The most famous speech in American history begins this way: “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Lincoln’s eloquence at Gettysburg was lyrical but not historically accurate. For no such thing as a “new nation” had been proposed in 1776; only a temporary union of sovereign states, declaring their independence from Britain, then presumably going their separate ways.
Indeed, the magic words of the Declaration of Independence to which Lincoln referred, Thomas Jefferson’s words starting with “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” located sovereignty in neither the national nor state governments but in the souls of individual citizens. Taken literally, this was a recipe for anarchy. Taken seriously, this meant that any robust expression of government power was put on the permanent defensive. Government was “them,” not “us.”
During the summer of 1776, then, the libertarian and anti-government values currently embraced by the “tea party” conservatives were, in fact, central features of the founding moment of the United States. While evangelicals will have a very hard time claiming Jefferson as one of their own, the original ethos of the American Revolution is, at least rhetorically, compatible with the political agenda of the contemporary conservative movement.
Of course there was a second founding moment in 1787, when a more expansive role for government was enshrined in the Constitution, and a framework created to sustain a dialogue about that role.
Then there was, in effect, a third founding, in the wake of the Civil War, which established the supremacy of the Union over the states (this was why Lincoln reinterpreted the American Revolution in the Gettysburg Address). As historian James McPherson has so nicely put it, after the Civil War the term “United States” became a singular rather than plural noun.
Finally, at the dawn of the 20th century, both Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson led another expansion of federal authority, eventually consolidated in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. FDR explained it best in his 1932 Commonwealth Club address in which he described the end of the frontier, the shift from an agrarian to an industrial society and the social and economic inequalities and dislocations generated by laissez-faire capitalism (that is, the Depression) as developments requiring what we now call the liberal state. Government had become “us” rather than “them.”
This brief tour of American history, which could be extended to include Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society, reveals that modern-day conservatives have “the spirit of ‘76” on their side, as well as the power of Jefferson’s original formulation of the American creed. Liberals, on the other hand, have the arc of American history on their side, which until the presidency of Ronald Reagan seemed to have the final word in the debate. After all, who could imagine a successful political movement requiring the revocation of two centuries of American history? Barry Goldwater, who campaigned for president in 1964 on just such a radical agenda, received only 38 percent of the vote.
While realistically this is still so — unless American voters are prepared to dispense with Medicare, Social Security, the Federal Reserve Board and even our existence as a sovereign nation-state — at least rhetorically conservatives have a narrative advantage. That is, their story of individual freedom and tyrannical government enjoys a privileged place in the lexicon because of its association with our political origins.
As a historian of those origins, I can tell you that there were dissenting voices back in the summer of 1776, most notably George Washington and John Adams, who regarded Jefferson’s dream of pure self-government as a preposterous illusion. Washington even thought that we almost lost the war for independence because of the refusal of the states to provide sufficient support for the Continental Army.
But the dream has proved remarkably resilient because it depicts any conspicuous expression of government power as an alien force and sanctifies the sovereign individual, standing tall against oppression. Even though that story line has been anachronistic for more than a century, it has levitated out of space and time to become a fixture in American mythology, never to be underestimated as a political weapon, especially when wielded by the party out of power.
As Thomas Frank showed in “What’s the Matter With Kansas?,” lots of Americans vote their convictions rather than their interests. And the most potent conviction in American history has authentic historical origins in the summer of ‘76. FDR found a way to offer an alternative narrative for the 20th century.
If he is to win re-election, President Obama needs to do the same for the 21st.
• Ellis is the author of biographies of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and, most recently, John and Abigail Adams.
Comments (50)
Add commentObama will win anyway
Obama will win because ultimately, Romney could only kick up about 27% of the conservative vote.
That means 73% of the conservatives wanted someone other than Romney.
And a large chunk of that disgruntled 73% will stay home on election day.
And gas prices will magically go down around October, and a mistress for Romney will appear around the same time.
And Obama will slide into victory once again.
And the world will be a better place as a result.
@jo - you better go back to
@jo - you better go back to bed. You sound a little dizzy this morning!
"Forward", of course
Obama had the House and Senate for two yrs and failed to come up with a coherent game plan. He has an agenda, but not a plan. He's seized opportunities to push the agenda forward, but three yrs into his administration and no one knows what he'll do next. "Forward" is his slogan -- toward what?
ARTCLE
The latest Huffington Post poll shows Obama leading in states with the most electoral votes
Dream on:
I see Jo still believes in that “HOPE” & change thing. And how well is that working? I’m included in that 73% Jo speaks about, however I will vote for Romney. Crap, I would vote for a rabid dog or Inmate Number 11593-051 before I would even consider Skippy .
Grendel - yawn
of course, that wasn't the now necessary supermajority, since the republicans have caved to teaparty extremists fully now, and refuse to pass even things they want now.
