Will Sellers: The Monroe Doctrine turns 200
When James Monroe addressed Congress 200 years ago, many assumed his annual message would be limited to legislative initiatives. Since he had no spin doctors to help him explain his position, clarify its broad impact, or narrate its context, it was left to him to simply announce the Monroe Doctrine and let others decide its ramifications. Two centuries ago, the New World was shedding Old World political connections as new nation-states were emerging after achieving independence. President Monroe clearly understood the general feelings of his fellow countrymen and realized that the unique American experience provided him a forum to declare his nation’s place in the World Order. The Monroe Doctrine is remembered primarily for its bold limitation on European influence and colonization in the Western Hemisphere, but other parts of the doctrine were of equal importance and expressed American sentiments about the rest of the world. Specifically, the doctrine stated that America had no interest in conflicts in Europe but would respect the existing order in the New World. When viewed in hindsight, the doctrine was in many ways a concise statement of how America viewed the world and coupled its role with a tinge of isolationism. President Monroe told the entire world that the Western Hemisphere was off-limits to European powers. It was a bold move for a nation that was not yet 50 years old and had no military to enforce the policy, but the policy was supported by George Washington’s admonition that America not involve itself in foreign wars. The American Revolution changed the dynamics of foreign policy, foreign trade, and foreign investment. Once the revolution ended, wars in Europe waxed and waned with alliances that switched and boundaries that moved so frequently that it was hard to keep an accurate tally. Monroe understood that America had no interest in these changing relationships and was ill-suited to fully appreciate the dynamics of European diplomatic intrigues. Monroe’s main interest was preserving a sphere of influence with America as the dominant power. There was no need to allow this continent to become a proxy for the varied changes in European politics and reconquest of former colonies. Keeping America stable and secure with its energies devoted toward territorial growth and trade was the president’s ultimate goal. He knew from experience that wars were expensive and diverted time and talent away from domestic improvement. Thus, it was easy for him to disclaim any involvement in Europe, its political theories, and various continental wars, but it was another thing to make a bold statement that European powers were not welcome to assert control over liberated ex-colonies. Even bolder was the assertion that any such involvement by another country would be considered a hostile act against the United States. This provision of the doctrine might be viewed as a NATO-like pledge that any attack by a foreign power against a territory in the Western Hemisphere would be met with force of arms from the United States. Since the United States had a very limited navy and no standing army of any measure, this statement had no enforcement mechanism. If a foreign power tried to invade another country, the U.S. would have been helpless to take effective action, but the Monroe Doctrine had a silent guarantor in the form of the British Empire, which had plenty of ships and troops to enforce the policy. The British acquiesced to the Monroe Doctrine because limiting other countries’ involvement in the New World was advantageous to its long-term interest. It is not a stretch to say that the Monroe Doctrine cemented the Anglo-American relationship while ensuring American and British interests would never again be so adversarial as to incubate hostilities. From this point forward, the two nations would be joined together in almost a common enterprise of trade and international stability. Without having to fight wars, the United States could focus on opening and subduing the rest of its territory. For at least some period of time, the expansion of the country created such opportunities that any foreign influence was not occasioned by military invasion, but by swarms of immigrants leaving the old world behind to seek fortune and opportunity in a new place with little historical memory to retard its progress. Rather than being innovative, the Monroe Doctrine sought to express the consensus of American sentiment about its view of its place in the world. The influx of immigrants would also support this idea that once their home country was on the distant horizon, they were liberated from the politics of the Old World that limited freedom and advancement. Immigrants coming to the United States would gladly agree that they, too, had no desire to involve themselves in the politics of a country they had left. So, while Americans wanted limited involvement with the politics and factious belligerence of Europe, they did not want foreign influence in the New World. Americans would be motivated to apply force only if European countries attempted to assert themselves in our sphere of influence. This was true even in the last century. During World War I, most Americans had no desire to send troops to Europe, but sentiment changed only after a secret German diplomatic initiative was uncovered, promising Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico to Mexico if it would ally with the Kaiser. Ending any thought of European influence in our country’s affairs proved a strong motivator. Likewise, in World War II, Franklin Roosevelt was unable to arouse American interest in defeating the Nazis, but once Hitler’s secret plan to divide Latin America into Nazi-controlled vassal states was exposed, the average citizen began to sense the Nazi threat. For 200 years, the Monroe Doctrine has been a centerpiece of American foreign policy. Its broad provisions continue to affirm a commitment to regional independence and put other nations on notice that the Western Hemisphere is a self-determination zone with no tolerance for foreign influence or territorial threat. Perhaps President Xi Jinping needs a refresher course? Will Sellers is a graduate of
Most Republican appellate court incumbents win without an opponent as Democrats concede state appellate courts to the GOP
Major party qualifying ended on Friday. Four Republican Alabama Supreme Court Justices won election when no opponent – Republican or Democrat came forward. Justices Will Sellers, Tommy Bryan, and Jay Mitchell were all effectively re-elected as they face no Republican primary challenger. Write-in candidates are not allowed in party primaries. No attorney qualified for any of these races as a Democrat, so they are unlikely to face an opponent in the November general election. Chris McCool gave up his seat on the Court of Criminal Appeals to run for the open Place 1 associate supreme court justice seat. He also had no Republican or Democratic opponent qualify. On the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, Republican incumbent Judges Richard Minor and Bill Cole were both effectively re-elected when no Republican or Democratic opponent qualified for either race. Two Republicans: Rich Anderson and Thomas Govan, qualified for the open Place 2 seat that Chris McCool is leaving to run for Supreme Court. Both Govan and Anderson work in the Alabama Attorney General’s office. No Democrat qualified for that seat either, so Govan and Anderson’s race in the Republican primary on March 5 is likely to decide this race. On the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals incumbents Christy Edwards and Terry Moore were both effectively re-elected when qualifying ended without either facing any opposition. The only incumbent appellate judge in the state to face a challenger is Republican: Republican Chad Hanson at Place 2 on the Court of Civil Appeals is being challenged in the Republican primary by Stephen Davis-Parker. There are four candidates running for Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. Chief Justice Tom Parker, also a Republican, cannot run again due to the state’s arcane mandatory retirement age for judges provision. Associate Justice Sarah Stewart is giving up her place 1 seat on the court to run for Chief Justice. Former State Senator Bryan Taylor is also running for the office. Taylor is also a former legal counsel for Governors Kay Ivey and Bob Riley. On Friday, Montgomery attorney Jerry Michael Blevins also qualified to run for Chief Justice. Chief Justice is the only state appellate race that the Alabama Democratic Party is even contesting. Judge Greg Griffin will face the eventual Republican nominee for Chief Justice in the November general election. Griffin presently is a Circuit Court Judge in Montgomery’s Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court. Thirty years ago, Democrats dominated the Alabama appellate courts. That changed in 1994 when retired Judge Perry Hooper Sr. defeated incumbent Sonny Hornsby in a contested race for chief justice. In the years since, Republican fortunes have continued to improve. Only one Democratic candidate, Doug Jones in 2017, has won any statewide race since 2008, and no Democratic judicial candidate has won a statewide race since Sue Bell Cobb was elected Chief Justice in 2006. Democrats are hopeful that Judge Griffin can change their fortunes next year. There is still a slight possibility that an attorney could still qualify as an independent or third-party candidate for one of these offices. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com
