“We have nothing to fear but . . .”

The Constitution
a citizen’s view
“We have nothing to fear but . . .”
Words made famous in an earlier era of economic disaster. Then, as now, the Constitution was being avoided, trampled on and generally set aside while drastic measures were instituted, purportedly to correct the condition in which the country found itself.
Of note is the fact that none of the enactments of that earlier era actually worked. According to most present day economists and historians, it was World War II which ended the debacle of Keynesian economics and “put the country back to work”. Unfortunately, the overriding of the Constitution has continued right up to the present day.
Which makes us ask the question: had the Constitution been followed would the tragedy of 1932 occurred? To that must be noted the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913 which effectively removed market forces from determining the value of the nation’s currency. It also usurped a power only authorized for Congress, namely the coining of money and establishing its value.
Is it “fear of government”? Or is it “fear of the politicians” who have been and are inhabiting government?
A reading of the Constitution should allay most “fears” since it is quite explicit in limiting the powers of the federal government and emphasizing that those “powers not granted to the federal government” are reserved to the states or to the people. (Art. I , Sec. 8 and Amendments IX and X)
So the concern has to be how did we drift or how did our leaders take us so far off course? What were, or who were the proponents of, those laws, regulations and bureaucratic encumbrances that have brought us to our present state of disaffection with government?
Is the U.S. citizen overtaxed for the services rendered?
Is the U.S. respected throughout the civilized world?
Is the U.S. on the solid financial footing that existed for much of its history?
Is the U.S. a thriving, productive nation with a sound economy?
Is the U.S. a nation of savers or consumers?
Is the U.S. more socialist than a constitutional republic (its foundation)?
Is the U.S. the same “melting pot” of many nationalities with which it began or has it become a multi-
cultural, unintegrated, ethnic oriented society?
Is the U.S. a republic or a plutocracy?

Long forgotten is the fact that the early settlers of this continent tried socialistic approaches in both Massachusetts and Virginia. They proved unworkable and the people did not have sufficient food or other requirements for decent living. It was only when both areas decided to establish property rights and recognize that an individual should be entitled to the fruits of his/her labor that conditions improved and the country was off in the right direction for growth, expansion and economic well being.

In most situations, fear comes from the unknown. Fears are allayed when creditable information with true facts are presented. This was part of what underlay the change from the Articles of Confederation to the present Constitution. The country had found the Articles inadequate resulting in conflicting interpretations and lacking in sufficient detail to allow the citizens to know what to expect or would happen next. Such uncertainty works against economic progress and stifles entrepreneurship as well as innovation. People lose heart and become unwilling to try to improve their lot. From the socialist standpoint, this is exactly what is desired since it ultimately puts more people under the control of the government. Socialism always talks a good fight for the betterment of mankind, but historically has never produced it.

What we have to fear is the unknown. This happens when we stray from the Constitution which provides a solid foundation that limits the federal government to those activities wherein it can protect the rights of the citizens as stated in the Declaration of Independence.