Kirch-Blogger

This particular incident occurred during a ferry mission that involved picking up a C-123B aircraft that had been grounded for an engine change at Hickam AFB, and delivering it to the Royal Thai Air Force at Don Muang AFB outside Bangkock, Thailand. A crew of five; two pilots, a navigator, a flight engineer, and a loadmaster; met at Hickam AFB, conducted a 5-hour engine-change check flight, signed for the aircraft, and prepared to deliver the aircraft to Thailand. This ferry mission would require six flights and approximately 40 hours of flying time to reach Bangkok.

Figure 1 – C-123 Provider

All of the crew, except the navigator, were from the 317th Troop Carrier Squadron at Pope AFB and had flown together many times. The navigator was from a RC-121 Airborne Surveillance Squadron out of March AFB as I remember. While he had comparable experience to the rest of the crew, his usual navigation and communication equipment was some of the most sophisticated in the Air Force at the time. He was quite surprised, even amazed, to find that the only navigation equipment on board the C-123B consisted of a gyro compass, a VOR/TACAN system, an ADF radio, a Mark I Loran system (LORAN-A), and a hand-held sextant. He commented that he hadn’t seen, let alone used, equipment that old since navigation training school. The only Mark I Loran he had ever seen was a display unit at the Nav school. In the early 1960s, Loran was the state-of-the-art in long-range navigation position-fixing technology. It was the GPS of the day and worked on the same principle of determining position from the delta time-of-arrival from several different ground-based high-frequency radio stations. Loran accuracy was on the order of one nautical mile with the Mark I system. The navigator spent the entire engine-change check flight familiarizing himself with the navigation equipment and testing their operation.

The C-123B aircraft has a manual flight control system and does not have an autopilot system. While the aircraft can be manually trimmed to maintain heading and altitude, a pilot must be at the controls at all times. When the pilot at the controls wants to take a break, the procedure was to poke the other pilot and tell him that he has the controls. Once the “autopilot” was engaged, the former pilot could relax until he was “reengaged” as the active pilot. The C-123B is also not pressurized and does not have an air conditioning system. Cockpit ventilation is provided by a suction manifold above the windshield.

In order to understand the lack of modern, even for the time, systems and equipment on the aircraft one must understand when, and for what mission, the aircraft was originally designed. The C-123B aircraft was designed in the late 1940s early 1950s to perform the air assault mission that the C-47 towed gliders performed during WW II. The C-123B was basically designed as a powered glider that would land gear up on unprepared surfaces to deliver troops, equipment, and supplies behind enemy lines. It even had a tow ring mounted in the nose of the aircraft.. The main nacelle fuel tanks were designed to be jettisonable in flight to minimize the possibility of fire during an assault landing. With the fuel tanks jettisoned only about 90 gallons of flammable oil remained on board. With a normal fuel load of 8,000 pounds (1,000 gallons) of 115/145 high-octane gasoline in the nacelle tanks, and two pylon-mounted 120-gallon(?) external drop tanks, the normal no-wind maximum range of the C-123B was around 800+ miles. Since most of the island-hopping legs across the Pacific are at, or exceeded, the 800 mile maximum range of the aircraft, ferry mission aircraft were equipped with a 600-gallon auxiliary fuel tank pallet-mounted in the cargo bay. Since the P&W R2800 engines normally burned quite a bit of oil, a 55-gallon drum of engine oil was also mounted in front of the landing gear well to replenish the 48-gallon nacelle oil tanks in flight.

Figure 2 – Wake Island Runway

The flight from Hickam to the Midway Islands was routine and uneventful, as was the flight to Wake Island, except that the Loran system quit shortly after takeoff from Midway. The Loran system would prove to be unreliable throughout the mission, primarily due to a shortage of parts and experienced maintenance personnel. That’s the problem with actually using antiques. The navigator swore that the Loran system was wired through the landing gear down-lock switches and would only work with the gear down..

The takeoff, climb out, and cruise from Wake Island for the approximately 7-hour flight to Anderson AFB at Guam Island started routinely. The Loran system was again proving to be unreliable and navigation had to be based primarily on dead reckoning (DR); heading, airspeed, drift meter readings, and ADF bearings; augmented by periodic sun shots with the hand-held sextant. Sun shots were proving difficult due to scattered cloudiness, and the associated turbulence, which interrupted several attempted shots. The navigator was staying very busy trying to verify our DR position. Our actual location would become very important very soon.

A little over three hours after takeoff from Wake Island the crew, except for the navigator, had completed their normal in flight routines. The pilot in the right (copilot’s) seat was being the autopilot and I was relaxing with a cigarette in the left seat. The flight engineer and loadmaster were lounging in the rear of the aircraft and the navigator was calculating his next sun shot. Abruptly the right (#2) engine just quit.. no sputter or surge. It just quit, like the ignition had been turned off. The other pilot and I just looked at each other.. the moment of Stark Terror, and in the middle of the Pacific Ocean yet! We were almost exactly halfway between Wake Island and Guam and it was highly questionable if we had enough fuel remaining to get to either of them on one engine.

Figure 3 – Stark Terror

After the Moment of Stark Terror, the copilot and I started the engine failure emergency checklist. Before I could do anything other than turn on the fuel boost pumps, push the mixture levers to full rich, and the propeller control levers to maximum RPM, the #2 engine restarted and ran normally by all indications. The flight engineer visually checked the #2 engine for indications of a malfunction. The engine appeared normal in all respects which was verified by all engine indicators. After we had observed the engine for less than a minute, it quit again.. Another moment of Stark Terror. Then it started running again after about 15 seconds, and then it quit again, and then it restarted again after about 15 seconds. By now we knew that we had an engine that was having a serious problem, even though we had no idea what the problem was nor how long it would keep functioning.

We completed the emergency engine failure checklist for the left engine except we left the power at cruise setting, no need to stress it unnecessarily. Since the right (#2) engine was having some kind of problem, we decided to minimize the stress on it by setting the engine speed to a “gyroscopic” value, an rpm that the engine will turn at with minimum vibration if one or more cylinders is inoperative. As I remember this was a setting of 2100 rpm at 21 inches of manifold pressure. (Give me a break on these values, after all its been 45 years.) This put minimum stress on the malfunctioning #2 engine, yet provided enough power for it to carry its own weight without having to stress the good engine. At this point, we were babying both engines as much as possible short of sending the flight engineer outside to caress them.