What kind of a government can anyone have when one party's only openly stated goal is to get the other guy out of office, and to block any and all legislation, appointments, and regulation?
Nowhere in life or business does anything positive happen in a group without working together and compromise. The newest player to the republican party, Senate candidate Richard Mourdock sums up the viewpoint of the right - "I have a mindset that says bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view".
We have clearly lost any vestiges of statesmanship when one side considers it a fatal flaw of one of their own party to even be mentioned as aligning with the current president (as Senator Lugar did - he worked with President Obama on nuclear nonproliferation in 2008 and appeared in a political ad - hardly a controversial topic.....then.) even once. Even though the Senator disagreed with the President over the Health Care Act and other typical R/D divisions. Too bipartisan, not far enough to the right.
I think we have lost the best part of what used to be congress. Even though the parties disagreed, they worked through those disagreements, and were respectful of each other. The tea-party Republicans have clearly shown that this is not how they intend to do business.
@Milspec
Really? You would vote for a convicted felon?
FYI, a rabid dog is not allowed to run for POTUS. Read your US Constitution...(Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2)
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
I would also think under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6, rabies would disqualify the rabid dog you prefer to our current POTUS.
a "rabid dog" eh?
Yup, that about sums up radical fundamentalist voters who claim to be conservative.
Republican political
Republican political ideology: "the opposite of what Democrats want, updated daily."
question.....
It is certainly true today (and something that I just don't understand.....) that "lots of Americans vote their convictions rather than their interests." - the 'class warfare' bs and countless clips of people ON welfare saying the government shouldn't be giving handouts or the classic Craig T. Nelson brain-twist of "I’ve been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No. No."
What I really don't get is how Conservatives can even pretend any longer that they believe in "individual freedoms" (that is, unless you are a woman, or gay, or want an abortion, or want to marry your same-sex partner, etc. etc. - - then you don't have 'individual freedom' - we tell you what the bible wants you to do according to a few religious extremists - never mind that you aren't religious.....).
@SG
remember the outright seditious talk on the dem side after GWB took the 2000 election LEGALLY?
I think these are the dynamics we are stuck with: the party out of office will always feel sleighted. I'm not going to rise to the bait and show partisan colors, though I will say that the current president has gone out of his way to shove the GOP out of his way.
Otherwise, right on all counts; nolo contendere.
@swimmergirl
Well said!
@Grendel
I don't agree GW got that one legally
The GOP pushed me out of the way.
Tell me why I should vote GOP? I'm over 55. My savings are dwindling, I'm worried about my healthcare because they gave my job to a younger man when I needed some FMLA...oh...20 years on that job too. I'm a woman...not worthy of equal consideration to your VIARGRA because somehow...due to your SEX you can control that urge to "bump around" better than some tramp that will get an abortion anyway. And I'm lazy you see...cause I needed some unemployment and I don't think god will help me if I get sick because I lost my healthcare with that job. Oh yea...better drug test me too. You know...I might be taking drugs because I was out of work. Nevermind there's plenty of drunks on the house floor...I served plenty of them while I was still working. You tell me...why should I vote GOP?
@Mama T
what business is it of mine how you vote? Here's my Bottom Line: VOTE, dammit, or shut up.
(ps - I surely wouldn't tell you to shut up, but you got the sentiment here)
Voting "convictions" rather than interests
Here is an interesting take on that issue:
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/9016-it-is-enough-an-open-letter-to-th...
One excerpt: "Once upon a time, there was a center-right political party that felt like it was losing its way after a guy named Clinton won the White House twenty years ago. So what they did was spend millions and millions of dollars in a radio, television and direct mail campaign aimed at convincing the same Americans who were suffering from their bad ideas that poor people, minorities, women and Democrats were the breathing essence of evil..."
I guess that means these are their convictions? Sick at heart, indeed.
grendels wayback machine....
Grendel - you had to go all the way back to 2000? Well, perhaps they were right to be upset - the margin was what, 300 votes or so in Florida, and Gore maintained the majority of the popular vote. That being said - my examples were all from the last couple of weeks.
I don't think "slighted" is what I would call the revisionist rhetoric from the right at the moment:
A few more examples: While it is "patriotic" for President Bush to take a fighter jet, land on an aircraft carrier, parade a backdrop of all servicemen/women, and fly a HUGE banner reading "Mission Accomplished", when in fact NOTHING was accomplished, it's somehow "excessive" for President Obama, on the one-year anniversary of killing Osama Bin Laden, to mention it; point out the excellence of the troops and the team who helped get Bin Laden, and visit the troops.
Governor Romney says now "of course" he would have gone into Pakistan, even though he said he wouldn't - and he said he 'takes a lot of credit' for the GM bailout, even though he famously argued AGAINST the bailout, Paul Ryan loved Ayn Rand, and then hated her, Donald Rumsfeld said going into Pakistan to get Bin Laden was 'not a tough call' - but called off a mission into Pakistan in 2005 to get the #2 to Bin Laden. Speaker Boehner voted 19 times to increase the debt limit under President Bush, but somehow under President Obama it's almost heresy to do so. Governor Romney was FOR a federal bad on same sex marraige, but today he wants to leave it up to states?