Will Sellers: A history of corruption
One Hundred Fifty years ago, the largest political corruption trial in history ended with the conviction of one William M. “Boss” Tweed, whose vice was so vast and comprehensive that no one is quite sure of how much money he actually stole. Estimates range on the low side of $50 million to the high side of $200 million, which, when converted from 1873 dollars, amounts to roughly $1.5 to $3.7 billion today. Tweed’s conviction makes the comparison with other cases of political corruption seem to be mere misdemeanors or foot faults. But, his ability to marshal votes is still the envy of political leaders. In fact, he was the first community organizer who realized that there was strength in numbers and votes in political patronage. The son of tough Scotsmen, Tweed emerged as a leader who could motivate people and capture their imagination by providing for their creature comforts. As a leader for a volunteer fire department, he eventually became a New York City alderman and continued his political climb by serving in the U.S. House of Representatives. Unlike New York City politics, he was merely one of a large number of legislators in Washington, so he quickly tired of his lack of influence and realized that the Big Apple was the place he would rather be. After only one term in Congress, Tweed headed home and thus began his rise as the unofficial mayor of New York City and shadow governor. Early in life, Tweed showed an interest in accounting and learned very quickly how numbers and dollar signs worked together. He realized, too, that with the jobs created by the Industrial Revolution, there was strength and votes in the numbers of workers. He also recognized that by pandering to the Irish immigrants flooding New York, he would make friends who would blindly follow him into the voting booths. Tweed’s sharp elbows landed him in a leadership role in the political machine of all machines: Tammany Hall. Originally organized as a social club for well-heeled New Yorkers, it developed into a well-oiled party machine that controlled votes and public patronage jobs. When Tweed arrived on the scene, Tammany was the de facto New York City Democratic Party. Although he would never be elected to office again, Tweed would create an organization that exercised almost absolute control over politics in New York State, and while he was truly a problem solver with great political instincts, instead of using these skills to foster good government, he became ostentatiously corrupt, eventually inviting enemies. His first real start in local politics came during the Civil War with the draft riots in New York City. Lincoln imposed a draft that provided an “exemption” for people who provided a substitute, but the idea of paying for a substitute benefited only the wealthy to the exclusion of the more numerous working class who rioted at being pressed into service. Tweed realized that catering to the working class was good for them but even better for himself. So, he established true exemptions for police and firemen while also utilizing a slush fund to help working-class men pay for substitutes. This pressure release cured further riots and fostered peaceful streets. This achievement was remarkable for ending the riots while creating a block of voters who could be counted on to vote at Tweed’s direction. Using this block, he prevailed upon officials in Albany to change the law to allow New York City to have more local control so that contracts for city services would escape the scrutiny of state lawmakers. This was Tweed’s most selfish act, as he realized that by securing home rule and using his position at Tammany, he could direct contracts and receive a commission for his work. Initially, this “commission” didn’t benefit him exclusively but was partially used to provide social services to the working classes. He helped build churches, schools, and hospitals. In doing so, he added to his loyal following. Tweed became a sort of Robin Hood, taking money from city vendors and helping the poor. He would argue that this was “honest” graft, which justified corruption because others benefited. But, while others did benefit and the services provided were real and significant, Tweed was not a distant beneficiary. From almost every city contract, Tweed profited. He did share the wealth, but the wealth he shared was a fraction of the graft he kept for himself. As dealing with Tweed became part of the cost of doing business in New York, he emerged as the father of all patronage, doling out jobs and favors to his constituents. Tweed was all three branches of government rolled into one person; nothing escaped his influence. Judges and courts were in his employ, legislators owed him their livelihood, and mayors and governors depended on his block votes for election. But, as his power grew and he flaunted his wealth, he developed enemies and alienated friends who became focused on ending his influence. Two isolated incidents started his downfall. First, he would tangle with the governor over something as insignificant as the Orange Day parade. Much like the draft riots, the parade by Scotch-Irish Protestants enflamed the Irish Catholics, and Tweed lost control of the streets of New York when more than 125 people died. Then, at about the same time, a former friend who had been rejected for political patronage, secretly smuggled Tweed’s accounting records detailing his corruption. This road map was turned over to a reporter for a fledging newspaper, The New York Times, and it began publishing the breadth of Tweed’s larceny. While the writing was incriminating enough, Tweed feared the political cartoons more than anything as even illiterate New Yorkers could understand the magnitude of his graft, kickbacks, and malfeasance. Tweed was tried, convicted, and sentenced to jail, but his influence was still great, and he was allowed to leave his jail cell for temporary visits home. On one of these visits, he fled the country but was caught in Spain, extradited
Steve Flowers: 2024 elections around the corner
Folks, don’t look now, but our 2024 election year is upon us. Next year is a major year in politics nationwide. Not only does the nation elect a president, but most states also elect their governors and legislators for four-year terms in presidential years. We, in Alabama and in most southern states, elect our governors and legislators in nonpresidential years. Those of us who study and talk about Alabama politics refer to these years as gubernatorial years. We elected our governor and legislature last year in 2022. Historically, presidential years have been very dull and unexciting years for Alabama politics. There are very few statewide contests, and those that happen will be decided on March 5. Since we are such an overwhelmingly Republican state, the only way to be elected statewide in the Heart of Dixie is as a Republican. There are 29 statewide elected offices in Alabama, and all 29 are held by a Republican. There are four seats up for election on our Alabama Supreme Court. Justices Jay Mitchell, Tommy Bryan, and Will Sellers are up for reelection to another six-year term on the high tribunal. Justice Sarah Stewart’s seat is up for reelection. However, Sarah has opted to move to the open Chief Justice position, being vacated by the retirement of Chief Justice Tom Parker. Justice Sarah Stewart is a good choice for Chief Justice. She was a Circuit Judge in Mobile County for 14 years before she was elected to the Supreme Court six years ago. The Chief Justice is the administrator of the entire state judicial system. Sarah Stewart’s experience as a circuit judge is invalu,able and she also has the respect and support of most of the circuit judges around the state. Circuit judges are very respected in their counties and communities throughout the state. Sarah Stewart has been campaigning extensively