Figure 4 – Runway cliffs, Anderson AFB Guam

After we reset the engine rpm, the #2 engine smoothed out and quit cutting out every few seconds. With the eminent danger of having to shut down an engine apparently over, the next question was where was the nearest place to land if the #2 engine decided to completely quit. That question immediately put the navigator as the center of attention. He was already making a DR estimate of our position from his last fix point. His best determination of our position was that we were approximately 20 minutes short of the “equal-time point”, the point at which it would take the same amount of time to continue to Guam or return to Wake Island, with both engines operating. Considering that 1) our speed would be slower on one engine, 2) the runway at Anderson AFB on Guam is on top of 200 foot sheer cliffs, and 3) the runway at Wake is maybe six feet above high tide; the decision was made to return to Wake Island. An option to divert to Saipan Island was considered if it turned out we didn’t have enough fuel to make it all the way back to Wake Island. This was a consideration because our weight might require the use of METO (Maximum Except Take Off) power to maintain level flight which would greatly increase our fuel consumption. We normally compute single-engine fuel required from the mid-point of each leg of an over water flight, but for no-wind conditions. In our particular case, we had a moderate westerly wind that was nearly a direct crosswind. This would require more fuel than the pre computed value, and be a headwind for a diversion to Saipan. So it was back to Wake Island…

As if to emphasize this decision, the #2 engine decided to cut out again for a few seconds. This would prove to be a preview of the next 4 hours of the flight. Every 15 to 20 minutes the #2 engine would stop running for 5 seconds or so and then start running smoothly again. A continuing series of Moments of Stark Terror because we never knew if it would restart again.

When the #2 engine first cut out, the copilot had called a PAN alert on the HF radio emergency frequency to advise all ground control station and aircraft that we were experiencing engine problems. Every ship, aircraft, and ground station in the Pacific should have heard that our aircraft was having trouble and approximately where we were. At least that’s what we hoped. Rule one when flying is to fly the plane first and talk last. On the first radio call we only gave our identification, nature of the problem, flight path, and time out of Wake Island because that’s all we knew at the time. After we had assessed the situation and made our decision to return to Wake, we called Wake Island Radio and advised them of our continuing malfunctioning engine, estimated position and ground speed, and intent to return to Wake and ETA (estimated time of arrival). Wake Radio acknowledged our situation and requested that we descend 1000 feet to conform to altitude/heading flight rules. Since we had by then determined that it would be marginal to make it back to Wake on one engine, and since altitude is life when flying, we requested clearance at our present altitude, and all altitudes below us, for the return flight. Wake Radio approved our request and asked if we would like to declare an emergency and needed SAR (Sea-Air Rescue) escort.

The #2 engine was still cutting out on a regular basis and for varying lengths of time. We had also recalculated our weight, position, and airspeed, and determined that if the #2 engine failed completely we would most likely not be able to make it back to Wake Island. We would have to either ditch or bail out over water short of the island. Given this situation, we declared an emergency and requested a SAR escort for the return flight. Wake Radio acknowledged our emergency and scrambled the local SAR aircraft, a Grumman SA-16 Albatross seaplane. SAR gave us an ETI (estimated time to intercept) of 2 hours.

Figure 5 – Grumman SA-16 Albatross

During the 4 hour return flight back to Wake Island, we made periodic position reports to Wake Radio and prepared for a complete failure of #2 engine. Our calculations indicated that if #2 failed more than 2 hours out of Wake that we would have to dump so much fuel to maintain level flight that we would not be able to reach the island. The sea state showed there were significant swells on the surface that would make successful ditching unlikely. The C-123B did have a ditching procedure, but the tail section tends to break off at the cargo door making survival unlikely. We therefore decided that we would not ditch but would bail out at 1000 feet above the water. Besides parachutes, our survival equipment consisted of rubber survival suits, individual dinghies, and a 6-man inflatable raft. None of the crew had been to water survival training, so we reviewed all the instructions on the equipment and our checklists. We didn’t put on the survival suits because it was fairly warm in the aircraft and it would be easy to overheat in the survival suits. We also figured that at our current altitude we had at least 20 minutes after an engine failure until we would have to bail out, plenty of time to put on a survival suit and parachute.

Having prepared for a complete engine failure we spent the next 3+ hours waiting for the #2 engine to fail at any time, and making sure that the #1 engine was not being stressed in any way. The SAR SA-16 made their intercept within 5 minutes of their original estimate and fell into a loose formation off our right wing to keep an eye on our #2 engine. Our cruise airspeed with the #2 engine at a gyroscopic power setting was slightly less than 105 knots (120 mph). The SA-16 crew commented to us that we were the only aircraft they had intercepted that they could keep up with. They generally intercepted four-engine C-124 aircraft with an engine out. The C-124 three-engine speed was faster than the maximum speed of the twin-engine SA-16. We landed back at Wake Island without further complications, other than the periodic cutting out of the #2 engine.

After landing and engine shutdown we immediately opened up the #2 nacelle to check the engine. There were no immediate visible problems, however a close inspection of the engine revealed that one spark plug on one cylinder had blown out the core which exposed the electrode to shorting-out on the engine block. When the electrode shorted to the engine, it had the effect of cutting off the ignition to the engine. The vibration caused by the engine cutting out would move the loose electrode around enough to stop the shorting. This is what was causing the repeated cutting out and restarting of the engine. If the electrode had become jammed in a shorted condition we would have lost the engine for good, and possibly the aircraft. The damaged plug was removed and the cylinder was thoroughly borescoped to make sure that there was no internal damage. The cylinder was undamaged and a couple of new plugs solved what could have been a serious problem. A prolonged engine run-up and post-run visual check verified that the #2 engine was operating normally. Clearance was received from our maintenance section at Pope AFB to continue the ferry mission the next day.

Immediately after securing the aircraft we proceeded to deliver the best bottle of liquor we could find on the island to the SAR ready room. We thanked the crew that intercepted us and told them to have several drinks on us when they got off duty. We discussed the day’s events and told them what had been the problem with our engine. After personal thanks all around, we headed to the local bar to get smashed so we could sleep that night. Needless to say we were still full of adrenalin from 4 hours worth of Moments of Stark Terror.

Apparently everybody in the Pacific was aware of our situation due to our use of the emergency HF frequency. At one point we had to relay a position report through Okinawa due to poor reception with Wake. Everyone at the bar was aware of our emergency and several people brought us rounds of drinks.

The next day, after a through pre-flight and engine run-up, we completed our flight to Anderson AFB at Guam, and the rest of the mission to Don Muang RTAFB, without further problems. While many people have flown the Pacific in twin-engine aircraft, I think most pilots will agree that the Pacific Ocean is definitely a four-engine ocean.

Louis Kirchdorfer
April 20, 2009

The American Ideal of 1776:
The Twelve Basic American Principles

A Principle of The Traditional American Philosophy

3. Unalienable Rights – From God

“. . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . .” (Declaration of Independence)

The Principle

1. The traditional American philosophy teaches that Man, The Individual, is endowed at birth with rights which are unalienable because given by his Creator.

