Remembering the American Vision?

[Ed Hudgins]

Remembering the American Vision?

by Edward Hudgins

July 4, the anniversary of the birth of the United States, is a good time to remember the vision of this country. But to say, “remember” contains the possible implication that we are recalling with pleasant nostalgia some past experience or loved one long gone. Otherwise we might better say, “reminding ourselves” of what is present, extant, and wonderful—something we are foolishly neglecting.

The American vision was stated in the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson and our Founders tell us, “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.”

The goal of the American regime was to stay out of our way and to ensure that we stay out of each other’s way unless we find common cause with one another based on mutual consent. That is to say, the purpose of government is to protect our individual rights.

And the American vision is also found in the story of individuals building their own lives. Millions of immigrants have come to America, facing a different culture, language, or other external factors alien to them. But they sought to be part of a welcomed difference: a country in which they had the freedom and opportunity to pursue their individual dreams.

The happy consequence of such individual pursuit of happiness has been a great nation. America has grown from a small, underdeveloped country of about three million to a country of 300 million that is the richest on earth and in history.

But we have seen our individual liberties—the center of the American vision—eroded over the years and decades. A principal reason is that the American morality of individualism has been eroded.

True individualists take pride in their own efforts and achievements. They neither expect nor want others to live for them nor are they willing to throw away their own dreams in order to live for others. They would look upon as spiritually ugly rather than admirable the lives of those who would damn themselves to unhappiness and misery for the sake of others.

Yet it is on this morality of self-sacrifice that much politics today is based. Politicians have been creating with their welfare-state and regulatory policies a class of whiners who cry that society—read their fellow citizens—owe them a living or at least enough money to buy food, pay the rent, send the kids to school, purchase a home or healthcare. And they have tried to guilt-trip the producers who will need to foot the bill into allowing themselves to be fleeced like sheep to help others.

So yes, the vision of what is great in America has been tarnished.

But to terribly mix metaphors, the American house might be a bit rundown, it might be infested with political termites, but its foundations are still sound and it is still a marvelous mansion in which to live. Today millions of Americans still love their lives, love their work, love those dear to them and, therefore, love their freedom.

So on July 4 we can remember back when our lives were less at the mercy of government. But we can also remind ourselves of the freedoms that we still have and just how we’ve used those freedoms to benefit our own lives. We are not simply remembering our past, bygone glories but are pausing to reflect on something profoundly beautiful right before our eyes. But remembering our lost liberties will impel us to seek to bring them back, to make them real, here and now, so that we can remind ourselves on future July 4ths of how good we have it.

[BaalChatzaf]

So on July 4 we can remember back when our lives were less at the mercy of government. But we can also remind ourselves of the freedoms that we still have and just how we’ve used those freedoms to benefit our own lives. We are not simply remembering our past, bygone glories but are pausing to reflect on something profoundly beautiful right before our eyes. But remembering our lost liberties will impel us to seek to bring them back, to make them real, here and now, so that we can remind ourselves on future July 4ths of how good we have it.

Shall we stop romanticizing the past? Please?

Less at the mercy of the government? In the John Adams administration you had the Alien and Sedition act which was a scurrilous attack on the first amendment. And Adams was one of the Founders! And chattel slavery was alive and well. Women could not vote nor could they own property or take out patents. Then during the Civil War, the Lincoln government was jailing dissidents who opposed the war. Fast forward into the period of Jim Crow. Six hundred thousand Americans died, in part to abolish slavery, but the Black Codes put the Negroes back in the same pickle they were as slaves. That defect took only a hundred years to cure. Approaching the end of the 19th century you have the Comstock Laws censuring naughty books. The DoI and the Constitution sound . great and look great on paper until you pay attention to the facts on the ground.

Please forgive me if I am underwhelmed by your rosy vision of the past.

Here is the truth. The government has always been one of the chief enemies of liberty. Then and Now.

Yet another Bah Humbug moment.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ed,

That was an inspiring little article.

I fully agree that individualism is the spiritual basis of America and essentially what moved the Founding Fathers. I celebrate my own spiritual alignment with theirs and your article is a most pleasant reminder.

I also like to take this day to remember the genius they had in implementing this spirit: the mechanism of checks and balances in government.

Regardless of why, they perceived that human beings in a society need a government and that human beings are easily seduced by power into turning into bad guys. So rather than say it's useless or try for an unreal utopia, they essentially harnessed human power while architecting a workable government.

In light of the history before them, this achievement alone is one of the pinnacles of human political philosophy. I don't imagine it will be equaled any time soon.

I sincerely believe that freedom efforts would gain much by individualists preaching the creed of checks and balances in addition to individualism. And I think it would be possible to combat much government encroachment that way, or at least present a case that would be very difficult to argue against.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

(snip)

Shall we stop romanticizing the past? Please?

