It's commonplace to see American politicians making their argument by saying "The founding fathers blah blah". But if you ever wanted to conceive such text in to Chinese context, you will find how astonishing that almost cliche phrase is.
General Americans still believe that the country (in principle) should follow what the founding fathers declared in the constitution.
Even after all the jaw-dropping political fiascoes (Vietnam war, Watergate, WMD, Iraq war II), the general public still believes there is clear right and wrong, by measuring it against what the founding fathers had said 200 years ago.
Would any Chinese ever do the same for what Sun Yat-sen or Mao Zedong had said? Maybe this is because Chinese population had long been disillusioned since Han Dynasty: you can rebel and revolute as much as you want, and if you are lucky, you will win and rule for a few hundred years, but sooner or later, the next dynasty will replace you. And before long, everything returns to square one.
Below is the original Amazon user review that triggered all these thoughts:
The most important book written since COMMON SENSE, April 21, 2008
Dr. Ron Paul's THE REVOLUTION: A MANIFESTO is a concise (167 pages) and
convincing argument for a return to America's libertarian principles.
During his campaign for president, Dr. Paul established a very diverse
following: Republicans, Democrats, Greens, and "even some anarchists,"
he would joke. In truth, many people were drawn to him due his obvious
sincerity -- a breath of fresh air! -- even if they did not fully agree
with or understand his ideology. Now they will understand and become
Austro-Jeffersonians, one and all!
The first chapter, "The False Choices of American Politics,"
demonstrates why those Ron Paul supporters who do understand his
message cannot bring themselves to vote for either McCain or
Hillary/Obama, or even to really care who among them wins: There is
very little (if any) substantive difference between them. They may
disagree about when and where to use foreign intervention, but never
over whether it should be used at all. They may disagree over how fast
interest rates should be cut by the Fed, but never over whether the Fed
should exist. You get the idea.
Chapters 2 and 3 are titled "The Foreign Policy of the Founding
Fathers" and "The Constitution," respectively. Here Dr. Paul challenges
his neocon and liberal opponents to openly condemn the wisdom of the
founding fathers, which they do with their actions, or else follow it.
The framers of the Constitution were far from unanimous -- there were
bitter disputes among so-called "Federalists" (Hamiltonian
nationalists) and "republicans" (Jeffersonian decentralists) -- but
today's neocon/liberals reject the wisdom of both parties, taking an
expansive view of their powers that even Hamilton himself would have
seen as excessive.
Chapter 4, "Economic Freedom," may be an eye-opening one for many
readers. First, there are the liberals who were attracted to Dr. Paul's
campaign, who may for the first time be presented with a contrast
between the true Austro-Jeffersonian libertarian brand of capitalism
and the inflationist, Kudlow & Company / Forbes magazine variety.
Secondly there are many "paleoconservatives" I met who supported Dr.
Paul but were under the mistaken impression that he was against free
trade -- nothing could be further from the truth! In fact, as Dr. Paul
points out here, he is 100% in favor of unilateral, unconditional free
trade and 100% against quotas, sanctions, embargoes, duties, and
protective tariffs. He does oppose phony "free-trade" deals like NAFTA
and the WTO (joining many liberal Democrats in doing so, but for
different reasons) not because they "steal American jobs" (they don't),
but because they limit trade too greatly. Furthermore, they erode
constitutional sovereignty and work for the benefit of politically
connected elites, something with which libertarians, paleocons, and
liberals can all agree.
All three constituencies will also cheer Chapter 5, "Civil
Liberties and Personal Freedom." Here the contrast between Jeffersonian
libertarianism (once considered "liberalism" before that philosophy was
given a bad name in the early twentieth century) and the so-called
"conservatism" of the neocons and post-WWII New Rightists is perhaps at
its greatest. Ron Paul supports the Constitution and the limits it
places on government -- which makes him a "blame America" leftist among
the neocon punditry, all apologists for the liberal
Wilson/FDR/Truman/LBJ foreign policy, by the way.
But the best and most important chapter, without a doubt, is
Chapter 6, "Money: The Forbidden Issue in American Politics." Here Dr.
Paul expertly details the operations of the Federal Reserve System in
stunning clarity -- no conspiracy theories or half-truths that often
further obfuscate discussion of the secretive monetary authority. The
Austrian (and true) perspective on the Fed is not to be horrified that
the Fed isn't a government agency (it is, even if indirectly), but to
be outraged that all banks are essentially arms of the government. We
don't need the government to have even more control over the money
supply, we need it to have no control whatsoever (the exact opposite of
what movies like FREEDOM TO FASCISM seem to suggest). What's more, Dr.
Paul doesn't spread the myth that the Fed somehow profits as an entity
when it creates money (its profits go to the Treasury), but instead,
politically connected individuals and businesses profit at the expense
of working-class and poor families. You see, the effects of inflation
are not uniform -- the Fed System works as a wealth redistribution
system from poor and middle-class to the rich and politically
connected. How so? Buy this book and find out!
Finally, the book ends with the self-titled seventh chapter in
which Dr. Paul lays out a moderate and realistic course that could be
accomplished over one or two presidential terms. I'm tempted to share
this blueprint for you here but I don't want to discourage anyone from
buying the book. Instead, I'll use the last few words of this review to
lament the fact that this blueprint will certainly not be implemented
by the next president. Perhaps a young man or woman who volunteered for
Ron Paul's campaign in 2008 will work his or her way up through the
political establishment and be swept into office, with a like-minded
Paulian Congress, sixteen years from now (just as Reagan followed
sixteen years after Goldwater -- not that either of these two are to be
looked at as heroes. . .). We can only hope that the Republic can
endure that long!
