What Are the Central Principles of the American Founding?

 

I’ve been developing a hypothesis about the central founding principles of America. I was inspired by a recent National Review Institute discussion on nationalism between Rich Lowry and Jonah Goldberg, moderated by Jim Geraghty. (It’s a good discussion, about 30 minutes long, here.) At around 5:10, Goldberg said:

Now, I heard Tucker [Carlson] earlier, or at least bits and pieces of him, love Tucker, been friends with him for 25 years I think he is completely wrong when he said that bit about how “all I’m asking for is a goal, what we want as a nation is a goal, what’s our goal. You can’t solve a problem unless you have a goal.” The goal of the American experiment is frickin’ liberty. [Applause.] And my idea of, the pursuit of happiness is an individual right. Nationalism tends to trample that and define the pursuit of happiness as a collective thing. That’s dangerous.

I found myself in significant disagreement with Goldberg, particularly with his assertion that “the goal of the American experiment is frickin’ liberty.” I think that this is clearly one goal, but not the only one.

Notice that Goldberg based his argument immediately on the Declaration of Independence. This does seem to be sensible, but liberty is not the only thing mentioned in the Declaration, and the Declaration it is not the only relevant document. Perhaps we should look to the Constitution, too.

This was the inspiration for my thought. I’ve identified 11 Founding principles, from the Declaration and the Preamble to the Constitution. I rely on parts that I have memorized — and that I expect most of you have memorized, as well:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.

We can extract eleven principles from these statements:

  1. Faith in God.
  2. Representative government.
  3. Promotion of morality under a system of justice.
  4. Equal application of the law to all people.
  5. Patriotic or nationalist commitment to the country.
  6. Strong law enforcement to secure the peace.
  7. Strong national defense.
  8. Promotion of the general welfare.
  9. An individual right to life.
  10. An individual right to liberty.
  11. An individual right to the pursuit of happiness.

Most of these are obvious in the text. Faith in God is implied by the assertion that our “Creator” is the source of our rights, and that securing such rights is the purpose of the creation of government. Representative government is implied by the assertion that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Nationalistic or patriotic commitment to the country is implied by the purpose of securing a more perfect Union. Law enforcement is implied by the assertion that the government must ensure domestic tranquility. I think that all of these are quite clear.

“Morality” isn’t specifically mentioned, and is probably the most debatable of my points. I think that it is implicit both in the establishment of justice and the promotion of the general welfare. Justice is essentially about enforcing moral behavior, and the “general welfare” is about more than postal roads, in my view.

I think that this is a pretty good list, derived from the most inspirational portions of our two founding texts.

The objection that I have to libertarian-leaning friends like Goldberg is the elevation of liberty above the other ten Founding values. I have no objection to the inclusion of liberty among these values, and I agree that it is an important one. However, liberty is not the only value, and it sometimes conflicts with others. This is not unique to liberty, as other values are sometimes in conflict. It does seem to me, though, that liberty and the pursuit of happiness are more often in conflict with certain other values.

Increasingly, I’ve been inclined to think that the overemphasis on this single value of liberty, to the exclusion of the ten others, is the cause of many of our current problems.

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 82 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    It seems that there’s significant consensus regarding my list. Does anyone have anything important to add? Does anyone thing that I included something that doesn’t belong?

    Is there a textual basis for belief in limited government, or for what is related: subsidiarity?

    No, none at all. Sorry, Libertarians.

    Just kidding.

    The Constitution says: “As government expands, liberty contracts.” Wait, no, that was Ronald Reagan.

    I can’t think of an aspirational statement in the Declaration or Constitution about limited government. It is implicit in the enumerated powers of Congress in Art. I, and in the 10th Amendment, though these do not indicate that the States should be limited.

    The Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the enumerated powers, but that is distinct from the principle I am referring to. I may not have described it well, let me know.

    Mark, there’s an argument for limitations on State power as well, but I don’t think that they are addressed in the Declaration or the Constitution, beyond the principles stated on my list.

    There are some specific limitations on the power of States in the Constitution, in Art. I, Sec. 10, but they generally apply to areas in which the federal government is granted exclusive power — things like making treaties, coining money, granting letters of marque, and taxing imports or exports.