The Only Moral Basis

2. This governmental philosophy is uniquely American. The concept of Man’s rights being unalienable is based solely upon the belief in their Divine origin. Lacking this belief, there is no moral basis for any claim that they are unalienable or for any claim to the great benefits flowing from this concept. God-given rights are sometimes called Natural Rights–those possessed by Man under the Laws of Nature, meaning under the laws of God’s creation and therefore by gift of God. Man has no power to alienate–to dispose of, by surrender, barter or gift–his God-given rights, according to the American philosophy. This is the meaning of “unalienable.”

One underlying consideration is that for every such right there is a correlative, inseparable duty–for every aspect of freedom there is a corresponding responsibility; so that it is always Right-Duty and Freedom-Responsibility, or Liberty-Responsibility. There is a duty, or responsibility, to God as the giver of these unalienable rights: a moral duty–to keep secure and use soundly these gifts, with due respect for the equal rights of others and for the right of Posterity to their just heritage of liberty. Since this moral duty cannot be surrendered, bartered, given away, abandoned, delegated or otherwise alienated, so is the inseparable right likewise unalienable. This concept of rights being unalienable is thus dependent upon belief in God as the giver. This indicates the basis and the soundness of Jefferson’s statement (1796 letter to John Adams): “If ever the morals of a people could be made the basis of their own government it is our case . . .”

Right, Reason, and Capacity to Be Self-governing

3. For the security and enjoyment by Man of his Divinely created rights, it follows implicitly that Man is endowed by his Creator not only with the right to be self-governing but also with the capacity to reason and, therefore, with the capacity to be self-governing. This is implicit in the philosophy proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. Otherwise, Man’s unalienable rights would be of little or no use or benefit to him. Faith in Man–in his capacity to be self-governing–is thus related to faith in God as his Creator, as the giver of these unalienable rights and this capacity.

Rights–as Prohibitions Against Government

4. Certain specific rights of The Individual are protected in the original Constitution but this is by way of statements “in reverse”–by way of express prohibitions against government. The word “right” does not appear in the original instrument. This is because it was designed to express the grant by the people of specific, limited powers to the central government–created by them through this basic law–as well as certain specific limitations on its powers, and on the preexisting powers of the State governments, expressed as prohibitions of things forbidden. Every provision in it pertains to power.

The Constitution’s first eight (Bill of Rights) amendments list certain rights of The Individual and prohibit the doing of certain things by the central, or Federal, government which, if done, would violate these rights. These amendments were intended by their Framers and Adopters merely to make express a few of the already-existing, implied prohibitions against the Federal government only–supplementing the prohibitions previously specified expressly in the original Constitution and supplementing and confirming its general, over-all, implied, prohibition as to all things concerning which it withheld power from this government. Merely confirming expressly some of the already-existing, implied prohibitions, these amendments did not create any new ones. They are, therefore, more properly referred to as a partial list of limitations–or a partial Bill of Prohibitions–as was indicated by Hamilton in The Federalist number 84. This hinges upon the uniquely American concepts stated in the Declaration of Independence: that Men, created of God, in turn create their governments and grant to them only “just” (limited) powers–primarily to make and keep secure their God-given, unalienable rights including, in part, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. As Hamilton stated, under the American philosophy and system of constitutionally limited government, “the people surrender nothing;” instead, they merely delegate to government–to public servants as public trustees–limited powers and therefore, he added, “they have no need of particular reservations” (in a Bill of Rights). This is the basic reason why the Framing Convention omitted from the Constitution anything in the nature of a separate Bill of Rights, as being unnecessary.

An Endless List of Rights

5. To attempt to name all of these rights–starting with “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence–would be to start an endless list which would add up to the whole of Man’s Freedom (Freedom from Government-over-Man). They would add up to the entirety of Individual Liberty (Liberty against Government-over-Man). Innumerable rights of The Individual are embraced in the Ninth Amendment, which states: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (Here “Constitution” includes the amendments.) Some idea of how vast the list would be is indicated by just one general freedom which leads into almost all of Free Man’s activities of daily living throughout life: freedom of choice. This term stands for the right to do–and equally not to do–this or that, as conscience, whim or judgement, taste or desire, of The Individual may prompt from moment to moment, day by day, for as long as life lasts; but always, of course, with due regard for the equal rights of others and for the just laws expressive of the above-mentioned “just powers” of government designed to help safeguard the equal rights of all Individuals. Spelled out in detail, this single freedom–freedom of choice–is almost all-embracing.

Right To Be Let Alone

6. In one sense, such freedom to choose involves Man’s right to be let alone, which is possessed by The Individual in keeping with the Declaration and Constitution as against government: in enjoyment of his unalienable rights, while respecting the equal rights of others and just laws (as defined in Paragraph 5 above). This right to be let alone is the most comprehensive of rights and the right of most prized by civilized men. This right is, of course, also possessed as against all other Individuals, all obligated to act strictly within the limits of their own equal rights. Consequently any infringement of any Individual’s rights is precluded.

Rights Inviolable by Government or by Others

7. Neither government nor any Individuals–acting singly, or in groups, or in organizations–could possibly possess any “just power” (to use again the significant term of the Declaration) to violate any Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights or the supporting rights. No government can abolish or destroy–nor can it rightfully, or constitutionally, violate–Man’s God-given rights. Government cannot justly interfere with Man’s deserved enjoyment of any of these rights. No public official, nor all such officials combined, could possibly have any such power morally. Government can, to be sure, unjustly and unconstitutionally interfere by force with the deserved enjoyment of Man’s unalienable rights. It is, however, completely powerless to abolish or destroy them. It is in defense of these rights of all Individuals, in last analysis, that the self-governing people–acting in accordance with, and in support of, the Constitution–oppose any and all violators, whether public officials or usurpers, or others (par. 9 below).

Each Individual Consents to Some Limitations

8. In creating governments as their tools, or instruments, and equally in continuing to maintain them–for the purpose primarily of making and keeping their unalienable rights–all Individuals composing the self-governing people impliedly and in effect consent to some degree of limitation of their freedom to exercise some of their rights. This does not involve the surrender, or the alienation, of any of these rights but only the partial, conditional and limited relinquishment of freedom to exercise a few of them and solely for the purpose of insuring the greater security and enjoyment of all of them; and, moreover, such relinquishment is always upon condition that public officials, as public servants and trustees, faithfully use the limited powers delegated to government strictly in keeping with their prescribed limits and with this limited purpose at all times. It was in this sense that George Washington, as President of the Framing Convention in September, 1787, wrote to the Congress of the Confederation–in transmitting to it, for consideration, the draft of the proposed Constitution: “. . . Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest.” Here he meant merely conditional relinquishment of liberty of action in the exercise of certain aspects of unalienable rights–not the surrender of any unalienable rights, which would be impossible because a nullity, a void act.

