On the Pursuit and
Administration of Freedom

June 2003

The last 500 years have been a quest for freedom. Christopher Columbus did not know that when he landed at the shore of a Bahamian island in 1492-he didn't even know what hemisphere he was in. But, throughout the 16th century, as Europe began to realize that Columbus' San Salvador was not an island off the coast of India, but rather an island off an undiscovered and uncivilized continent, something awakened throughout Western Civilization.

Slowly, they began to understand that there was a lot more to the world, to the universe and existence as a whole than what they had previously imagined. A great, sleeping force was rekindled in the spirit of man-it was the idea of freedom. Prior to the discovery, life was presumed, limited, restricted. Swiftly upon the discovery, there was prospect, challenge, and hope. No longer did past constraints pose the overpowering threat to volition they had before; the future was wide open. During the era that followed Columbus' discovery, it was man's quest to harness this rejuvenated concept of freedom, and in effort to realize his undertaking, 500 years of renaissance, reform, revolution and emancipation followed.

The quest for freedom was comprehensive: religious, political, social, scientific, sexual, racial, artistic, intellectual, technological, medical, economic. Still, it cannot be said that civilization was unified in her quest. Considerable opposition to the advance of freedom came from powerful institutions like the monarchies of the 16th through 18th centuries or the 20th century's totalitarians. They were these kinds of institutions that benefited from the restrictive state of the pre-1492 West and they were therefore strong proponents of resisting the trend. A great number of this era's martial conflicts resulted from that resistance.

Not only has opposition obstructed the great movement toward freedom, but so too has disagreement within the current. From the singular cause for liberty, two distinct movements have arisen creating a cultural conflict that may prove to be more challenging than the former barrier. The new obstacle is more surreptitious than the old one-its contenders are represented by the same language and despite an agreed quest for freedom, the tactics for both sides often tend away from freedom, sometimes against it. It is this predicament that more urgently requests our focus. By enumerating the complication, we can redirect mistaken endeavors and consolidate effort to achieve freedom that we know to be good. To this end, I will devote the following treatise.

So much was made of the "culture divide" in the late 1990s that the concept was chewed up, exhausted and discarded before it could be regarded with much depth. Regardless of the haste, culture's state at the dawn of the 21st century has underscored the divide's prevalence. The US presidential election in 2000 separated the nation into two proportional sides, the blue, coastal, more metropolitan states and the red, "heartland," more rural states; the media has polarized to such an extent that few outlets could be considered neutral by either conservatives or liberals; and the war with Iraq that garnered support from large majorities of the US population also brokered fierce rejection of US and UK leadership by a vocal many domestically, throughout the Arab world and in places like France and Germany.

On the international stage, the ideological clash becomes defined by the terms Americanism and anti-Americanism. That is, one's affiliation with or against America specifies his political and cultural stance. Britain's support of American efforts in Iraq defined if not the nation's posture, then at least that of the British leadership at the time. Meanwhile, the protest of America's efforts in Iraq defined many a German or Frenchman. There are, of course, anti-Americans who are not interested in freedom. Terrorists and the Saddam Husseins of the world fall into this category. The overwhelming understanding is that these viscous few are contrary to civilization's movement toward freedom and are agreed to be of the old form obstacle to freedom. But the two different methods on how the freedom-seeking world treats these threats is at the core of the new challenge to freedom, Americanism being one way and anti-Americanism being the other.

War in Iraq and on terrorism were the arenas by which this international divide was made most conspicuous. While America and a number of other nations were engaged in militaristic upheaval of what they considered treacherous tyrants and terror cells across the globe, a firm resistance built itself against the will of America and its coalition during the effort. One nation allied with America, Germany, denied their assistance for any such military endeavor a year before one was even proposed. Another nation, France promised to use her United Nations' veto to block anything America proposed there. Other nations on the United Nations Security Council, Russia and China never denounced America's campaign, but did pledge association with France and Germany when the European nations' intent was well known.

A stance against American methodology was not limited to governmental policy. Anti-Americanism mingled seamlessly into anti-war protests that occurred across the globe in 2003 and was a staple of anti-Globalization and anti-world trade demonstrations. Anti-Americanism extended into the intellectual arena that fostered those protests as well. In the aftermath of 9-11, one noted American scholar received a standing ovation in Islamabad, Pakistan after delivering a speech on the terrorism America has allegedly enacted for decades. Some Western scholars even went as far as praising the 9-11 terrorist attacks as the greatest possible statements of dissent, supposedly an essential component to democracy.

Cultural arenas were not exempt from this trend either. Overseas, public radio personalities got their kicks by calling an American president "the devil." Popular American country musicians received their own ovations upon stating how they were "ashamed to be American." Other prominent figures in American culture spoke out fervently on how they would leave the country if certain political leaders got elected or how the popular American president was really tyrannous. Socially, anti-Americanism blended into one's daily life as a matter of fact in countries abroad like Egypt where reports are given on how contemporary, cosmopolitan women laughed in titillation as a response to hearing of a musical performer named DJ Osama bin Laden.

Terrorism, itself, is one form of anti-Americanism that stands out and can be condemned by all civilized people. But these other instances of anti-Americanism are portrayed by civilized people, by Westerners and even by Americans. The statements by cosmopolitan women, Hollywood actors, country singers, scholars from American universities and leaders of allied Western nations cannot possibly be against freedom-everyone involved with this anti-Americanism was raised in the American tradition of freedom, used products of American freedom to convey their messages of anti-Americanism and, ironically, often used American ideals as the goal of their anti-Americanism. These instances of anti-Americanism are not against freedom like terrorism so blatantly is. They are signs of the raging battle within the quest for freedom.

It is not extraordinary that this battle occurs in and around America. America is very prominent, and as a result, everything that happens in the world is judged to a great degree on how it relates to the vast entity: China's rise to economic strength looks to challenge the US in the future; Argentina's economic trouble implies that American free market can't work everywhere; eyes fall on Washington as Iraq holds country's first free elections. There is no doubt that an ideological conflict such as this would therefore involve the word America.

America is also a place tied inseparably to the idea of freedom. Not only is it the product of Columbus' discovery of a new world, a discovery that reinstated the notion of freedom to Western Civilization, but everything about America, from its Bill of Rights to the goals of its international policy, is focused on freedom. A figure so prominent and so devoted to freedom should certainly be at the crux of a debate on freedom. It would follow, then, that America is the logical centerpiece of the conflict. What doesn't necessarily follow is the notion that America is at one side of the conflict and the other side is composed of an entity that directly opposes it, one that is "anti" it. How can an entity so connected with freedom be diametric to something that is purportedly striving for the same goal? It could be that the conflict we see is simply two different methods of reaching the same goal. But why the dichotomy, why the "anti?" As I will explain below, the different methods reflect different goals and there are actually two kinds of freedom being sought.

Two Liberals
* * *

To examine the conflict in the quest for freedom, we must first clarify the quest, itself. To examine the quest, we must first clarify the concept of freedom. From there we can work back up to the conflict with a perspective that will lend to a more exact understanding of it. The dictionary defines freedom as the condition of being free from restraints. The quest for freedom would then be a quest for the condition of being free from restraints. The conflict we are to examine must therefore be a conflict in the quest for the condition of being free from restraints.

