The fundamental moral-political principles of the American founding can be identified and summed up by quoting from the two best-known and in many ways greatest sentences ever written in U.
I have always found President Coolidge speech on the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence at Philidelphia on the 5th of July 1926 expressing the fundamental principles of the declaration perfectly. You really should read the entire speech for this little snip hardly does it justice.
"About the Declaration, there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning cannot be applied to this great charter."
"If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction cannot lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers."
Any thoughts on the interpretation that the Constitution was a "counter" Revolution against the principles of the Declaration?
I first encountered this idea in The Decline of American Liberalism (Ekirch), a history book cited by Ayn Rand. Ekirch in turn cites Vernon L. Parrington and they both detail a convincing picture of the Federalists as a conservative backlash against the decentralization of the States in the Confederation. More recently Hazony uses this interpretation to paint the Federalists as "National Conservatives".
At a minimum I think Madison, Jefferson, Paine were obviously not on the same page as Washington, Hamilton, and Adams. So I don't think we can think of The Founders as a single political camp which agreed on the role of government; rather it looks like it was left vague for the reason that there was a split between conservatives (i.e. those looking to restore something similar to the British State) and liberals (those who wanted a firmer garentee of individual rights).
If we argue that our rights are not innate (from whatever source), then the Bill of Rights, preventing government from abridging them, is irrelevant - unless we agree that we do have them (from whatever source). Then we have to justify that to those who maintain that we do not - proving by the historical evidence of many governments that worked with the principle that we do not - therefore they tell their citizens what rights they have and do not have. I infer from your closing paragraph that you do intend to show they come from some source, or are at least grounded in human nature. That too may be difficult, given the historical evidence of many governments.
"General welfare" was an unfortunate phrase. Like many others, it was probably obvious to the Founders (as was "a well regulated militia"). But today - especially to the Left, it means 'whatever advances their cause'.
As to the 'sole purpose of government', does not the protection of the nation come first? We can hardly protect individual rights if the country is conquered.
What does it mean to argue that the principles of the founding are absolutely true? I can understand how the doctrine of equality is rooted in something like humanity's moral psychology-- a moral sense-- though there are obviously other tendencies (e.g. tribalism, or just selfishness). Is this sufficient as a basis for human equality?
I very much enjoyed this essay and the one that preceded it, and I am eager to read your forthcoming essays. However, hasn’t Ayn Rand already done what you propose to do in your last paragraph? Will you be building on her work?
C. Bradley Thompson is the greatest and most important American thinker and seer of our time and amongst those of all time.
Eye of the beholder.
I would formulate our greatest good as:
Our collective greatest good is that we are all each free to pursue our individual greatest goods, within the broad confines of the law.
What you say seems to have striking similarities to natural law theory, which counters the "rule of men."
Thank you.
I have always found President Coolidge speech on the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence at Philidelphia on the 5th of July 1926 expressing the fundamental principles of the declaration perfectly. You really should read the entire speech for this little snip hardly does it justice.
"About the Declaration, there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning cannot be applied to this great charter."
"If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction cannot lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers."
Seriously, this is profound and brilliant. Thank you.
Bravo!
Any thoughts on the interpretation that the Constitution was a "counter" Revolution against the principles of the Declaration?
I first encountered this idea in The Decline of American Liberalism (Ekirch), a history book cited by Ayn Rand. Ekirch in turn cites Vernon L. Parrington and they both detail a convincing picture of the Federalists as a conservative backlash against the decentralization of the States in the Confederation. More recently Hazony uses this interpretation to paint the Federalists as "National Conservatives".
At a minimum I think Madison, Jefferson, Paine were obviously not on the same page as Washington, Hamilton, and Adams. So I don't think we can think of The Founders as a single political camp which agreed on the role of government; rather it looks like it was left vague for the reason that there was a split between conservatives (i.e. those looking to restore something similar to the British State) and liberals (those who wanted a firmer garentee of individual rights).
If we argue that our rights are not innate (from whatever source), then the Bill of Rights, preventing government from abridging them, is irrelevant - unless we agree that we do have them (from whatever source). Then we have to justify that to those who maintain that we do not - proving by the historical evidence of many governments that worked with the principle that we do not - therefore they tell their citizens what rights they have and do not have. I infer from your closing paragraph that you do intend to show they come from some source, or are at least grounded in human nature. That too may be difficult, given the historical evidence of many governments.
"General welfare" was an unfortunate phrase. Like many others, it was probably obvious to the Founders (as was "a well regulated militia"). But today - especially to the Left, it means 'whatever advances their cause'.
As to the 'sole purpose of government', does not the protection of the nation come first? We can hardly protect individual rights if the country is conquered.
What does it mean to argue that the principles of the founding are absolutely true? I can understand how the doctrine of equality is rooted in something like humanity's moral psychology-- a moral sense-- though there are obviously other tendencies (e.g. tribalism, or just selfishness). Is this sufficient as a basis for human equality?
I very much enjoyed this essay and the one that preceded it, and I am eager to read your forthcoming essays. However, hasn’t Ayn Rand already done what you propose to do in your last paragraph? Will you be building on her work?