[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 19 (Thursday, February 13, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E278-E279]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 ``FOUR POINTS OF THE COMPASS'' BALINT VAZSONYI'S DIRECTION FOR AMERICA

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. GEORGE P. RADANOVICH

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 13, 1997

  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, my friend and adviser, Dr. Balint 
Vazsonyi, delivered a lecture today at the Heritage Foundation, which 
was entitled ``Four Points of the Compass: Restoring America's Sense of 
Direction.'' The lecture drew a wide cross section of men and women who 
are in the forefront of Americans concerned about our constitutional 
underpinnings. Those taking part included Senator Rod Grams of 
Minnesota, who delivered an insightful evaluation of Dr. Vazsonyi's 
lecture, Matthew Spalding of the Heritage Foundation, and Daniel 
McDonald of the Potomac Foundation.
  As many of our colleagues know, Dr. Vazsonyi's thesis is one to which 
I strongly subscribe. Indeed, I am pleased to acknowledge the 
significant role he has played in helping advance new America, the 
vision expression that we launched last year. That vision is about 
restoring civil society through structural reform that focuses on 
revitalizing society's nongovernment institutions--family, business, 
religious/civic.
  Mr. Speaker, Balint Vazsonyi's lecture is recommended reading for all 
who are working to assure that government's grasp doesn't exceed its 
constitutional reach. I am pleased to make it part of the Congressional 
Record at this point.