If we consolidate the idea of a quest for being free from restraints, the conflict will present itself. That is because the idea of a quest for being free from restraints can be summed up with the word, liberalism, and a partial history of liberalism reveals a sincere conflict.

Liberalism, being a movement to provide liberty or freedom for its subject, is by nature a movement to diminish restraints on that subject. If the subject is the people of a nation, restrictions to freedom could take many forms and the liberal could have many things to diminish in his quest for freedom. An example of a restraint on a nation's citizenry would be being land-locked. Being land-locked is a restriction to the freedom of shipping and therefore a restriction to the freedom of trade and therefore a restriction to economic growth and therefore a restriction to scientific, technological, artistic and otherwise cultural growth. The liberal would seek to abolish the restrictions and thus, seek to establish port presence one way or another.

But liberalism hasn't always implied the same product. In the time of John Locke and Adam Smith, liberalism implied a free market, a citizenry free from governmental interference. Now liberalism implies the establishment of social welfare and governmental interference through taxes and other laws. History teachers present the creation of America as the liberalism of government. The same history professors teach Franklin Roosevelt's implementation of the New Deal-a vast increase in governmental restrictions and institutions-as the liberalization of America.

These two distinct notions of liberalism pose a sincere problem in political dialogue. If only because both concepts share the same label, one would be able use Smith's endorsement of liberalism to promote things like welfare and income tax as fundamental American policies even though Smith's liberalism meant the termination of such institutions. Contemporary Smithians are actually considered conservative-a title which serves as liberalism's exact opposite in the sociopolitical theater-a true dilemma, indeed. How is it that one word can imply two opposing concepts?

If liberalism has always been a movement to diminish restraints on a subject's freedom, it could be said that those restraints may have changed over time. In 1700, the most prominent threat to the freedom of most Western nations' citizens was government itself. Through a model of government that often implied the sole divinity of a king, queen, tsar, kaiser or emperor, absolute power was granted to that ruler. Such power implied that the monarch's subjects were without absolute power or even relative power. All economic and most social liberties a citizen had were devoted, through some chain of command, to the monarch. The liberal, in such a time, would seek to abolish the governmental traditions that assumed the sole divinity of the ruler and mandatory subservience of his subjects-he would grant citizens independence from the monarch in all economic and political affairs.

Wealth of Nations, by Smith, and the Declaration of Independence, by Thomas Jefferson (both 1776), in addition to many other works of the time all underscored this kind of liberalism, the kind that reduced or eliminated government's role in the affairs of its citizenry. The result could be seen in the US Constitution (1789) which refused the federal government the ability of taxation, the ability to promote specific religions, stifle or censor press, speech, assembly, dissent.

In America's liberal government, the state was not a threat to its citizens' freedom. It was instead the facilitator of that freedom. Economies throughout the West saw vast growth throughout Industrialization due in large part to the expansion of this liberal thought. But the torch of freedom was still not grasped by many. The likes of Thomas Maltus, Carlisle, William Thompson, J. F. Bray and John S. Mill proposed arguments that the working poor, child and female exploitation, even the food supply were evidence that greater reform was needed in order to provide freedom.

The notion was that poverty and the conditions that accompanied it were restrictions on one's freedom. To the new "social scientists," political reform had been unsuccessful in achieving freedom if only because poverty existed after that reform had taken place and poverty was a threat to freedom. So around 1850, in a quest for freedom, the West began to intensively lobby for the kind of reform that would reduce poverty. In Paris, the arts came to a standstill, Chartism in London brought social concerns to parliament, similar movements in Germany took place and young political scientists Marx and Engels found great success in disseminating their "haunting" punk, demanding legislative reforms and inciting revolt everywhere. Victor Hugo insisted that the parliament "replace political policies with social ones" and even Alexis de Tocqueville acknowledged the "ideas spreading which are not only going to overthrow certain laws, but society itself."

The mandate had been made, no longer did the masses believe that classical liberalism could surmount oppression. Over the course of the next century, powerful and violent shifts in the geopolitical sphere forced civilization into a realm of welfare and social equality, all to diminish the new perceived threat to freedom, poverty. By the early 20th century, the socialist requisition had reached its tipping point. Communism subjugated Russia and China and all Western nations, even America, had adopted some form of income taxation and welfare program. In 1912, the US had no income tax. By 1918, citizens in the top bracket of income were taxed 73% of their income. From 1944 to 1964, those in the top bracket were taxed between 82 and 94 percent of their income.

With these levels of tax, the government became reliant on high revenue and the welfare and social security that resulted from it became rigid institutions in the United States. Finally, America had become a new kind of liberal. In communist nations, the modern liberalism was taken to extremes. Governments instituted censorship of speech, religion, assembly and other classical liberties in addition to a redistribution of wealth much more radical and complete than America's. Over the course of America's existence, the product of liberalism shifted from the withdrawal of federal government intervention in personal life to the insinuation of federal institutions into most aspects of an individual's life.

From the withdrawal of government to the insinuation thereof, liberalism's product had completed a reversal. While liberalism once meant the removal of taxes on all citizens, a new breed implied taxes on some citizens. While liberalism once intended the government to support all citizens minimally, the new breed intended government to support some citizens completely and others not at all.

Superficially, it may seem that the direction of liberalism shifted from one group of people to another. The first kind of liberalism, classical liberalism, sought freedom for everyone in a given state while the second kind of liberalism, modern liberalism, sought freedom for a certain portion of a given state, the impoverished. But in both situations, the liberal controlled all of the given state's citizens, not just those who received freedom. It could be, then, that classical liberalism intended freedom for all their citizens while modern liberalism sought freedom for some and actually sought restriction for their other citizens. It is possible even though modern liberals' stated claim was that they too sought freedom.

To accept this charge would be to accept that one kind of liberalism isn't actually liberalism, that it doesn't really seek freedom but rather a combination of freedom and restriction. It would be a difficult assumption to make since both ideologies assert that freedom is their goal. It is possible, however, to not make that assumption, to maintain that they both seek freedom despite the discrepancy. All one would have to do is accept the notion that there are two kinds of freedom being sought, one by each kind of liberalism.

The clue rests in the difference between what each liberal perceived to be threatening. When the threat to freedom was government, the threat was external, it was a party outside of man. The way the classical liberal would seek freedom would be to remove the restrictions, including governmental interference, from the people. The modern liberal, on the other hand, had to diminish the strength of at least some people because of what they saw as the threat to freedom and what they saw as the cause to that threat.

It was said, by Marx most ostentatiously, that poverty was the necessary result of free market capitalism. This meant that it was man's innate determination to control and overpower others and that, given a free market, he would do so consistently, producing a perpetual impoverished lower class. To the modern liberal, the threat was an entity in man and, thus, it was man that had to be restrained. The party most capable of performing this task would be an entity outside of the people, or the government.

From this we can identify the characteristics commonly associated with the two liberals. The classical liberal sought the kind of freedom that allowed everyone to produce what he wanted and buy or sell accordingly. The governmental structure that the classical liberal organized was one that allowed to the greatest degree every man's ability to do exactly that. The government was a highly competitive, laissez-faire capitalism-Smith's free market. In this system, everyone was to receive only what he produced, nothing less, nothing more.

Granted that citizens would work at different intensities, this system would yield a citizenry of diverse levels of success and wealth. Not everyone would work in the least and, therefore, not everyone would find the least success, but it was the ability to achieve that success that was the aim of the classical liberal. That was the kind of freedom he sought.

