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. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Coolidge
    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo…
    @GumbyMark

    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.

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

    Well, actually . . .

    • #61
  2. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Skyler (View Comment):

    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.

    So any rational ability to figure out how to live in peace or free from physical assault from others is merely an addition to the defense arsenal and would not necessarily be related to or derived from any morality designed to distinguish any inherently right behavior from a wrong behavior.

    • #62
  3. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):

    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.

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

    Well, actually . . .

    Any morality there or is that just something humans animals…

    • #63
  4. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Coolidge
    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo…
    @GumbyMark

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):

    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.

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

    Well, actually . . .

    Any morality there or is that just something humans animals…

    The lex biologica contains a lengthy discussion of natural rights:

    The Right to Eat
    The Right to Breed
    Freedom to Cry, Howl, Bay, and Hoot
    The Right to Bare Claws
    The Right to Assemble in Herds, Migrate and Stampede
    The Right of All Animals to Be Secure in Their Nests

    • #64
  5. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    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?

    Not “honor” as in a noble character, but to recognize. 

    • #65
  6. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    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?

    I think that the contradiction in Skyler’s position is a good illustration of the point about the usefulness of the identification of a Creator God as the source of rights.

    He asserts that he has rights, without identifying a basis for that claim.  I presume that he extends the idea of rights to other people, as well, though I’m not sure if he has stated this.  Assuming that he means that all people have rights, he provides no way to distinguish between creatures having such rights (people) and creatures not having such rights (animals), as Bob points out.

    Confronted with this problem, Sklyer asserts that animals have rights, but that he doesn’t have to respect those rights.  He further says that animals “aren’t required” to respect our rights, which is correct, though it doesn’t quite go far enough.  Animals are simply incapable of respecting the rights of either humans or other animals, as they lack the cognitive ability to understand any of these concepts.

    So, in this view, “rights” are something that a creature can have but that no other creature is required to respect.  This seems, to me, to contradict the very definition of “rights.”   Wikipedia actually has a good definition: “rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.”

    • #66
  7. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):

    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.

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

    Well, actually . . .

    Any morality there or is that just something humans animals…

    The lex biologica contains a lengthy discussion of natural rights:

    The Right to Eat
    The Right to Breed
    Freedom to Cry, Howl, Bay, and Hoot
    The Right to Bare Claws
    The Right to Assemble in Herds, Migrate and Stampede
    The Right of All Animals to Be Secure in Their Nests

    Yes, I went there and read your piece. Looks like all was well then until humans got this larger brain,  speech capability, and thumb, so now we just do whatever we please in our domination and we make up all these religious stories and formulate a bunch dubious moral positions, all as part of our enhanced defense mechanisms.

    • #67
  8. 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.

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

    Food. I suppose our human ancestors were down the food chain a bit before we developed the capabilities that enabled  rationality?

    • #68
  9. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):

    . . .

    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?

    I don’t think that it’s an issue of authority, precisely, though this depends on what you mean by authority.

    If you’re going to try to develop a rational system of morality or politics, you must have a set of fundamental axioms.  It is not possible to engage in logical deduction without axioms.  Reality does not provide us with a way to rationally test those axioms.  You might think that it does, using a consequentialist argument contending that a certain set of axioms leads to “better” outcomes.  But this just moves the problem into the definition of “better.”

    If you’re going to operate a society based on a set of fundamental moral or political axioms, you have to obtain consensus about those axioms.  They must be agreed and inviolable.  Otherwise, any reasoned argument based on those axioms may be undermined, at any moment, by disagreement about one or more of the axioms.

    The Founders solved this problem by appeal to a Creator God, who is the source of the axioms.  They asserted that their claims are “self-evident.”

    I actually think that they were incorrect about the “self-evident” part.  At least, both the God part, and the rest of their assertions about the nature of man, do not appear to be self-evident to a great many people.