    I believe one important idea on the Constitution limiting State power is that the 14th Amendment creates another exception to the 10th–an exception in which the entire first 9 Amendments limit State as well as federal power.

    • #31
  2. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Coolidge
    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo…
    @GumbyMark

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    It seems that there’s significant consensus regarding my list. Does anyone have anything important to add? Does anyone thing that I included something that doesn’t belong?

    Is there a textual basis for belief in limited government, or for what is related: subsidiarity?

    No, none at all. Sorry, Libertarians.

    Just kidding.

    The Constitution says: “As government expands, liberty contracts.” Wait, no, that was Ronald Reagan.

    I can’t think of an aspirational statement in the Declaration or Constitution about limited government. It is implicit in the enumerated powers of Congress in Art. I, and in the 10th Amendment, though these do not indicate that the States should be limited.

    The Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the enumerated powers, but that is distinct from the principle I am referring to. I may not have described it well, let me know.

    Mark, there’s an argument for limitations on State power as well, but I don’t think that they are addressed in the Declaration or the Constitution, beyond the principles stated on my list.

    There are some specific limitations on the power of States in the Constitution, in Art. I, Sec. 10, but they generally apply to areas in which the federal government is granted exclusive power — things like making treaties, coining money, granting letters of marque, and taxing imports or exports.

    I believe one important idea on the Constitution limiting State power is that the 14th Amendment creates another exception to the 10th–an exception in which the entire first 9 Amendments limit State as well as federal power.

    Mostly true with some exceptions – parts of the 5th and 7th amendments and the entire 9th amendment – but certainly not as “founding principles” since the 14th amendment wasn’t adopted until 1868 and the Supreme Court only began applying parts of the Bill of Rights to the states in the 1920s.

    • #32
  3. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Is there a textual basis for belief in limited government, or for what is related: subsidiarity?

    No, none at all. Sorry, Libertarians.

    Just kidding.

    The Constitution says: “As government expands, liberty contracts.” Wait, no, that was Ronald Reagan.

    I can’t think of an aspirational statement in the Declaration or Constitution about limited government. It is implicit in the enumerated powers of Congress in Art. I, and in the 10th Amendment, though these do not indicate that the States should be limited.

    The Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the enumerated powers, but that is distinct from the principle I am referring to. I may not have described it well, let me know.

    Mark, there’s an argument for limitations on State power as well, but I don’t think that they are addressed in the Declaration or the Constitution, beyond the principles stated on my list.

    There are some specific limitations on the power of States in the Constitution, in Art. I, Sec. 10, but they generally apply to areas in which the federal government is granted exclusive power — things like making treaties, coining money, granting letters of marque, and taxing imports or exports.

    Thanks, but I was not referring to States, but to the Federal Government.

    Example:

    1. Premise: The public welfare is served by having bank clearinghouses for checks
    2. Historical premise: The private institution “the banking industry” created (by definition, without coercion) bank clearinghouses which achieved the public end, and did it excellently.
    3. Hypothetical premise: A party gets control of Congress and its members decide that they would like to exercise their constitutional power to provide for the public welfare that is served by the existence of bank clearinghouses.  They outlaw private clearinghouses, and use tax money to create and operate a monopoly bank clearinghouse.

    The Congress provided for the public welfare by their action, but its takeover was not necessary.

    In effect, Congress acted not as the humble servant of “the public”–a problematic idea, but not one that’s relevant here–but as a class that is competing with the public for custodial ownership of them, like the monarchy.

    If there is a principle of the kind I refer to, then an argument can be made that substituting coercive power for the power of the citizens to control their affairs in this particular case is a violation of the principles of the republic: the Government was instituted to serve the people, depriving them of their property rights in their persons and material property only as needed to serve them.  Not simply because the elected and appointed officials

    • are authorized, in general, to exercise power in a specific case, and
    • wish to have the power, rather than allowing the people to retain it.

    If there is no such principle, then no such argument can be made.