The modern liberal, on the other hand, sought the kind of freedom that granted everyone a certain level of comfort regardless of their own output or work ethic. The governmental structure proposed by the modern liberal accomplished this precisely. It was a noncompetitive, controlled socialism-Marx's communism. In this system, everyone was to receive a level of food, shelter and other needs.

Granted citizens would work at different intensities, this system would facilitate a redistribution of wealth so that all levels of success and wealth were the same. Surely some would do as little work as possible and therefore, not everyone would get his due, but it was the level of comfort that everyone had that was the aim of the modern liberal. That was the kind of freedom he sought. Whence two kinds of liberalism each with aims of a distinct kind of freedom.

From this, we can characterize the aims of the two liberals with labels not quite commonly associated with them. The kind of freedom that furnishes a system where everyone receives what he produces should be considered the kind of freedom that furnishes Justice. The kind of freedom that furnishes a system where everyone receives a proportional amount should be considered the kind of freedom that furnishes Equality. And here we have found the goals of the two liberals to be not the same freedom, but rather different entities in Justice and Equality.

The two concepts are fairly similar in that they commonly deal with government and its relationship to its citizenry. They are mostly seen as good and are mentioned together quite often. "Equality and Justice stand for all!" In the casual context, the two are synonymous with each other and so too can they be substituted with proper government in general. But one can see important differences upon simple analysis. Their mutual association with good government may just be a consequence of their ubiquity in political rhetoric. What each really means is not even of concern in the casual arena. The resultant blind popularity of either is something of concern.

So what does each stand for and how would its employment into government effect a given state? We've already gotten a glimpse of both in our brief exploration of liberalism. Justice is the condition of receiving what one produces and Equality is the condition of everyone receiving the same thing. With that brief explanation, a twist appears. If one is striving for Justice, they strive for a state where everyone gets what he produces. It is the case then that with Justice, everyone receives the same thing (that which he produces) and therefore, the goal of Equality is included in Justice. The converse is not true. Everyone could get the same thing if Equality is achieved, but that same thing could be less than what anyone produced. Therefore one cannot conclude that the goal of Justice is included in Equality.

The unique rapport between Justice and Equality is not limited to this. One will find notable ironies in the dictums of the supporters of both Justice and Equality. The classical liberal striving for Justice claimed throughout works of the age that "all men are created equal" while the modern liberal striving for Equality clamored, "justice for all!" What is the meaning of such an incongruity?

It is not as contradictory as it seems. When the classical liberal says that all men are created equal, it is the Equality mentioned above, the Equality of potential to receive what he produces. In this case, the assumed subject of Equality, Justice, is the more significant focus. When the modern liberal cries "justice for all," the assumption is that some in society receive Justice (the bourgeoisie) and others do not (the proletariat). This would be to assume that the upper class received what they produced while the working class received less. Although the latter was most true-workers did receive less than what they produced-its truth would necessarily imply that the upper class received more than what they produced, injustice as well.

What is evident is that the justice used here is not receiving what one produces, but rather, receiving a certain level of personal comfort based on material possession. If this "justice" is given to everyone, the true sense of Justice is most likely not produced, but Equality is in its stead.

The most relevant difference between the two freedoms rests in their physicality. Despite the reasonably clear objective of classical liberalism, limited governmental interference, the kind of freedom for which liberals of the 1700s struggled was not very tangible. Smith spent some 600 pages describing the benefit his free market would supply. The requisite of removing governmental interference meant that this kind of freedom is a very ideal freedom that flourishes with as little influence as possible. As many documents of the classical time iterated, this abstract, natural kind of freedom was one directly given to man from God-nonmaterial for certain.

On the other hand, modern liberals sought a freedom that could easily be tallied or calculated, one based in tangible things like money, food, cars, houses, yachts. The more recent of the two liberalisms is much more material, tangible, scientific, realistic than the classical. The modern did not concern himself with incorporeal ideals or God, and often were these "hierarchy-perpetuating" concepts shunned by Marxist communisms.

One integral point comes from this difference between freedoms in terms of physicality: One kind of freedom is infinite while the other is quite finite. Since we understand our universe to be finite in both time and space, we also understand that anything based in it is also finite. Equality, being based in the physical world is finite while Justice is based in a metaphysical world and is therefore infinite.

How is it that something so fundamental to the quest for liberty as freedom, itself, can imply such different things to people in such similar endeavors? Ideal and physical, infinite and finite, Justice and Equality? The answer rests in a discrepancy with respect to something even more fundamental. The difference lies between the two liberals' perspectives on man and his potential as a whole.

The Dichotomy
* * *

Modern liberalism and, by cohesion, Equality are by far the more popular choices these days, and not only due to the fact that they are institutions oriented toward the masses. It is very fashionable to promote this kind of liberalism if evidenced only with the coded endorsement of modern liberal politicians by prominent fashion magazines or with the highly fashionable Hollywood left. Ultra-vogue rock / rap artists can't help but to speak out against endeavors by classically liberal politicians.

Equality's popularity is not a happenstance given the prominence of the prerequisites for such a stance: (1) the quest for freedom and (2) the impression that freedom is restricted. Both are plentiful in modern culture and hence produce the urge for Equality.

To regard freedom as the popular quest is quite reasonable given the toil devoted to it the last 500 years. Granted that effort, however, it seems highly unlikely that some great level of freedom hasn't been accomplished by the end of those 500 years. The claim that freedom is restricted is especially odd when one considers that many of those clamoring for Equality live in countries generally accepted as free, the UK, France, America. One could effectively make the case that man's freedom, with respect to not only historical states but an absolute sense of freedom as well, is great. Our scientists are talking about traveling to the center of the galaxy and building molecules with DNA; we can download any information we desire at any time possible. How can freedom be limited?

Because it is much easier to think of it that way. When most consider freedom, they don't necessarily care about the Milky Way or nanotechnology. They think of how they are bound to a fruitless relationship or that they have to go to work everyday. These things accumulate and make one feel quite restricted. They mull their credit card debts and conclude that they are not free. Their conjecture is reinforced by the knowledge and subsequent idolization of those who have more money than they can spend, those who goof off all day and call it a career-celebrities, rock stars and sports masters. One hears about the ridiculous wealth software tycoons have and is reassured that their fortune is freedom and minimum wage is not.

An attitude of aggrievedness clearly plagues society. Simply witness the pop culture of the day to view evidence of it-Rage Against the Machine, Conspiracy Theory, "Despite all of my rage I am still just a rat in a cage!"

Neglecting humanity's great opportunities and focusing on petty monetary challenges while creating fictional oppressors must stem from two critical tenors in modern culture. First, the culture must be very self-centered. To regard potential like nanotechnology and traveling to the center of the Milky Way requires one to look past one's own person, to endeavor for more than a satisfaction of one's personal urges, if only because the benefits of these technologies will not be available for years to come. Those technologies are for some other person, somewhere down the line, not for the modern western.

Even if America is able to harness travel to the center of the galaxy, the conjecture would be that such an effort doesn't give the average American anything they want anyway. The opportunity holds great promise for those wacky NASA nerds, but not for the preteen who devotes her life to the latest "boy band."