and effectively all over Alabama during 2023. She has let no grass grow under her feet. Speaking of working hard, the judge who will move up to take Sarah Stewart’s seat on the Supreme Court will be Criminal Court of Appeals Judge Chris McCool. Judge McCool is one of the most proven ardent campaigners I have seen in recent years. I said when he announced a year ago that he would not be outworked, and he has proven me right. He has traversed the state from one end to the other, putting over 60,000 miles on his vehicle. Chris McCool will make a great justice and is the perfect representative on the court from the rural area of the state. He hails from rural Pickens County near Gordo and close to the Tuscaloosa County Line. His family has very deep roots in that area. The McCools settled there over 180 years ago, prior to the Civil War. They have farmed the land the entire time. Chris lives in the same place his ancestors lived six generations ago. Chris McCool borders on folk legend for an Alabama judge. He has three full-time professions. He was a lawyer with impeccable credentials. He graduated from the University of Alabama, undergraduate and law school. He practiced law in Gordo before being elected District Attorney of the Pickens, Lamar, and Fayette Circuit at age 30. He served as DA for 18 years and was elected to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals six years ago. He is a minister. He pastors the Zion Primitive Baptist Church near his home. His family founded the church, and his great, great, great grandfather was the first pastor. He is also a farmer. Judge McCool’s seat on the Court of Criminal Appeals will be filled by one of two assistant attorney generals. Rich Anderson and Thomas Govan, both of Montgomery, are vying for McCool’s seat on the Court of Criminal Appeals. Both are well-qualified and would do a good job. Justices Chad Hansen and Christy Edwards are up for reelection to the Court of Civil Appeals. They are doing a good job. Justices Bill Cole and Richard Minor are up for reelection on the Court of Criminal Appeals. They both are doing an excellent job. This court has a very heavy caseload. Twinkle Cavanaugh will be elected to her fourth term as President of the Alabama Public Service Commission next year. Twinkle is becoming legendary as a public servant in our state. Although still young, she has built a stellar reputation for honesty, integrity, and conservatism. The former Chairman of the Alabama Republican Party is the best retail politician in Alabama today. She has crisscrossed the state campaigning in 2023 in preparation for 2024. Even though she will more than likely not have an opponent, she is running scared and not taking anything for granted. See you next week. Steve Flowers is Alabama’s leading political columnist. His weekly column appears in over 60 Alabama newspapers. He served 16 years in the state legislature. Steve may be reached at: www.steveflowers.us.
Will Sellers: The Turkish Republic at 100
This month, Turkey will celebrate the 100th anniversary of its national Republic Day, which recognizes its transformation from a theocracy to an elected, representative democracy. And, while the contours of Turkey have been around as part of any number of empires, it has only been in recent memory that the nation turned from only facing Mecca and began to look West to the political systems more representative of Europe and Western civilization. Achieving this republic was not an easy task, but as with all countries, it never is. Each country celebrating a national holiday appropriately focuses on the sacrifice and the typically horrific cost it took to become a separate nation, with its citizens determining for themselves not only the form of government, but the type of leadership they would sanction. In the case of Turkey, the road was especially fraught. First, after World War I, Turkey and its German allies were defeated and subject to treaties that reduced national sovereignty and limited future prospects. Secondly, Turkey had been part of the Ottoman Empire, and its little experience with self government was more along Prussian lines, which allowed only a limited role for democratic institutions and popular elections. But one thing Turkey did have was a gift for administration. While the Ottoman Empire was in decline, losing territory and population even before the Great War, Turkey had a bureaucracy with experience in administration.So, as the former empire was carved and divided among conquerors after the war, the physical land boundaries of Anatolia that comprised what came to be Turkey were involved in a civil war, which encouraged invasion from Greece. Even though Turkey was on the losing side, some nationalists refused to accept defeat. They argued that the Ottoman Empire may have lost and may have negotiated a surrender, but they were loyal to protecting their territory and were unwilling to lay down their arms to have no recourse against invading, opportunistic neighbors. Initially, the governing Sultan dispatched his army to quell the rebellion, but the commander, one Mustafa Kemal, realized that the rebels had a point. So, rather than subdue them and essentially leave the territory vulnerable to foreign invasion, Kemal organized the rebels into a defense force to protect the country from foreign invasion. But, in disobeying orders, he violated treaties implicated by the surrender of the Ottoman Empire and caused the allied nations to persist in their desire to occupy portions of Turkey. At this point, Kemal had to deal with both an internal threat with his own “government” opposing his actions and with an external threat focused on annexing portions of Anatolia by force of arms. In a show of great leadership, Kemal dealt with both threats. First, he handled the internal civil war by deposing the Sultan and replacing him. He then formed a new government, which advocated for establishing a new nation with defined boundaries and a resistance to foreign occupation and influence. These aims were not acceptable to the allied occupiers, and they resisted. They first compromised the with new Sultan and had him essentially reject Kemal’s proposals; then, they imprisoned or exiled his supporters. Kemal called for the election of a National Assembly to give him a legitimate political basis to deal with the occupation and the Sultan. When the National Assembly met, they declared that the Sultan was under the influence of infidels and imposed a religious sanction on the Sultanate, which ultimately abolished the Sultan as head of both the mosque and state. Kemal now had a government with himself at the head, and though the National Assembly approved of him as the leader of an executive committee to run the country, he did not enjoy unqualified support. He would eventually ferret out disloyal members and gain a sufficient majority to govern. Having established a legitimate basis to act, he defeated his internal enemies and won the quasi-civil war. Then, he further united his country and began working to defeat the Greeks militarily and force them to return conquered territory. Diplomatically, he was able to reach agreements with neighboring countries to establish territorial integrity and further define the boundaries of Turkey. Treaties were reached with other countries that respected Kemal’s military prowess, which earned Turkey the right to be recognized as a sovereign country. But Turkey had never been a country, only a part of an empire. Any national identity was wrapped up in the Ottoman experience, which advocated loyalty to a Sultan as both a political and religious leader. Kemal’s mission then was to reform this way of thinking and establish a new order that respected certain traditions but also developed new political institutions that would send Turkey down the road to embrace the success of Western governments. Kemal advocated for a new secularism that respected the people’s Muslim faith but removed religious influence over his government and civil order. He abolished religious courts, limited religious dress, and gave women the right to vote and to be members of the national assembly. He saw the progress of Western nations not only in government but in the development of trade and industries. One way he sought to teether his country to this progress was to adopt the Latin Alphabet. He reformed education and created an entire cultural curriculum to substitute Ottoman history with Turkish history. This course of study created a mythological Turkey of the past. But he believed Turkey needed a separate national identity to remove it from past defeats and create a new theory of greatness and unlimited potential. A century ago, Turkey aligned its future with Western democracy and established a republic. By celebrating this achievement, we acknowledge the remarkable leadership of Mustafa Kemal, who would forever be known at Ataturk and see his example as worthy of emulation. Even today, Turkey is a critical and necessary ally. Pausing to look back at their struggles to establish a republic gives us a basis for hope in their future. Will Sellers is a graduate of Hillsdale College and