    • #33
  4. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…:

    • Faith in God.
    • Representative government.
    • Promotion of morality under a system of justice.
    • Equal application of the law to all people.
    • Patriotic or nationalist commitment to the country.
    • Strong law enforcement to secure the peace.
    • Strong national defense.
    • Promotion of the general welfare.
    • An individual right to life.
    • An individual right to liberty.
    • An individual right to the pursuit of happiness.

    What a load of whooey.  

    Faith in god?  For crying out loud, it’s FREEDOM OF RELIGION.  There’s a big difference.  Even some of the founders were not at all religious.

    The CENTRAL premise of the United States is Self-Determination.  That this was largely wrecked by the War Between the States doesn’t change that this is what our country was primarily founded on.

    Secondarily, it is the Bill of Rights. 

    Everything else is just sauce.

    • #34
  5. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…:

    • Faith in God.
    • Representative government.
    • Promotion of morality under a system of justice.
    • Equal application of the law to all people.
    • Patriotic or nationalist commitment to the country.
    • Strong law enforcement to secure the peace.
    • Strong national defense.
    • Promotion of the general welfare.
    • An individual right to life.
    • An individual right to liberty.
    • An individual right to the pursuit of happiness.

    What a load of whooey.

    Faith in god? For crying out loud, it’s FREEDOM OF RELIGION. There’s a big difference. Even some of the founders were not at all religious.

    The CENTRAL premise of the United States is Self-Determination. That this was largely wrecked by the War Between the States doesn’t change that this is what our country was primarily founded on.

    Secondarily, it is the Bill of Rights.

    Everything else is just sauce.

    I’m going to add that it’s really pathetic that some religious people feel a need to imagine that their faith must be part of the government somehow.  Do you not have enough faith?  Why do you feel a need to justify it through government involvement?  Why would you ever trust a government to meddle in your faith? 

    I remember a time when many religions were very adamant about keeping the government out of their business.  The quickest way to lose freedom of religion is to get the government involved in defining what constitutes “faith.”

    • #35
  6. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Skyler:

    Do you have an actual, rational, historical and textual response?  I don’t mind being insulted in a rant, but it would be nice to actually discuss the facts and the text.

    Generally, calling something a bunch of “hooey” and calling someone “pathetic” isn’t very convincing.  If you have a viable counter-argument, based on our founding texts and historical facts, I’d be happy to consider it.

    I have a series of questions for you. 

    Do you believe that you have a Creator?

    If not, how can you believe that you are endowed by your Creator with certain unalienable rights?

    If you don’t so believe, then you reject the assertion that the Declaration states to be self-evident.  Further, the Declaration then states that these self-evident truths are the basis for the legitimacy of our nation.

    I know that you don’t like it, but these are our founding texts.  I’m inclined to be committed to the Declaration and the Constitution, not to a 1947 SCOTUS interpretation. 

    • #36
  7. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    It seems that there’s significant consensus regarding my list. Does anyone have anything important to add? Does anyone thing that I included something that doesn’t belong?

    Is there a textual basis for belief in limited government, or for what is related: subsidiarity?

    No, none at all. Sorry, Libertarians.

    Just kidding.

    The Constitution says: “As government expands, liberty contracts.” Wait, no, that was Ronald Reagan.

    I can’t think of an aspirational statement in the Declaration or Constitution about limited government. It is implicit in the enumerated powers of Congress in Art. I, and in the 10th Amendment, though these do not indicate that the States should be limited.

    The Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the enumerated powers, but that is distinct from the principle I am referring to. I may not have described it well, let me know.

    Mark, there’s an argument for limitations on State power as well, but I don’t think that they are addressed in the Declaration or the Constitution, beyond the principles stated on my list.

    There are some specific limitations on the power of States in the Constitution, in Art. I, Sec. 10, but they generally apply to areas in which the federal government is granted exclusive power — things like making treaties, coining money, granting letters of marque, and taxing imports or exports.

    I believe one important idea on the Constitution limiting State power is that the 14th Amendment creates another exception to the 10th–an exception in which the entire first 9 Amendments limit State as well as federal power.

    This is not in the Constitution, and certainly not in the original text.