Moreover, the focus of society is telling with regard to its superficiality-we are a very materialist culture. When one regards freedom as the accumulation of wealth, property and power rather than an abstract notion of the means to achieve goodness, righteousness and virtue, the goal, itself must become material. Money serves very material ends.

When a society consists in selfish, materialist people, the outcome is the neglect of the fantastic freedoms our civilization faces and the notion of a suppressed freedom arises. This condition is rooted in an even more profound climate in our culture today. That a populace is so materialist and selfish directly implies that it is godless.

The common understanding of God is that He is an entity more powerful than any one person, all of humanity, together. By a sincere belief of God, one is naturally humble at His feet, one is submissive to His infinitely good ways. One cannot be selfish with such an objective, he must be giving, unintrusive-things that a selfish person is surely not. He must also avoid material craving in his quest to find That which transcends all material existence. To have earnest belief in God, one must maintain a selfless and immaterial life. That a culture's majority does not implies that they lack the goal of the perfection, righteousness and correctness of God.

Uncovered here is the root of Equality-godlessness, a skepticism toward the existence of divinity or at least man's ability to achieve it. It may not be an intentional godlessness and certainly I do not purport that it is necessarily a malicious effort. It is possible that the condition be the result of subconscious absentmindedness. Ours is a culture that almost forces preoccupation with things less than God. Even if one knows God's goodness and performs all the accepted practices to suggest his devotion, it is possible that he does so with only a illusory grasp of God's infinite power and so, continues any level of impudent or self-deprecating behavior on the side thereby disallowing a true faith.

From godlessness comes selfishness and materialism. From these two come the attitude that freedom is restricted. Coupled with the quest for freedom, this notion of an oppressed freedom amounts to the desire for Equality. The correlation between godlessness and Equality is prominent throughout the last century, explained perfectly by the godlessness of prominent socialists and their "above us only sky" fancies.

Just as godlessness fosters Equality, godliness produces Justice. Considering the two requisites for Justice, one could work down to its root the same way as was done for Equality. Justice's premises would be (1) a quest for freedom and (2) the perception of a limitless freedom. The latter of the two stems from a combination of a great perspective on mankind, a big-picture view of humanity, and the ability to see beyond gold-plated plasma flat screens and other material things.

When one looks at humanity in whole as opposed to oneself or even one's immediate social neighbors, one will realize the fantastic opportunity we have before us, opportunity that allows us to do what was thought by many as impossible as recently as 25 years ago. To think of the vast accomplishments the brighter humans have given mankind as a whole automatically awakens one to the belief that we are a tremendously free civilization.

Moreover, the impression of something existing beyond one's material possessions also grants the notion of infinite freedom. Material things like plasma flat screen double espressos are fleeting. We may enjoy them while we consume them, but that joy ends and so too do the actual products. They become outdated or fall apart. This trend is not limited to consumer products, "durable" goods last finitely, even we humans have life spans-it is understood that nothing in this world, this universe lasts. Due to our physicality, we are un-lasting as well. This hinders man's freedom to a great extent in many cases especially if one considers that a part of this eventuality is the decline in health, which can be felt from one's 20s onward. Unless one has the ability to look beyond his physical boundaries, one is constantly reminded of his looming failure. If one can grasp what lies beyond those limits, the impression of an unrestricted freedom is significantly increased.

The ability to see beyond things and maintaining a perspective that encompasses all of humanity are characteristics that grant one the firm belief that freedom is abundant. These concepts stem from the belief in God. If one believes sincerely in God, he will be unable to focus on himself only. The subject of God is one of 6+ billion subjects, His ways are good for every human, not one alone. Likewise, with a steadfast faith, one is drawn to that which is unseen, untouched. God exists beyond the physical-to believe in Him requires one to endeavor through the physical and to grasp that realm.
Ultimately, the root of the aim of Justice is the belief that God that His infinite goodness are accessible by all humans. The faith may be a quiet one, it may be a hunch in the back of one's mind that he doesn't understand, but cannot resist. This belief does not necessarily result in evangelism or fervent practice although it often does. It never results in martyrdom, though some insist that it does. It is just a conviction that there is a right and wrong and that infinite goodness is available if one can make the sacrifice necessary to devote.

Based on the conclusion that Justice stems from godliness and the one that declared Equality's root in godlessness, it follows that Justice and Equality cannot exist together as goals. One cannot truly believe in God and at the same time, thoroughly doubt His existence. Maintaining either Justice or Equality as a goal would negate possibility for arguing the other. Despite the volume of instances where the two concepts are united as a goal, they are mutually exclusive.

This truth runs contrary to nearly all western nations. Not only does a country like America use both Justice and Equality as principles of its foundation, American policy is also able to make exceptions to whatever rule it maintains such that some of its citizens are given their sustenance while others must work for it. Doesn't America's condition imply that the two goals do not contradict each other? No, it does not. It merely implies that America, as it currently stands, is inconsistent.

In any specific instance, either goal is served, never both. When the handicapped person is given financial support, though it may seem proper, Justice is not served. When the hard-working immigrant builds a multi-million dollar business that his children inherit, though it may seem suitable, Equality is not served.

Furthermore, most individuals, when asked, believe either that everyone should be granted a firm social safety net or that everyone should be required to secure their own interests. Modern America is a concession offered by two ideologies that insistently and comprehensively oppose one another. Those who seek Justice, the politically classical in America, the conservatives may compromise or superficially agree with those who seek Equality, the politically modern, the liberals; but the underlying conflict is so fundamental as to compel, conspicuous or not, disagreement in every aspect of life: driving, work, sports, romance, education, leadership, following, government, politics, consumerism, entertainment, arts, religion.

Justice is an infinitely lofty goal, one that requires a great deal of responsibility to achieve, one that, to the seeker of Equality, seems so difficult as to imply our innate inability in achieving it. To many, it is not our job to serve Justice-it is the job of either a higher being and we mortals are not to take part in discerning the level of our own correctness, much less someone else's. To many others, the notion of an absolute Justice is absurd, a force superstitions and bugbears that dictate believers' lives. In prominent historical instances, judges have judged incorrectly on the basis of some absolute Justice-most relevantly during aristocratic Europe when the ruling class judged the lower class, slaves and peasants as innately inferior to the enlightened nobility. The frequency of misjudgment and the severity of its consequences have led many to believe that judgment is just not for us humans and Justice is rejected as a goal.

To the seeker of Equality, physical means are the only thing we can hope to satisfactorily make fair since, to him, godliness is out of the picture. All he worries about is the material condition of the citizenry, and the only way to make those material conditions fair is to make them equal. Only with a "level playing field" is it then possible for everyone to achieve their own, personal moral goals.

Concurrently, the seeker of Justice sees overwhelming faults in the goal of Equality. Possessing a powerful faith in the existence of God and our access to Him, social parity is not a goal like Justice is. Equality is based in superficial, material and un-lasting ends. When material ends are met, there is still more to accomplish, higher ground to gain, permanent transcendence to realize. The seeker of Justice recognizes the neglected goals, true goals, and cannot accept a quest for anything less. Ambition, effort, desire, passion are all lost to the inferior goal.