    So the appeal to God is the justification for the acceptance of the other Founding principles.  This may be considered an argument from “authority.”  If there is no God, then this particular argument fails, and one is left trying to find an alternative justification for acceptance of the Founding principles.  Such an alternative may, or may not, exist.

    I am skeptical of the existence of any alternative, but I don’t know everything, so I have to concede that it may be possible.

     

    • #69
  10. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    It’s endlessly annoying how people insist that there must be a creator in order to have rights because it is a way for them to justify their belief that has no basis in fact or reason. If we can’t have rights without a god and we want rights then there has to be a god.  If you don’t believe in god then you don’t believe in rights.  It’s nothing more than making an excuse to believe in mysticism.

    if you want to believe in a god, good for you.  I’m not stopping you (obviously), but there’s no reason for you to minimize my rights or participation in our society and government.

    • #70
  11. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    If you’re going to operate a society based on a set of fundamental moral or political axioms, you have to obtain consensus about those axioms. They must be agreed and inviolable.

    Isn’t this authority?

    • #71
  12. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    If you’re going to operate a society based on a set of fundamental moral or political axioms, you have to obtain consensus about those axioms. They must be agreed and inviolable.

    Isn’t this authority?

    No. It is agreement. 

    • #72
  13. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Skyler (View Comment):

    It’s endlessly annoying how people insist that there must be a creator in order to have rights because it is a way for them to justify their belief that has no basis in fact or reason. If we can’t have rights without a god and we want rights then there has to be a god. If you don’t believe in god then you don’t believe in rights. It’s nothing more than making an excuse to believe in mysticism.

    if you want to believe in a god, good for you. I’m not stopping you (obviously), but there’s no reason for you to minimize my rights or participation in our society and government.

    I think it is @arizonapatriot who has the better argument if you want anyone to respect your rights other than by superior martial skills or ability. It does not mean there is a Creator God, but it is certainly useful for that to be broadly believed or at least thought possible if physically weaker people are to have their rights respected. 

    • #73
  14. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    It’s endlessly annoying how people insist that there must be a creator in order to have rights because it is a way for them to justify their belief that has no basis in fact or reason. If we can’t have rights without a god and we want rights then there has to be a god. If you don’t believe in god then you don’t believe in rights. It’s nothing more than making an excuse to believe in mysticism.

    if you want to believe in a god, good for you. I’m not stopping you (obviously), but there’s no reason for you to minimize my rights or participation in our society and government.

    I think it is @arizonapatriot who has the better argument if you want anyone to respect your rights other than by superior martial skills or ability. It does not mean there is a Creator God, but it is certainly useful for that to be broadly believed or at least thought possible if physically weaker people are to have their rights respected.

    Well, @skyler might have just as many points supporting his position. But it does seem to entail the requirement that rights everywhere are subject to encroachment and must be defended. Prey animals mostly run or hide. Predators mostly have to look out for the stronger predator and the most effective predator, resulting from the recent rational capability and physical enhancement, is the human being.  And it is amazing to examine modern history to see the progression from armies with large numbers of soldiers, to development of destructive weapons, to computers and data processing, and finally intense lying, deception, false flags and fake news, and now one of the most dangerous events occurs when one opens their mouth and speaks.

    • #74
  15. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    I also don’t think that the general welfare principle is a vague hole. I think that it has been deliberately misinterpreted, by confusing individual welfare with general welfare.

    The left focuses on the word “welfare” and interprets it as government handouts for the poor.  My guess is a more accurate way to look at “general welfare” is the “general well-being” of all citizens as a whole.  It’s still somewhat vague, but takes away the left’s direct reference to the poor.

    • #75
  16. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Skyler (View Comment):

    It’s endlessly annoying how people insist that there must be a creator in order to have rights because it is a way for them to justify their belief that has no basis in fact or reason. If we can’t have rights without a god and we want rights then there has to be a god. If you don’t believe in god then you don’t believe in rights. It’s nothing more than making an excuse to believe in mysticism.

    if you want to believe in a god, good for you. I’m not stopping you (obviously), but there’s no reason for you to minimize my rights or participation in our society and government.

