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.

The Game Is Easy from the Cheap Seats.

I can't seem to get off the topic of the health care debate, perhaps because it's brought larger issues to the fore. I'm bothered by those who have become whipped into a frenzy, admonishing elected officials to read the Constitution, as though it contained a bright-line prohibition against health care reform. These people are apparently operating on the premise that the federal government is forbidden to do anything not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. This must also mean that spending taxpayer money on microphones for the House and Senate chambers, or on coffee for cabinet meetings is unconstitutional since the Constitution is silent on both electronic sound reinforcement and hot beverage service.

As I have said in earlier posts, people may very well have a legitimate beef with what's being proposed, and those who are capable of understanding complex issues should by all means bring their objections to light. However, 220 years of history and common sense suggest that the Constitution contains certain broad principles and not just an exhaustive list of precisely what the government can do. This makes our democracy great, but also challenging. Since it's also true that broad language is not a blank check for unlimited federal power, we have to exercise judgment, and a quick glance at the inside of the box top won't always reveal the clear and indisputable answer. Sadly, this is lost on some people just as the difference between periwinkle and teal is lost on Stevie Wonder.

Pop quiz: Which state did Thomas Jefferson represent at the Constitutional Convention? For those of you who said Virginia, thanks for playing our game; we have some lovely gifts for you backstage. It's a trick question. Jefferson wasn't there; he was in France. That hasn't stopped people from quoting him as a framer of the Constitution, and worse, the definitive word on exactly what the framers meant. Jefferson was an ardent supporter of strong states and a weak central government, while others, such as Alexander Hamilton, were believers in a strong federal government. Jefferson was brilliant, but very much a partisan regarding the power of the central government and his strong opinions are certainly not the final word on contentious issues ultimately resolved by compromise.

Apart from being endlessly quoted by those who are against the proposed health care reform, Jefferson is relevant to this discussion for a couple of reasons. First, there was a protester in New Hampshire outside President Obama's town hall meeting. He had a gun strapped to his leg and a sign saying it was time to water the tree of liberty. This is a reference to Jefferson's quote that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." That is a chilling image when you consider how feverishly the right wing media have worked to terrify the simple minded and inflame the passions of the already angry and frustrated. I see this as the most monumentally irresponsible smear campaign since the Red Scare of McCarthyism.

While I understand how easy it is to foment irrational thought and behavior during trying and uncertain times, I'm still perplexed by some things I've seen. For instance, most or all of us have seen footage of the man warning Senator Specter that God is "Gonna judge you and the rest of your damn cronies up on the Hill -- and then you will get your just desserts." I don't know what Arlen Specter has done in his life, but I know that if my immortal soul were imperiled, it wouldn't be because I wanted all citizens of the richest country on earth to have appropriate access to health care. My search for the New Testament passage in which Jesus commands us to be greedy and selfish or face eternal damnation has thus far been in vain.

Getting back to Jefferson, when he was President and actually had to govern, he was faced with a quandary. To make a long story short, there were great concerns about Napoleon controlling the Port of New Orleans. Jefferson wanted that land or at least a guaranteed right to freely navigate the Mississippi. He wound up buying land from France for $15 million, doubling the size of the country at the time. The Louisiana Purchase gave us what is essentially the middle third of the current United States. Here's Jefferson's problem: He knew it was a no-brainer since he was prepared to go as high as $10 million for a relatively tiny piece of land, and for only $5 million more he could make the deal of the century. However, he had always railed against the central government overstepping its expressly granted authority, and here was the mother of all examples in the young country's history.

This provides us with the object lesson that the game is easy from the cheap seats. Waxing philosophical is easy; governing a democracy is hard. Jefferson swallowed his pride and made the deal. Now I'm neither advocating doing something wrong because there is a potential payoff, nor suggesting that inviolable principles should be sacrificed on the altar of expediency, but sometimes when tough choices have to be made, careful inspection reveals shades of gray that appear as only black and white to casual observers.