"Four Points of the Compass"

In the second edition of my blog here, I discussed the reason why I started this blog, the renewal of America, and her restoration to a true Republic, as our Founding Fathers intended. Today, a friend of mine forwarded the transcript of a speech given to the Heritage Foundation in 1997 by a Hungarian pianist named Dr. Balint Vazsonyi. The speech was titled "Four Points of the Compass." As I read this document, I was struck at how this Hungarian immigrant, who learned to speak english at the age of 22, intimately understood the foundation of what America is, how it has changed over it's history, and what is needed to return her to her original course. I then started reading some of his other articles and speeches, starting back in 1991. Dr. Vazsonyi passed away in 2003, but his articles and speeches could well have been written today. As with just about anyone you hear or read, I do not agree with everything he says or believes. That does not take away from the impact of his foundational positions regarding American Renewal. I will post a link to his index of work at the end, but for this blog, I want to focus on the "Four Points" speech and it's relevance today.

"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 hearts that people, and their aspirations, are the same everywhere. This may be so. But the nation established here more than 200 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."

I thought this paragraph was such a great introduction to the body of this speech, again remembering that it comes from a Hungarian immigrant who spent time as a refugee in Austria after fleeing from Russian occupation in Hungary. I think it is important for those of us who were born and raised here to be reminded just how unique our country is.

"One of a kind. A big term. 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 A-1 Steak Sauce, you don't expect chocolate ice cream to come out of the process. Whatever else is the end creation, chocolate ice cream it will not be. Ice cream comes in many varieties. America is one of a kind. Do we honestly expect it to remain America if the ingredients are changed?"

Hard to make an explanation simpler than that, eh? When you look at the founding document of our nation, The Constitution, you find the ingredients for our nation. Does changing the Constitution, then, change America? Look at how Dr. Vazsonyi explains it....

"Over the past decades, 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. 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 that will make us similar. For the shared history that 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 is 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 floors), 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 did, "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 floors today to split the atom tomorrow."

Two incredibly important and polarizing concepts are shared here. The first is the understanding that the foundational laws of our nation were written to apply to ALL individuals, not to select groups in a different degree than they apply to other groups. It is pretty clear no matter what side of the aisle you fall on that the laws today do not apply equally to the individual in all cases. Instead, groups with more influence, (money, political power, celebrity) find a better group of laws that suits their interests. And if their interests change, so do the laws. This is fundamentally contrary to the Constitution.

The second is the concept of "National Identity". It would be easy to look at this concept and label it as "racist" or "protectionist". But if you read it carefully (as I did several times), you will see that Dr. Vazsonyi is saying that while our identity is developed from many cultures, in America, there still must be ONE identity. I like to use a couple of different axioms to further illustrate this concept. "You cannot serve two masters" is a phrase you hear mostly associated with religion, and the choice to serve a god or a devil, but in the same way, our country cannot cater to a multi-cultural population without losing it's identity. The second axiom is "A house divided against itself cannot stand.". You see the struggle Israel has, as with many Middle Eastern nations, trying to develop a country with more than one National Identity. It's not about differing nationalities or cultures, it's about how to bring them all together under one identity, and sticking to that identity.

"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."

This is one of the fundamental flaws in our society today. "The rule of lawmakers", as he refers to it, has unjustly punished or hampered the progress of some segments of society while enabling others to circumvent the same laws. When you look at the problems in our current economy, you can trace so much of it to personal greed, driven by an ability to do what they want when they want, so long as they have the influence to remain above the law. This is true with corporate executives, politicians, lobbyists, etc. Adherence to the Rule of Law would create an environment that deters the types of activities that have pushed our country to the edge.

"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 irresistible charm of the temptress, the armament of the enraged avenger, dressed itself in intoxicating clichés, 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, 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."

The simple difference between the rule of law and social justice is consistency and stability. Social justice as a means of governance is like trying to hit a moving target while blindfolded. Any time a group feels slighted, we have to review the laws. Any time the corrupt with influence feel pressure, they lobby for a change in laws.

"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."

Seems straight forward enough, right? You still with me? Okay, so now that Dr. Vazsonyi has laid out the basics, how do we get back on track? Glad you asked......

"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 30 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, closer 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."

This simple concept, applied to every decision, bill, law, or action by our nation's leaders, can easily restore us to a place of great prosperity, of shared responsibility, of increased accountability, and most importantly, to our rightful place as the most respected nation in the world.

This closing statement kind of sums up why I started this blog, and why I feel so passionate about American Renewal.

"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."

I promised I would give the link to Dr. Vazsonyi's site, where you can read countless articles from a simple man promoting a simple concept that could have a lasting effect on our nation for generations to come. Here it is......

http://balintvazsonyi.org/