   Four Points of the Compass: Restoring America's Sense of Direction

       Although the press appeared not to notice, President 
     Clinton, in his Inaugural Address, called for a new 
     Constitution. He borrowed language from the Declaration of 
     Independence where in 1776 Thomas Jefferson presented the 
     argument for new government. On January 20th, 1997, Mr. 
     Clinton proclaimed, ``We need a new government for a new 
     century.'' He proceeded to set forth all the things this new 
     government would give the American people.
       Today, I come before you to argue that we need just the 
     opposite. We, at the Center for the American Founding, 
     believe that a tool is necessary to guide us back to the path 
     of our existing Constitution. We offer this tool to the 
     decision makers, legislators and judges of America and ask 
     all of you to help us develop it to its full potential. 
     Because it points the way, we think of it as a compass.
       What kind of country will exert its best efforts for the 
     benefit of all mankind? Or engage in war without expectation 
     of gain? What kind of country makes it possible that a person 
     who did not grow up in it feel sufficiently at home to step 
     forward with a major initiative? What kind of country has 
     long-time professionals come together to hear a relative 
     novice with a foreign accent speak on national issues? What 
     kind of country? A country which is one of a kind.
       As we contemplate the future, it is essential that we keep 
     in mind that America, indeed, is one of a kind. Some believe 
     with all their heart that people, and their aspirations, are 
     the same everywhere. This may be so. But the nation 
     established here more than two hundred years ago has neither 
     precedent nor a parallel in the known history of this planet. 
     Not its capacity for success; not its capacity for strength; 
     not its capacity for goodness. It is one of a kind.
       One-of-a-kind. A big word. You hear it and think of 
     Shakespeare. Or Beethoven. Or George Washington. We look at 
     their work and try to understand what makes it so. It is a 
     hopeless endeavor. But with America, there are definite 
     ingredients we can identify quite easily: the rule of law, 
     individual rights, guaranteed property and so forth. A funny 
     thing, ingredients. We acknowledge their importance in all 
     sorts of scenarios, yet ignore them when it comes to matters 
     of life and death. If we eat something memorable, we want the 
     recipe. With food, we know without the shadow of a doubt that 
     the ingredients make the thing.
       Chocolate ice cream, for example, takes chocolate, cream 
     and sugar. If, instead, you use ground beef, mustard and 
     ``A1'' sauce, you don't expect chocolate ice cream to come 
     out of the process. Whatever else it will be, chocolate ice 
     cream it will not be. Ice creams come in many varieties. 
     America is one of a kind. Do we honestly expect it to remain 
     America if the ingredients are changed?
       Over the past decades, the Rule of Law has been displaced 
     by something called ``social justice.'' Group rights and 
     arbitrary privileges make a mockery of the constitutional 
     rights of the individual. Where not so long ago all Americans 
     could feel secure in their right to acquire and hold 
     property, government today is no longer discussing whether--
     only how much of it to confiscate, and how to redistribute 
     it. As you see, the ingredients have already undergone 
     drastic change. Is it reasonable to hope that America will 
     nevertheless remain America?
       And the greatest variety of assaults is launched against 
     something I have come to refer to as ``national identity.'' 
     Now, I realize that some people might have a reaction to that 
     phrase because the term has been used by others as a wedge. I 
     use it as a magnet. As such, it is a necessity. Something 
     needs to bind people together, especially when they have 
     converged, and continue to converge upon a place from every 
     corner of the globe.
       Identity is about being similar or being different. Since 
     our differences have been amply provided for by nature, we 
     have to agree about those aspects of our lives which will 
     make us similar. For the shared history which other nations 
     have, Americans have successfully substituted a shared belief 
     in, and adherence to, certain principles. A common language 
     took the place of a shared culture. No state religion was 
     established, but a Bible-based morality taken for granted. 
     Add to this a certain work ethic, an expectation of 
     competence in your field of work (whether you split the atom 
     or sweep the floor), a spirit of voluntary cooperation, 
     insistence on choice, a fierce sense of independence--and you 
     have the ingredients of the American identity. And, if you 
     prefer to call it American character or, as George 
     Washington, ``national character,'' it will serve our purpose 
     so long as we remain agreed about the ingredients. For it is 
     these ingredients that have distinguished us from other 
     societies, and enabled those who sweep the floor today to 
     split the atom tomorrow.
       Today, our nation's leaders are engaged in choosing a path 
     to pursue. Yet, all along, we have had a path to follow. It 
     is clearly pointed in the Declaration of Independence and our 
     founders complemented it with a superb road map they called 
     the Constitution of the United States. Add to this the 
     glossary we know as The Federalist Papers and it is hard to 
     see why and how we could have lost our sense of direction. 
     But lost it we have. That is why we need a compass--the 
     compass in the title of these remarks.
       Between 1776 and 1791, our compass was calibrated to keep 
     us on the path of betterment--as individuals and as a nation. 
     We even had a kind of ``North Star,'' a magnetic North, in 
     what we call the Rule of Law. But instead, we now have rule 
     by the lawmaker. Every member of the Executive, every member 
     of the Judiciary has become a potential lawmaker and in most 
     cases they use the potential to the hilt.
       Yet the Rule of Law stands for the exact opposite. As its 
     basic property, it places the fundamental tenets beyond the 
     reach of politics and politicians. Whereas it confers 
     legitimacy upon subsequent laws that spring from its eternal 
     well, it denies legitimacy to all legislative maneuvers that 
     corrupt its purpose. It holds the makers, executants and 
     adjudicators of the law accountable at all times. Above all, 
     it demands equal application to every man, woman and child. 
     Within its own framework, a prescribed majority may amend the 
     law. But as the law stands in any given moment, it must be 
     applied equally. If accomplished, nothing in the history of 
     human societies can match the significance and magnificence 
     of equality before the law.
       The aspiration for equality before the law began with the 
     Magna Carta or even earlier, in King Arthur's court, where 
     knights sat at a round table. But it took Thomas Jefferson to 
     etch the concept in the minds of freedom-loving people 
     everywhere, more permanently than posterity could have etched 
     the words in the marble of the Jefferson Memorial. And even 
     then, after those immortal words of the Declaration of 
     Independence had been written, it took most of two centuries 
     before America, land of the many miracles, almost made it a 
     reality for the first time ever.
       But it was not to be. The rule of law, our only alternative 
     to the law of the jungle, came under attack just as it was 
     about to triumph. The attacker displayed the irresistable 
     charm of the temptress, the armament of the enraged avenger, 
     dressed itself in intoxicating cliches, and wore the 
     insigniae of the highest institutions of learning. It called 
     itself ``social justice.''
       Let me make it clear: I do not speak of social conscience. 
     That is a frame of mind, a noble sentiment, a measure of 
     civilization. Precisely for that reason, while it has 
     everything to do with our conduct, it has nothing whatever to 
     do with laws. ``Social justice,'' on the other hand, aims at 
     the heart of our legal system by setting an unattainable 
     goal, by fueling discontent, by insinuating a permanent state 
     of hopelessness.
       But above all, social justice is unacceptable as the basis 
     for a stable society because,