    Skyler, I don’t think that I do this.  I do not start with the proposition that people have rights, and use this proposition to justify my belief in God.  I start with belief in God, and use that belief to deduce the proposition that people have rights.

    As I pointed out above, atheists have a problem.  Without revelation, they must have a rational and factual basis for the proposition that people have rights.  There may be an atheistic basis for such a belief, but I haven’t seen or heard it yet.  I have observed many people, including very intelligent and articulate people (John Rawls, Ayn Rand, Sam Harris, Peter Boghossian) claim to have developed such a system, when they have not.  They generally posit certain basic principles, and evade the issue that they have not presented a rational basis to believe in those principles.  They generally appeal to either personal preference, or social consensus.

    From my own experience of over 30 years as an atheist, I recall that one of the reasons that I was annoyed, as you are now, by theistic arguments was that they made me confront the deficiencies in my own belief system.  Doing this is intellectually and emotionally destabilizing.  I realize that my experience may, or may not, match yours in this regard.

    In my atheistic period, I recall facing, and not liking, the argument that it the source of your objection — essentially, the argument that belief in God generally, and the God of the New Testament specifically, results in a better society, and that as a result one should believe in God.  This actually is an argument based on fact and reason, but I didn’t like it.

    I didn’t like it because I was committed to the truth.  Skyler, I think that you are committed to the truth, as well, and I commend you for this.  From the atheistic standpoint, the argument that one should believe in God because such belief produces good results is offensive, because if there is no God, this argument claims that one should believe a lie because it will have a good result.

    We differ because you think that God is a lie, and I do not.

    • #76
  17. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    I didn’t like it because I was committed to the truth. Skyler, I think that you are committed to the truth, as well, and I commend you for this. From the atheistic standpoint, the argument that one should believe in God because such belief produces good results is offensive, because if there is no God, this argument claims that one should believe a lie because it will have a good result.

     

    This is why agnostics can make common cause with believers in politics, but atheists cannot. I do not think that I am uncommitted to the truth. I simply (in my personal view only) have the humility to accept that I may be incapable of completely knowing the truth.

    • #77
  18. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    I recall that one of the reasons that I was annoyed, as you are now, by theistic arguments was that they made me confront the deficiencies in my own belief system.

    And yet you believe in magical beings?  

     

    • #78
  19. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    I didn’t like it because I was committed to the truth. Skyler, I think that you are committed to the truth, as well, and I commend you for this. From the atheistic standpoint, the argument that one should believe in God because such belief produces good results is offensive, because if there is no God, this argument claims that one should believe a lie because it will have a good result.

    We differ because you think that God is a lie, and I do not.

    This involves a lot of discussion about ‘truth’. Your first foundational principle is ‘Faith in God’. I usually expect something claiming to be truth to be proven factual, otherwise it may stand as belief or preference but falls short of established truth. I accept your proposition that the founders (most of them-a consensus) possessed a faith in God. This fact qualifies it as a true foundational principle for your list. To think God exists is a belief, not a proven fact.  To think God is a lie is a belief, not a proven fact. Americans can believe either of these.

    If your principles are true, then working to destroy Americans’  ‘faith in God’ as Progressives do is an unAmerican act.

    • #79
  20. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    I recall that one of the reasons that I was annoyed, as you are now, by theistic arguments was that they made me confront the deficiencies in my own belief system.

    And yet you believe in magical beings?

    Well, I for one don’t.

    • #80
  21. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):
    If your principles are true, then working to destroy Americans’ ‘faith in God’ as Progressives do is an unAmerican act.

    Here’s an example:

    • #81
  22. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):
    If your principles are true, then working to destroy Americans’ ‘faith in God’ as Progressives do is an unAmerican act.

    Here’s an example:

    There is no “official” atheist group.  No atheists speak or act for me.  

    • #82
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.