From the Halls of Philadelphia to the Shores of Tripoli

Any wishful thinking that the Tea Party might push the religious right off the Republican stage for the moment was ill-founded and we should have known better. As soon as Republicans picked up seats in Congress but naturally couldn't fix the economy or unemployment, they immediately returned to pushing irrelevant wedge issues designed to rile up their base. Frankly, this was as predictable as the night following the day. As more nonsense is sure to come, let me address the periodically recurring and patently false claim that we have always been a specifically Christian nation, but secular socialists are trying to undo this long tradition.

Our government, unlike all that preceded it, was built on the enlightened principles of reason and popular sovereignty. Our founders believed that the just power to govern was derived from the consent of the governed, while other societies held the more primitive and superstitious belief that governing authority reflected divine providence. The U.S. Constitution's Preamble, which sets the tone for the rest of that document, begins, "We the people", and by that authority alone we "ordain and establish" the world's first such constitution. That entire document lacks a single reference to God, let alone Jesus Christ, and the only references to religion are to disentangle it from the legitimate authority of our government. Article VI prohibits any religious test for holding public office, and the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion or interfering with the free exercise thereof. This was wisely done to protect the institutions of both church and state from one another.

As I turn on the news and see unrest in Libya followed by reporting on an anti-Islamic witch hunt in Congress, I'm reminded of The Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and Tripoli, which was drafted in late 1796 during the Washington administration and ratified in 1797 in the early days of the Adams administration. On May 26, 1797, the treaty was read aloud to the Senate and was unanimously approved. This was only the third instance of such unanimity among the hundreds of times that a recorded vote was required in the Senate. Article 11 of that treaty reads as follows:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Can you imagine Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) voting to approve a treaty proclaiming that we're "not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"? Can you picture Glenn Beck's hysterical reaction if such language were drafted today? Both men would be outraged that we would betray our founders in that way, which should provoke laughter from anyone who knows that these words are in fact our founders'. We can listen to what Glenn Beck says the Founding Fathers say or we can listen to what the Founding Fathers say the Founding Fathers say. The choice is ours; we can either open our minds or we can wallow in a pit of fear and ignorance.

None if this is to deny that many of our founders espoused some form of Christianity, however, that's really neither here nor there. The ideas and principles that set the United States apart from the rest of the world came from Christians, Deists and Unitarians who were students of The Enlightenment. These men valued reason over church dogma and were often fiercely critical of organized religion. Christianity was popular in the Colonies but we need to be careful with our assumptions. We shouldn't claim a Christian foundation for a society that was built on universal truths and natural rights rather than anything mystical any more than we should conclude that the faith of "turn the other cheek" provides the theological underpinning for the musical genre of "I'ma bust a cap in yo' ass" just because some rapper wears a gold cross and thanks Jesus when he wins an award. While our society was and is imperfect, it became the envy of the world and the model for others to copy. It would be an unconscionable rejection of our national birthright to take a giant leap backward towards a medieval theocracy.

A 21st Century Reality Check Regarding the 18th Century

Wistful reflection is a mighty force; it can turn The Great Depression into The Good Ol' Days or the 18th Century into the halcyon days of power to the people, unlike today when pointy-headed elitists are enslaving us by straying from our founders’ ideals. I don’t know whether to laugh, cry or scream as I watch Tea Partiers not only pine for these days but argue that anyone who doesn’t is historically ignorant. Before I explore this I want to state clearly that I have tremendous admiration for the architects of our democratic republic. I do, however, believe that a society should endeavor to perfect itself over time. I won’t presume to speak for our Founding Fathers, but I suspect they would agree. My quarrel is not with our nation’s founders but with my contemporaries who think we’ve veered dangerously off course ever since powdered wigs went out of vogue.

I first want to clear up the misconception that the Constitution was designed to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. On the contrary, it was drafted in order to increase the power of the federal government. Before the Constitution was ratified, the U.S. was operating under the Articles of Confederation, which created a central government that was far too weak. While the delegates to the Constitutional Convention feared a central government that was too powerful and they did seek to limit its intrusiveness, they understood above all that we needed to make the federal government stronger if we were to survive as a nation.

Federalists who were pushing for this Constitution with greater power vested in the national government were essentially in campaign mode trying to persuade those who feared central authority that it wouldn’t be so bad. I’m not suggesting that the authors of the Federalist Papers weren’t legitimately interested in small government, but that circumstances compelled them to spend an inordinate amount of time stressing limited government in order to gain the requisite support for a new constitution which, as a matter of necessity, created a more powerful federal government.