Tocqueville, after being raised into a chaos of French emancipation, remarked that the result of American Equality was a raised sense of pride and independence, but also a diminished sense of the arts and fundamental cultural progress. Witness the French Revolution, itself, where Equality was the premier focus. The revolutionaries did not have righteousness in mind when they beheaded thousands of aristocrats; nor did they think of Justice when they destroyed the civil society that had existed before 1789. It was Equality on the minds of those who eliminated the "de" from their names, wore mundane clothing and referred to each other as "tu," not "vous." These were not the marks of people striving for virtue and goodness, these were the marks of a class seeking vengeance against a class who were oppressively abusive.

The seeker of Justice sees the creativity, progress and faith of capitalist societies and the grave, uninspired and hopeless masses of socialist nations and makes a confident decision: Justice is the only reasonable goal. Ultimately, it is this assuredness and the certainty of the seeker of Equality that forms the considerable dichotomy about culture at the beginning of the 21st century.

Not an insubstantial source causes this rift. The difference between Justice and Equality is not only how one would treat a homeless person or regard a billionaire-it is much greater. The difference rests in one's belief in the existence or absence of God. Because of the vastness of the dichotomy's source, it is abstract and so most do not delineate why they must make a choice, they simply understand that they must do so. One will choose either Justice or Equality and this will imbue his conscience in every decision he makes.

* * *

Given this dichotomy, one must recall the notion that America and its antagonists play vital roles in it, each making up one hemisphere of the conflict. Which side is either party on? Regard the forms of anti-Americanism. From the sharp diplomatic refusal of American aims by France and Germany to the antithetical bitterness of protesters who burn American flags and paint Hitler mustaches on American presidents, the stance of anti-Americanism seems vast and complex. Could it be that all of its manifestations come from one source? Could it be that the intent of anti-American scholars is the same as anti-American entertainers? It is my claim that it is.

Since the anti-American is by definition opposed to something, one must regard what it is that it opposes to define the position. To do that, one must consider what anti-Americans see as Americanism. When considering what America is in 2003, and thereby what Americanism is, the anti-American can choose a number of things. Money-driven, lazy, wasteful, superficial, fat, hypocritical, opportunist, greedy, selfish, war-monger. All denunciations have been employed of late as American labels. Of course these gibes are all very different and not necessarily exactly what the anti-American finds in the great nation.

To more specifically indicate what the anti-American sees as America, one should observe what America pronounces most when anti-Americanism is most vibrant. Anti-Americanism was most vibrant during the 2003 Iraq war and so, we may conclude that the anti-American sees America as something more along the lines of opportunist war-monger as opposed to lazy, fat or wasteful.

But in examining the characteristics of the more appropriate vein, one might recognize the difficulty in connecting anti-Americanism to at least the more obvious of those characteristics. Take war-monger. Could it be said that the anti-American that so feverously lobbied against America's effort in Iraq and Afghanistan was truly against war when the opposition to the war in Kosovo (1999) was nonexistent compared with the more recent campaign? Both involved a great deal of death and destruction, but only Iraq was protested.

Consider greedy as the prominent American characteristic. It is true that procuring oil was in the interest of any nation like the United States and Iraq had a wealth of the resource. In conquering the Middle Eastern nation, America could secure an additional supply of oil to suit its own needs. But for two reasons, one could plainly surmise that the acquisition of oil was not the intention of the world power in 2003. to the knowledge of economists, Iraq only produced less than 4% of the oil in the world, ranking the nation behind countries not known for their oil production like the UK and even Norway. Iran ranked higher at around 6% and there was little talk of invasion there. If America was attempting to colonize for oil, it could have chosen more profitable locations. Furthermore, America had clearly stated that it did not intend to occupy the country longer than it took to organize a government of the Iraqi people. Whatever the oil production was, it would belong to the people of Iraq, not the US.

It was said that America was leading a charge as Christian fundamentalists against Muslim nations, a class in which Iraq served as the inaugural conquest. The Christian leaders of the US made clear their appreciation for the Muslim faith and that there was no intent on destroying the religion. It was Saddam Hussein who called for a holy war, condemning all faiths that were not his own. It is clear that America was not involved in an war against Islam. A claim could be made that Saddam Hussein was actually waging his own war against Islam. This truth was emphasized by the notion that Saddam Hussein was in charge of the force that had been estimated to kill more Muslims than any other power in history.

With respect to the popular notion that the American president at the time of the 2003 Iraq war, the 43rd president, George W. Bush, was eager to redeem his father, the 41st American president, George H. W. Bush, who by some accounts failed in a 1991 Iraq war and who had also survived an assassination attempt by the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, could lead to the conclusion that America's aim was vengeance. A common bromide in 2003 was that Bush, 43, was just "doing it for daddy." This claim was to be disregarded as world leaders with no relation to either Bush 43 or 41 saw the need for action. Of those world leaders, the 42nd president of the United States and subsequent challenger to the 2003 Iraq war, Bill Clinton, was included during his term.

No popular claim employed to support the opposition of the 2003 Iraq war was free from inconsistencies. Still, the opposition was stormy and there must have been some reason for it, popular or otherwise. To uncover the true source of opposition, I should point out the shift in opinion on Iraq from 1998 to 2003. In 1998, Iraq leader, Saddam Hussein ousted UN inspectors drawing a intense response from the world community. US and British planes bombed targets in the maverick nation and talk was beginning of invasion. In that year, Clinton and many of the top US leaders agreed that Saddam Hussein was a threat and should be removed from power. But in 2003, the story was quite different.

Clinton's posture changed from his 1998 pitch to invade Iraq to his 2003 pacifism, a shift in opinion that was also found in other prominent US leaders and cultural figures. Senate minority leader, Tom Daschle blasted the Bush administration for its endeavor in 2003 contrasting dramatically his adventuresome rhetoric of 1998. The shift was not only limited to politicians. A pop singer who spoke out against the war in 2003 was actually supportive of American military efforts in 1998 and 1999 joining First Lady, Hillary Clinton in cheering the troops in Kosovo. And as mentioned before, the civilian protesters, who came out by the millions worldwide in 2003 were not vocal at all in 1998.

A great number of figures and the vocal masses urged the war in 1998 but did not do so in 2003. They urged it in 1998 even though the call to sack Saddam was made by a US President with a knack for trickery. They protested it 2003 even though the call came from a US President who was sure to keep his word. When they knew it would happen, they protested, when they knew it wouldn't happen, they urged it. They must not have really wanted it to take place.

Those who made the shift from support of an Iraq war to the protest of it didn't want the war to take place even though it was accepted that the war was necessary to eliminate a precarious threat in a volatile region. To eliminate that threat would certainly have been considered good by all, so why would anyone not want that exercise to happen? The answer is that although ridding the world of Saddam Hussein would have been the sure result of a US-led war in Iraq, there were other sure results that the shifters were determined to thwart. The most prominent of those auxiliary results was the amplification of American power.

As the world's policeman, America was obligated to lead efforts in eradicating the world of problems like Saddam Hussein. In leading those efforts, it was America that headed the military operation and the reconstruction that followed. As such, America's role in the world was augmented during each operation of the kind. To accomplish the task would certainly mean the flexing of American might. With the size of Iraq, it was unlikely to invade it without an increase in American power. It became an impossibility when the international community shuddered at the thought of actually retorting on Saddam's 1998 ejection of UN inspectors.

