One of the premises of 19thC Australian Republicanism was that increasing liberty leads to increasing moral expression and consequent self-governance. The goal being moral perfection and the lack of need of a public government of any kind. Geoffrey Stone writes in War and Liberty that despite fears and concerns, even with the secretive Bush Administration, there has been an increasing morality in the conduct of the executive such that liberty is increasingly preserved. Stone writes:
Nonetheless, I am confident that the major restrictions of civil liberties discussed ... would be less thinkable today than they were in 1798, 1861, 1917, 1942, 1950, or 1969. In terms of both the evolution of constitutional doctrine and the development of a national consciousness about civil liberties, we have made demonstrable progress.In essence the American system of republicanism has promoted a culture of liberty and a culture of protecting, as well as expanding, civil liberties. This is probably the greatest role of the Bill of Rights in political history. Even countries without such as an entrenched constitutional set of rights, such as Australia, often claim things such as freedom of speech as both a natural and political right.
Stone continues:
In the past the United States has imprisoned such national leaders as Matther Lyon, Celement Vallandigham and Eugene Debs for criticizing a war. But in 2004 it was inconceivable that the Bush Administration could prosecute Howard Dean, even though his criticisms of the war in Iraq were every bit as inflammatory as the criticisms of Lyon, Vallandigham, and Debs.I recall being amazed at what those names said that got them imprisoned. Debs, for instance, questioned the morality of a draft during WWI in a speech. A common political refrain in the last seven years.
This is a profound and hard-bought achievement. We should neither take it for granted, nor under-estimate its significance. It is a testament to the strength of American democracy.The judicature is often hopelessly political, framing its decisions within what is politically and democratically achievable. Rather than the stalwart and tenured branch protecting the individual from the tyranny of the executive, the judicature has been a political branch. Often it is the morality of the citizenry, constitutional liberalism (republicanism) and the occasional judge themselves that is limiting what is possible in the forms of executive tyranny.