An Offender’s Just Punishment

9. Whenever Man violates either the equal rights of others or the above-mentioned just laws, he thereby forfeits his immunity in this regard; by his misconduct, he destroys the moral and legal basis for his immunity and opens the door to just reprisal against himself, by government. This means that any person, as such offender, may justly be punished by the people’s proper instrumentality–the government, including the courts–under a sound system of equal justice under equal laws; that is, under Rule-by-Law (basically the people’s fundamental law, the Constitution). Such punishment is justified morally because of the duty of all Individuals–in keeping with Individual Liberty-Responsibility–to cooperate, through their instrumentality, government, for the mutual protection of the unalienable rights of all Individuals. The offender is also justly answerable to the aggrieved Individual, acting properly through duly-established machinery of government, including courts, designed for the protection of the equal rights of all Individuals.

It is the offender’s breach of the duty aspect of Individual Liberty-Responsibility which makes just, proper and necessary government’s punitive action and deprives him of any moral basis for protest. By such breach he forfeits his moral claim to the inviolability of his rights and makes himself vulnerable to reprisal by the people, through government, in defense of their own unalienable rights. By this lack of self-discipline required by that duty, he invites and makes necessary his being disciplined by government.

The Conclusion

10. Man’s unalienable rights are sacred for the same reason that they are unalienable–because of their Divine origin, according to the traditional American philosophy.

Quotes from The American Ideal of 1776 supporting this Principle.

Zdrastvuitcha! Tavarisch! Kak Delah?

Communism is all the fashion in the USSA today! (See original article here)

Saks has decided to run with the successful Obama “Hope” campaign poster style of Soviet Communist propaganda and run their Spring line up as if we were all one big good ol’ socialist utopia…Oh wait…we are already…oops!

Why not take some of that bourgeoisie, ill-gotten wealth from those according to their ability (you) and spread it to those according to their need (Saks), this spring? It’s the “neighborly” thing to do.

Compare

Innocent advertising campaign? Or a sign that the stigma around socialist and communist images has vanished? – (found on Glenn Beck.com must be an Insider subscriber to listen)

Das Vadaniya Commrade! And have a wonderful Obama Day, neighbor!

The American Ideal of 1776:
The Twelve Basic American Principles

A Principle of The Traditional American Philosophy

2. Fear of Government-over-Man

“In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution” – Thomas Jefferson (Kentucky Resolutions)

The Principle

1. A main principle of the traditional American philosophy is expressed in the phrase: fear of Government-over-Man.

Cause of Fear

2. This fear is due to the ever-present, never-changing weaknesses of human nature in government which are conducive to “love of power and proneness to abuse it,” as Washington’s Farewell Address warned. This means public officials’ human weaknesses, especially as aggravated by the corresponding weaknesses among the self-governing people themselves. It is a truism that government’s power needs only to exist to be feared–to be dominant, over the fear-ridden, without ever needing to be exercised aggressively.

Man–Good and Evil, Mixed

3. This philosophy asserts that human nature is a mixture of good and evil, of strength and weakness, and is not perfectible during life on earth. There is “a portion of virtue and honor among Mankind” and the better side of Man, the Individual, can be strengthened and made more dependable through spiritual growth. The resulting moral development is conducive to sound conduct, in keeping with conscience in the light of a personal moral code based upon religious-moral considerations. Yet history teaches that the previously mentioned weaknesses of human nature provide just cause for never-ceasing fear of Government-over-Man.

Government Like a Fire

4. Americans of the period 1776-1787 firmly believed in the soundness of the accepted maxim that “government is like a fire: a dangerous servant and a fearful master;” that, to be useful, it must be strictly controlled for safety against its getting out of hand and doing great harm. Through the generations, the people have considered that this maxim expresses one of history’s most profoundly important lessons for Free Man. This maxim is based upon the knowledge that, in last analysis, government is force and must be feared and controlled accordingly. The great fear in 1787-1788 of the new, central government under the proposed Constitution was evidenced by the fact that the State Ratifying Conventions proposed scores of amendments, designed chiefly to keep under more rigid control what they considered to be this potential monster of power so dangerous to their liberties: the central, or Federal, government.

The Views of Jefferson and Madison and the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions

5. This fear was of abuse by government of power granted to it by the people, as well as of usurpation by it of power denied or prohibited to it by them, through the Constitution, to the injury if not doom of their liberties–of the God-given, unalienable rights of The Individual. Jefferson merely voiced the lesson of history–well known to, and accepted by, his fellow Americans–when he stated, in the “Diffusion of Knowledge” Bill in 1779, in the Virginia legislature:

“. . . experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government], those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny . . .”

Jefferson also expressed this traditional, American viewpoint in his famous writing known as the Kentucky Resolutions, as adopted in 1798 by the Kentucky legislature, in these words in part:

“. . . it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism: free government is founded in jealousy and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited Constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which and no further our confidence may go; . . . In questions of power then let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

These Kentucky Resolutions are closely akin to the contemporaneous Virginia Resolutions of 1798 adopted soon afterward by the Virginia legislature–written mainly by Madison who was, as usual, in close touch with Jefferson in this period. Both sets of resolutions were protests against what were considered and denounced as abuses and usurpations of power by the Federal government–chiefly through the Alien and Sedition Laws adopted by Congress in 1798. Such protests by a State legislature were in keeping with the remedies available to the States in such a situation – remedies contemplated by The Framers as being within the constitutional system–as discussed, for example, by Madison in 1788 in The Federalist number 46. The Sedition Act was designed to restrict freedom of speech and of the Press so as to stifle criticism of Federal officials and therefore grossly violated the Constitution; and it was opposed, for example, by John Marshall, as a member of Congress, and by Alexander Hamilton–the latter stating: “Let us not establish a tyranny.” (These laws soon disappeared from the statute books, due to their widespread unpopularity which the above-mentioned 1798 resolutions had helped initially to foster.)