Will Sellers: Remembering the life and legacy of Lee Kuan Yew
Imagine a country in the 20th century that, in a matter of 30 years, went from a per capita income of $500 to one of $50,000. Imagine further that the country had no natural resources and was roughly 150 times smaller than Alabama. And what would we think about a leader who achieved such spectacular results? Meet Lee Kuan Yew, who had he lived, would be 100 years old this month. From 1959 to 1990, he served as prime minister of Singapore and was largely responsible for bringing a third-world country into the first world. In short, he was a visionary leader who contemplated a greatness for his country that few could imagine. He refused to accept the low expectations of his people’s capabilities and embarked on a mission of almost unachievable goals. When Lee (in Singapore, last names come before given names) accepted the mantle of political leadership, the world bequeathed to him was neither stable nor secure or certain. Singapore was a city state with a strategically located port where ships from all over the world docked, but that seemed to be its only natural asset. Far from homogeneous, Singapore’s people were ethnically diverse, with a stratified community of various faiths and cultures, with little historical memory. Other than the business of trade, the country had no unifying or organizing principle for political cohesion. But, Lee, who trained as a lawyer in Cambridge with a smattering of additional education from the London School of Economics, created a political party that focused on a peaceful transition to home rule within the British Empire. Politically, he never sought independence but saw Singapore as part of a larger state, merged with other, smaller countries that were former colonies in his region. Initially, this concept worked, and for at least a few years, Singapore was part of Malaysia. But, with boundaries artificially defined and few commonalities between the people, Singapore was not a great fit as part of an emerging country. Within the combined territories that comprised Malaysia, there were many factions based on ethnic issues and fueled in many ways by competing cold war ideologies. Singapore became infected with racial strife leading to riots stirred up by Malaysian ethnic rivalries. To stop the bloodshed, Malaysia decided to expel Singapore, at which point Singapore became the first country to inadvertently achieve independence. Thus, against its will, Singapore was foisted, kicking and screaming, into nationhood. At this time, no one was sure how a large city could maintain a separate independent state in a rough neighborhood. Were it not for Lee’s leadership, Singapore could easily have become a pawn in the larger cold war or a satellite in the Chinese sphere of influence. But Lee had a different vision. While he was devastated by Singapore’s expulsion, he embraced the opportunity and created a vision for Singapore that would set in motion a prosperity unimaginable to anyone-except for Lee Kuan Yew. Realizing the vulnerabilities of the new country, Lee sought Singapore’s diplomatic recognition. He applied for entrance and was accepted into the United Nations. Largely dependent on other countries and with no minerals or other resources, he entered into treaties with surrounding nations. He also imposed conscription to rapidly built up a defense force. Within his government, he removed all communist elements and supported President Lyndon Johnson’s policies in Vietnam. Thus, within a few years of independence, Lee had placed his small city-state on the world stage. Economically, Lee realized he must create employment opportunities for his citizens. Knowing that work and a high standard of living were a key to his independent country’s growth and development, he created an economic policy that provided incentives for foreign investments. He built factories and provided job training. Critically, he embraced the British legal system, adopting the common law so that foreign investors would know with certainty their rights would be protected against any nationalization. This stability, along with a low tax base and a highly skilled, but cheap labor force, expanded Singapore’s economy to new heights. As prime minister, Lee ran a squeaky-clean government with zero tolerance for corruption. One means to prevent corruption was to pay government employees a high wage so there was no incentive to supplement a government salary with bribes. But the economic growth came at a cost. Even while embracing a market economy to efficiently allocate resources, the people of Singapore were not given the rights Lee observed from his time in Britain. The press was not especially free as censorship was practiced to prevent criticism of government policies. Under Lee, Singapore strictly enforced its criminal laws with public corporal punishment for littering and executing anyone found guilty of trafficking in narcotics. When questioned about the severity of these laws, Lee’s supporters pointed to the cleanliness of the city and the lack of serious crime. Even though several human rights groups objected to Singapore’s human rights violations, that did not stop foreign investment in the manufacturing sector, financial services, and international trade. Businesses liked the stability of the government but were also drawn to the work ethic of the people. When asked why Singapore experienced such dynamic growth, Lee said that the most critical factor to achieve national competitiveness is “manpower resources,” which he believed is exhibited in creativity, innovation, entrepreneurship, and good management. As Lee retired from government in 1990, he continued to serve in an advisory role and became a commentator about leadership, economic development, and the power of ideas. Even after his death in 2015, his legacy as a visionary leader has grown, and his accomplishments are studied and cited as authority for creating a dynamic economy from scratch. Remembering Lee Kwan Yew on his birthday, one quote is worth highlighting: “A nation is great not by its size alone. It is the will, the cohesion, the stamina, the discipline of its people, and the quality of their leaders which ensure an honorable place in history.” Will Sellers is a graduate of Hillsdale College and an Associate Justice
Will Sellers: The legacy of Adam Smith
Adam Smith, the anchor of that group of inquisitive Scotsmen who spawned the Scottish Enlightenment and significantly changed the world, was born 300 years ago this month. The era of his birth was still primarily agrarian, with superstition superseding science. He would alter this status by observing his community, pursuing the life of a scholar, and questioning his experiences in the world around him. And…… he wrote his thoughts down. Scotland was ready to nurture the likes of Smith. With an expanding middle class, his community was beginning to prosper and grow. Smith would want for little and had the resources to think about his world and consider both the nature of man and the means to achieve a happy existence. The foundation for his community was based in many respects on the political, social, and legal framework that originated in the Magna Carta. Indeed, the structure established by Magna Carta produced several results that were the basis for a portion of Smith’s theories about wealth and prosperity. Smith was never content to accept the world as he found it. He asked probing questions and considered thoroughly the looming issues of his day. He was a practical academic who would pay close attention to the world around him. He noticed what worked, what failed, and what made people successful. Initially, his observations were contained in academic lectures, which Smith, a prolific writer, eventually turned into books that are still in print and studied today. His first major work was “A Theory of Moral Sentiments,” which was Smith’s attempt to understand and explain human nature. He theorized how people could lead a balanced life between unbridled self-interest within the constraints of self-control but with sympathy and compassion for others. From a view of how individuals lived in a community and how they behaved together, Smith realized that certain principles emerged that created a prosperous environment and happy citizenry. From these observations came the