    SCOTUS adopted a doctrine called “incorporation” quite a bit after the 14th Amendment, largely doing what you indicate, though Gumby Mark is correct that not all of the Bill of Rights has been “incorporated” under this doctrine, and some things that are not in the Bill of Rights have been “incorporated.”

    The incorporation doctrine is quite new.  There was one case in 1897 requiring compensation in the case of a government taking; then a second in 1925 on freedom of speech; then many others since.  I think that Justice Thomas has been dubious, in certain recent opinions, about this “incorporation” doctrine using the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause, though he seems inclined to reach some of the same results through the Privileges & Immunities Clause.

    • #37
  8. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    It seems that there’s significant consensus regarding my list. Does anyone have anything important to add? Does anyone thing that I included something that doesn’t belong?

    Is there a textual basis for belief in limited government, or for what is related: subsidiarity?

    No, none at all. Sorry, Libertarians.

    Just kidding.

    The Constitution says: “As government expands, liberty contracts.” Wait, no, that was Ronald Reagan.

    I can’t think of an aspirational statement in the Declaration or Constitution about limited government. It is implicit in the enumerated powers of Congress in Art. I, and in the 10th Amendment, though these do not indicate that the States should be limited.

    The Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the enumerated powers, but that is distinct from the principle I am referring to. I may not have described it well, let me know.

    Mark, there’s an argument for limitations on State power as well, but I don’t think that they are addressed in the Declaration or the Constitution, beyond the principles stated on my list.

    There are some specific limitations on the power of States in the Constitution, in Art. I, Sec. 10, but they generally apply to areas in which the federal government is granted exclusive power — things like making treaties, coining money, granting letters of marque, and taxing imports or exports.

    I believe one important idea on the Constitution limiting State power is that the 14th Amendment creates another exception to the 10th–an exception in which the entire first 9 Amendments limit State as well as federal power.

    This is not in the Constitution, and certainly not in the original text.

    SCOTUS adopted a doctrine called “incorporation” quite a bit after the 14th Amendment, largely doing what you indicate, though Gumby Mark is correct that not all of the Bill of Rights has been “incorporated” under this doctrine, and some things that are not in the Bill of Rights have been “incorporated.”

    The incorporation doctrine is quite new. There was one case in 1897 requiring compensation in the case of a government taking; then a second in 1925 on freedom of speech; then many others since. I think that Justice Thomas has been dubious, in certain recent opinions, about this “incorporation” doctrine using the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause, though he seems inclined to reach some of the same results through the Privileges & Immunities Clause.

    Good work, thanks.

    • #38
  9. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Skyler:

    Do you have an actual, rational, historical and textual response? I don’t mind being insulted in a rant, but it would be nice to actually discuss the facts and the text.

    Generally, calling something a bunch of “hooey” and calling someone “pathetic” isn’t very convincing. If you have a viable counter-argument, based on our founding texts and historical facts, I’d be happy to consider it.

    I have a series of questions for you.

    Do you believe that you have a Creator?

    If not, how can you believe that you are endowed by your Creator with certain unalienable rights?

    If you don’t so believe, then you reject the assertion that the Declaration states to be self-evident. Further, the Declaration then states that these self-evident truths are the basis for the legitimacy of our nation.

    I know that you don’t like it, but these are our founding texts. I’m inclined to be committed to the Declaration and the Constitution, not to a 1947 SCOTUS interpretation.

    It is hooey.  I said the idea is pathetic, not the person.

    Of course there isn’t a “creator.”  Nor is there a Santa Claus.  The only difference between the two is that when you get a certain age, someone tells you that there is no Santa Claus.

    Rights predate any creator.  They exist in and of themselves.

    I don’t care if they used flowery language in the Declaration of Independence.  They were somewhat primitive people, largely unexposed to science and a lot of knowledge we now take for granted.  The Declaration of Independence was merely the introduction to what our nation became.  The important motivation for the Declaration of Independence is that the people of Virginia and the other colonies riding on them, believed that they had a right to form their own government.  That’s all there was.  The rest is puffery and a list of injuries that are often quite exaggerated, to be honest.