[[Page E279]]

     unlike the Law, it is what anyone says it is on any given 
     day. We need only to move back a few years, or travel a few 
     thousand miles, and one is certain to find an entirely 
     different definition of social justice. At the end of the 
     day, it is nothing more than an empty slogan, to be filled by 
     power-hungry political activists so as to enlist the 
     participation of well-intentioned people.
       The Rule of Law and a world according to ``Social Justice'' 
     are mutually exclusive. One cannot have it both ways.
       What have the Rule of Law and the pursuit of ``social 
     justice'' respectively spawned over time? The Rule of Law 
     gave birth to a series of individual rights. In other words, 
     rights vested solely in individuals. Only individuals are 
     capable of having rights, just as only individuals can be 
     free. We say a society is free if the individuals who make up 
     that society are free. For individuals to be free, they must 
     have certain unalienable rights, and others upon which they 
     had agreed with one another.
       Social justice has spawned an aberration called group 
     rights. Group rights are the negation of individual rights. 
     Group rights say in effect, ``you cannot and do not have 
     rights as an individual--only as the member of a certain 
     group.'' The Rule of Law knows nothing about groups, 
     therefore it could not provide for, or legitimize rights of 
     groups. Groups have no standing in the eyes of the Law. And, 
     since their so-called rights are invariably created and 
     conferred by persons of temporary authority, they are 
     ``subject to change without notice,'' as the saying goes, 
     just like the definition of social justice itself.
       Individual rights recognize and promote similarity. Group 
     rights promote differences and stereotypes. Individual rights 
     and group rights are mutually exclusive. One cannot have it 
     both ways.
       Among our individual rights, the right to acquire and hold 
     property has a special place. If ever a concept came to be 
     developed to protect the weak against the strong, to balance 
     inborn gifts with the fruits of sheer diligence and industry, 
     property inviolate is its name. But who am I to speak, after 
     John Locke, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison have 
     pronounced on this topic. They held that civilized society is 
     predicated upon the sanctity of private property, and that to 
     guarantee it is government's primary function. Without 
     absolute property there is no incentive. Without absolute 
     property there is no security. Without absolute property 
     there is no liberty. The freedom to enter into contract, the 
     freedom to keep what is mine, the freedom to dispose of what 
     is mine underlies all our liberties.
       Neither the search for ``social justice'' nor so-called 
     group rights recognize, or respect, private property. They 
     look upon flesh-and-blood individuals as faceless members of 
     a multitude who, together, create a certain amount of goods. 
     These goods belong to what they call ``The Community.'' 
     Then certain people decide who needs what and, being privy 
     to some higher wisdom, distribute--actually redistribute--
     the goods. Redistribution is pursuant to group rights 
     expressed in something called entitlement. Entitlements 
     are based neither on law nor on accomplishment. 
     Entitlements are based on membership in a certain group, 
     and we have seen that groups are designated by persons of 
     temporary authority, rather than the law.
       The right to property and entitlements through 
     redistribution are mutually exclusive. One cannot have it 
     both ways.
       We have been ordered by the prophets of social justice to 
     replace our national identity with something they call 
     ``multi-culturalism.'' I will confess that some time in the 
     past, I might have shared the allergic reaction some of you 
     experience in the face of ``national'' and ``identity.'' But 
     then I noticed the enormous importance the social-justice 
     crowd attaches to the destruction of the American identity. 
     Just think: bi-lingual education and multi-lingual ballots. 
     Removal of the founding documents from our schools. Anti-
     American history standards. Exiling the Ten Commandments. 
     Replacing American competence with generic ``self-esteem.'' 
     Replacing voluntarism with coercion. Encouraging vast numbers 
     of new immigrants to ignore the very reasons which brought 
     them here in the first place. The list goes on, and sooner or 
     later will affect national defense, if it hasn't already.
       And for those who would point to Yugoslavia as proof of the 
     tragedy nationalism can cause, let me say that a healthy 
     national identity is utterly distinct from nationalism. Like 
     the United States, Yugoslavia was created. But unlike in the 
     case of the United States, ingredients for a national 
     identity were not provided, and Yugoslavia imploded at the 
     first opportunity precisely for that reason. Had it not done 
     so, it would have succumbed to the first external attack, for 
     no Croat would lay down his life for the good of Serbs or 
     Bosnians. Will Americans lay down their lives if America is 