"The ability to do anything, anytime," "a cowboy," were what the anti-Americans saw America as. They saw America as a self-reliant, independent "hyperpower," and that is what was so objectionable to them. America had great power before the war and a successful military campaign would only teem that authority. While Bush was satisfied in augmenting this power, the shifters could not bear it. Clinton and his supporters, France and Germany, the protesters, the Hollywood left and all anti-Americans were eager to rid the world of an evil dictator as long as it could be done without the extension of the already long American arm.

The question raised is why would an American president seek to limit US power especially by withholding an effort to rid the world of Saddam Hussein, knowing that such an effort would be beneficial to the civilized world in addition to making his own country more powerful? The answer is that Clinton, his supporters and other opponents to the 2003 Bush effort were proponents of Equality. If they could encumber American growth or cultivate the power of American opposition, balance of the world power structure would result. Anti-Americans saw America as power and their efforts to redistribute that power was one manifestation of their quest for Equality.

Clinton, Daschle, the French, the Germans, the Russians, et al., were not against the war in 2003, they were simply against inequality. They were upset with the fact that there was such severe inequality in the global arena and an ever-growing America only expanded its dominance by eliminating the threat of terrorism and belligerent dictators. America's challengers despised the war because it implied to them this expansion of American power and thereby, the abandonment of Equality.

This truth was proven after the war, after the contested growth of America, when the French and other anti-war countries eagerly applauded the fall of oppressive dictator, Saddam Hussein, and fancied themselves playing a major role in Iraq's reconstruction. They clearly did not disagree with America's goal in the war-they wanted to take part in it-as long as it wasn't America's goal.

This truth was further seen in the way protesters derided Bush, 43, by painting a Hitler mustache on his portrait. Why Hitler? Did the freely elected president, Bush actually resemble the evil dictator? More than Bush's adversary, Saddam Hussein who was a dictator like Hitler? It is true, like Germany of the 1930s, America was facilitating an invasion of another country. The similarities stop there. Besides the difference that Bush was president in a democratic-republic and Hitler ruled by force, and the fact that Hitler was at the head of one of the most horrible atrocities in all human existence while Bush was not, the invasions themselves were incongruous. Iraq was threatening, none of Hitler's conquests were; the Iraqi people cried for a replacement of their own leadership while Polish, French and British people repudiated the idea of regime change; and Iraq was free after the US-led incursion, the citizens of Hitler's retentions were under his rule post-invasion.

Distinctions between Bush and Hitler overwhelm the similarities. Bush was not like Hitler, and yet the chic remonstration was to liken the two. Why? Protesters did this simply so as to illustrate their hatred toward the American president. Hatred toward Hitler was a given, so relating the American president to Hitler would imply hatred to Bush however far of a stretch the effort was. The fact that the protesters hated Hitler was nothing unusual. Hitler was baneful, he was evil. But Bush was nothing like Hitler, especially in what made Hitler so hated. Bush was a good man. The deduction must be that the reason protesters hated both Hitler and Bush was something other than the condemnation of evil.

What a discerning spectator will note is that the protesters did not relate Bush to other baneful, evil men, of which the 20th century has quite an accumulation, they only related Bush to Hitler. The protesters must have found a difference between Hitler, for whom great hatred was rekindled in 2003, and other evil men-Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot or even Ernesto Che Guevara-for which hatred was not rekindled in 2003. To the protesters, Stalin, Pol and Che were fighters for communism, socialism and Equality like the protesters were and this fact protected them from the label of evil. The communist tyrants weren't considered evil, even though they were as viciously inhuman as Hitler, because they shared the same goal as the demonstrators. Hitler decidedly strived for inequality, and this is what the protesters hated. Meanwhile, Bush's goal was neither Equality nor inequality, he was seeking something else. The protesters did not see what he was striving for, they just saw that he did not share goals with them-he did not strive for Equality-and so the false summation followed that Bush sought inequality like Hitler. The flawed rational resulted in the insidious association.

Equality is the goal of anti-Americanism. Just regard the radical socialist doctrines of prominent scholars who put forth their most cleaver rhetoric to condemn America. Notice the organizers of protests around the world prior to the war were communist parties in each respective city. Note the "human shield" parties sent to deter American might in Iraq were all programmed by socialist activists. France, Germany, Canada, Russia and China were all great opponents of the war and all were great proponents of socialist government.

Even the anti-Americans unaware of their revolutionary roots still found a driving force in Equality. This can be seen in the prevailing disposition among non-Americans, a bitter dependence on all things American. It is a dependence because most civilized people around the world realize the great accomplishments of America and they want, rather, they need to be a part of that achievement. It is bitter because Americans know how great they are-even though many across the world attempt to repudiate such a claim-and as such, every great accomplishment of America is irrevocably seen as American or something that an Egyptian or a Frenchman or a Briton is not. The unfortunate inference is that as America becomes greater, those who are not American seemingly grow more insignificant. To avoid self-deprecation, a foreigner must deprecate America. Ultimately, foreigners strive resolutely for Americanism, but intentionally disparage America.

Anti-Americanism is as commonplace as MacDonald's, and as long as power is seen as an evil and America is powerful, anti-Americanism will last as long as the popularity of the Big Mac. The anti-Americans' goal is Equality. It is professed in the ironic disrespect of America by eagerly Americanized foreign nationals. It is seen in the kind of leadership world-wide protests against American military efforts maintain. It is witnessed in the fact that the mustache scornfully painted on the American president is that of Adolf Hitler, not Joseph Stalin. It is evidenced in the way nations praise the removal of evil dictators from power but frown upon it if it is done by the most powerful nation in history.

This condition of international politics is not a positive one for America. If we recall historical instances of this same state, we'll find that unfortunate outcomes resulted in the case of the very powerful. Aristocracies of European countries are the most glaring examples of powerful bodies that were violently and utterly destroyed by the less powerful. To anti-Americans, America is nothing more than a modern-day aristocracy. It governs not the citizenry of one country, but along with a couple other nations, America dominates the world.

To anti-Americans, Globalization is a modern aristocracy with America playing the role of upper class and all the other nations playing the lower class. Just as the lower class overthrew the oppressive elite of 18th century Europe, the third-world and others may well attempt to overthrow the supposedly oppressive elite of the 21st century.

One of two things must occur in order for America to last the threat of anti-Americanism without the dire consequences predicted by history. Either America should reduce their power or America's power should be seen as something that is not necessarily evil. To suggest that America intentionally abdicate their power might seem ridiculous to the average American no matter who he or she votes for. It is clear, on the other hand, that many, including elected officials have sought to do just that. An indirect effort as it may have been, one could well be uncovered as was the case with Bill Clinton's submission to Iraq and popular opinion in 1998.

Still, a broad attempt at such a goal would doubtless be rejected by the great majority of Americans. It is in their own interest to stay as powerful as possible regardless of the consequences of that power. Americans are then left with one recourse to avoid the looming vengeance of the underprivileged: to make it understood that America's power is not evil in itself, and more appropriately, that it is actually a good. This task is one that would require no little effort. Initially, it requires a confirmation of its truth.

* * *

It is not coincidental that anti-Americans see America as power. America is powerful, most historically so. Condemnation of the great country based on this perception, however, is largely contestable. The anti-American insists that accumulation of power is an evil in itself. As I will explain below, it is not only wrong to suggest that power is an evil in itself, but power should also be seen as a necessary consequence of a virtuous endeavor.

