Columnistas invitados/Guest columnists

“Renunciar a la libertad es renunciar a la cualidad de hombres,
a los derechos de humanidad e incluso a los deberes”.
Juan Jacobo Rousseau.

Sobre la libertad política, en la línea de Juan Locke escribió el Barón de la Brède y de Montesquieu. Su obra “Del Espíritu de las leyes” ha pasado a la historia de las ideas políticas básicamente por las páginas dedicadas al tema de la división de poderes. Su tesis estuvo dirigida contra el absolutismo, que se caracterizó por la concentración del poder en un solo individuo. La propuesta de la división de poderes tiene como objetivo lograr la libertad política y evitar la tiranía. Promueve un poder Ejecutivo encabezado por el monarca, un poder Legislativo con dos cámaras, una aristocrática y otra de elección popular y un Poder Judicial para los nobles y otro para el pueblo.

Cada poder actúa como freno o contrapeso de los demás. Por medio de ese mecanismo, se logra un balance o equilibrio de poderes que hace posible la libertad política. En realidad, dichas ideas de Montesquieu ya habían sido esbozadas en “La política” de Aristóteles y puestas en práctica en Inglaterra, pero el pensador aristócrata las promovió en Francia, contribuyendo a minar el absolutismo y a crear condiciones para la Revolución Francesa de 1789.

Su objetivo político era superar el despotismo, es decir, el gobierno de uno, sin leyes y fundamentado en el miedo y sustituirlo por la monarquía constitucional y parlamentaria, es decir, el gobierno de uno, con leyes que a su vez respetaran los derechos de la aristocracia, sin llegar a la república democrática. Pero no cabe duda de que Montesquieu, fue un crítico del absolutismo, del Derecho Divino de los Reyes y un pensador de la libertad.

También Juan Jacobo Rousseau escribió sobre la libertad. En su Contrato Social sostiene que “El hombre ha nacido libre, sin embargo, por todas partes se encuentra encadenado”. Encadenado, diríamos nosotros, por las monarquías absolutas de su época. Ante esa realidad escribe: “mientras un pueblo se ve obligado a obedecer y obedece, hace bien; más en el momento en que puede sacudir el yugo, y lo sacude, hace todavía mejor”, porque así recobra su libertad. Es decir, un llamado a la revolución.

Y en cuanto a los hijos dice: “Ellos nacen hombres libres, su libertad les pertenece, nadie tiene derecho a disponer de ellos sino ellos mismos.”

It is truly outrageous how the schools in the United States, and also in other countries, indoctrinate children with misrepresented arguments about slavery and racism. To top it all off, children's minds are filled with a sense of guilt and shame, while some others, depending on race, are flooded with an overwhelming resentment. As they grow-up, children and teenagers face new arguments at the level of higher education and, above all, at the university level, that undermine the truth about these scourges that humanity has suffered and still suffers.

What we are experiencing in the United States, in particular, is a teaching method whereby teachers and scholars do not teach history with the objectivity that this subject requires, but transforming it as a message to induce contempt for America. Therefore, students are “taught” the lies contained on The New York Times’ “1619 Project” where they argue that the United States was founded to preserve and protect slavery, and stuffing them with such works as Robin DiAngelo’s “White Fragility.” DiAngelo is an education professor and —most prominently today— a diversity consultant who argues that whites in America must face the racist bias implanted in them by an extremely racist society. Their resistance to acknowledging this, she maintains, constitutes a “white fragility” that they must overcome.

Of course, the history student must know and delve into the events that marked the tragedies of slavery and racism throughout several centuries. And they must also analyze the influence that these events still have on human relationships nowadays. But the perspective of these tragic facts should encompass this and many other countries and regions of the World that were equally responsible for abuse, discrimination and cruel submission. In other words, if truth and moral clarity are to matter to teachers and academics, students must also learn that slavery was universal. They must learn that many slaves were sold to slave traders by Muslim-Arab groups in Africa and even by some black African tribes holding slaves from other tribes. In fact, slavery was a real and widespread fact as well among Native American Indians and Native South Americans who held captives from other tribes to do their dirtiest and heaviest works.

[Text adapted from a speech delivered on September 29, 2020,
in Rapid City, South Dakota, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar.] 

We are at risk of losing a war today because too few of us know that we are engaged with an enemy, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), that means to destroy us. The forces of globalism that have dominated our government (until recently) and our media for the better part of half a century have blinded too many Americans to the threat we face. If we do not wake up to the danger soon, we will find ourselves helpless.

That is a worst-case scenario. I do not think we Americans will let that happen. But the forces arrayed against us are many. We need to understand what we are up against and what steps must be taken to ensure our victory.

Our modern understanding of Communist China begins during the Cold War, with President Nixon’s strategic belief that China could serve as a counterweight to the Soviet Union. This belief seemed to carry with it two great benefits. First, the U.S. wouldn’t have to take on the Soviet Union by itself: Communist China was a populous country that bordered the Soviet Union and shared our interest, or so we thought, in checking its global ambitions. Second, by engaging with China—especially in terms of trade, but also by helping it develop technologically—we would help to end communism as a guiding force in China. This second notion might be called the China dream: economic liberalism would lead to political liberalism, and China’s communist dictatorship would fade away.

At the end of the Cold War, pursuing the China dream appeared a safe course of action, given that the U.S. was then the world’s preeminent military power. The 9/11 Islamic terrorist attacks reinforced the notion that superpower conflict was a thing of the past—that our major enemy was now radical Islam, widely diffused but centered in the Middle East. Later that same year, China was granted “Most Favored Nation” trading status and membership in the World Trade Organization. Little changed when the Bush administration gave way to the Obama administration. The latter’s “pivot to Asia” was mostly rhetorical—a justification to degrade our military capabilities vis-à-vis China, integrate even further the U.S. and Chinese economies, and prioritize the Middle East above all else.

Hugo Grocio junto con el español Francisco de Vitoria
uno de los padres del derecho internacional.

Huigh van Groot, conocido en idioma español como Hugo Grocio nació en Delft, cerca de Rotterdam, Holanda, el 10 de abril de 1583.

A los 8 años componía versos latinos y desde muy joven se distinguió por sus estudios de las lenguas y literaturas clásicas conforme al espíritu del Renacimiento.

Jurista, embajador, escritor y poeta. Después de Erasmo de Rotterdam el mayor humanista de los Países Bajos. Tuvo influencias intelectuales greco-latinas de Aristóteles y Cicerón, pero también del francés Jean Bodin.

De religión era devoto del Arminianismo, fundado por Jacobo Arminio en la Holanda del siglo XVII como una variante de cristianismo evangélico con discrepancias respecto del calvinismo.

En 1594 a los 11 años empezó sus estudios de Derecho en la universidad de Leiden en Holanda dónde se graduó en 1598. En Orleans, Francia se doctoró en Jurisprudencia y estudió Filosofía y además aprobó los cursos de Astrología, Matemáticas y Teología.