EDITORIAL
July 4th Reflections and Revelations
By Anthony Wile - July 04, 2010

As a great fan of the "American exception," I am always touched by July 4, which is one of America's most important holidays. It is a holiday that is supposed to celebrate that nation's independence from Great Britain, though the actual separation occurred on July 2, so far as I can tell from the literature on the subject. The Declaration of Independence, one of the greatest documents ever written (as relates to freedom anyway), was adopted by the US Congress on July 4th.

John Adams wrote to his wife: "I am apt to believe that [independence from Great Britain] will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more."

He was certainly correct, but unfortunately, as with so many things, the great day of independence in America has been overshadowed in the modern era by America's larger problems, including a stubborn economic downturn, political dissension and military difficulties.

It is unfortunate! The message of America could not be clearer. For several centuries the nation has stood as a beacon of hope and freedom. But even in America, one can easily observe that the message, once so eloquent, has been muddied. Elitist central banking, a graduated income tax, lessening of respect for property rights and a military-industrial complex have all eroded the legacy of US freedoms. Therefore, let us try to concentrate on the eloquent message that Thomas Jefferson provided with the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson, the main author, wrote:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Are these words much taken to heart anymore? The 20th century and now the 21st seems increasingly subject to a philosophy of freedom and human rights that is much different than the one Jefferson and many of his famous peers envisioned. In a number of the world's most powerful states, the idea that rights are operative extant of the state is rejected. Here is the beginning of the text of the Constitution of the European Union, for instance, which was never formally adopted:

The Constitution establishes the European Union, on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common. The Union shall coordinate the policies by which the Member States aim to achieve these objectives, and shall exercise on a Community basis the competences they confer on it. … The Union shall be open to all European States which respect its values and are committed to promoting them together. … The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail. … The Union shall pursue its objectives by appropriate means commensurate with the competences which are conferred upon it in the Constitution.

One can clearly see the difference in emphasis. The European Constitution speaks of "member states conferring competences" while Thomas Jefferson writes of "truths that are 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." The Constitution of the EU, presents a system in which "Member States … shall exercise on a Community basis the competences they confer on it." Thomas Jefferson writes that, "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

It is most unfortunate that the European Constitution was written some 250 years AFTER the Declaration of Independence. The language, the aspiration, the general positioning of the two documents act as a kind of metaphor for the way modern era has departed from the previous one – and not in a good way. The biggest issue of course has to do with the relationship of the state to the individual. Jefferson makes if very plain that human rights are God given. This is the crux of the genius of American exceptionalism. The entire impetus of the American system was one that aligned itself with natural, "God given" rights. Thomas Jefferson and many of those around him were quite aware that a body of laws and regulations that did not correspond to human nature would inevitably lead to dysfunction and political chaos.

For this reason the American Constitution itself is a modest document, enumerating the powers, in fact, that the Federal government HAS as opposed to those that it does not have. But it is no great improvement that that single clause in the American Constitution has been so greatly expanded by modern-day legal sophists – the Commerce Clause – that the whole meaning and thrust of the Constitution has been altered and the Federal government provided with enormous powers that in no sense enumerated in the original document. In its most expansive interpretation, the clause is seen as pretty much allowing American Federal authorities to do what they wish in terms of imposing their will on the states.

Such expansiveness has not served America well. One need only look at the problems that the country is facing – its industrial, municipal and economic struggles – to see that course on which it is set is one of fundamental destructiveness. Instead of legislating modestly, and aligning laws with human nature, the modern-day Leviathan demands what it wishes and attempts to enforce what it wants with an increasingly militarized police force and a massive prison-industrial complex.

The result is bound to be destructive to the American genius for freedom, entrepreneurship and industry. There is no great mystery here. The European Union adopted much the same course – attempting to saddle disparate countries with a one-size-fits-all currency and is now faced with a kind of slow-motion disintegration of its entire system. What those leading the European Union never internalized and those leading America today have forgotten is that law must align itself as closely as possible to human nature. And what this means in practice is that those who govern least, govern best.

Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, someone who believed that God infused all of nature, though Jefferson did not apparently believe in organized religion. Wikipedia defines Deism thusly: "A religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone … These views contrast with the dependence on revelations, miracles, and faith found in many Jewish, Christian, Islamic and other theistic teachings."

We can see from this definition, and from his writings as well, that Jefferson did not discount God, only that he believed a spiritual person attempted to analyze God's work and to derive life-lessons from it. Jefferson obviously believed that God was providing a pattern for living a spiritual, "Godly" life and that one could comprehend that pattern by paying attention to how the natural world worked. Whether one expects to be a Deist or not, this careful approach to life and to reality manifests itself in certain conclusions as to the way one ought to live, and how societies ought to be organized as well.

For Thomas Jefferson, then, spirituality was bound up with freedom and with the way that free societies ought to be governed. In a previous article – Free Markets Need a Spiritual Dimension – I alluded to this issue. Liberty, in fact, is bestowed upon us from birth. Freedom, in my estimation, is something that people need to struggle for on a regular basis. Freedom has numerous dimensions – ethical and moral ones as well as economic and industrial ones.

The freedom-movement has come a long way in this era of the Internet and much is discussed today, openly and generally, that would not have received an audience even 20 years ago. But what is yet lacking in the discussion, I believe, is Jefferson's central insight that the freest and best societies are those that are most respectful of natural law. Such law, in turn, is derived from a sort of higher authority – call it God or something else – but that force, not of this Earth, animates humans and their actions.

Though I am not American, I will celebrate July 4th because I very much honor what America has meant to the world. This holiday, in my estimation, is a time to remember the necessity of natural law and to honor those who created one of the most compelling political documents in history by doing so.

Posted in EDITORIAL
loading
Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap