You cannot blame a young kid that is exposed to temptation if they succumb. It has been proven that the brain of a youngster is still developing. Important parts of the brain that provide for good judgment continue developing into adulthood.
That is why older people often give younger people the benefit of the doubt. We were all, after all, once first exposed to alcohol, drugs, nudity, gambling, smoking, and, hopefully, we can remember some of our thought process at the time. I know in my case it was murky.
This is a common feature of a society, in which mature adults smile whimsically at the foibles of youth. It explains why my dad looked down on me in a hospital bed in Saugus, me still drunk, escorted me out the door to find my blue VW Bug that I had destroyed in a roll-over, collected my belongings, and drove me back to Ventura, all without a word of condemnation or judgment. Indeed, he has, in my recollection, mentioned this incident only once—in a brief aside to let me know, many years later, that he was aware of the situation and that I had no claim to moral superiority.
Indeed, “like a kid in a candy shop” has become a common reference for someone who could not resist temptation. As a reader of my prognostications, I am sure you anticipate that I will apply this lesson to history, or perhaps our political world. You are correct.
Let’s talk about Americans here. Residents of a country bounded on the north and south by friendly neighbors. On the east and west by oceans that provide a buffer from those who might seek to attack. It’s not foolproof, as Pearl Harbor demonstrated, (or the Mayflower, for that matter), but it is substantial.
Americans. Residents of a country in which mostly peaceful demonstrations by college students are the primary sources of civil unrest. Sure, we’ve had riots, and the Chicago Republican Convention in 1968, but we’ve usually managed to talk with one another, and get tired, and eventually agree to peacefully disagree.
Admit it: compared to the rest of the world we’re spoiled. It is one of the agreed purposes, after all, of our educational system to tell our youngsters not only about the wonders of our system, but the challenges that we had in the past, and that other people experience today, in establishing a system of government that respects the common people, provides due process, and avoids civic abuse. Along the way we decided we didn’t favor corruption, or nepotism, or authoritarianism.
We don’t like to think of ourselves as complainers. If there is a problem we fix it. And so it was when King George III, and his toady Lord North, used a heavy hand in dealing with the colonists in America. The colonists didn’t like the king—they didn’t like the very concept of royalty—and they certainly didn’t like the actions of their British overlords.
What exactly angered the colonists so much that they revolted, issued the Declaration of Independence, and adopted the U.S. Constitution? It isn’t hard to find out—the reasons are clearly set forth. I’ll review them here, but it is important to remember that the complaints resulted from actual acts of King George III—this is real stuff, actual behavior on British and the monarchy, who believed they had the right to exercise absolute dominion over others.
Here are samples of the King’s behavior as set forth in the Declaration:
— Slow in adopting reasonable rules of governance;
— Demanded that representatives of the people meet in in far distant, uncomfortable, locations, making it difficult for them to conduct the people’s business;
— Dissolved the meetings of the representatives when he disagreed;
— Made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries;
— Wants the military to be superior to the civil police;
— Demands that his troops be quartered with the people, at the expenses of the so-called hosts;
— Imposes taxes without the consent of the people.
History can be dry reading. I get it. That is unfortunate, though, because Americans should be reminded of the acts that King George III took that were particularly objectionable. Indeed, when it came time to draft the Constitution, there were certain acts of the King that were so abhorrent that the colonists wanted to make sure they were never repeated.
The Bill of Rights was written because someone with absolute authority had abused that authority. You’ve heard the rule: absolute power corrupts absolutely. A review of the Bill of Rights once in a while is a helpful reminder that the revolution wasn’t just theoretica, it was very practical. These rights were set forth because they had been disregarded:
Amendment I (1791)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II (1791)
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III (1791)
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV (1791)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V (1791)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI (1791)
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII (1791)
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII (1791)
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX (1791)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X (1791)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
We’re all busy. Each day we live in this country, though, it might be helpful to remember that our daily activities, access that we have to information (today the Internet), and our freedom to criticize the powerful and associate with whomever we feel like goddammit, is ours because a bunch of people wanted to be free and independent, and didn’t want a king deciding what was the best for them. That’s why New Hampshire’s motto is Live Free or Die; it’s why Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death.” It’s why the Gadsden flag during the revolution included the words Don’t Tread On Me. You remember.
When you think about it, we’re really not asked to do too much. Pay some attention to the events of our town, state, nation. Take a little care in electing those to whom we—that is WE, as in the people-give power as they act on our behalf. Watch those we’ve elected to make sure they behave.
This isn’t much, but still it can be tempting to let someone else do it, because we are, as I mentioned, very busy.
This is where the candy shop comes in. There are always those who would offer to willingly take over your civic responsibilities—those who depend, in fact, on your willful ignorance. After all, your right to speak, think, associate, select your own God if you so choose, are protected by our system, which pretty much runs on auto-pilot. You can usually depend on others—attorneys, judges, honest politicians, neighbors—to manage it.
It’s a candy shop, but unlike the youngsters, we are mature, with brains that have been fully developed. We can resist, object, and let it be known that suggestions that we can live with an autocrat, with a king, as tempting as they might sometimes seem, are not acceptable. Any candidate that suggests they aspire to such power should be reminded of the Declaration, the Bill of Rights, and our utter distaste for autocracy.
We should remind ourselves as well that any autocrat must eventually pass. It behooves us to ask about succession: in the absence of an established monarchy, around the globe it is often the family of the dictator or the military that decides who among the many intriguers will prevail. Power is intoxicating.
That’s why our tradition of elections and peaceful transition of power is a standard for the world.
It’s a free country, as we like to say. King Geoge III, based on what I’ve read, wasn’t all that bad a guy. He was a king, though, and he acted like a king. If there is a choice here in the candy shop between a king, and the rather messy system we’ve got here, I’ll take the mess.