Precedents for Other States’ Protests Such As The Hartford Convention Resolutions

6. These 1798 protests by the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures were not the first such development in the life of the Republic. A predecessor resolution of protest, for example, had been adopted by the Virginia legislature in 1790: the “Protest and Remonstrance” against the assumption by the Federal government of the war-incurred debts of the States, as being unconstitutional. This protest set a precedent for the above-mentioned 1798 resolutions. They, in turn, set precedents for similar resolutions of protest adopted by various States–in New England, the North, the Mid-west as well as in the South–during the following decades when they considered themselves to be victimized, potentially or actually, by either abuses or usurpations of power by the Federal government; such developments being the subject of comment, for example, by former President John Quincy Adams in his celebrated “Jubilee” address of April 30, 1839. (Some of these later resolutions even relied on the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 as a precedent.) An example is the set of resolutions adopted in 1815, during the war with England, by the Hartford Convention–representing Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, and New Hampshire–protesting against what were considered to be Federal usurpations, potential or actual, regarding use of the States’ Militia in war operations and other national defense matters.

The View of Patrick Henry

7. In the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788, Patrick Henry protested with vehemence against the proposed new Constitution’s lack of adequate limits on the central government’s power, lack of sufficient safeguards against governmental abuses due to human weaknesses among its officials, saying:

“Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt.” [Click here to read entire speech - LEXREX]

The American People’s View Also Expressed in the Pittsfield Petition of 1776

8. These quoted sentiments were accepted as maxims by American leaders in general and by the American people as a whole in that generation of Free Men–free in spirit and willing to fight and die for their Freedom from Government-over-Man. This acceptance is illustrated by the below-quoted words of the Pittsfield, Massachusetts, town-meeting petition of a decade earlier, in May, 1776. It was penned by the Reverend Thomas Allen, ardent friend of American Independence and of Man’s Liberty against Government-over-Man. It stated why Massachusetts needed a new, basic law of the people, a Constitution to be adopted by the people only, in part as follows:

“That knowing the strong bias of human nature to tyranny and despotism, we have nothing else in view but to provide for posterity against the wanton exercise of power, which cannot otherwise be done than by the formation of a fundamental constitution.”

This petition reflected the sentiments of the frontier, “backwoods” people of Berkshire County, led by this patriot as head of “The Berkshire Constitutionalists,” over a decade before the 1787 Federal Convention framed the United States Constitution. These were truly the sentiments of the American people at large. They are in harmony with the later phrasing of this idea as follows in The Federalist (number 55, by Madison):

“As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence.”

Never-changing Weaknesses of Human Nature Create Never-changing Need for Safeguards

9. The never-changing need for, and value of, constitutional safeguards against abuse, or usurpation, of power by public servants–as contemplated, and as provided for, by The Framers and Adopters of the Constitution in 1787-1788 and by those who proposed, framed and adopted the first ten Amendments (including the Bill of Rights made applicable against the Federal, or central, government only)–are due to the never-changing weaknesses of human nature in government and among the self-governing people. These weaknesses never change; therefore the need for these safeguards can never change.

The Conclusion

10. Fear of Government-over-Man was the dominant fear in that day of uncompromisingly individualistic Americans–Free Men, ever jealous of the safety of Individual Liberty, of the security of their God-given, unalienable rights against violation by government.

Quotes from The American Ideal of 1776 supporting this Principle.

This instance of Stark Terror occurred in the winter of early 1964, shortly after I had completed my upgrade to command pilot in the C-123B Provider aircraft. It occurred during a routine formation training mission out of Pope AFB in North Carolina.

Pope AFB in located on the north side of the Fort Bragg Military Reservation in east central North Carolina. At the time, Pope AFB’s primary mission was providing jump training, qualification, and transportation for the 82nd Airborne Division and the newly established Army Special Forces, the Green Berets. Most of our missions consisted of providing qualification jumps for the 82nd and Special Forces. These missions sometime required dropping troops in the classic three-ship wingtip formation or in a 1000-foot trail formation. At the time, the C-123B and the C-124 were the only non-fighter aircraft in the Air Force that routinely flew in close formation. The C-123B was not the best looking aircraft in the air, but flying wingtip formation and throwing things out the back was hard to beat without a fire in your tail… Plus you can actually see what’s on the ground you’re flying over.

This incident took place on a clear, calm, cold, winter morning. The mission was a three-ship formation takeoff at 30 second intervals with join up at 1500 feet, followed by a 2-hour low-level navigation flight. Start up, taxi, and engine run up were normal. Due to the temperature being in the upper 30s, carburetor heat was used during the taxi out to prevent carburetor icing which can occur when the temperature is above freezing due to the cooling effect in the carburetor throat. Carburetor heating cannot be used during the engine run up check or during maximum takeoff power because high carburetor temperatures can cause pre ignition during high power settings.

Engine run up was completed with carburetor heat off and all checks were normal. Carburetor heat was reapplied during taxi out to line up on the runway. We were the last aircraft in the formation. Upon receiving takeoff clearance, carburetor heat was returned to cold and engine power was applied after the second aircraft started its takeoff roll. After a 30-second delay, full takeoff power was applied and a normal takeoff was accomplished. The after takeoff checklist was completed and a climb to 1500 feet was completed. At level off power was reduced and the cruise checklist started. At this time the aircraft was at about 1000 feet above ground level and heading south just west of the main base facilities of Fort Bragg. Before completing the cruise checklist, about 30-45 seconds after level off, the left engine abruptly quit.. A moment of Stark Terror!

The emergency engine failure checklist was immediately started. Mixture controls were placed in full rich position, engine boost pumps were placed in high mode, and power was advanced on the good right engine. The left engine did not respond and it’s propeller was feathered to reduce drag and improve control. The engine shutdown checklist was completed on the left engine and, as a precaution, full carburetor heat was applied to the right engine to keep the carburetor air temperature well within a safe range.

Fortunately the aircraft was empty except for a crew of four and an 8000-pound fuel load of high octane gasoline. At this weight, and in cold weather, the C-123B was easily able to maintain altitude on one engine. Also, we were very close to the airfield and only had to make a left turn to be on downwind leg for an emergency landing. The only problem was that this put the downwind flight path directly over the main base facilities of Fort Bragg, which left very few places to safely land if the right engine should have problems. There were several parade grounds among the barracks and a golf course available for about half the downwind leg. The right engine operated normally however; and an uneventful (!) single-engine landing, my first as pilot-in-command, was accomplished after a 15 minute flight that seemed much longer.

Maintenance thoroughly inspected the failed engine as soon as we returned to the ramp. No malfunctions were found and the engine completed a normal run up check with no discrepancies. The incident report concluded that the engine failed due to carburetor icing after the takeoff and climb to 1500 feet. Carburetor heat had not been applied quickly enough after power was reduced at level off. Pilots were instructed to more closely monitor carburetor air temperature during takeoffs in cold, humid conditions.

Louis Kirchdorfer
March 5, 2009
====================================================

Found on GlennBeck.com

Naw!!!!…..there was no funny business going on in the housing market. What makes you say that?

The reason for the title is based on the saying among aviators that flying is “hours and hours of boredom punctuated by stark terror”.

