Comments
THE VIEW FROM HERE - Stand on the shore and watch the ocean. At first glance, it appears calm, even predictable. Yet beneath the surface are powerful currents—the Gulf Stream and countless underwater rivers—that shape weather, marine life, and even the climate of entire continents. Though invisible, these currents exert enormous influence.
Western civilization has its own hidden currents. They are not made of water but of ideas, recurring patterns of thought, and enduring archetypes that continue to influence political and cultural life centuries after they first emerged.
Many people say history repeats itself. Others argue that history repeats because people fail to learn from it. Both explanations contain some truth, but they overlook something deeper: civilizations inherit patterns of thinking that endure across generations. These intellectual currents often shape events long before people recognize they are being carried along.
One of those enduring currents is the relationship between study and action.
The ancient Jewish text Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) asks a deceptively simple question: Which is more important—study or action? The sages ultimately concluded that study is greater because it leads to proper action.
Centuries later, psychologist Julian Rotter described a similar distinction in modern terms through his concept of internal versus external locus of control. People with an internal orientation believe their choices matter. Those with an external orientation believe their lives are primarily shaped by outside forces.
Rabbi Hillel captured the internalist worldview perfectly in his famous questions:
-If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
-If I am only for myself, what am I?
-If not now, when?
The responsibility rests with the individual.
That same principle lies at the heart of the American experiment.
Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence proclaims that all people possess unalienable rights and that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed." Government exists not to grant rights but to protect rights that already belong to individuals.
Jefferson did not arrive at this conclusion impulsively. The Declaration carefully catalogs the actions of King George III before concluding that independence was necessary. Study preceded action.
The Revolution itself lasted eight years. Victory was followed by another four years of experimentation before the Constitution was adopted. The Framers understood that liberty required more than good intentions. It required institutions capable of restraining power.
That realization produced one of Western civilization's greatest political achievements: the Rule of Law.
Congress would make laws.
The Executive would enforce them.
The Judiciary would interpret them.
Each branch would limit the others because the Framers understood a timeless truth: power tends to expand unless restrained.
Yet the Rule of Law did not begin in Philadelphia.
Its roots stretch back more than a thousand years.
Around A.D. 893, Alfred the Great compiled the legal traditions of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms into what became known as Alfred's Dooms. His code emphasized that justice should apply equally to rich and poor alike. Most importantly, it reflected the revolutionary idea that the law stood above the king.
Even earlier, the Hebrew Bible presents this same principle.
When King David abused his authority in arranging the death of Uriah, the prophet Nathan confronted him directly.
"Thou art the man."
David did not imprison Nathan or deny the accusation. He acknowledged his guilt. The king himself stood beneath a higher law.
Over time this principle evolved into the Western tradition of Natural Law—the belief that moral truths exist independently of rulers and that human reason can discover them much as Isaac Newton discovered the laws governing gravity.
This tradition produced one vision of civilization.
Opposing it has always been another.
King Charles, I claimed that because he ruled by divine right, his authority defined legality. Centuries later, President Richard Nixon echoed that sentiment during his interview with David Frost when he remarked, "When the president does it, that means it is not illegal."
These competing visions have never disappeared.
Today they continue to shape American politics, although they often appear in new forms.
One current emphasizes individual rights, individual responsibility, and objective standards that apply equally to everyone.
The other increasingly evaluates conduct according to group identity, political power, or ideological allegiance rather than universal principles.
Whether one looks at debates over identity politics, executive power, or constitutional authority, the same underlying question remains:
Is law above those who govern, or do those who govern stand above the law?
That question is far older than America itself.
Western civilization has repeatedly prospered when it embraced individual responsibility, constitutional limits, and the Rule of Law. It has suffered whenever power became its own justification.
Like the deep currents beneath the sea, these archetypes remain largely invisible. Most people never notice them. Yet they continue to direct the course of nations.
America now finds itself navigating between two powerful currents.
One sees liberty as rooted in universal rights protected by law.
The other increasingly treats law as an instrument of power, shaped by those who possess it.
The choice is not merely political.
It is civilizational.
The currents beneath the surface are still flowing.
The question is which one will carry America into the future.
(Richard Lee Abrams is a former Los Angeles-based attorney, an author, and political commentator. A long-time contributor to CityWatchLA, he is known for his incisive critiques of City Hall and judicial corruption, as well as his analysis of political and constitutional issues. Abrams blends legal insight with historical and philosophical depth to challenge conventional narratives. A passionate defender of civic integrity and transparency, he aims to expose misuse of power and advocate for systemic reform in local government. You may email him at [email protected])