We campaign in poetry and govern in prose. Idealized visions are great but they tend to fall apart once exposed to reality. It’s unfair and meaningless to compare person A’s campaign promises to person B’s administration because the latter involves actually dealing with the real world. For example, with the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson gave us one of the world’s great masterpieces. In that document he points to the self-evident truth that all men are created equal and that their rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable. That’s terrific except Jefferson was a slave owner. In this regard, Jefferson’s actions repudiate his own eloquent words. Such is the nature of the conflict between the very tidy theoretical world and the messier, far more complex real world.

At our nation’s inception, many Founding Fathers supported slavery and feared a powerful government. We see their preferences reflected in the early days of the republic. We also see an elitist form of very limited democracy. Only rich (land owning) white males had any political franchise at all. They could vote for Representatives, but for Senator or President, they could only vote for those who vote for these elected officials. Women, Blacks, Native Americans and Whites who didn’t own land had no say whatsoever.

As circumstances change we need to adapt. I’m willing to bet that Microsoft didn’t have an employee handbook when it was run out of someone’s garage. So what? We can endlessly debate the appropriate size and reach of government and still come no closer to a definitive answer than if we were debating whether green or purple is the prettier color. Hamilton, Jay and Madison were brilliant men, but luckily we’re not bound to follow in perpetuity whatever they imagined in the 18th Century. Through Constitutional amendment, reasonable if controversial interpretation, or changes regarding matters on which the Constitution is silent, we’re no longer bound by some of the less enlightened 18th Century conventions and therefore not condemned to live in a country without a truly free and democratic society.

The Sky Is Falling...Again

After what feels like an interminable period of discussion, debate, compromise, and a tremendous amount of ranting and raving, Congress is now poised to cast a vote on a health care reform package later today. Of course, coincidental to that scheduled vote is the deadline for any last ditch fear-mongering. Once again, we have no shortage of Chicken Littles driving a legion of frightened Henny Pennies to hysteria with false claims that the sky is falling. As usual, yes, it's the end of the world (yawn). We are, at long last, taking action to fix some of the problems in our health care system, and this is provoking widespread panic that we will now be in the evil clutches of communism, fascism, of some other ism that some hopelessly deluded white guy can blame as the reason he won't earn $47.2 million next year, even though he has never earned more than $40,000 a year in his life and offers the free market nothing that would cause that to drastically change under any circumstance.

Sure, I can get a kick out of watching Rep. Steve King (R-IA), talk to Glenn Beck about the sacrilegious horror of this vote happening on the Sabbath in Lent, or Rep. Ron Broun (R-GA), lashing out against the bill as he makes sure to squeeze in a reference to "The Great War of Yankee Aggression." For those of you living in the 21st Century, he's talking about the Civil War, which ended for reasonable people 145 years ago. I'll admit that this has been mildly amusing theater of the absurd, but enough is enough. The dogs have barked and it's time for the caravan to move on. We've already paid far too much attention to silliness ranging from death panels to claims that this is literally the end of United States. When the most frightening bogeymen said to be lurking in this bill naturally don't materialize, I fully expect many of the ranters to say they never made such ridiculous claims. Depending on whether or not they actually believed their own nonsense, they will either go from ignorance to dishonesty or from one lie to another.

For those of you who are still terrified that this represents a Constitutional crisis the likes of which we've never seen before, as you cite Thomas Jefferson on the evils of a powerful central government, let's go to the history books, shall we? Over 200 years ago, President Jefferson spent the taxpayers' hard-earned money to buy land and double the size of the country. That too was thought to be an outrageous breach of the Constitution. Like the current health care debate, this was extremely divisive, and a vote to block the Louisiana Purchase barely failed in the House by a vote of 59-57. Let me go way out on a limb here and suggest that even health care would get pushed off the front page if President Obama went out and bought Canada.

We made the Louisiana Purchase. THE SKY DIDN'T FALL; the country subsequently grew and prospered, and now Jefferson is revered as the very model of someone believes in a tightly restrained central government. FDR passed a series of measures people claimed were Socialist and would destroy our country. THE SKY DIDN'T FALL; the country subsequently grew and prospered, and now FDR's image is on our dime. LBJ passed Medicare and Medicaid. THE SKY DIDN'T FALL; the country subsequently grew and prospered, and now those opposed to the current health care reforms are screaming about how it will take money away from Medicare. Do you see a pattern emerging? However the vote goes, we'll be just fine.