     nothing but a patchwork of countless group identities?
       Will the Armed Forces of the United States fight to uphold, 
     defend, and advance the cause of Multi-Culturalism?
       This is not a frivolous question.
       The questions before us are serious, and legion. We are 
     virtually drowning in what we call ``issues,'' and they are 
     becoming increasingly difficult to sort out. How do we find 
     our position? And, once we find our position, how do we argue 
     its merit? Above all, how do we avoid the plague of serious 
     matters turning into bogus soap operas?
       We asked you to hear me today, because the Center for the 
     American Founding has a proposal to submit. We call it ``Four 
     Points of the Compass'' because these points provide 
     direction, because--in a manner of speaking--they constitute 
     a re-calibration of our compass which the events of the past 
     thirty years have distorted. They are the Rule of Law, 
     Individual Rights, the Sanctity of Property, and the sense of 
     National Identity. As you have seen, they are interconnected, 
     they literally flow from one another, just as the false 
     compass-points which have come to displace them--social 
     justice, group rights, redistribution and multi-culturalism--
     are interconnected and flow from one another. What is multi-
     culturalism if not a redistribution of cultural ``goods?'' 
     What is redistribution if not a group right? What is a group 
     right if not the implementation of some political activist's 
     version of ``social justice?''
       For thirty years, we have acquiesced in a steady erosion of 
     America's founding principles. The time has come to reverse 
     the movement. Rather than contending with countless 
     individual issues, all we need to do is take the debate 
     down a few notches, closer to the core. Let me repeat: we 
     need to take the debate down a few notches, close to the 
     core. We submit that all future policy and legislative 
     initiatives be tested against the four points of the 
     compass. Does the proposed bill negate the Rule of Law? 
     Does it violate individual rights? Does it interfere with 
     the sanctity of Property? Does it constitute an assault on 
     National Identity? Only if the answer is ``No'' in each 
     case, would the proposal proceed. In other words:
       Only if the answers are NO is the bill a GO.
       A few items need tidying up. How do we know what the Rule 
     of Law can accommodate, and how far do we take individual 
     rights? The answer, in both cases, comes from Article VI of 
     the Constitution. ``This Constitution, and the laws of the 
     United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof * * * 
     shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every 
     State shall be bound thereby * * *'' It is as uncomplicated 
     as that.
       In the coming months, we intend to approach the citizens of 
     this great nation and their representatives at all levels 
     with a call to consider adopting this approach. We will hold 
     panel discussions and town meetings so as to invite, engage 
     and incorporate the wisdom and experience of Americans 
     everywhere. There will be retreats and, by year's end, there 
     will be a book with all the details. We do not underrate the 
     magnitude of the step we are proposing, but we honestly 
     believe that it will make life a great deal easier. With a 
     simple stroke, it will become clear that one cannot take an 
     oath upon the Constitution and support group rights. One 
     cannot take an oath upon the Constitution and support the 
     confiscation of property without compensation. One cannot 
     take an oath upon the Constitution and support measures which 
     are clearly at odds with the mandate for national defense.
       We cannot have it both ways. We have to choose our compass 
     and remember the four points. They are, as we have seen, 
     inseparable. Therefore: Only if the answers are NO is the 
     bill a GO.
       I do not believe that last November the people of this 
     country voted for the luke-warm bath of bi-partisanship. I 
     believe the people of this country said: If you don't give us 
     a real choice, we won't give you a real election. Yes, people 
     probably have grown tired of the ``issues,'' but they are, I 
     am certain, eager to partake in an effort to choose either a 
     return to our original path, or a clean and honest break with 
     the past.
       Those who feel that the time has come to change the supreme 
     law of the land should come forward, say so, and engage in an 
     open debate. But let us not continue a pattern of self-
     delusion. We are heirs to a remarkable group of men who, two 
     hundred plus years ago, had every reason to feel similarly 
     overwhelmed by the number of decisions they had to make. 
     Their response was to make very few laws, for they knew that 
     the fewer the laws, the broader the agreement. They knew 
     people find it hard to agree on everything. So they sought 
     agreement on core principles they held to be non-negotiable.
       Today, we propose the four that ought to be non-negotiable. 
     They are, as we have seen, inseparable. We call them the four 
     points of the compass. Together, they can and will restore 
     America's sense of direction.

                          ____________________