book for which Smith is most famous: “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations,” or “Wealth of Nations,” for short. From its publication even until today, the book is quoted, misquoted, and used to justify any number of ideas – both good and bad. Indeed, the problem with writing a philosophical book that is more than 1,000 pages is that there is something for everyone to embrace or reject. And, when read in conjunction with Smith’s other works, like any inquisitive scholar, his “Wealth of Nations” appears inconsistent when taken out of context. Smith was not necessarily an original thinker but had the presence of mind to write down his thoughts. Others might have introduced the idea, but Smith teased our various concepts and risked his reputation by exposing his musings for critique and inquiry. “Wealth of Nations” made numerous observations about the commercial world and posed explanations of prosperity. Smith noticed it made little sense for people to be jacks of all trades and observed that individuals had different skill sets that made them better at some things than others. He posited that once labor was divided into specialized tasks, products were more efficiently produced, prices were lower, and prosperity seemed to abound. His work then encouraged specialization so that industry could produce goods more efficiently. Another observation was the importance of self-interest. Smith detected that the reason people worked hard was to promote their own well-being. This pursuit of selfish aims not only benefited the self-seeker but also created a commercial environment prospering the entire society. He saw trade not as delivering a mere service, or a zero-sum game, but as workers collectively seeking to improve their financial status such that they worked harder to sell more products, which worked to lower prices for consumers. He further reasoned that for a nation to prosper, government should allow as much freedom as possible so that individuals can pursue their self-interest. Smith was concerned that the restraints on industry, be it by regulation or taxation, could reduce productivity. This was a real concern in his day as guilds might restrict by license who could produce what goods at what price. Guilds served to stymie innovation and productivity that occurs when laborers, motivated by profit, develop more efficient means to produce more goods. Smith also saw that taxation from government created disincentives to work hard. If people were taxed too much and lost their hard-earned profits, they would have no reason to find new ways of production and expand their business. So, when Smith looked at Scotland and noticed the prosperity, he reasoned that commercial success from individual employment to business owners was almost magically motivated. He theorized that an invisible hand rewarded a society that had the most freedoms to allow businesses to sell and consumers to buy with few limitations to restrain open and free markets. Another equally critical part of prosperity was having a stable, reliable, and consistent system of justice. Unlike other countries, Scotland had just this. Magna Carta had planted seeds that established legal structures to create economic dynamism in one instance by limiting any infringement on the “ancient liberties and free customs” that allowed trade to flow in and out of London. It further sought to reduce restrictions on the use of waterways to transport goods among cities. Free trade was also supported by requiring a consistent system of weights and measures throughout the land. Adam Smith’s genius was to look around and see why his country was prosperous and speculate on the root causes of economic success. “Wealth of Nations” was not a guide to prosperity, but, rather, it was an observation that if a country, state, or community wants to achieve commercial success, there are obvious means to accomplish it. When grounded in a government that supports specialization and free movement of labor, limits regulation, restrictions, and taxation, and fosters a reliable legal system, a magic, invisible hand almost spontaneously creates commercial success. No wonder his legacy is still debated. Will Sellers is a graduate of
Steve Flowers: Girls State has had a profound effect on current state leaders
The Alabama Boys State and Girls State programs have been the spawning ground for Alabama political leaders for generations. It is a marvelous civic contribution that the American Legion has sponsored for almost a century in our state. The prominence that Boys State has played is immense. However, Girls State may very well be eclipsing the boys in this generation, given the amazing array of women who are currently leading our state. Governor Kay Ivey was a young high school leader growing up in Wilcox County in the early 1960s. Kay was selected for Girls State and had a week there that left an indelible impression on her. She went on to Auburn, where she was a student leader. For over 40 years, Kay Ivey has come back to Girls State every year as a counselor, advisor, and speaker. She is devoted to Girls State. Dr. Cathy Johnson Randall has been one of the state’s most respected leaders for 50 years. She was the most outstanding student at the University of Alabama when I arrived in 1970. She graduated undergraduate and got her doctorate from the Capstone. In her early career years, she was an administrator at the University of Alabama. She has been a premier businesswoman and philanthropist and Tuscaloosa Civic leader in her adult life. As a teenager, Cathy was a Girls Stater, to say the least. She was elected Governor of Girls State. She then went on to Washington and was elected President of Girls Nation. Furthermore, her daughter Kate was elected Governor of Girls State like her mother, and – get this – Kate was also President of Girls Nation. Cathy’s late husband and Kate’s father, Pettus Randall, was Governor of Alabama Boys State. It is doubtful any family in America, much less Alabama, will ever match that family lineage. Cathy Randall and Kay Ivey took a young lady from Enterprise under their wings when she arrived at Girls State. That student leader was one Katie Boyd. Katie became Governor of Girls State. She then went on to the University of Alabama and pledged Cathy Randall’s sorority, Chi Omega. Katie was elected Student Government President at Alabama, then married Crimson Tide Football star, Wesley Britt. Last year Katie Boyd Britt was elected as our United States Senator at the ripe old age of 40. The list of Girls Staters that are current state leaders does not end with Governor Ivey, Senator Britt, and Dr. Randall. Supreme Court Justice Kelli Wise was a Girls Stater, as well as past Justice Lyn Stuart. Federal District Judge Anna Manasco is a Girls State alumnus from around the same era as Kelli Wise. Mary Margaret Carroll from Ozark, who is one of the state’s top lobbyists, was a Girls Stater with Katie Britt and a Chi Omega with Katie at Alabama. She was also President of the SGA at the University of Alabama. Liz Filmore, Kay Ivey’s Chief of Staff, got her start at Girls State. Many of these women have bonded through the Girls State program. Especially Kay Ivey, Cathy Randall, and Katie Britt. They are like sisters. The fourth sister in this close-knit group is Lee Sellers of Montgomery. Lee grew up in Montgomery and has lived there all of her life. She was a prominent Girls State leader as a teenager. She became Executive Director of Alabama Girls State 21 years ago. She and her husband, Supreme Court Justice Will Sellers, are some of Kay Ivey’s closest friends. Lee is the glue that keeps this band of Girls State Alumni together. Lee will more than likely bring this group of state leaders back to welcome this year’s group of teenage Girls State leaders when they arrive next week to Troy University for the 81st meeting of Alabama Girls State. There will probably be a future senator or governor in attendance. Our current governor, Kay Ivey, is the first elected female Republican governor of Alabama. She will not be the last female to be elected governor of our state. In the future, my prediction is that there will be mostly female governors and presidents in future years. It is a fact that the majority of college enrollees and graduates are female. The reason most future governors and presidents, and probably Supreme Court justices, will be women is because currently 60% of law school graduates are females, and this is expected to grow to 70% in the next decade. See You next week. Steve Flowers is Alabama’s leading political columnist. His weekly column appears in over 60 Alabama newspapers. He served 16 years in the state legislature. Steve may be reached at: www.steveflowers.us.