My flying experience consists of approximately 100 hours in the Cessna 172, 200 hours in the Cessna T-37B, 200 hours in the T-33, and 2000 hours in the C-123B aircraft. Most of the 2500 hours of flight time came as a Lieutenant and Captain in the United States Air Force during the 1961 to 1966 time frame. These were interesting times in the Air Force. Primarily it was the beginning of Vietnam conflict (I can’t call it a war because the United States never really committed to winning it.); but there were a few other interesting things that happened during this time frame such as: 1) the integration of the University of Oxford in Mississippi (my first “combat” mission); 2) the Cuban Missile Crisis (which I missed because I was in Saigon at the time); 3) the assignation of JFK; 4) the Alaskan earthquake of 1964; 5) and assisting the Dominican Republic repulse a Cuban-backed coup attempt in 1966.

This incidence of Stark Terror deals with my experience with a double-engine failure similar to the experience that is currently in the news. Mine was not nearly as spectacular and heroic as Captain Sullenberger’s, but it did have a similar outcome and it was just as terrifying at the time.

At the time, fall of 1962, I was a copilot flying C-123B Provider cargo aircraft out of Tan Son Nhat Airport at Saigon, Vietnam. I had been checked out on the C-123 for less than six months and had been in-country for about three months. We were flying an out-and-back mission delivering personnel and supplies to various airfields in southern and central Vietnam. We made a routine takeoff from Tan Son Nhat and were climbing out to the northeast over Bien Hoa Air Base, at the time a sod-covered strip used by the South Vietnam Air Force. We had completed the takeoff and climb checklists and were climbing through 3000 feet at METO (Maximum Except Takeoff) power when both engines just quit simultaneously! From a noise level of around 100 db it became totally quiet. There was stunned silence for about 5 seconds. The moment of Stark Terror. Then the engines restarted and we completed the mission without further incident. More hours of boredom.

So, what happened and why didn’t we make an emergency landing? A little background is needed to answer that question.

The C-123B is a propeller-driven aircraft powered by two Pratt and Whitney R2800 radial engines. The P&W R2800 is a turbo-charged, carbureted, high-octane gasoline engine rated at 2500 Hp with water injection and 2300 Hp without water injection at 2500 rpm. Most takeoffs are routinely made at maximum power with water injection on for maximum performance and safety. Water injection is turned on and off by two toggle switches on the instrument panel immediately forward of the throttles. Activation of the water injection system is indicated by two yellow lights above the water injection switches. Each engine has a tank of 50-50 water/alcohol mixture that provides about 10 minutes of run time at maximum power, enough for 7 or 8 normal takeoffs . After takeoff climb is established, water injection is turned off and METO power is applied during climb to cruise altitude. (more photos)

This moment of Stark Terror was caused by my not turning off the water injection system during the after takeoff checklist. As a result, the engines burned up all the water injection fluid at about 10 minutes after takeoff. When the water injection fluid ran out the engines quit because the fuel mixture became too lean to burn. In essence they ran out of fuel. Fortunately, as soon as the deafening silence got our attention, the pilot and I immediately saw the (very bright) yellow lights of the water injection system. I immediately switched off the system and the engines restarted and ran normally. We checked all engine instruments for normal operation and everything was normal. We discussed the engine failure with the flight engineer and debated aborting the mission. We all agreed that the reason for the engines quitting was that the mixture became too lean to burn without the water/alcohol fluid. The only impact to the mission would be that we would have to make the rest of our takeoffs with dry power because the only place to replenish our water/alcohol tanks was at Tan Son Nhat. Since none of our takeoffs were expected to actually require water injection power, we continued the mission without incident. We did make sure to write up that the water injection system needed servicing.

Needless to say, after this incident I always double-checked the water injection switches in the after takeoff checklist. I also had to buy the crew a round of drinks when we returned to Tan Son Nhat!

More Moments of Stark Terror to come. I had at least 20 that I remember. That’s probably why I decided to build airplanes as a career rather than fly them. It’s also why I prefer to fly with a spare engine, since I have more than 10 hours of single-engine time in twin-engine aircraft, most of it over water.

Louis Kirchdorfer
============================================================

I will be publishing this series of principles over the next few days. I recommend each and every one who comes to this blog to read all twelve of them if you wish to understand what it means to be a true American – not what the Left in this country have redefined it to mean! There was a purpose and a reason why our government was formed the way it was. It was not drafted by happenstance or frivolously designed. It has meaning and cause. Any changes are an afront to the geniuses that were our Founding Fathers. I hope after reading these you have a better understanding of how our country should be governed.

These are the foundational principles of our country. This is not the watered down pablum that you were taught in high school history (if at all).

---

The American Ideal of 1776:
The Twelve Basic American Principles

A Principle of the Traditional American Philosophy
1. The Spiritual is Supreme

“. . . all men are created . . . endowed by their Creator . . .” (Declaration of Independence)

The Principle

1. The fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy is that the Spiritual is supreme–that Man is of Divine origin and his spiritual, or religious, nature is of supreme value and importance compared with things material.

Religious Nature

2. This governmental philosophy is, therefore, essentially religious in nature. It is uniquely American; no other people in all history have ever made this principle the basis of their governmental philosophy. The spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God is a concept which is basic to this American philosophy. It expresses the spiritual relationship of God to Man and, in the light thereof, of Man to Man. To forget these truths is a most heinous offense against the spirit of traditional America because the greatest sin is the lost consciousness of sin.

The fundamentally religious basis of this philosophy is the foundation of its moral code, which contemplates The Individual’s moral duty as being created by God’s Law: the Natural Law. The Individual’s duty requires obedience to this Higher Law; while knowledge of this duty comes from conscience, which the religious-minded and morally-aware Individual feels duty-bound to heed. This philosophy asserts that there are moral absolutes: truths, such as those mentioned above, which are binding upon all Individuals at all times under all circumstances. This indicates some of the spiritual and moral values which are inherent in its concept of Individual Liberty-Responsibility.

An Indivisible Whole

3. The American philosophy, based upon this principle, is an indivisible whole and must be accepted or rejected as such. It cannot be treated piece-meal. Its fundamentals and its implicit meanings and obligations must be accepted together with its benefits.

The Individual’s Self-respect

4. The concept of Man’s spiritual nature, and the resulting concept of the supreme dignity and value of each Individual, provide the fundamental basis for each Individual’s self-respect and the consequent mutual respect among Individual’s. This self-respect as well as this mutual respect are the outgrowth of, and evidenced by, The Individual’s maintenance of his God-given, unalienable rights. They are maintained by requiring that government and other Individuals respect them, as well as by his dedication to his own unceasing growth toward realization of his highest potential–spiritually, morally, intellectually, in every aspect of life. This is in order that he may merit maximum respect by self and by others.