Less at the mercy of the government? In the John Adams administration you had the Alien and Sedition act which was a scurrilous attack on the first amendment. And Adams was one of the Founders! And chattel slavery was alive and well. Women could not vote nor could they own property or take out patents. Then during the Civil War, the Lincoln government was jailing dissidents who opposed the war. Fast forward into the period of Jim Crow. Six hundred thousand Americans died, in part to abolish slavery, but the Black Codes put the Negroes back in the same pickle they were as slaves. That defect took only a hundred years to cure. Approaching the end of the 19th century you have the Comstock Laws censuring naughty books. The DoI and the Constitution sound . great and look great on paper until you pay attention to the facts on the ground.

Please forgive me if I am underwhelmed by your rosy vision of the past.

(snip)

Ba'al ---

Please put this into context - and compare the founders, design and government of the USA with other countries of its time (or any time, for that matter).

Do you find the tone of your comments changes?

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Ed Hudgins]

I also like to take this day to remember the genius they had in implementing this spirit: the mechanism of checks and balances in government.

MSK - I certainly agree with your point about checks and balances. In fact, here are some bullet point exerpts from my lecture at the Summer Seminar on "Indiviudulaism and the Quest for Community."

Happy Independence Day!

Ed

----------

>Ayn Rand tells us that the interests of individuals don’t conflict when individuals don’t desire the irrational. There is a harmony of interests in a community of rational individuals.

>But many individuals are irrational. They have been throughout human history. They will be as long as there are humans. And they are in our communities.

>America’s Founders took this fact of irrationality into account when creating America’s Constitution. In political society they created separation of powers and checks and balances to make certain that political decisions are not made in the passions of the moment. This arrangement is meant to slow political decisions so that over time passions can cool and rational thought can be applied and prevail.

[BaalChatzaf]

Please put this into context - and compare the founders, design and government of the USA with other countries of its time (or any time, for that matter).

Do you find the tone of your comments changes?

Bill P (Alfonso)

Not a bit. Ben Franklin knew that it was bullshit. He didn't think the Constitution would last more than a generation. And he was right. The Constitution was not abolished. It was either ignored or interpreted to death. And the original concept was not all that good either.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ben Franklin knew that it was bullshit. He didn't think the Constitution would last more than a generation. And he was right. The Constitution was not abolished. It was either ignored or interpreted to death. And the original concept was not all that good either.

And the United States vanished from the face of the earth.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Ben Franklin knew that it was bullshit. He didn't think the Constitution would last more than a generation. And he was right. The Constitution was not abolished. It was either ignored or interpreted to death. And the original concept was not all that good either.

And the United States vanished from the face of the earth.

Michael

No it didn't. Americans went west, stole the land from the aboriginal tribes and became a great nation in spite of the fact the Constitution was for ignoring.

The Constitution is more of a crock than not. Private Property is what made this nation great, not the Constitution.

From Sea to Shining Sea for the White Folks.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Oh.

I see.

The USA got great because there was little or no private property in the rest of the world, but there was here.

Hmmmmm...

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Oh.

I see.

The USA got great because there was little or no private property in the rest of the world, but there was here.

Hmmmmm...

Michael

No. We got prosperous and great because the -right- to private property is generally respected. That right preexists the Constitution. The Bill of Rights has provisions that the right to one's property should not be arbitrarily curtailed. Apparently this did not extend to Negro Slaves or people of the aboriginal tribes. In any case private property as a (generally) wide spread right, made the U.S. a mighty and prosperous nation. This and the fact that government was spread rather thin during the post Civil War expansion phase in our history. After the frontier closed we got the Income Tax. The rest, as is often said, is history.

Face it Michael. The Good Old Days were not all that Good, and the Bad New Days are not that much better.

I am arguing in favor of historical completeness and accuracy, not a lot of romantic dewy eyed blather.

Santana, the philosopher once wrote: those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat (or relive) them.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

So let me get it straight. The USA got great because there was little or no right to private property in the rest of the world, but there was here.

Hmmmmm...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Michael,

There are many reasons the US became a great and properous country, not just private property. But if you take out the private property, the other stuff doesn't matter. So while Bob is being much too simplistic, he's got his hands right on the heart of the matter. The same for Great Britain.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I hope Ed doesn't mind me posting a YouTube video from the other side of the tracks: Michael Berliner. It complements his article very nicely. Berliner presented a message about independent thinking in a manner that I wholly endorse. I consider the right to independent thinking to be almost as fundamental as the right to life itself, not to mention the practice of it. And this was one of the drives of the Founding Fathers.

I was in doubt about whether to post this since ARI's traditional form of dealing with independent thinking—when someone has firmly disagreed with them in a deeply considered manner, even on minor matters—has been to declare the person evil (or strongly insinuate that) and distance themselves. (I speak of their traditional posture, not the new blood coming in.)