    I don’t care what the Supreme Court said about my rights.  They pre-exist the Constitution as well as your “creator.”  Take my rights and there will be war.

    • #39
  10. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Skyler, thanks for the response.  I get the impression that you are quite hostile toward religion, and I’m sorry to see that.

    I do have one correction to what you wrote:

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Of course there isn’t a “creator.” Nor is there a Santa Claus. The only difference between the two is that when you get a certain age, someone tells you that there is no Santa Claus.

    This is not actually a difference.  When you get to a certain age, plenty of people tell you that there is no God, either.  

    • #40
  11. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Skyler, thanks for the response. I get the impression that you are quite hostile toward religion, and I’m sorry to see that.

    I do have one correction to what you wrote:

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Of course there isn’t a “creator.” Nor is there a Santa Claus. The only difference between the two is that when you get a certain age, someone tells you that there is no Santa Claus.

    This is not actually a difference. When you get to a certain age, plenty of people tell you that there is no God, either.

    And that last point is something I have never been able to understand why someone would do that. Maybe @skyler knows.

    • #41
  12. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Skyler, thanks for the response. I get the impression that you are quite hostile toward religion, and I’m sorry to see that.

    I do have one correction to what you wrote:

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Of course there isn’t a “creator.” Nor is there a Santa Claus. The only difference between the two is that when you get a certain age, someone tells you that there is no Santa Claus.

    This is not actually a difference. When you get to a certain age, plenty of people tell you that there is no God, either.

    And that last point is something I have never been able to understand why someone would do that. Maybe @skyler knows.

    There can be many motivations, some bad but not all bad.

    An atheist of good will will necessarily think that my belief in God is mistaken.  It is perfectly reasonable to engage in discussion in order to correct this perceived error.  The intellectual issue can be a motivation, but another reasonable motivation could arise out of an argument over one or more specific moral issues.  For the atheist, it would be perfectly understandable to seek to persuade the believer on the issue of atheism, in order to persuade the believer to change his opinion about any of a wide variety of moral issues.  Abortion or issues of sexual morality are obvious examples, but there are others.

    This is a perfectly reasonable thing for an atheist to do.  I think that this hypothetical atheist is incorrect on the issue of the existence of God, but I do not conclude that presenting the atheistic argument is either inexplicable or malicious.

    An atheist’s motives may be malicious in some circumstances, of course, but this applies to everybody, including Christian believers like me.

    • #42
  13. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…: I think that this is a pretty good list, derived from the most inspirational portions of our two founding texts.

    From what you express in the above statement I infer that you are dedicated to all the points in your list as the foundation for America. Since ‘faith in God’ is your very first point I then would infer that @skyler and his ilk could readily be deemed unAmerican for working to tear away that foundation notwithstanding motive.

    • #43
  14. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…: I think that this is a pretty good list, derived from the most inspirational portions of our two founding texts.

    From what you express in the above statement I infer that you are dedicated to all the points in your list as the foundation for America. Since ‘faith in God’ is your very first point I then would infer that @skyler and his ilk could readily be deemed unAmerican for working to tear away that foundation notwithstanding motive.

    EXACTLY!

     

    • #44
  15. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…: I think that this is a pretty good list, derived from the most inspirational portions of our two founding texts.

    From what you express in the above statement I infer that you are dedicated to all the points in your list as the foundation for America. Since ‘faith in God’ is your very first point I then would infer that @skyler and his ilk could readily be deemed unAmerican for working to tear away that foundation notwithstanding motive.

    Personally, I am so dedicated.  However, it is not necessarily the case that the Founders were correct about everything.  It is perfectly legitimate to argue that the Founders were wrong about something.

    This actually presents another problem with Jonah Goldberg’s objection to nationalism.  Goldberg asserts that the US is a “creedal” nation, which he supports and contrasts with a view of the nation that he sometimes characterizes as “blood and soil” nationalism, by which I think that he means a patriotic or nationalistic commitment to the particular people, territory, culture, and language of the nation.  Goldberg is not alone in taking this position.

    I think that the “creedal” nature of the US is an important observation, but it creates new problems that I haven’t seen Goldberg (or others) address.  Two obvious problems are: (1) identification of the American creed, and (2) dealing with Americans who do not agree with the American creed.

