Principled Perspectives: Americanism

Showing posts with label Americanism. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 16, 2026

On This Constitution Day, Remember the Declaration of Independence

239 years ago, on September 17, 1787, the Constitutional Convention ended and the Constitution of the United States of America was signed. This day is officially known as Constitution Day.

It was also an occasion for one columnist to declare that the US Constitution is "broken." The New Jersey Star-Ledger's Tom Moran wrote five years ago:

Kids in America are taught to venerate the Constitution, almost as if it were the word of God.

And that’s exactly what Thomas Jefferson feared. He believed it was flawed, that experience would teach each generation new lessons and that it should be redone every 19 years.

But Jefferson lost the argument. And so the Founders signed a Constitution 225 [235] years ago tomorrow that is an impregnable fortress, firmly set against the forces of change that Jefferson welcomed and almost impossible to amend.

Does that make sense? Haven’t we learned valuable lessons over the past few centuries about how democracies thrive, and how they stagnate? In a day when our federal government is so dysfunctional, shouldn't we at least consider fundamental changes?

University of Texas Professor Sanford Levinson is advocating a series of such fundamental changes to the US Constitution, which Moran discusses in his column. Levinson's proposals include instituting a direct popular vote for president and measures to greatly weaken the checks and balances that limit the power of any one branch of government. In essence, Levinson's purpose, according to Moran, is to expand the power of majority rule and break Washington's political "gridlock," which has made our federal government "dysfunctional."

Moran approvingly cites Thomas Jefferson who, as Moran strongly implies, would welcome these constitutional changes, or any changes suited to any generation.

Before we discuss ways to expand the power of electoral majority rule so as to enable the government to get more "done", we need to have a conversation to reiterate what the government's proper job is to do.

The American constitution's basic function is to limit the government's power to the protection of individual rights. This is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, the philosophical blueprint for the constitution. Any discussion about the constitution has to begin with the Declaration--which, incidentally, was written by Thomas Jefferson:

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. . .

In its essentials, this 55 word statement of proper government says:

All men are born equal in moral agency to self-govern their own lives without interference from other men.
Each individual has rights to secure his freedom to exercise moral agency.
Rights belong inextricably to the individual by virtue of his nature as a human being.
Rights are held equally and at all times by all people.
Rights are guarantees to freedom of action; to the pursuit of happiness, not to happiness guaranteed by the labor or wealth of others.
"Among these rights" includes the right to acquire, use, and dispose of property, as was widely understood by the Founding Generation and which makes logical sense, since property is inextricably linked to life and the pursuit of happiness, without which no other rights are practicable.
Rights precede government.
Government is created exclusively to “secure”—i.e., protect—rights, not to grant them by legislative decree.
Government’s “just powers” being authorized by the people, through a popular vote.
“Just powers” being those powers, and only those powers, required for the government to fulfill the purpose for which it was created to begin with—to legally protect the people’s unalienable individual rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Of course, this is not the "Word of God," to be accepted uncritically. Each of these points requires extensive philosophical backup. None of these "truths" are automatically "self-evident." They must be learned and validated scientifically; i.e., morally and philosophically, as determined by the observable facts of reality concerning man and his requirements for survival and flourishing. But these are the essentials, as I see it.

The Founders did not intend to create a democracy, despite Moran's devious attempt to smuggle in that premise. They created a constitutionally limited republic protective of the liberty and rights of the individual, under which the constitution "carefully limits the power of the majority by drawing a legal boundary around it" (P. 113)—a boundary that stops the majority and elected officials' power where individual rights begin. The Founders understood that the government presupposes individual rights. So the constitutional discussion must begin with the questions: What are rights, and what is the proper function of government?

As the Declaration states, every individual is "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Since productive work is the only means of sustaining one's life and achieving happiness, it's obvious that the Founders understood--including in Jefferson's own words--that property rights are among those rights. The Declaration then states "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men." Rights—which in fact are not endowments by either nature or God but moral principles derived from observations and facts about human nature—are sanctions to freedom of action in a social context, not a claim on the lives and property of others or a government guarantee of material well-being and happiness. Notice that the constitution does not authorize the government to redistribute private wealth. Forced redistribution of wealth or income would relegate some people to privilege and others to involuntary servitude, which would violate the principle of equality.

Moran is wrong. America hasn't stagnated. It has "progressed" from what was a largely free country a century ago to a burgeoning regulatory welfare state—a dangerous regressionary trend unsupported by constitutional authority. Why? Because the fundamental principles upon which the constitution rests have been largely abandoned, opening the door to the piecemeal progression toward unlimited majoritarian rule, a manifestation of totalitarianism. Consequently, our best short-term protection against further encroachments on individual rights--and it's a weak protection--is political gridlock. I can't think of anything more dangerous to America's future than to begin tampering with the basics of the constitution in today's cultural environment. Before we consider unshackling majority rule, we must rediscover our Founding principles, roll back the regulatory welfare state, and provide ironclad guarantees that no one's rights be alienated by majority vote; i.e., respect the original intent of the constitution.

