Letter to My Gen-Z Daughters

I have three daughters aged 19 to 26. Despite my best efforts, they succumbed to the temptations of wokery. Part of that wokeness manifests itself in an ambivalence about patriotism, which I address in this letter. I plan to touch on other topics in future letters.

I wrote the letter over the Fourth of July weekend. It is full of concepts that Ricochetti already know, but maybe you can show it to some Gen-Zers you know. Can't hurt.

Here's the letter:

<BEGIN LETTER>

We live in the greatest, fairest, and most benevolent country that has ever existed. Unfortunately, Generation Z doesn’t know that.

It isn’t Generation Z’s fault. They are victims of a bad education system and various media populated with morally obtuse “deep thinkers” who are incapable of making comparisons.

I can’t do anything about Generation Z, but I can talk to my highly intelligent daughters.

It is a wild stroke of luck that we were born in this place and in this time. The freedoms we have are historical anomalies that we should feel duty-bound to preserve. Freedom hasn’t always existed, and we could lose it if we take it for granted, or hold its related values in contempt.

So, what makes this country great? Is it because it is the most powerful? The richest? Is it because we are the envy of the world? That other countries want to be us? That our military kicks ass? Is it because we invented the Weber grill?

All of those things are the result of this country’s greatness, not the cause. The greatness is the result of the concepts delineated in the Declaration of Independence and our imperfect efforts to live up to them. We are right to see this country as exceptional.

On July 4th, 1926 President Calvin Coolidge said the following:

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 can not 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 can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

There is a lot of meaning packed into that paragraph.

What did President Coolidge mean? He meant that the principles put on paper as long ago as 1776 can’t be improved. That any movement away from those principles would be a movement backward – not forward.

But, what about slavery? The words of the Declaration are incompatible with slavery and probably contributed to its abolition. The slave owning Thomas Jefferson put language in the Declaration abolishing slavery but had to take it out. But even without the abolition language, slavery is incompatible with the Declaration. The Constitution, written 11 years after the Declaration, was an imperfect implementation of the concepts in the Declaration of Independence, but it included a mechanism for self-improvement – the amendment process. Improvements came over the next 237 years. The Constitution, as it is today, is closer to the concepts of the Declaration than it was in 1789.

Think about it. All the great improvements in human rights that occurred in the United States were the result of movement toward the founding principles. Not away.

The greatest example is the abolition of slavery. You can add the subsequent improvements in the rights of people of color, and other minorities. And there is woman’s suffrage, brought about in 1920.

When Coolidge gave his speech in 1926, the progressive movement was in one of its heydays. A recent President from that era, Woodrow Wilson, had openly held the Declaration and the Constitution in contempt, and many agreed with him. The general feeling among many politicians was that those antiquated documents held them back, and that respect for the founding documents was the result of primitive thinking.

President Wilson referred to supporters of the founding concepts as being possessed by “Fourth of July sentiments.” Many elected politicians, since that time, have had the same contempt for the founding principles as Wilson, but weren’t as open about it.

President Coolidge effectively disputed all that. Coolidge was attempting to provide an antidote to the fashionable thinking of his time. Unfortunately, the stench of that fashionable thinking is still with us.

Let’s focus on the words in the Declaration that illustrate what Coolidge meant.

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 clause means we are born with our rights. They were granted to us by our creator, not the government. The creator could be God, Allah or Bill Maher’s “Man in the Sky.” The concept is also known as “Natural Rights.” If you hear someone denouncing the concept of natural rights, understand what they are denouncing.

Did you notice that natural rights and slavery are incompatible?

The above clause is followed by:

That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed

In a just society, the government is created by the people and exists to prevent their natural rights from being taken away, whether by other people or an invading enemy. The government does so by enforcing laws derived by a consensus of the people, and only those laws. That is, laws enacted by legislatures elected by the people. That is what is meant by the phrase “Consent of the Governed.”

We are talking about a consensus of the governed. If you are pulled over by a cop, can you say “I do not consent to be governed by you?” Nope. The cop is merely enforcing a law that was derived by the consent of your fellow citizens - the governed. But he can’t do anything that isn’t in conformance with those laws.
The above concepts make the United States the greatest country in the world - and unique. Coolidge was pushing back against the “deep thinkers” of his time, who were similar to the “deep thinkers” of today. Here’s the big secret: those “deep thinkers” are not geniuses.

The Fourth of July has already passed this year. I hope you’ll take the time to think about what it means and how lucky we are.

P.S. I have maintained that the government should be considered below the people; not above them. I will expand upon that in another long-winded essay.

P.P.S. I hope your reaction to this essay isn’t, “I always thought Dad was stupid. Now I’m certain!” or simply “Meh!” Please engage this article. Give me feedback. I want to hear from all three of you.

<END LETTER>

I preach at my kids a lot, much to their annoyance. I hope someday it will resonate.