Will Sellers: The integrity for commerce
Trading in commodities, which are ingredients or components of finished goods, is the focus of global commerce. Information about commodities, their availability, and the impact of events that create scarcity, affects both current and future prices. Two hundred years ago, one significant commodity was tallow, a substance rendered from animal fat that was used to make candles, served as a basis for early skin care ointments and was an essential ingredient of soap. Today, when we think about commodities, we don’t think about cow and sheep fat, but two centuries ago, trade in tallow was critical to manufacture these everyday items. At that time, more than 65 percent of all tallow came from Russia and the Baltic region and was imported into England to create finished goods. Given the need for tallow, speculators would bid the price up and down, making the market very unstable and hurting industries that needed tallow at a consistent price to produce goods. To curb speculation and create a more stable market in the tallow trade, a group was formed 200 years ago this month. Called the Baltic Club, this group met at a coffee house and was one of the first self-regulating voluntary associations working to reduce price volatility in the tallow trade with an index of prices. The initial group was limited to 300 members, and their goal was two-fold. First, given the extent of global trade in and around London, the club sought information from returning ship captains about market conditions in other countries and the price paid and charged for cargos of commodities. From this information, they compiled a list of the prices for tallow to reduce speculation based on fear-mongering from limited information. The club also brokered cargo space in ships for tallow and, eventually, other commodities. This informal coffee house grew to become the Baltic Exchange, which still exists today. Two hundred years ago, the coffee houses and taverns of London were the basis of a number of important groups all connected with shipping and trade. Everyone knows Lloyd’s of London from insurance, but other groups like the Baltic Club were critical to the growth of international trade. These clubs or exchanges were not created by government, nor were they regulated by any outside committee or commission. Rather, they were formed by merchants and other businessmen to create an organization of honest brokers to reduce market instability and create a consistent price index for more robust trading. In the case of the Baltic Club, the motto adopted by the members was: “Our Word, Our Bond.” Thus, the entire enterprise was based on the personal integrity of each member. Buying and selling commodities with price fluctuations and daily changes did not allow for precise contracts that were necessary for insurance. Instead, individual members agreed to a price, and the ability to deliver the goods and acceptance of the agreed-upon price was based on the ethics of the individual buyer and seller. And should anyone fail to deliver or pay the agreed terms of the transaction, they would be removed from membership and not permitted to trade with other members again. These self-regulating groups realized that no amount of legal jargon – regardless of the length of the contract – could ever take the place of honesty among business leaders. Anyone not living up to his word or otherwise trying to avoid an obligation would be ostracized and humiliated in a way that legal proceedings could never achieve. Voluntary and self-regulating business organizations were critical to the development of commerce and the growth of British prosperity. While government might pass laws that taxed the import or export of commodities, the actual regulation of the internal aspects of trade was deemed to be beyond the reach of government. The enforcement of contracts related to shipping, the value of cargo, and its sale was enforced by the courts. But, there was no authority to inspect the quality or quantity of the traded commodities and certainly no interference with the free flow of goods on the London docks. The limited role of government worked well as long as merchants, vendors, and traders possessed high morals, believed in fundamental fairness, and acted honestly. Unlike the Medieval guilds, which sought to restrict trade and limit commerce, the exchange clubs sought to expand trade by limiting speculation and providing a stable marketplace to confidently buy and sell. To make this work, membership was exclusive and limited. The strict rules for admission mandated that a vacancy be filled only by the nomination of a current member. A nomination had to have a second member’s consent; then, any existing member had two weeks to voice objections. Membership was forfeited by unacceptable conduct. The hallmark of these exchanges was trustworthiness and integrity to abide by the terms of a transaction regardless of changes in the market. Self-regulation worked well as long as leaders carefully managed the exchange and policed rouge behavior. Expulsion impacted an individual commercially, socially, and personally. Thus, the significance of the penalty was sufficient to maintain high standards and a fluid trade in commodities. Many of these exchanges continue in England, but in other countries, self-regulation has given way to government licensing, review, and restrictions. In any organization, especially those engaged in commerce, one miscreant can taint the entire exchange. And, in many cases, rather than allow internal discipline by expulsion or otherwise, governments routinely intervene to prevent bad actors. But frequently, the regulations imposed overreach beyond what is needed to control racketeering speculators. The regulations become a limiting factor restraining the growth of commercial activity by restricting the free flow of goods at competitive prices. The world of self-regulation may be a thing of the past, but the principles embraced by commercial exchanges are still applicable. Governmental regulations and intervention notwithstanding, personal integrity, fairness, and trustworthiness will always remain a foundation of best business practices. And no amount of contracting can ever replace honest brokers who embrace the motto: My Word, My Bond. Will Sellers
Will Sellers: The forgotten Hungarian revolution
The desire for freedom and liberty is universal, but achieving it can take the effort of a lifetime. On March 15, 1848 – 175 years ago – Hungary revolted against the constraints imposed by both its Austrian masters and the authoritarianism of its ruling class. As a former Warsaw Pact country, little is known about the history of democratic institutions in Hungary. And it would be easy to conclude that the country’s experience with self-determination and independent government is recent. To the contrary, Hungary has a rich history of pursuing freedom and embracing liberty. The Hungarian Revolution of 1848 was the culmination of a nation-state seeking to chart its own course with a separate identity and elected government. After the defeat of Napoleon and the beginning of temporary peace and stability in Europe, the world economy flourished with open trade creating new opportunities for a middle class. But with economic growth and improved living conditions, people yearned for greater autonomy in living their lives and conducting their affairs. Hungary, like many countries, had a ruling class that felt no desire for change and possessed no appetite for reforms that would undermine its power. Since the aristocracy paid no taxes and had almost total control over the government, there was no incentive for any change. But, like most governing elites, they failed to see that expanding the freedoms of the people would have provided more stability and ultimately increased both their wealth and influence. By holding on to power, the aristocracy fumbled, and their stature decreased when the revolution came to Hungary. The seeds of revolution started in France when its government banned conventions of opposing political parties and used force to suppress political speech. This led to mass demonstrations resulting in the end of the constitutional monarchy. As other countries heard this news, many were inspired to attempt the same thing. Upon learning of the events in Paris, Hungarian patriots appealed to the Hapsburg Monarchy in Vienna to award greater freedom and autonomy. When these demands were transmitted to Austria, crowds