Jackson Free Press

Recently, I was involved in a political conversation in which I made a comment about the Constitution, noting how rarely politicians cite it as a document limiting governmental power. My interlocutor dismissed the argument, saying, "Yes, but it isn't relevant today; it's so old."

I then asked if he'd ever read the Constitution, and he said no. I was a bit taken aback; what drives a person to comment on something of which he has scant knowledge? If we live in a participatory system, what does it say about the quality of our participation if we don't know what we're participating in?

The fact that our society has largely become indifferent is evident. Not only have we allowed our nation to become the playground of a recalcitrant duo of bullies fighting over who gets to do the bullying, but the rest of us are also taking sides by claiming membership in either the Democratic or Republican parties. Why?

We were warned against the divisiveness of factions right out of the gate. George Washington, for example, opined that organized associations of a political sort can give an "artificial and extraordinary force" to the will of parties, which in the course of time become "potent engines" by which "cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people."

Those words were prophetic. The idea that our nation is founded on the concept of individual liberty is barely discernible in the scramble of parties to seize and hold power. At its core, individual liberty is about how people treat each other. As the ethical foundation of our government, it's found in our Declaration of Independence, succinctly summed up as follows: We are at liberty with respect to ourselves; we are not at liberty with respect to others.

No matter how they package it, both major parties endorse an ideology of statism at the expense of that principle, compromising our ability to live life free from the intrusions of others. Because we now accept en masse that government is about taking us all somewhere, we also accept that government is about taking from us control of our lives at unprecedented and ever increasing degrees, for whatever liberal or conservative bent gains enough momentum.

What gets lost in the process is the measurement of ideas against our national grounding. As a society, we've largely abdicated such considerations and the impact they have on the essential component of any society: the individual.

Whatever your affiliation, whatever the terms "liberal" and "conservative" ultimately mean, it's fair to ask the following: If you're liberal, do you entertain the notion that it's acceptable to impose liberal ideas because they are inherently more "progressive"? If you're conservative, do you entertain the notion that conservative ideas make us a "shining beacon on a hill" to the rest of the world, even if it means impinging on individual liberty? Whether liberal or conservative, do you consider the morality of coercing others to go along through force of government?

Despite the fact that our founding documents were written well over 200 years ago, they are as important now as they ever were. As we participate in our political system, we might read through them and understand what it is we're really participating in.

Previous Comments

ID

75010

Comment

We were warned against the divisiveness of factions right out of the gate. George Washington, for example, opined that organized associations of a political sort can give an “artificial and extraordinary force” to the will of parties, which in the course of time become “potent engines” by which “cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people.” Those words were prophetic. The idea that our nation is founded on the concept of individual liberty is barely discernible in the scramble of parties to seize and hold power. At its core, individual liberty is about how people treat each other. As the ethical foundation of our government, it’s found in our Declaration of Independence, succinctly summed up as follows: We are at liberty with respect to ourselves; we are not at liberty with respect to others. Holy Toledo. Really makes you think.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2007-06-22T18:33:12-06:00