The Founders did not intend to replace absolute monarchy with absolute majority rule unconstrained by the principle of individual rights. As Benjamin Martin (Mel Gibson) asked during a debate over the propriety of the Revolutionary War in the movie "The Patriot", "Why should I trade one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man's rights as easily as a king can."

The answer: We shouldn't. As Jefferson said, "the majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." The Founders were not primarily concerned with giving the people the right to vote. They intended to liberate the people from predatory government, whether monarchistic, theocratic, socialist, or democratic.

There are those who would invert the original concept of Americanism—that the individual is sovereign and his life belongs to him—and replace it with the idea that the collective—i.e., the state—is sovereign over the individual. It is an attempted transition from republican constitutionalism to democracy; from individualism to collectivism. We cannot let the counter-revolutionary reactionaries succeed. The fight to defeat the reactionaries and restore and renew Americanism can start with this: As we celebrate Constitution Day, remember what I call the Constitution’s philosophic blueprint, or what has also been called the Conscience of the Constitution—the Declaration of Independence.

Tuesday, September 8, 2026

What the Democrats’ Reactionary Views on Voting Actually Mean

The Democrats appear poised to win control of one or both houses of Congress. So it’s a good time to revisit the Democrats' reactionary designs on our electoral process, especially now that their party is increasingly captured by the radically counter-Enlightenment, Marxist-oriented anti-American Democratic Socialists of America, whose agenda includes totalitarian Democracy fundamentalism.

In a leadup to Martin Luther King Jr. day, 2022, President Joe Biden gave a rousing speech in Georgia pushing his party’s so-called Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act,* which combines the Freedom to Vote Act and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. But this was no mere campaign-style speech. Biden dove right into the thick of political philosophy, reaching straight back to the Founding of America. In doing so, Biden clearly and explicitly exposed the reactionary premises of the Democratic Party.

After falsely claiming voting rights across America as under threat from laws like Georgia’s new voting law as, Biden’s philosophic treason comes into full view:

The filibuster has been weaponized and abused.

Today I’m making it clear: To protect our democracy, I support changing the Senate rules, whichever way they need to be changed — (applause) — to prevent a minority of senators from blocking action on voting rights. (Applause.)

When it comes to protecting majority rule in America, the majority should rule in the United States Senate.

I make this announcement with careful deliberation, recognizing the fundamental right to vote is the right from which all other rights flow. [My emphasis]

This is nothing short of a repudiation of America and its Enlightenment roots. The Declaration of Independence states clearly, in these “magnificent words” as per Doctor Martin Luther King Jr.,

This is not mere rhetorical flourish. America has never been about majority rule. The idea of unalienable Rights and the government’s sole purpose to “to secure these rights” is deeply rooted in Enlightenment philosophy, led by John Locke, embraced by America’s Founding Fathers, and ultimately, clarified and solidified by 20th Century philosopher Ayn Rand. The principle of individual rights is derived from man’s individual nature as a rational being, and precedes government. The truth is the exact opposite of Biden’s reactionary formulation: Man’s fundamental inalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are the rights from which all other rights—including the right to vote—flow.

After railing against Trump and his supporters for attempting to commandeer “the kind of power you see in totalitarian states, not in democracies,” Biden announces that rights are privileges granted by government, a foundational power of totalitarian states. This is not a power of constitutional republics such as, in its Founding ideals—the very same ideals drawn on by King in support of his Civil Rights Movement—the United States of America!

So what does it mean, in practice, when “the fundamental right to vote is the right from which all other rights flow?” It means majority rule. Mob rule. When rights flow from the right to vote, then all rights flow from the government—and the flow goes both ways.

It means the “rights” of majorities to vote minorities into slavery, which was a plank of the antebellum Democratic Party.
It means the “rights” of majorities, or the majority’s elected representatives, to force unwilling citizens to fund political campaigns.
It means the power to vote in governments to grant “rights” to material benefits, such as healthcare or education, that take away the rights of the citizens who are forced to provide and/or fund them—selectively, as in the regulatory welfare state, or across the board, as in a fully socialist country
It means the “right” of voters to install sharia law, violating the right to freedom of religion.
It means that Jim Crow laws were legitimate, democratically legitimate. Those laws were established by elected representatives--and, for a time upheld by the courts.
It means endorsing the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturning Roe v. Wade because it made a women’s right to abortion a matter of democratic vote rather than inalienable.

That’s exactly the evil that the Founders abolished. When the British government began systematically to take away the colonists’ “rights of Englishmen,” the Founders realized that there must be a firmer foundation for rights than the benevolent whims (or lack of) of a King or other ruling authority, including the rule of elected legislatures. They found that firm foundation for the preservation of their rights in the theory of natural rights, a product of The Enlightenment; the theory that man by his very nature, and his relationship to broader nature, requires the freedom to take the actions necessary for the furtherance of his life, secured by, in the words of John Locke, inalienable individual rights.