    If you take the view that America is a “creedal” nation, then Americans who don’t accept the creed are, well, not good Americans.  Perhaps they could be called anti-American.  Is citizenship to be based upon acceptance of the creed?  If so, what is the authoritative statement of the creed, and who does the policing? 

    On the other hand, if the creed is subject to change, how do we address proposals for changing the creed?  You have to either believe that the creed is unchangeable, or that it may be changed.  If it may be changed then, for example, it can be changed to “blood and soil” nationalism, among other things.

    I’m not convinced that Goldberg has thought this through very clearly.

     

    • #45
  16. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    More about the American creed.

    Generally speaking, American politics is carried out within the framework of the creed set forth by the Founders.  There are, and have long been, some radicals who openly reject a substantial portion of the creed — monarchists at the outset, Marxists and anarchists since approximately the turn of the 20th Century, and in my view, the Wokeist/Social Justice Warrior types today.

    The bulk of American political debate accepts, or at least claims to accept, the American creed.  In most debates, both sides seek to further their positions by claiming to represent the true principles of the Founding.  This dynamic creates an incentive to misrepresent, or at least misinterpret, the actual, historical content of the American creed.

    Making matters more complex, it turns out that the Founders were not completely uniform in their beliefs.  This should not be surprising, as it is rare to find even two people who agree on absolutely everything.  Thus, in determining the contents of the American creed, it is possible to reach different conclusions by giving different weight to the opinions of certain Founders.

    There are other sources, but I think that the most prominent place in which this debate occurs are the opinions of the Supreme Court on Constitutional issues.  Another prominent place are the major public speeches of the various Presidents, especially their inaugural addresses.

    I think that there was a very significant shift, in a Leftist direction, in the public perception of the American creed, roughly in the mid-20th Century.  I think that many people are not even aware that the shift occurred, and are therefore misinformed about the nature of America’s Founding principles.  They do not reject the idea of holding to those Founding principles, but I think that they are mistaken about the content of those principles.

    As I noted in my prior comment, it is perfectly legitimate to challenge some or all of the Founding principles.  What I find illegitimate is to misrepresent those principles.

    Editorial addition:  I should add that it is perfectly legitimate to disagree about the contents of the Founding principles, as long as such disagreement is a reasonable historical or textual dispute.

    • #46
  17. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    I am an agnostic but I find a belief in “God” useful in political discourse. (And I recognize the personal value to millions of such a belief which I would not rob them of.) It places all man-made institutions below something else. And if described as a creative force, it raises individuals above the current preferences of government whether or not that government is democratic or not.

    Thus I would agree in the American scheme of government, the assertion of a Creator God is essential to the logic of our founding documents. A Creator God may not in fact exist, but it is essential in our public structure to accept that he does, else politics is simply a Darwinian contest over power. The Progressives accept that it is. And once they convince everyone that is true, then rhetoric gives way to weapons. If we want to hold on to any semblance of rhetorical persuasion as the means by which decisions are made and disputes are settled, we must not scuttle the notion that a Creator God stands above government and mankind.

    • #47
  18. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Rodin (View Comment):
    I am an agnostic but I find a belief in “God” useful in political discourse.

    Useful to whom?  To believers?  Or to you?

    • #48
  19. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Rodin (View Comment):
    Thus I would agree in the American scheme of government, the assertion of a Creator God is essential to the logic of our founding documents.

    If there is no Creator God, then our scheme of government is illogical?

    • #49
  20. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Rights predate any creator. They exist in and of themselves.

     

    I think this point is worthy of discussion here. First, why use a terminology like ‘predate any creator’ if the argument is there is no creator? So has man always existed? Was man at an earlier time devoid of rational capability? If so, did individual man have rights then? Did evolution change man from a total animal state to the  partially rational being we observe today?

    There are more questions that the ‘no creator’ premise raises. 

    I’m not against @skyler‘s view on this but a view I’m not willing to accept is the progressive view of the perfectibility of man and the elimination of what we characterize as ‘evil’ behavior. 

