What If America Fails?

The question in many social circles is unthinkable, and in others still, treason.  Why is that?  The idea that such a question is so ridiculous sounding and "extreme" is a symptom of the failures of government Ron Paul's November 2012 farewell address points to in front of the House of Representatives.

Let's think seriously about this hypothetical.  The founding of our Constitution was on undeveloped land over 200 years ago, far from serious threats, and plenty of room to stretch.  If our government fails, there is nowhere to set sail, nowhere to stretch out, and no protection for new beginning on earth.  This is all we have.  If our government descends into the depth of misery that is projected, then the cascade of potential tragedies becomes blindingly huge.  Your imagination should be sufficient, you don't have to rely on me to conjure examples.

If that scares you a bit, then you're doing it right.  If you have no reaction to the thought of a failed United States government, then it's up to you to wonder why.  But, I know why I would ignore something like this.  I would ignore this had I not had a background in political science.  I would ignore this if I was not taught at my university that written and spoken news is vastly superior to what somehow still passes for news on television.  I would ignore this if I didn't have a background in history that shows what it takes to earn freedom, and more foreboding, what happens when freedom and liberty is lost.  I would ignore this if I believed it just couldn't happen.  But, based on what I see in politics, attitudes of the ignorant, and the economy; how could this not fail?  If you are unchallenged by this, I challenge you now, look at this country with new eyes.

We live in an age of distraction and complacency unrivaled throughout the ages.  It is easier now, more than ever before, to find satisfaction in ignorance.  I believe I have grown up in a generation that was given every opportunity to avoid reality.  Reality, in the broadest sense, is the beginning to growth as an individual thinker.  Reality allows people to consider their life priorities.  Reality allows people to measure themselves, their talents, their weaknesses, and their hopes and dreams against the world in which they live.

In other words, I hope to remind people that invincibility is impossible, especially to something man-made like the land of the free and the home of the brave, but that does not mean it's not worth saving.  Good can come from man, but never has good come from selfish ignorance.

I believe the United States government can fail.  And if there's anything I can do to keep our Constitution alive, I will.  Will you?

Commonweath vs. State

There are 4 commonwealths in the United States.  They are Virginia (yay), Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts.  You can notice right away they're geographically eastern political territories and, generally speaking, older governments than most of the United States.  The only commonwealth not in the original 13 colonies was Kentucky, and they were at one point simply an extension of Virginia and kept commonwealth status when they gained their autonomy in 1790.

Legally, commonwealth = state under The Constitution.  So why make any distinction?  Most people don't.  Even residents of the commonwealth in which I live refer to this territory a state, and even I find it hard to remember, (but I do correct myself)!

I've found there are two reasons these 4 territories remain titled commonwealths.  First, these commonwealths have a tradition, a history, to uphold in their formation and foundation as political entities standing against tyranny and oppression.  There's a matter of pride and tradition involved in titles and historically significant events each of these governments hold.  Second, is an extension of the sentiment through the history of "the commonwealth."  Commonwealths are governments entirely devoted to the good of the people, often used interchangeably with the word republic, (keep in mind the United States is a democratic republic).  This, however, is in contrast to what is an acceptable determination of statehood.  Statehood is simply a governance of political community.  But, to what end?  Is it implied that the good of the people is the interest of the government?  I'll leave those questions to rumination.

Now, I'll address some perspectives that are bound to arise.  Is a commonwealth communist or socialist in nature?  No.  Could a communist government be a commonwealth?  Sure, (though probably not for long if history is any indication).

In other words, there's a difference between a state and a commonwealth.  It may not be a legal one, it may not be tangable in the basic sense, but commonwealth representatives are automatically held to a higher standard than other public officials.  They are responsible for good of the people, not simply entrusted with the governance or oversight like most governments.