Granted, many states in the past have been powerful and few of those states have used that power to virtuous ends. Mostly it was the case that an elite few enjoyed the riches of power and as an upshot, the destitute masses struggled. It cannot be said then that power is necessarily a sign of a virtuous state. Contrarily, power has been the trademark of tyrannous dictators, wayward civilizations and megalomaniacs.

History teaches us well that power coincides with evil often and so it is no mystery that at the dawn of the 21st century, a state as powerful as America is seen as wicked by many. The intensity of American power understandably intensifies the trepidation. "Superpower" no longer describes America's strength, the word "hyperpower" has been employed to handle the duty. Its GDP is more than three times higher than the second highest country's. Its military power is acknowledged as by far the most advanced ever. Its economy waves off recessions like gnats and its culture attracts consumers like flies. All the while, critics see this ballyhoopower as just the latest installment of the brutal world-leading states.

But there is no historical precedence for the emphatic power America holds. To compare its accumulation of power to that of past states is not that easy. It is possible that America is so radically powerful that the same method used to acquire power in the past (striving for power) could not be used to this degree of success. Can one surmise that power might be attained by some other motive? Fire furnishes great warmth, but heat may not be the aim of the explorers who seek to light their path. The same energy that causes the burning power of America may also have been ignited to serve a different aim.

What is that aim? To discover that, one must regard the source of America's great power, the fire that causes the heat and ultimately, the light. How is it that America has the ability to invade the heftily-guarded Iraq with relatively little civilian damage and minimal allied casualty in what may be the most competent military campaign to date? How is it able to shower the towns along an earthquake-stricken countryside with millions of dollars in relief aid within hours? How is it able to have so much influence on what music Japanese girls and German boys listen to at their birthday parties? The simple answer is because it has the freedom to do so.

Freedom is the condition of being free from restraints and power is the capacity to perform effectively. To be free from restrictions is exactly what grants any given entity the capacity to perform effectively and whence, freedom begets power. From this conjecture, it could be said symmetrically with statements above that America's fire is freedom. Also in accordance with themes above, the freedom that serves as America's fire is not as simple as one might assume. Though the last 500 years have been a struggle for freedom, there are two freedoms to regard with respect to that struggle, a physical kind-a level of material comfort-and an abstract one-the ability to get what one deserves. As such, to uncover America's fire requires one more step.

Let us consider what it is that directly offers America the elements of its power. To perform a mission like Iraq 2003 requires a highly trained and sophisticated military and America has exactly that. To lend aid for disaster relief requires a massive and flexible economy, America has exactly that. To command people across the globe to wear certain clothes or listen to certain music requires a vast and engaging culture, America has exactly that. America can do these things because it has the infrastructure in place to do them.

So what grants America its mega infrastructure? In each of the categories-military, economy and culture-required are two general resources: raw materials and population. Regard America's Gross Domestic Product (about 10 trillion dollars, ranking 1st among nations), a reliable indicator with respect to military, economic and cultural influence. To build such a formidable GDP, a nation is likely to have a wealth of two integral components: material to build the product and people to produce it. America has an abundance of both. It has population (280 million people, ranking 3rd among nations) and it has land (about 5.6 million square miles, ranking 4th among nations) granting it a vast source of raw materials and manpower. These two resources endow the country with fantastic freedom to build, to industrialize, to trade.

From these two resources, it could be said that America is bound to be powerful. In other words, it could be that they are America's great resources that imply its power. When America wants to build an army of millions, a superhighway or a space station, it can with quickness and adroitness. This conjecture is supported by the fact that nations with very little population and land-Tuvalu, the Maldives, Guatemala-rarely reside on the world's power stage. Generally, the more population and land a country has, the more power it has. The less so, the less power available.

The resources mentioned are physical in nature, and with reflection on the larger argument, it would be right to say at this point that America is powerful because of the physical kind of freedom and not the other. The correlation between resources and power is not absolute, however, and for two reasons, one must reject the notion that America's power results from the physical kind of freedom.

Indeed, given America's industry and infrastructure, many primitive cultures would collapse in self indulgence or by primeval instincts. An industrialized people might build a bridge for a primitive tribe, they could even tell them how to use it, but without knowledge of what's on the other side and why they need it, the primitive people will have no use for the bridge, they will neglect it or even destroy it to fuel their fires-for something about which they know the rewards. It is not uncommon to find instances where this has happened. Fantastic resources have been introduced to primitive people throughout history and, with regularity, such endeavors ended in the same predicament. The primitive people could not grasp the new resources and rejected them violently. The most recent case is seen in the Islamic fundamentalism germinating throughout the world. In many tragic instances, the more advanced technology is used by the primitive, but it is done so for reasons unrelated to or often counter to its intended use. For two reasons one must conclude that power's issuance is not only the facility of mere resources.

Though there is a general trend between resources and power, it is not one that is very reliable. Two Asian countries that demonstrate its inconsistency. China (1.28 billion people, ranking 1st among nations) has ten times the population Japan has and also has land (around 5.8 million square miles, ranking 2nd among nations), surpassing Japan by far in it as well. One would assume that China would surpass Japan in power as well, but it does not. China's GDP is about 1.2 trillion dollars which comes in at around 6th among nations. Japan is 10th among nations in population (126 million) and has quite modest land area (about 234 thousand square miles), but is the second most powerful nation economically behind the US at around 3.4 trillion dollars.

The second reason we cannot rely on the notion that resources equal power is that America's power is so monumentally vast that no trend based on physical resources could predict it-America's power is irrational with regard to its resources. When considering other countries, modern or historic, a relationship between resources and power might be constructive, but not with America. While the top nations in GDP fall in comparison to other nations in GDP per capita, the US stays remarkably, almost incredibly high-2nd behind Luxembourg ($43,400 per person) at $36,300 per person. Only Japan (9, $27,200) shares the distinction of being in the top ten nations in GDP and GDP per capita. China's GDP per capita is $4,600.

Power may well be based on freedom, but freedom doesn't have to be based in resources like raw materials and population. It may also be located in the sum of freedom granted to the nation's individual citizens. A country consists in its citizenry, so, if the individuals are free to create artwork, engineer computers and build superstructures, the country, by turn, is also free to do so.

From this kind of freedom springs a unique kind of power. It is not unique in that it plays a role in the global arena different from the resources kind of freedom, however. Just like the resources kind of freedom, the political kind of freedom also increases military power, economic stability and cultural strength. It is unique in the way it increases these indicators-it does so exponentially.

To accomplish a mission like Iraq 2003 requires the manpower and weaponry as described above, but it also requires weaponry of advanced technology and innovative tactical techniques as well as personnel who are diligent, passionate and well supported by their nation's people. America has all of these. To grant disaster relief takes a massive and flexible economy, but a great economy like America's requires productive, resourceful workers and imaginative leaders. To sway the global culture one direction or another certainly takes a vast and engaging culture, but required to produce that is a creative and inventive collection of artists who can produce what people want to consume.

The substance of this kind of freedom is imagination, creativity. It is the presence of a connection to some perfect ideal from which the physical manifestations originate. It is the ability to conceive an ideal that allows the physical manifestations to be so advanced, so progressive, so near perfect. Resources provide power to some extent, but without ingenuity, they are fruitless. On the other hand, minimal resources can provide great power with only the most basic creativity. Ultimately, it is this creativity that is needed to produce great power, the kind of power America possesses.
Since creativity requires the connection to some perfect ideal, it should be said that required for the American kind of power is the connection to that perfect ideal-required is employment of the metaphysical freedom.