Some Things Excluded

5. This concept of Man’s spiritual nature excludes any idea of intrusion by government into this Man-to-Man spiritual relationship. It excludes the anti-moral precept that the end justifies the means and the related idea that the means can be separated from the end when judging them morally. This concept therefore excludes necessarily any idea of attempting to do good by force–for instance, through coercion of Man by Government, whether or not claimed to be for his own good or for the so-called common good or general welfare.

It excludes disbelief in–even doubt as to the existence of–God as the Creator of Man: and therefore excludes all ideas, theories and schools of thought–however ethical and lofty in intentions–which reject affirmative and positive belief in God as Man’s Creator.

The Truly American Concept

6. Only those ideas, programs and practices, regarding things governmental, which are consistent with the concept that “The Spiritual is supreme” can justly be claimed to be truly American traditionally. Anything and everything governmental, which is in conflict with this concept, is non-American–judged by traditional belief.

This applies particularly to that which is agnostic, or atheistic–neutral about, or hostile to, positive and affirmative belief in this concept based upon belief in God as Man’s Creator. There is not room for doubt, much less disbelief, in this regard from the standpoint of the traditional American philosophy. Its indivisible nature makes this inescapably true. This pertains, of course, to the realm of ideas and not to any person; it is the conflicting idea which is classified as non-American, according to this philosophy.

America a Haven For All Religions

7. The traditional American philosophy teaches that belief in God is the fundamental link which unites the adherents of all religions in a spiritual brotherhood. This philosophy allows for no differentiation between them in this unifying conviction: “. . . all men are created . . . endowed by their Creator . . .” This philosophy is all inclusive as to believers in God. Although America was originally colonized predominantly by adherents of the Christian religion, and principally by Protestants, the Founding Fathers steadfastly conformed to this all-embracing character of the approach of the American philosophy to religion. This was expressly and affirmatively indicated in the proclamation of 1776 of the fundamental American philosophy, of its basic principles, in the Declaration of Independence. This was further indicated, negatively, in 1787-1788 by the Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution–as a “blueprint” for the structure of the then proposed Federal government, with strictly limited powers–by not permitting it to possess any power with regard to religion. This implied prohibition against the Federal government was reinforced by the addition of the First Amendment expressly prohibiting it, through the Congress, from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”–the words “an establishment of religion” being intended to mean, specifically and only, a church or religious organization which is established, supported and preferred by the government, like the Church of England establishments then existing in some of the States.

The Conclusion

8. Belief in Man’s Divine origin is the foundation of the fundamental American principle which controls his relationship to government: that Man–The Individual–is of supreme dignity and value because of his spiritual nature.

Quotes from The American Ideal of 1776 supporting this Principle.

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness — That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shown that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great- Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
…
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

(source)

or maybe this?

“They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable ­ and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace ­ but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

(source)

What is it going to be?

The American Thinker
February 16, 2009
How Democracies Become Tyrannies
By Ed Kaitz

Back in 1959 the philosopher Eric Hoffer had this to say about Americans and America:

For those who want to be left alone to realize their capacities and talents this is an ideal country.

That was then. This is now. Flash forward fifty years to the election of Barack Obama and a hard left leaning Democrat Congress. What Americans want today, apparently, is a government that has no intention of leaving any of us alone.

How could Hoffer have been so wrong about America? Why did America change so quickly? Can a free people willingly choose servitude? Is it possible for democracies to become tyrannies? How?

The answers to these questions were famously addressed in a few pages tucked within the greatest masterpiece of the classical world: Plato’s Republic. On the surface, and to most reviewers of Plato’s writings, the Republic is a dialogue on justice and on what constitutes the just society. But to careful readers the deeper theme of the Republic is the nature of education and the relationship between education and the survival of the state. In fact, the Republic is essentially the story of how a man (Socrates) condemned to death for “corrupting” the youth of Athens gives to posterity the most precious gift of all: the love of wisdom.

In the Republic, two young men, Glaucon and Adeimantus, accompany the much older Socrates on a journey of discovery into the nature of the individual soul and its connection to the harmony of the state. During the course of their adventure, as the two disciples demonstrate greater maturity and self-control, they are gradually exposed to deeper and more complex teachings regarding the relationship between virtue, self-sufficiency, and happiness. In short, the boys begin to realize that justice and happiness in a community rests upon the moral condition of its citizens. This is what Socrates meant when he said: “The state is man writ large.”

Near the end of the Republic Socrates decides to drive this point home by showing Adeimantus what happens to a regime when its parents and educators neglect the proper moral education of its children. In the course of this chilling illustration Adeimantus comes to discover a dark and ominous secret: without proper moral conditioning a regime’s “defining principle” will be the source of its ultimate destruction. For democracy, that defining principle is freedom. According to Socrates, freedom makes a democracy but freedom also eventually breaks a democracy.

For Socrates, democracy’s “insatiable desire for freedom and neglect of other things” end up putting it “in need of a dictatorship.” The short version of his theory is that the combination of freedom and poor education in a democracy render the citizens incapable of mastering their impulses and deferring gratification. The reckless pursuit of freedom leads the citizens to raze moral barriers, deny traditional authority, and abandon established methods of education. Eventually, this uninhibited quest for personal freedom forces the public to welcome the tyrant. Says Socrates: “Extreme freedom can’t be expected to lead to anything but a change to extreme slavery, whether for a private individual or for a city.”

Adeimantus wants Socrates to explain what kind of man resembles the democratic city. In other words, he wants to know how “democratic man” comes to be and what happens to make this freedom loving man eventually beg for a tyrant. Socrates clarifies that the democratic man starts out as the son of an “oligarchic” father — a father who is thrifty and self-disciplined. The father’s generation is more concerned with wealth than freedom. This first generation saves, invests, and rarely goes in for conspicuous consumption.[i]

The father’s pursuit of wealth leaves him unwilling and unable to give attention to his son’s moral development. The father focuses on business and finance and ignores the business of family. The son then begins to associate with “wild and dangerous creatures who can provide every variety of multicolored pleasure in every sort of way.” These Athenian precursors of the hippies begin to transform the son’s oligarchic nature into a democratic one. Because the young man has had no moral guidance, his excessive desire for “unnecessary pleasures” undermines “the citadel” of his soul. Because the “guardians” of the son’s inner citadel — truth, restraint, wisdom — are absent, there is nothing within him to defend against the “false and boastful words and beliefs that rush up and occupy this part of him.”