So this video was like a breath of fresh air from over yonder. I heard no "but..." in Berliner's talk. No prerequisite to agree with Objectivism or any party line to be "truly independent." No need to venerate Rand. On the contrary, his words conveyed that independent thinking rightfully threw off many party lines and sundered the plans of dictators. It is true that he did not mention Objectivism within that context, but he also did not pull any punches.

Give me independent thinking or give me death!

Enjoy. I did.

[Greybird]

Michael Berliner's daughter Dana is an attorney at the Institute for Justice, a Washington litigation firm that has taken up a specialty of — speaking of private property — fighting "eminent domain." It represented the woman who fought to keep her house in Kelo v. New London, Connecticut, wherein the Supreme Court justices wrongly and narrowly allowed for "economic development" condemnations.

Dana (biography here) is also an avowed libertarian. That ought to make for interesting conversations at her parents' home over Thanksgiving dinner, to say the least. Perhaps it had a salutary influence on her father.

(Perhaps it encouraged his departure from ARI, as well. Although it was somewhat less pernicious when he was its staff head, rather than the current ex-Israeli-Army warmonger.)

[Chris Grieb]

Michael Berliner's daughter Dana is an attorney at the Institute for Justice, a Washington litigation firm that has taken up a specialty of — speaking of private property — fighting "eminent domain." It represented the woman who fought to keep her house in Kelo v. New London, Connecticut, wherein the Supreme Court justices wrongly and narrowly allowed for "economic development" condemnations.

Dana (biography here) is also an avowed libertarian. That ought to make for interesting conversations at her parents' home over Thanksgiving dinner, to say the least. Perhaps it had a salutary influence on her father.

(Perhaps it encouraged his departure from ARI, as well. Although it was somewhat less pernicious when he was its staff head, rather than the current ex-Israeli-Army warmonger.)

I believe the Institute for Justice was referred to favorably by ARI some years ago.

I thought Michael Berliner was still on the ARI broad.

I think your reference to Yaron Brook as an ex-Israeli-Army warmonger is really silly.

[Dragonfly]

I thought Michael Berliner was still on the ARI broad.

Hasn't the ARI broad told him to finally get off?

[galtgulch]

Remembering the American Vision?

by Edward Hudgins

<<<"But to terribly mix metaphors, the American house might be a bit rundown, it might be infested with political termites, but its foundations are still sound and it is still a marvelous mansion in which to live. Today millions of Americans still love their lives, love their work, love those dear to them and, therefore, love their freedom.">>>

I agree with everything else you said but I have a question about the part about the "its foundations are still sound."

In a sense it is so, the fact that you can find a copy of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and Bill of Rights under glass in a marble monstrosity in Washington, D.C. and in the ritual swearing in of the president and other holders of high office, including those Supreme Court Justices whose task it is, as I understand it, to see to it that laws challenged by the citizens and brought to their attention are indeed consistent with the Constitution itself.

But despite the facts you mention, that "millions of Americans still love their lives, love their work, love those dear to them and, therefore, love their freedom" to my way of thinking does not constitute the proper and necessary "foundation."

You do not mention the content of the minds of all these loving, working Americans. I am surprised given that Objectivism is all about the fact that human beings have a volitional conceptual level of consciousness and that concepts are formed either deliberately or by cultural osmosis or by emotional integration. Even if ideas or concepts are learned "deliberately" they may not be fully understood, their implications may not be grasped at all, their consequences may be far from "focus" or in the periphery of one's awareness.

Mystic, altruist, collectivists, to borrow an expression and label from Ayn Rand herself, may love their lives, love their work, love those dear to them, and love what they preceive to be a proper amount of freedom. They may even be more than happy to be able to contribute their "taxes" to keep the wheels turning, to keep taxing those who are not so willing, to punish those who engage in "immoral" activities, and to mandate, regulate, compel the citizenry as is being done.

What is happening in our country is and has been done with the approval of a huge percentage of the electorate.

Even at the time of the Founding the Founders were in the minority in their individualistic thinking. They were surrounded by mystics and altruists and even outnumbered by them! We still are! Witness how shamelessly Hillary scolded Obama for his unwillingness to mandate that children be covered or the like. There it is right out there for all to see and yet no one in the press or the media or among our renowned columnists took her to task for her willingness to advocate strongly for a form of "involuntary servitude."

As Ayn Rand pointed out, it is too soon for successful political action. The proper ideological and philosophical "foundation" has to be laid. We know what it is. It does exist whereas it never existed before. It is Objectivism and being meek about speaking out in favor of it will not suffice. It is important that Objectivism be heard in debate so that the young will have a banner to rally towards.

I do appreciate all that you do to spread the word. It is easy to be critical and I mean to be constructively so. Objectivism would be the proper foundation for a free society. It didn't exist when this country was founded and the Founders almost got it right. It has taken all this time for the seeds to take root in the cracks in the foundation which is now practically destroyed altogether. It is ignored and the void is being filled with the mystic altruist creed. Time to get busy.

Wm

Edited July 14, 2008 by galtgulch