I. The Declaration.
The Declaration of Independence is not only a historical document; it is our national charter--that which defines us as Americans. Without it, we would be just another tribal, idiotic nation-state. Whereas all other nation states are defined merely by territory, shared history, and ethnicity, ours alone is rooted in a Logos--a universal idea, that transcends territory, shared history, AND ethnicity. So let;s take a look at the core passage of the Declaration, which articulates its main thesis:
"WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT, THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL..." This is a claim of value, not a claim of "fact." We know, of course, that we vary widely in talents and abilities. So the authors (Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and Rush) go on immediately to define what THEY mean by ":equal." "THAT THEY ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS, THAT AMONG THESE ARE LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS." Note that they say "All men" (and in the 18th Century usage, "men" meant "humans"--not just males). They also did not say "All Americans,,," They were not writing a nationalistic screed, but a universal philosophical claim--that applies to everyone on the planet. "THAT TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS, GOVERNMENTS ARE INSTITUTED AMONG MEN, DERIVING THEIR JUST POWER FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED." This is, in my view, the most important sentence in the whole document, because here they set forth the theory of government, for which all before it is their major premise, and all that follows derives from it. So let;s parse it: 1. "To secure these rights..."--that is, the universal, inalienable rights that all people (regardless of ethnicity, gender, or nationality) have to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 2. "...Governments are instituted among men deriving their just power from the consent of the governed." This is the sole legitimate purpose of government--to secure the rights of all people to life, liberty,.and the pursuit of happiness. And their power is "just" only if it is based on the "consent of the governed"--that is, the voting and active participation of the population. And this alone, and above all, is worth celebrating. It is who we aspire to be, if we are truly to call ourselves "Americans."
II. Nationalism vs. Patriotism
Most people confuse nationalism with patriotism, in part because, in most countries, they are indistinguishable. But we are an exception.
Nationalism is simply tribalism writ large. And there is nothing dignified about tribalism--it is what we have in common with all the other apes; the need to identify with a "leader" and with one's own clan, and demonize and/or kill everyone outside of your tribe as an enemy. In that respect, nationalism is no different, in essence, from being a football fan--except that rather than simply "beating" the other team, you want to kill them or subjugate them. This is what drove the Nazis to subjugate Europe and kill all who opposed them; it is what drove Stalin to annex the Baltic states and subjugate Eastern European countries; it is what drove the Chinese to trample Tibet. And what drove Bush to invade Iraq as well--in direct opposition to the UN Charter (which we ourselves sponsored, back when we still had the integrity of our founding principles)
So that is nationalism, for which I have nothing good to say. Tribalism is, unfortunately, an innate tendency for our species, as Dr. E. O. Wilson, the Harvard biologist, has often pointed out. But it CAN be transcended. It just takes some thinking--some introspection.
However, all the greatest and wisest people of our history throughout the world have encouraged us to transcend petty identification with our own tribe--including Lao Tzu, the Buddha, Socrates, Jesus, St. Francis, and even the Founders of our country--especially the author (Jefferson) and editors (Franklin, Adams, and Rush) of our glorious Declaration. For us, this means that true patriotism is different from nationalism. It consists in adherence, not to "the flag" nor to "Americanism" but to the universal founding principles that brought together 13 very different and often quarrelsome British colonies to lend their unanimous support.
Otherwise, patriotism is no better than nationalism--and as the 18th Century British savant Samuel Johnson wisely said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
III. An Asymptotic Goal
The Declaration sets forth an asymptotic goal, not a statement of "reality." "Asymptotic" is a word from mathematics that refers to a curve that starts horizontal, but then curves upward to the vertical axis gradually, such that it constantly draws closer to the vertical axis, without ever fully reaching it. So an asymptotic goal can be defined as a goal for which one constantly strives, but can never fully achieve. Once such an ideal is defined, our policy decisions and/or collective behavior, whether in domestic or foreign policy, can be evaluated only by whether it draws us closer to that goal, or farther away from it.
So again, the asymptotic goal articulated in the Declaration is that of a government which exists to secure the inalienable rights of all people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and which derives its "just power" (i.e. legitimate authority, based on legally defined constraints) from the "consent of the governed" (expressed by voting and free expression of ideas). And the Constitution was a carefully crafted, intensely debated and discussed, blueprint for a government that pursued this goal. It had, built into it, a mechanism for its own evolution with the times (i.e. the Amendments). So nothing in the original Constitution is set in stone, but only the asymptotic goal which the Constitution was designed to implement and pursue--a system that balances unity and autonomy, and exists to secure our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
From the start, the reality on the ground fell far short of this goal, as we all know--the two most egregious examples being the intergenerational crime against humanity that was the institution of slavery, and the genocidal subjugation of the native peoples. And of course, the entrenched patriarchy that barred women from any meaningful participation in the public sphere. But as time has gone on, not smoothly, but with frequent setbacks and conflict, we have edged closer to that asymptotic goal--through emancipation of the slaves, women's suffrage, the New Deal, the Civil Rights Movement, the environmental movement, et al. But we are currently, of course, in a major setback, due to corporate domination, the extreme upward concentration of wealth, the rapid erosion of the middle class, and the consequent resurgence of toxic nationalism and racism.
Still, as long as we keep our eyes focused on this adamantine, asymptotic goal of a government whose purpose is to secure the rights of all human beings to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we can recover, not only from the pandemic, but from the toxic resurgence of racism and partisan tribalism and rancor that is afflicting us today.
IV. Self-Evident Truths
Now, to go a little deeper, I would like to consider the notion of "Self-evident truths." A lot of contemporary "postmodern" thinkers scoff at the idea that there even is such a thing. Current postmodern dogma holds that abstract, generalized language can refer only to itself in an infinite regress. (Ironically, they consider this claim to be a "self-evident truth" since it can be neither proven nor disproven!)
I beg to differ. While it is entirely true that human equality is a claim of value, rather than a claim of fact, and that there is no such thing as "natural rights" (a concept dear to 18th Century thinkers), I take my viewpoint from Aristotle's claim that "Man (Anthropos) is a political animal"--that is, that the values that sustain us arise from our participation in a community--and hence, communication. And again, modern biologists like E.O. Wilson would agree that we are quintessentially social and political animals. That is both our greatest weakness (tribalism) and our greatest strength (the ability to collaborate on complex tasks).
So whence do these "rights" arise (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness)? I would argue, quite simply, that people are happier when they are treated with dignity by others, rather than being devalued or oppressed. So a system of government that is based on an assertion of human equality and basic, universal rights will likely conduce to a stronger, more resilient civil society than one in which one part of the population is free to bully and devalue another. And this, to me, is self-evident. As the Dalai Lama constantly reminds us, "Everyone wants love and happiness, and wishes to avoid fear and suffering." And this is why I am a democrat (with a small "d"--not referring to a political party, but to a belief in democracy) rather than an autocrat or a fascist.
20 hr ago