A 1960s revolution in the son’s soul purges the last remaining guardians of moderation and supplants new meanings to old virtues: “anarchy” replaces freedom, “extravagance” replaces magnificence, and “shamelessness” replaces courage. The young man surrenders rule over himself “to whichever desire comes along, as if it were chosen by lot.” Here Socrates notes the essential problem when a free society becomes detached from any notions of moral virtue or truth: desires are chosen by “lot” instead of by “merit” or “priority.”

For the son the democratic revolution in his soul is complete. In this stage “there is neither order nor necessity in his life, but he calls it pleasant, free, blessedly happy, and he follows it for as long as he lives.” Socrates gives a brief illustration of the young man’s new democratic life:

Sometimes he drinks heavily while listening to the flute; at other times he drinks only water and is on a diet; sometimes he goes in for physical training; at other times, he’s idle and neglects everything; and sometimes he even occupies himself with what he takes to be philosophy. He often engages in politics, leaping up from his seat and saying and doing whatever comes into his mind. If he happens to admire soldiers, he’s carried in that direction, if money-makers, in that one.

In short, the young man has no anchor, no set of guiding principles or convictions other than his thirst for freedom. His life is aimless, superficial, and gratuitous. The spoiled lotus-eaters of his generation have defined themselves simply by mocking all forms of propriety and prudence. What’s worse, as these Athenian baby-boomers exercise their right to vote, they elect “bad cupbearers” as their leaders. The new cupbearers want to stay in office so they give the voters whatever they desire. The public, according to Socrates, “gets drunk by drinking more than it should of the unmixed wine of freedom.” Conservative politicians who attempt to mix the wine of freedom with calls for self-restraint “are punished by the city and accused of being accursed oligarchs.”

As conservative politicians court suspicion so do conservative teachers and academics who stubbornly hold on to objective measurements of performance: “A teacher in such a community is afraid of his students and flatters them, while the students despise their teachers or tutors.” Conservatism becomes unpopular just about everywhere, to a point at which even the elderly “stoop to the level of the young and are full of play and pleasantry, imitating the young for fear of appearing disagreeable and authoritarian.”

The explosion of boundaries and limits extends even to national identity itself, so that resident aliens and foreigners “are made equal to a citizen.”

The citizens’ souls become so infected with freedom that they become excessively paranoid about any hint of slavery. But slavery comes to mean being under any kind of master or limit including the law itself. Says Socrates: “They take no notice of the laws, whether written or unwritten, in order to avoid having any master at all.” That is, any kind of “hierarchy” in a democracy is rejected as “authoritarian.” But this extreme freedom, according to Socrates, eventually enslaves democracy.

As the progressive politicians and intellectuals come to dominate the democratic city, its “fiercest members do all the talking and acting, while the rest settle near the speakers platform and buzz and refuse to tolerate the opposition of another speaker.” There are “impeachments, judgments and trials on both sides.” The politicians heat up the crowds by vilifying business and wealth and by promising to spread the wealth around. The people then “set up one man as their special champion” and begin “nurturing him and making him great.”

The people’s “special champion” however transforms from leader to tyrant. He “drops hints about the cancellation of debts and the redistribution of land” and continues to “stir up civil wars against the rich.” All who have reached this stage, says Socrates, “soon discover the famous request of a tyrant, namely, that the people give him a bodyguard to keep their defender safe for them.” The people give him this new security force, “because they are afraid for his safety but aren’t worried at all about their own.”

Socrates describes the early weeks of the new leader’s reign:

“Won’t he smile in welcome at anyone he meets, saying that he’s no tyrant, making all sorts of promises both in public and in private, freeing the people from debt, redistributing land to them, and to his followers, and pretending to be gracious and gentle to all?”

After a series of unpopular actions, including stirring up a war in order to generate popular support, the leader begins to alienate some of his closest and most ardent advisers who begin to voice their misgivings in private. Following a purge of these advisors the tyrant attracts some of the worst elements of the city to help him rule. As the citizens grow weary of his tenure the tyrant chooses to attract foreigners to resupply his dwindling national bodyguard. The citizens finally decide they’ve had enough and begin to discuss rebellion.

At this point in the dialogue Adeimantus asks Socrates incredulously: “What do you mean? Will the tyrant dare to use violence against [the people] or to hit [them] if [they] don’t obey? Socrates answers:

“Yes – once he’s taken away [the people's] weapons.”

Thus ends Book VIII of Plato’s Republic. I won’t spoil the marvelous ending (Books IX and X) but I would like to spend a few moments drawing some conclusions about the overall message of this fascinating text and its relevance for 21st century Americans.

First, those of us who are incapable of self-mastery will always shamefully prostrate ourselves before messianic political leaders. The progressive left in America has spent countless generations destroying the guardians of our inner citadel: religion, family, parents, and tradition – in short, conservatism and limits. When we exhaust the financial and moral capital of previous generations (and future ones, as with the current stimulus bill) we will dutifully line up at the public trough, on our knees. Citizens capable of self-mastery will always choose to be left alone. In other words, they’ll always choose limited government.

Second, freedom without limits paves the way to tyranny by undermining respect for the law. When politicians play fast and loose with the law it becomes easier for them and for the people to see special champions as alternative sources of rule. Today in America the objective basis for law is being attacked on campuses and even in law schools as too authoritarian and too insensitive to the subjective experiences and personal narratives of criminals. The SAT exam has also been under assault for the same reasons. As Socrates warned: extreme freedom will instill a paranoia about any kind of “master” including objective measurements of right and wrong, and of merit based forms of achievement. But when the citizens become enslaved to their vices they’ll dutifully cry out for another kind of master.

Third, is the crucial role of education, which is the underlying theme of Plato’s Republic. The ethos of American education has been for many decades saturated with a simple mantra: choice. What’s worse, those few remaining educators who chant the old, Socratic mantra of “judgment” are vilified and harassed by the modern day lotus-eaters as hateful conservatives. Socrates predicted that all of this would happen in a democracy. But it is judgment not choice that enables a young person to erect a citadel in the soul. This eliminates the need for tyrants, and for bailouts too.

Finally, there is a question on the minds of many conservatives today: How does one convince the younger generations of Americans to distrust the growth of the State? Is it possible for Americans to recover the desire to be left alone in order “to realize our capacities and talents” as Eric Hoffer says?

I’ve read that in Iran, many young people chafe at the pervasive despotism there, but when the burning desire for freedom threatens to boil over, the government in Tehran eases its restrictions on the use of personal satellite dishes. Electronic Soma for the digital age.

Hat tip: Larrey Anderson

——————————————————————————–

[i] As Max Weber noted in his classic work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, the men who built America were guided by deferred gratification and a sense of limits, not by reckless notions of vanity, pride, and display.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/how_democracies_become_tyranni.html at February 19, 2009 – 11:35:20 AM EST