The Constitution of the United States of America was adopted and enacted in 1789. As a governing document it embraces concepts and ideals that were considered radical in the late 18th century, and remain liberal and progressive here and now in the 21st century.
(To my Republican and other "right-wing" friends and readers: You might disagree with some of what you are about to read, but do not be alarmed by it because you know that, as always, I will be factual, thoughtful and gentle.)
Creation of the United States began in the mid-1760s with the emergence of radical ideas of self-determination. These ideas originated with politically-liberal thinkers in the thirteen English colonies in North America. The conclusion of the Seven Years' War set the stage for the development of these ideas. That conflict has been called the French and Indian War in this country; in fact it was a global war pitting Great Britain and its colonial possessions and allies against France and its territories and allies.
In the years following the 1763 conclusion of that war Great Britain--now with a vastly enlarged empire and wealthier possessions in areas such as India and Canada--sought to compensate itself for expenses incurred in defending the original thirteen colonies by means of collecting new revenues from the colonists. Parliament passed several pieces of revenue-generating legislation: the Sugar Act imposed duties on American imports; the Currency Act prohibited the colonies from printing and issuing their own money; the Quartering Act required the colonial residents to provide food and shelter for British troops stationed in the colonies; the Stamp Act required that documents be printed only on paper which contained the official British stamp, for which a fee was levied. Emboldened by several decades' worth of growth and the confidence born of successfully contributing to the efforts in the war, nine of the colonies responded to King and Parliament with a resolution that set forth several then-radical ideas, among which was that the Stamp Act was subverting "the rights and liberties of the colonists." Other elements of the resolution asserted such radical ideas as the inherent rights of the colonies to participate in a constitutional government in which they would have legislative representation.
All of these radical notions, and more, found their way into our Declaration of Independence and eventually built the foundation for the Constitution.
Now, after more than two centuries as an independent nation, our current political discourse includes frequent statements with wording such as "the Founding Fathers intended __________ (fill in the blank with many things from a debate or campaign speech)." And, in full campaign fervor, each of the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination is continually asserting the right to wear the mantel of "most conservative."
The implied--sometimes explicit--message in this assertion seems to be that the "most conservative" candidate will do the best job of channeling the Founders, thereby reinstating, maintaining and/or supporting the original values and intents of the nation.
This is phooey. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Josiah Quincy, Abigail Adams, Thomas Paine, Robert Livingstone, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, John Hancock, James Madison and many others were the liberal thinkers of their day. They were radicals. They did not trumpet a desire to be known as "conservative." If they had competed for the title of "most conservative" then we would likely still be part of Great Britain.
This is also amusing. Why in the world would a politician want to be labeled as "most conservative?" By definition, whoever is "most conservative" will be the first to be passed by a world that is continuously changing. A person with such a characteristic would not be qualified to be in charge of a growing business of any size, much less President of the United States of America.
"Liberal," "conservative," "left-wing," and "right-wing" are used as labels. Labels tend to become stereotypes, and that is unhealthy. Speaking for myself, my preference would be to be called a "progressive" as a recognition of my political and social beliefs. But our politics have polarized us to the point where the term "progressive" is almost too mild to be accorded recognition. That should change.
Conservatives can have liberal characteristics and can take liberal actions. Liberals can have conservative characteristics and can act in a conservative way. Progressives want to build on top of the best of what we have achieved and make it better. People who call themselves "liberal" or "conservative" can advocate progressive ideas, policies and actions.
These thoughts are not here to vilify or demean any political attitudes; they are to state the facts and to make a small contribution for the sake of attaining political sanity by illustrating the silliness and ultimate futility for the nation of political polarization.
The Constitution was the most politically-progressive document of its day. It was the product of the combined brain-power of the liberal thinkers of the nation. Some of it was conservative in that it continued existing institutions--the institution of slavery being a notable example--but most of was new. Think of the context of the time--the Enlightment, monarchies, colonialism, human enslavement--read the preamble and see that it was and is a governing document that anticipates the need to support change, and that as such it is the result of the efforts of Founding Fathers to be anything but "most conservative" in their approach to government. In case you do not have it handy, here is the Preamble to the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
No comments:
Post a Comment