The Democratic Party, along with the Confederate intellectuals, rejected those principles by radically reinterpreting the Founding of America as a Democracy, not a constitutional republic. The Democrats haven’t changed their stripes. They claimed rights were grants of state authority, derived from the vote, rather than from the laws of nature, and their elected governments deprived blacks their rights—The fundamental right to vote is the right from which all other rights flow--or not flow, as elected representatives deemed to declare. Today, on Democratic Party reactionary premises, an entire country can be voted into socialist slavery. The Democratic Party has Democratic Socialists embedded within. Venezuela elected and re-elected socialist leaders Chavez and Madura, and rights were systematically stripped away--voted away--turning Venezuela into an unfree, impoverished basket case.

That’s what you get when you declare that rights come from the state--that the fundamental right to vote is the right from which all other rights flow. As we can clearly see in theory and in practice, a government from which rights flow is also a government from which rights can recede. Biden has it backwards. In fact, in a Democracy as conceived by Biden, the right to vote is the “right” that puts all other rights at risk.

Then came the final outrage of Biden’s philosophic treason. Biden framed the debate over his Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act in apocalyptic demagoguery—as a choice of democracy over autocracy, light over shadows, justice over injustice; as a choice for or against voter suppression, election subversion, and democracy. With a straight face, Biden dropped the hammer on opponents:

So, I ask every elected official in America: How do you want to be remembered?

At consequential moments in history, they present a choice: Do you want to be the si- — on the side of Dr. King or George Wallace? Do you want to be on the side of John Lewis or Bull Connor? Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?

It was the Confederate intelligentsia that repudiated the ideal of inalienable individual rights, or natural rights theory, and reconceived America as a Democracy under which all rights flow from government—to protect their slavocracy. Who, then, is siding with the president of the slaveholding Confederacy, Jefferson Davis? Biden’s belief that “the fundamental right to vote is the right from which all other rights flow,” a principle upon which his Justice Department is basing its lawsuit against the state of Georgia over that state’s new election law, dovetails seamlessly with the philosophy of the Slave Power centered in Confederate States of America and its Democratic Party allies.

To Joe Biden and the Democratic Party, election to political office in America is not an honorable job that entails doing the legal work of securing the fundamental rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness of its citizens. To today’s democratic socialist Democrats, like the antebellum Democrats and the Jim Crow Democrats and the welfare state Democrats, getting elected to political office is a license for totalitarian power—to the extent they can get away with it—to do the work of deciding what rights are, who gets them, who doesn’t, and to enforce those “rights” through legal coercion. While pretending to be on the side of mid-twentieth century civil rights crusaders, Biden is actually on the opposite side philosophically. Whereas Martin Luther King Jr., for all of his mixed and inconsistent politics, was squarely on the side of the Founding principles. Joe Biden has chosen the opposite side.

In case you think this is hyperbole, consider that Biden’s view is precisely affirmed by his own Justice Department under Attorney General Merrick Garland, and by his Vice President, Kamala Harris, during her presidential candidacy. Since philosophy is the primary engine of history, who, then, is the real Protégé of Jefferson Davis? Add to this the fact that, as political scholar Michael Barone reminds us, “George Wallace, Bull Connor, and Jefferson Davis were all partisan Democrats.”

There is plenty more that is bad about the Democrats’ attempt to enact their election reforms. I covered the bad elements in my post HR-1 is An Assault on Free Speech, Property Rights, Freedom of Conscience, and Privacy. Some version of the Democrats’ “Voting Rights” bill has been kicking around Congress for years. For now, it remains stalled. Let’s hope it never becomes law, and fight to kill it.

* (This bill remains stalled in Congress.)

Thursday, June 18, 2026

Juneteenth, the Offspring of the Fourth of July

In 1852, amid July 4th celebrations of America's independence, the great American intellectual and Abolitionist Frederick Douglass called on America to live up to the great principles of its Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and abolish slavery within its borders. In June of 1865, America finally did just that.

On June 19th, we celebrate Juneteenth as a National Holiday—and justly so. This is the day that, in June 1865, Union soldiers reached the last enslaved Americans in Galveston, Texas, with the news that slavery had been abolished and that they were now free.

The abolition of slavery, an evil institution that America inherited at its Founding, is a major cause for celebration and among America’s finest hours. The day the last slaves were liberated certainly rises to the level of deserving of a national holiday. But it must be remembered that the principles of the American Founding made possible the end of slavery. If not for the Fourth of July, we’d have no Juneteenth. Professor Jason D. Hill, author of We Have Overcome, aptly calls the abolition of slavery America’s Second Founding.

By all means, celebrate Juneteenth, also known as Emancipation Day. But put it on a par with Constitution Day, which celebrates the document that Frederick Douglass called “a glorious liberty document.” Like The U.S. Constitution, Juneteenth owes its existence to the Declaration of Independence and the philosophy behind it.

It’s a damn shame that it took almost a Century for the promises of the Declaration of Independence to reach all Americans of African descent. But it did, finally erasing America’s most glaring birth defect.

Happy Juneteenth.