should that hypothetical outcome be reversed since the Tigers would’ve won without the blown call? There are many worms here that should be left in the can.

The way Armando Galarraga, Jim Joyce and the Detroit fans dealt with this matter is more historic than even a perfect game. Galarraga’s name is forever etched in baseball lore. Not only will he be remembered for the perfect game that wasn’t, but for the grace and dignity he displayed. Galarraga did everything right and yet something went wrong, leaving him without the due result of his effort. Let the play stand anyway. Players make errors, managers miscalculate and umpires blow calls. That’s baseball. In fact, that’s life and it’s time people faced it. Life is never fair in the Utopian sense of the word.

Yet there’s an insatiable human desire to correct injustice and grant everyone they allegedly deserve. This concept was evident at an NAIA golf championship. Grant Whybark and Seth Doran were locked in a playoff for their conference’s individual title. Whybark had qualified for the national tournament on the strength of his team’s performance. So, on the first playoff hole he intentionally drove his ball out of bounds. Why? Whybark decided Doran deserved a spot in the national tournament.

However, if Doran deserved the title he would’ve won without Whybark’s charity. Whybark actually demeaned his opponent. He assumed that Doran’s abilities were inadequate to the task. That attitude, even when well-meaning, is indicative of our cultural inclination toward an elusive sense of deservedness.

Society must escape the notion that reward is based on the perception of what’s deserved. Someone can do everything right and still not receive the desired result. Behold exhibit A, Armando Galarraga. Eliminating life’s basic unfairness is impossible, and such social engineering would be inadvisable even if attainable.

Doran’s trip to the NAIA National Golf Championship can’t be fully satisfying due to the circumstances. The same is true for Galarraga. Were he awarded a perfect game after the fact it wouldn’t carry equal significance to baseball’s other perfect games.

Grant Whybark manipulated the concept of due recompense. Achievement and success are cheapened when busybodies try to right all wrongs and cure all injustices. Character is built, refined and revealed in overcoming obstacles and adversity. Armando Galarraga and Jim Joyce have personified that character with dignity, class and sportsmanship. Leave it at that, and know that life is seldom, if ever, fair.

Class envy and the selective war on success

There was a time when one generation wanted the next to achieve higher levels of success. Successful people served as role models for youth, a living testimony to the opportunities that freedom held. Somewhere along the way that became unfashionable. We now want to punish achievement, but only when it’s politically advantageous.

Remember when the Big Three auto executives flew to Washington aboard corporate jets? Congressional representatives roasted those CEO’s. It wasn’t entirely without cause, but not entirely just either.

The Big Three created a public relations nightmare no doubt. With the exception of Ford, they jetted to Washington and begged Congress to save their companies with an unborn generation’s money. Had the criticism ended right there it would’ve been warranted. Naturally, it didn’t end right there.

Those executives were held to represent anyone who has achieved a level of success that the anointed Left has deemed unfair. Soon it wasn’t only the Big Three’s jets but any corporate aircraft that was taboo. Leftists railed against private jets with the lusty zeal generally reserved for tax cuts.

The sentiment spread like wildfire. Despite a litany of logical arguments supporting corporate owned aircraft their existence was demonized as exemplary of greed and excess. It was a case study in political pandering. Unfortunately, it plays well to people who have recently lost jobs or are facing financial straits.

Why does anyone “need” a private jet? Why does anyone “need” a 25-room house? Does anyone “deserve” an eight-figure salary? Somewhere along the banks of the River Styx, Karl Marx must have felt vindicated.

Such class envy was born of a time when “the rich” were clearly defined. They were comprised of everyone who didn’t work at an hourly job, especially a unionized hourly job. Most people defined “the rich” as anyone appearing to have reached a greater level of success than their own. It was wrong, but at least understandable. Now even that line has been blurred.

Media reporters and political speechmakers excoriated any company or individual that owned a private jet, or had attained an unapproved level of success and wealth. They used the impression of automotive and banking miscreants--along with a recession rooted in the political manipulation of the mortgage and housing markets--to tar and feather achievers.

Instead of encouraging low and middle income people to adopt the attitudes of the successful, Leftists called them greedy crooks. Now, why aren’t those same people criticizing Oprah?

The talk show queen is one of the richest women in the world. She has a $42 million private jet. Luxury homes, fine cars and ornate jewelry aren’t strangers to Oprah. What’s more, she isn’t shy about liking the perks she has attained. In fact, she says it’s great to have nice homes and a private jet.

Where are the Leftists? Where is ACORN, the Rainbow Coalition and every other organization dedicated to eradicating success and private wealth? Why aren’t they shouting and protesting Oprah’s extravagant lifestyle? Their silence is deafening and their reason is plain. Oprah shares their political views; therefore her wealth is accepted, not reviled.

Don’t misunderstand; I’m not condemning Oprah at all. She was truthful. She’s not ashamed to enjoy her posh lifestyle. This is one of the few moments in which I agree with Oprah, and I respect her honesty. I only wonder why other achievers don’t adopt her attitude.

No one who earns wealth through legitimate means should fear offending others. They shouldn’t have to defend their success against the pandering, power-seeking dogma of political hacks, talking head news anchors, or meddlesome activists.

We once considered high achievers and risk-takers to be icons of the American experiment. We now determine their legitimacy based on their political viewpoints. The rest must apologize for their performance, if only to soothe our petty jealousies.