in Vienna gathered and demanded greater freedoms too. The Hapsburg Monarch, Franz Joseph, was only 17 years old. His advisors panicked and appeared to accept the Hungarian petition. Even though the terms were not defined, once news of this achievement reached Hungary, there were large public gatherings in favor of independence. Unlike other revolutions of 1848, the Hungarian movement was bloodless and culminated in a demand of various rights to create an independent nation. Rather than take up arms, occupy buildings, or assassinate leaders, the real revolution was an intellectual exercise of expressing ideas that motivated the people to embrace a new vision of their country. These ideas started from the pen of the poet and now national hero, Sandor Petofi. He was an unlikely revolutionary, but with other young enlightenment scholars, he drafted a proposal, The 12 Points, that still resonates today. The aspirations of the Hungarian people were explained in 12 simple points that not only express ideas for individual liberty but also the practical needs for a new nation. Of individual rights, Petofi asserted that Hungarians wanted freedom of the press and an end to censorship. This was his first demand, highlighting the importance of having an unfettered media to disseminate information without fear of repression. The desire for a free press and an elimination of censorship was radical. Elites, regardless of political stripe or persuasion, enjoy censorship and desire to control information as a means to govern. The Hungarians, like others reformers before and after, realized the need for a free press. Other rights demanded were the abolition of separate laws for the nobility and freeing all political prisoners. The Hungarians wanted everyone to be treated equally under a stable and predictable legal system. They also demanded expanded participation in courts and juries, beyond the nobility, so that anyone with the necessary education could serve in government and on a jury. Religious liberty was also a cornerstone of the Hungarian revolution. The people simply wanted freedom to worship without conforming to and paying for a state-sponsored religion. Even 175 years ago, Hungary still had vestiges of a feudal system that limited the rights of serfs to own property, elevated the rights of the nobility to demand payments from serfs, and prevented the free movement of labor. The reformers demanded that the limitations, discriminations, and humiliations of feudalism be eradicated. Petofi’s 12 Points also made demands for things that would make Hungary a nation and not a part of the Hapsburg Empire. One critical ingredient for statehood was the need for a national bank and separate currency. To be truly independent, the country needed financial independence, and reformers saw a national bank as a means to achieve that result. These demands also critically included the formation of an independent government and a national assembly with members who were not selected by the aristocracy but were democratically elected. Experience had taught them not to limit the frequency or duration of the assembly. Previously, a national parliament could only convene at the behest of an absentee ruler. Unlike the young United States, Hungary envisioned the critical need for a standing national army that would take a loyalty oath to a Hungarian Constitution but not serve outside the country’s borders. When these demands were submitted to Vienna, they were accepted, and Hungary then moved to implement them to become an independent nation. Sadly, Hungary’s aspirations were short-lived when the national assembly was unable to adequately provide representation to and expand the rights of various ethnic minorities. This led to a civil war, with Austria opportunistically aligning itself against the Hungarian government. In less than 2 years, the independent nation ceased to exist when the Russians invaded, abolished the Hungarian constitution, and brutally oppressed the people. Petofi would die fighting for the freedom of the ideals he treasured for his country. His larger-than-life statute occupies a square in Budapest, where the Hungarian Revolution is forever immortalized. Will Sellers is a
Steve Flowers: Five seats on the Alabama Supreme Court up for election in 2024
Next year is a big year nationally. It is a Presidential year. However, it is a down or off year for Alabama. We, like several other southern states, have our big election year in non-presidential years. We elected our governor, other constitutional offices, and our entire legislature last year in 2022. However, since we have staggered six-year terms for our state judges, we have an inordinate number of seats on our Supreme Court up for election next year. We have nine members of our State Supreme Court. All nine are Republicans. Even though our Supreme Court is elected, we have a surprisingly wise and very qualified state high tribunal. All nine are well-qualified and well-rounded, yet very Republican and very conservative. We are a very Republican and very conservative state. Therefore, these nine judges are reflective of the Heart of Dixie. Even though there are five seats up for election, there is only one opening. Chief Justice Tom Parker is precluded from running for a six-year term. He is 72, and our state laws mandate that someone cannot run for a judgeship after they reach the age of 70. Popular and younger jurists hold the other four seats. Three of the four will seek reelection and will win easily even if they draw opposition. These three incumbents are Will Sellers, Jay Mitchell, and Tommy Bryan. The fourth, Sarah Stewart, is opting to run for the Chief Justice post Tom Parker is vacating. Justice Will Sellers probably will not draw an opponent. He is perfectly suited for the State Supreme Court. His resume reads as though he was born for the job. He was a successful tax attorney in his hometown of Montgomery. He graduated from the University of Alabama Law School and has a Master of Law Degree in Taxation from New York University. His Tax Law expertise is invaluable to his colleagues on the Court. Will has a keen political mind in addition to his legal prowess. He and his wife, Lee Grant Sellers, are Governor Kay Ivey’s closest confidants. Will has sworn Governor Ivey into office at both her Inaugurations. Justice Sellers also pens a monthly column on historical events. Justice Tommy Bryan is up for another six-year term. This popular incumbent jurist will be reelected without opposition. He hails from rural South Alabama – Brantley in Crenshaw County, to be exact. He was first elected in 2012 and reelected to a second six-year term in 2018. Therefore, he will be seeking his third six-year term in 2024. He previously served eight years on the Court of Civil Appeals. He and his lovely wife Pam have two adult children. Tommy and Pam are very active members of the First Baptist Church of Montgomery. Judge Jay Mitchell is the tallest member of the Supreme Court. He stands a good 6 feet 8 inches. He also stands tall with integrity and wit. He is an affable fellow and is finishing his first six-year term on the high court. He will easily win election to his second term, probably unopposed. He graduated from Birmingham Southern College, where he starred in basketball. He graduated from the University of Virginia Law School. He and his wife, Elizabeth, reside in Homewood with their four children. Jay Mitchell is only 46. He is not only the tallest member of the Court but also the youngest. Justice Sarah Stewart is opting to leave her safe seat as an associate justice to seek election as Chief Justice next year. She has already announced and is actively running. More times than not, the early bird gets the worm. Justice Stewart served 13 years as a Mobile Circuit Court Judge prior to going on to the Supreme Court. Judge Chris McCool, an associate justice on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, is favored to win Justice Stewart’s seat. You can bet your bottom dollar he will not be outworked. Even though there are five seats up for reelection on the high court, there will be very little change when the dust settles. This is a good court, and they have an excellent collegial working relationship. The 2024 elections have begun. See you next week. Steve Flowers is Alabama’s leading political columnist. His weekly column appears in over 60 Alabama newspapers. He served 16 years in the state legislature. Steve may be reached at: www.steveflowers.us.