Innovation, creativity, passion, resourcefulness are all qualities of a populace with great imagination, a populace without restrictions on their freedom. It was this abstract kind of freedom, not the resource kind, that bloomed the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment and Romanticism. The natural resources were the same in 1500 than they were in 1000, but the increasing freedom granted to the people resulted in the fantastic growth. This kind of freedom was expressed from 1500 through to the present and the marvelous power that mankind possesses now as witnessed by nuclear power, space exploration, genetic engineering, robotics and nanotechnology, is directly rooted in the metaphysical freedom of mankind.

With that being said, it would follow that America is the zenith of a 500-year quest for the kind of freedom that provides Justice. America is the quest for Justice. To support the claim, regard how America has ushered, if not perfect classical liberalism, the nearest of any state in history or present. It is the country that first instituted a freely elected a president, congress and governors into their government. It is the first country to instate a system where the government was not at leisure to dictate religion, speech, assembly or dissent. It was the first country to eliminate the government's ability to tax its citizens.

One could say that those freedoms have been consistent with a few exceptions. Taxation is one glaring exception. At nearly 40%, the upper tax bracket is hardly the liberty intended by American forefathers. But, at 40%, America's upper tax bracket is lowest among all notable industrialized nations and the establishment of America's taxes came long after its fellow industrialized nations' tax programs. If freedom of citizenry implies power, America's taxation may be a hindrance to its power, but considering the relative lowness of the taxes, the claim that America seeks Justice is drawn with validity.

The argument draws more support upon reflection of the major conflict of the second half of the 20th century and its ultimate resolution. In the Cold War, America played the leader of the capitalist, democratic side of the conflict, opposing the USSR, leader of the socialist, communist side. No weapons were fired between the two heads, but the auxiliary effects of the central standoff which equaled extensive military endeavors for both nations illustrated how important the Cold War was. The sweeping rhetoric and political posturing that surrounded those military efforts emphasized the gravity of the conflict.

Going into the fourth decade of the Cold War, America was worried. It had lost a war in Vietnam and was beginning to buckle under the weight of the Cold War as its adversary was seemingly as powerful as ever. America was suffering a severe political disillusionment due to Watergate and the gas prices underscored the economic troubles the nation was experiencing as a whole. Unemployment had risen to nearly 10% by 1982 and crime rates were growing steadily.

The cause of America's plight is manifold and to solve the problem was sure to entail a number of tactics. With a retrospective, however, we are able to see how one simple measure reversed America's condition, solidified the nation and increased its power to an extent that no competitor could challenge it. That measure was to straighten the will of American people, unify the country and strive to be what the country is, Justice.

America strove for Justice by employing classical liberalism's abstract freedom, most markedly with the lowering of taxes. Leading up to that point from the 1940s, taxes were relatively high. The upper tax bracket was to give 70% of their income to the government. From the 1940s to the 1980s, America was fighting a battle against the fulmination of communism but issuing its own, albeit tame, version of socialism.

In 1986, US President Ronald Reagan pushed the Tax Reform Act to complete a five-year reform program started in the first year of his presidency, ultimately cutting taxes so that there were two brackets paying respectively 15 and 28%. The move was revolutionary, especially because the US had gotten used to the revenue of a 70% taxation or higher for decades. Not coincidentally, however, revenue did not fall, it continued to rise, due in large part to a reduction in unemployment and an expanding economy. The expanding economy was the result of the political freedom, the classical liberalism granted to American citizens which extended power exponentially.

Even though the government required less from its citizens, it got more in return. The economy strengthened, crime began to see a reduction, Americans were in support of their president, US military endeavors became refined, intentional and most importantly, successful. Ultimately, the bursting American presence led to a competition with the USSR for power in which the communist state could not compete. America won and as a result, disintegrated what had been the only true competition for that victory.

Political freedom or classical liberalism, is America's fire and accordingly, we find that it is the source to America's great power and it's aim, Justice. It is this kind of freedom that allowed Great Britain to become the world power that it was in the 19th century even though its land mass was so limited. The same source can be attributed for Japan's power, so irregular with its limited population and resources. It is the breakthrough of classical liberalism in China that is allowing it to embrace the power that it should have with its population and resources. America's great power is due to the fact that the nation grants this kind of freedom to its citizens more than any nation in the world. America is the greatest proponent of classical liberalism left in the world and whence it is the greatest power in the world and the greatest champion of Justice.

One question remains: Is power an evil in itself? Granted, America may seek some other goal, but if power itself is wrong, and if America's aim is something that necessarily produces that power, then America is in the wrong. Is power bad?

It would have to be bad according to anyone who saw freedom as does the anti-American. To him, freedom is limited and since freedom grants power, power is limited in turn. The accumulation of any power will result in the reduction in power for others. This would imply the innate evil of America's power because it is so great.

Of course this runs in direct contrast with the view of Americans, or any other seeker of Justice. To them, freedom is limitless and only serves to facilitate the ambition of a man or country. If a man or country has virtuous ambitions, then power would also be virtuous. If a man or country has corrupt desires, power would also be corrupt. But power is not bad or good for that matter in itself.

The question on whether power is evil is actually who is right between the classical and modern liberal? Which kind of posture represents freedom most accurately? It may well be that the time and space I have dedicated to this question has hinted at an answer for my audience already. As evidenced with America's method in winning the Cold War, when one seeks the abstract kind of freedom, he will find power independent of the power that requires the physical kind of freedom. A state dedicated to classical liberalism will flourish and prosper to the extent that the comfort level sought by modern liberals will be attained and will continue to rise. Meanwhile, if one seeks the physical kind of freedom, he may find power, but only a limited power at the expense of someone else's freedom. A state dedicated to modern liberalism will hover at the level that their resources will provide and never find the growth to depart want.

A quest for Justice mandatorily accomplishes the aims of Equality in addition to its own quest while a quest for Equality inherently fails at even attaining its own goal. For these reasons only, Justice is the logical goal to pursue. But the true aim of Justice is what should persuade those seeking goodness. Of course, that true aim of Justice is not one that I could prove even with means much more extensive than this article. That aim is the perfect ideal of God. It is up to the audience of this article to determine for themselves whether what they should or should not be dedicated to that aim, but ultimately, it is that audience that will have to answer the question.

In one's search for freedom, it is this question that must be answered. After a 500-year quest to grasp the idea of freedom, remarkably, it is one that maintains elusiveness and accordingly, the faith of the world is at a most precarious position. A culture at the dawn of those centuries questioned whether their restriction was necessary and if freedom was possible. A culture at the other end of that era has agreed that freedom must exist with proof coming from man-made signals hundreds of millions of miles away from earth and those made between every healthy baby born and his mother, but that culture has split in half because of a difference in how to best exercise man's precious liberty.

In the end, it must be said that all rational, politically-minded people, whether classical or modern, conservative or liberal, strive for goodness. The passion that erupts between the sides of the dichotomy is due to a sincere will to achieve that goodness. This truth cannot be lost. It is this fact that will mediate the conflict and it that lends certainty to the notion that we will soon answer the question of freedom.