Charles Dickens wrote 15 major novels (I am quite pleased to say I have read 13 of them), but he also wrote many shorter works, both fiction and non-fiction. One of these is inaptly titled A Child’s History of England, a readable and fairly comprehensive book covering prehistoric times into the Victorian era, all in under 200 pages. The “Child’s” part of the title is fine if children should read about endless slaughter, torture, pillage, and brutality- the history of England was anything but playing croquet, sipping gin and tonics, and having polite conversations.

For much of England’s history those in power made decrees and the populace was expected to accept them. If the reigning monarch happened to be a Protestant, then everyone was required to embrace Protestantism. If he or she was a Catholic, the same thing. Many heads were removed for non-compliance, many limbs were torn from bodies, and many abdominal contents were eviscerated. If the monarch declared a portion of land was his or her exclusive hunting grounds, then peasants who had used the land for generations were putting their lives at risk if they encroached on the royal terrain. Essentially, there were no rights other than what a king or queen might grant them, and they could be changed or revoked on a whim. The Earl of Asholshire, being in the good favor of the monarch, could act locally as an unrestrained dictator.

Knowledge of these practices were not that far removed from the minds of people who were to create what became known as the USA, and they were committed to establishing something better: a country where rights were not arbitrary, where rights were not granted- and nullified- by the powerful, but were inherent to the masses, and the primary purpose of the government was to protect those rights. As Americans we all (hopefully) comprehend that there is something called the Bill of Rights as part of the Constitution. It’s interesting to look at the Bill of Rights through the lens of atrocities committed by England against its own people: one can almost see a refutation of the authoritarian rule of monarchs on a right by right basis. There was not to be a state religion, rather people could believe (or not believe) whatever they wanted. No, you can’t force people to house the king’s soldiers. No, the government can’t confiscate arms held by the people because how else can the people defend themselves against a tyrannical government? People want to say bad things about the government? Tough luck for those in power. No, you cannot arrest people simply you don’t like them, nor can the government do unusually cruel things like ripping off extremities.

People often fail to note that much of the substance of the Bill of Rights is what the government cannot do- limitations on those in power so they can’t become despotic kings. There was a song by the Who, called Won’t Get Fooled Again, which contained the simple but profound line, “Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss.” History so often repeats itself: idealists during the revolution, tyrants once in control. It was quite rare that George Washington, offered the opportunity to be the King, basically said, “No thanks, I’ll just be the President for a few years.

Overall rights are protections for those who don’t hold power from those who do, a means for people to benefit from the necessities of government without fear subjugation. The idea of “consent of the governed” was radical, and a clear statement of enforceable and inalienable rights was needed to disallow a replay of history yet again: wealthy and powerful people believing they have the right to intrude in and control the lives, beliefs, thoughts, and speech of the governed. Hence, the Bill of Rights.

Several years ago another President named Bill Clinton, far removed from George Washington, stated something like “Republicans believe people don’t have the right to attend college!” One can picture his targeted audience of the greedy, selfish, and ignorant responding with, “damn right, those bastard Republicans don’t think everyone has the right to go to college!” This was absurd, of course, because no Republican ever said such a thing, but it is also an excellent example of the word “specious”- having a false look of truth or genuineness/having deceptive attraction. Nevertheless, Clinton’s statement was disingenuously well-crafted, conflating rights with outcomes in life.

Too often we hear politicians and elitists in other realms trying to rile up people, evoke a sense of outrage, by stating partisan agenda goals in the form of rights: the right to healthcare, the right to a living wage, the right to ”choose,” the right affordable housing, the right to have enough to eat, even the right to internet access. Of course, this can be effective when people are 1) ignorant and 2) self-centered and 3) have pretensions of being compassionate: some of these objectives sound very worthy, and some indeed are, while others are simply to appease narcissism. But the cynical windbag politico trying to con voters with sweet words likely knows it is meaningless to state a policy or legislative agenda in the framework of rights, not unlike associating solutions to bad things to wars (“A war on cancer!”).

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this is that, by exploiting the word “right” the need to actually think though a situation and do something is largely obviated. Why might there be a lack of affordable housing? In part because the privileged wealthy- especially Democrats, based on geographic wealth data- drive up the cost of housing by their demand for convenience, luxury, and separation from the masses: rich people don’t necessarily want a plumber living too close, what with that unseemly work van parked on the street. In other words, the origin of and solutions to problems is usually very complex, but a publicity seeking politician or entrenched bureaucrat needn’t worry about realities if the simply declare something to be a “right.”

No reasoned discussion of rights can exist without a similar consideration of associated responsibilities, yet in the current climate this pairing of rights and responsibilities requires more than a slogan or soundbite, yet too many people wielding power realize disassociating rights from responsibilities sounds more appealing to too many people. Perhaps the topic of another posting.

Some final thoughts. Not long ago at all the word tolerance was in common use, however like hot bath water that gradually turns cold, the idea of tolerance has faded away, to be replaced by demands to embrace and “celebrate.” This represents a huge power shift from the ordinary person to the culturally and politically powerful. When the idea of tolerance is invoked in this post-modern era, it is one-way: “You must tolerate what I believe, but don’t expect any reciprocity.” To put it another way, “I have my rights, but you have only those I will allow,” which pretty much brings us back to the founding basis for the Bill of Rights: instead of monarchs we now have activists, academics, media figures, celebrities, and sycophantic, mostly Democrat, politicians, who believe rights are something granted at a whim by those holding power, and can be revoked if needed to advance a partisan agenda. Sadly, history is repeating itself...we are being fooled again.