    • #50
  21. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    @arizonapatriot — “I think that the ‘creedal’ nature of the US is an important observation, but it creates new problems that I haven’t seen Goldberg (or others) address. Two obvious problems are: (1) identification of the American creed, and (2) dealing with Americans who do not agree with the American creed.”

    Love it!

    I like to ask the anti-nationalists:   if California votes to leave the Union, on what basis do you oppose it?

    Or maybe you don’t?

    • #51
  22. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…:

    Now, I heard Tucker [Carlson] earlier, or at least bits and pieces of him, love Tucker, been friends with him for 25 years I think he is completely wrong when he said that bit about how “all I’m asking for is a goal, what we want as a nation is a goal, what’s our goal. You can’t solve a problem unless you have a goal.” The goal of the American experiment is frickin’ liberty. [Applause.] And my idea of, the pursuit of happiness is an individual right. Nationalism tends to trample that and define the pursuit of happiness as a collective thing. That’s dangerous.

    I found myself in significant disagreement with Goldberg, particularly with his assertion that “the goal of the American experiment is frickin’ liberty.” I think that this is clearly one goal, but not the only one.

    Nationalism, at its core, is free association. It isn’t supposed to encompass large groups of people – the more people involved, the harder it is to have a cohesive nation.

    A group of nations ruled by one is an empire. There was supposed to be this idea of a loose alliance of many nations that, when united, we posed a viable threat to any external threat. Individual nations on their own are too small to DO that – which is what was happening in Europe.

    But with the basic degradation of free association and state’s rights and the shoddy pathetic representation we get in congress, such a thing does not exist.

    It shouldn’t matter to the federal government how individual towns, cities, or states choose to self-associate or the culture they wish to have. It isn’t their business.

    • #52
  23. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Rodin (View Comment):

    I am an agnostic but I find a belief in “God” useful in political discourse. (And I recognize the personal value to millions of such a belief which I would not rob them of.) It places all man-made institutions below something else. And if described as a creative force, it raises individuals above the current preferences of government whether or not that government is democratic or not.

    Thus I would agree in the American scheme of government, the assertion of a Creator God is essential to the logic of our founding documents. A Creator God may not in fact exist, but it is essential in our public structure to accept that he does, else politics is simply a Darwinian contest over power. The Progressives accept that it is. And once they convince everyone that is true, then rhetoric gives way to weapons. If we want to hold on to any semblance of rhetorical persuasion as the means by which decisions are made and disputes are settled, we must not scuttle the notion that a Creator God stands above government and mankind.

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):
    Thus I would agree in the American scheme of government, the assertion of a Creator God is essential to the logic of our founding documents.

    If there is no Creator God, then our scheme of government is illogical?

    This is a good observation and a good question in response.

    I think that there may be a third possibility.  Historically and factually, I agree with Rodin that the assertion of a Creator God was the basis for our founding documents and our political system.  There’s actually a 1952 SCOTUS decision, Zorach v. Clauson, in which a 6-3 majority stated: “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”

    I am not certain that there is no other possible basis for our system of government.  It might be possible to substitute something else.  Chivalric honor might work as a substitute, though one would then need a reason to be committed to this system.

    Japan is an interesting example.  I know relatively little about Japan, but it seems to be a pretty good country at present, and their underlying mythos seems to be a commitment to something like chivalric honor — the bushido code of the samurai, which seems based on veneration of ancestors and their traditions, and symbolizes that veneration in the person of the Emperor.  I realize that this may be an unsophisticated view of Japanese society and culture.

    As a conservative, I am quite skeptical of any proposal to remove or reject a foundational belief, either without an alternative or with a proposed alternative that might not work.  But I cannot rule out the possibility that it might work, in a particular case.

    • #53
  24. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    As an interesting personal aside, I happen to have 2 degrees of separation from the 1952 Zorach v. Clauson case cited in my prior comment.  The opinion was written by Justice William O. Douglas.  One of my law school professors, Charles Ares, was a clerk for Douglas in 1952, though he arrived after this particular opinion was issued.