Will Sellers: Challenging scientific orthodoxy
The world Nicholas Copernicus was born into was wrong. Indeed, 550 years ago, almost everything people thought about the world and their place in it was based on false ideas. Without necessarily meaning to, Copernicus shook his world to the core and ushered in a revolution in science. Everyone in the western world believed that the Earth was stationary and was the center of the universe. People might argue about other things, but everyone accepted the Earth’s role and believed everything revolved around it, literally and figuratively. But this universal belief was not based upon any empirical proof; rather, it was an ideology, both philosophical and theological, which misunderstood the place of human beings as the highest order of creation. Other creatures lived under the orbit of humanity and derived their status as subservient to humans. The Earth, as the home of humanity, must thus be the center of the universe around which all other stars and planets revolved. This belief was further supported by various theological scholars who selectively misquoted passages from the scriptures to support a stationary earth. So, while religious sects might argue about other issues, the Earth’s center of the universe was indisputable dogma. There was nothing to compromise. Copernicus was not a modern scientist seeking to prove a theory. Rather, he was an observer of the world around him a, and no doubt, like others, looked at the stars and planets each night. The movement of the stars and planets was a way to tell time, plot the seasons, and conjure various astrological ideas about planets and human traits. In observing the night sky, Copernicus could easily plot when various stars and planets were visible and predict their daily movements. But when his observations turned into graphically plotting how the planets moved around the Earth, it was difficult to do. With the absolute, immutable belief of the Earth’s universal center, depicting how the sun, moon, and planets move around the Earth was a mess. Any observer could see that rather than simple, consistent movement patterns, some stars and planets moved side to side and up and down. Other observations revealed any number of problems that made the motions of the planets appear arbitrary. Throw a comet or other exceptional celestial event into the mix, and the movement patterns became even less consistent. Clever scientists developed explanations for each of these anomalies, all in keeping with a stationary earth. While reasonable explanations might be accepted, trying to model the night sky created a complicated system that was anything but orderly. As additional planets were more carefully observed and added to the system, the depiction of the rotations and revolutions around the Earth became unintelligible. When Copernicus saw a 3-D model of this mass of stars and moons revolving around planets around a stationary earth, he instinctively knew something was amiss. The problem, he reasoned, was perspective. Everyone on Earth could see the movements in the night sky and plot them out, but when the observations were depicted from a stationary earth, the movements became immensely more complicated to illustrate. If someone viewed these same movements from the sun or another planet, the result might be different. Thinking outside the planet, Copernicus looked at the convoluted patterns necessary to prove a non-moving, central earth. It became apparent that if there was any order in the universe, the initial premise must be incorrect. Harking back to early astronomers who had made only rudimentary tracks of the movement of the planets, Copernicus found vague discussions of the sun being the center of the universe. Then, using his more detailed observations of the motions of the various stars and planets, Copernicus sketched out a system with the sun as the center of the universe with the Earth, like other planets, revolving around it. Once the center of the universe moved, the observations from Earth made much more sense and seemed to have greater order. He shared his thoughts primarily in academic settings and wrote summaries of his findings more as theory and conjecture than as truth. He collected several writings advocating the sun as the center of the universe, but he died before they were published. While Copernicus would never receive the derision or adulations of others who came after him, he started a new way of thinking about not only the universe but the place of humans and our perspective of ourselves in the context of our solar system. After Copernicus, belief in the structure of the solar system could have dire consequences. Recall the story of Galileo, who embraced Copernicus’s system at the cost of life imprisonment. Others were executed for believing what they saw versus an imposed orthodoxy. But gradually, the system Copernicus initiated won the day. The consensus dogma was revised when it became apparent that the Earth rotated on its axis and revolved around the sun. But until that consensus developed, many people accepted a belief system that was explicitly wrong. In this case, the science of observation and open discussion overcame challenges based on unfounded beliefs. The centrality of humanity gave way to a less exalted view of both the planet and its inhabitants. So as the 550th anniversary of the birth of Copernicus is celebrated in Poland this month, his legacy is less of a challenge to the prevailing orthodoxy and more of a lesson in practical observation of the natural world. His legacy also reveals the problems with holding an uncompromising position and being unwilling to change in the face of empirical evidence. Embracing a belief without factual support becomes unsustainable when undeniable evidence proposes a different conclusion. Such a false system requires layers of speculation of unprovable notions that disintegrate when exposed to reality. When chained to false beliefs, science merely perpetuates bogus theories. Copernicus’ legacy shows that when common sense observation is applied, reality supports science and allows advancement in our understanding of who we are and the planet we occupy. Will Sellers is a graduate of Hillsdale College and