    It turns out that Prof. Ares became friends with Justice Jackson’s clerk during the 1952-53 term, a fellow that you might have heard of named William Rehnquist.  As a result, Chief Justice Rehnquist often taught a short course in Supreme Court history at the University of Arizona law school, which I had the privilege of taking.  It was quite an experience to get to sit in the front row of a class on this issue, taught by the sitting Chief.

    • #54
  25. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):
    I am an agnostic but I find a belief in “God” useful in political discourse.

    Useful to whom? To believers? Or to you?

    I believe as discussed further in the comment I think the belief is a useful civic concept to best ensure a system that recognizes natural rights.

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):
    Thus I would agree in the American scheme of government, the assertion of a Creator God is essential to the logic of our founding documents.

    If there is no Creator God, then our scheme of government is illogical?

    Not the scheme itself, but the foundation that helps preserve that system against the “anything we decide to do together is right” crowd.

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):
    Bob Thompson

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Rights predate any creator. They exist in and of themselves.

     

    I think this point is worthy of discussion here.

    and

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    I am not certain that there is no other possible basis for our system of government. It might be possible to substitute something else. Chivalric honor might work as a substitute, though one would then need a reason to be committed to this system.

    Yes, I think the question of whether we could better, or at least as well, preserve our system without the notion of natural rights being given by a Creator is worth discussing. The length and strength of our democracy compared to other nations with solely secular grounding, along with the challenges we currently have with “living constitution” pressures from avowed secularists, suggest that the belief in Creator-given natural rights forms a better basis than “this is more logical than that” justification for our system.

    • #55
  26. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):
    I am an agnostic but I find a belief in “God” useful in political discourse.

    Useful to whom? To believers? Or to you?

    I believe as discussed further in the comment I think the belief is a useful civic concept to best ensure a system that recognizes natural rights.

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):
    Thus I would agree in the American scheme of government, the assertion of a Creator God is essential to the logic of our founding documents.

    If there is no Creator God, then our scheme of government is illogical?

    Not the scheme itself, but the foundation that helps preserve that system against the “anything we decide to do together is right” crowd.

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):
    Bob Thompson

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Rights predate any creator. They exist in and of themselves.

     

    I think this point is worthy of discussion here.

    and

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    I am not certain that there is no other possible basis for our system of government. It might be possible to substitute something else. Chivalric honor might work as a substitute, though one would then need a reason to be committed to this system.

    Yes, I think the question of whether we could better, or at least as well, preserve our system without the notion of natural rights being given by a Creator is worth discussing. The length and strength of our democracy compared to other nations with solely secular grounding, along with the challenges we currently have with “living constitution” pressures from avowed secularists, suggest that the belief in Creator-given natural rights forms a better basis than “this is more logical than that” justification for our system.

    Is the difference between having ‘creator’ and not having ‘creator’ one of authority and no authority? 

    • #56
  27. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

     

    Is the difference between having ‘creator’ and not having ‘creator’ one of authority and no authority?

    No, it’s a matter of inflicting religious bigotry on others.

    • #57
  28. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

     

    Is the difference between having ‘creator’ and not having ‘creator’ one of authority and no authority?

    No, it’s a matter of inflicting religious bigotry on others.

    Then you can convince me how it is that the human animal has rights, whatever that means, that other animals don’t have.

    • #58
  29. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Is the difference between having ‘creator’ and not having ‘creator’ one of authority and no authority?

    No, it’s a matter of inflicting religious bigotry on others.

    Then you can convince me how it is that the human animal has rights, whatever that means, that other animals don’t have.

    Who said they don’t?  In fact they do.  We don’t honor their rights, and they aren’t required to honor ours.  They are food.

    Edit:  And they don’t have a system of laws that are written down, either.  Fancy that.

    • #59
  30. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

     

    Is the difference between having ‘creator’ and not having ‘creator’ one of authority and no authority?

    No, it’s a matter of inflicting religious bigotry on others.

    Then you can convince me how it is that the human animal has rights, whatever that means, that other animals don’t have.

    Who said they don’t? In fact they do. We don’t honor their rights, and they aren’t required to honor ours. They are food.

    How does honor get in there?

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.