It seems to me that at this point, even if President Obama recited a President Bush speech word for word, it would somehow be good then/terrible now.
I'm not saying there aren't instances of this kind of behavior on the Democratic side - but I have to say there appear to be FAR more numerous and blatant examples of this kind of thing on the right. Members of the RNC and Governor Romney's staff have misspoken about his positions a number of times in the last months (probably because they aren't sure what his positions are today?) but FOX makes hay out of a comment by someone who isn't connected to the DNC or the President's staff regarding Mrs. Romney for over a week. (sssstttrreeeetch whatever tidbit you can find, I guess......)
I'd like to hear what you think are concrete examples of the President pushing the GOP aside, before their patent declaration that they intended to be obstructionists at all costs? You can't sit in the corner of the room refusing to play for two years, and then cry foul when the other kids decide to stop asking you and go play without you.
@SG
(i think you're obsessing)
President Obama's libertarian leanings
Just announced full support for same-sex marriage. Not only did he take a courageous stand on an extremely controversial issue, he used a well-worn tactic of the Republicans and focused the election on a social issue. Nicely done.
And I thought I wasn't going to enjoy campaign season. To Mr. Romney - your move, sir.
what's with the points?
anyone?
i don't get
the points either.
Grendel -
maybe I am obsessing. But when someone like Richard Grendell, appointed by President Bush in 2001 to serve as the Director of Communications and Public Diplomacy for the Permanent Representative of the US to the U.N. - - - doesn't last 20 hours in the Romney campaign because some nutjob shouts "gay" - clearly something has drastically changed, and the snake oil salesmen are running the show.
It surprises me that Ryan isn't willing to say "No, I studied Ayn Rand, and though she's an athiest, I still find some of her teachings valid" or that Romney isn't willing to say "Richard Grendell was hired for his credentials, and will stay with the campaign" - - [filtered word] in the face of the snake oil salesmen. Where do you see this kind of blatant folding to radicalism on the left?
I watch some FOX "news". I look for things about the President or the Democrats that might actually be true and not completely fabricated and manipulated and stretched beyond recognition. I find very, very few - -
some examples if you have them....
and thanks.....
Mama T. I worry too, which is why I try to pay attention.
Swimmergirl
I look at what he's done, and find nothing redeeming;
I see he has an agenda without a plan, and that's dangerous;
I see empty rhetoric, inciteful speeches, and absurd attempts to explain away his record.
If he were a CEO he'd deserve to get fired, not 4 more years as CEO.
Where this thread started -- what's his vision forward? What is it? Someone articulate his vision with other than "sovietskij skaz."
Also, if I hit send and my points go up I'm going to have to distance myself from you, SG
@Grendel: you say you see
@Grendel: you say you see these things, but I don't believe I've EVER seen you provide examples. Only general statements. Please explain why his achievements aren't redeeming, please explain why you see a lack of a plan, please provide examples of empty rhetoric (NOT HARD--EVERY POLITICIAN DOES THIS), inciteful speeches, and "absurd attempts to explain away his record."
I'm not sure you can.
Hmmmm...
"obsessing"?? I don't think so. That's a tactic that attempts to dismiss examples, reasoning, and logic simply by saying "Whoa, you're getting all intense there", as if the thorough presentation of evidential support were somehow erroneous.
Same thing with showing that Calypso contradicted herself - her response was to belittle the finding of the fact, not admit it.
1 ea.
1. achievements not redeeming: Obamacare unfunded, undelivered, unread;
1. lack of plan: green energy -- the posterboy projects have folded or been scrapp'd;
1. empty rhetoric: "Pass my jobs bill NOW!" (what bill? never went ANYWHERE and he gave up);
1. inciteful speeches: calling out the GOP on the student loan scare (same tactic as the healthscare debates, what a communicator) -- ‘Republicans want you to die drinking dirty water, breathing dirty air, jobless without health insurance.’;
1. theatre of the absurd: citing a Ron Reagan tax-cut stump speech to advocate his "fair share" schpiel.
Don't worry, you will see the fruit of Obama's labors
...if he wins, after November. You will not like what you see, or feel, or hear....We can then kiss goodbye the America as we knew it before 9/11...as it has been hanging by a thread ever since. Then we can say we told you so. It will not do any good, but we can say it. Unlike most of the bloggers on this site, I certainly hope Obama will NOT win. But I do not always get what I want. I did not want Romney to get the nomination either, but I WILL be voting for him in November. I do not want the alternative on my shoulders!
to fromdustreturned
I'm not gaffing you off, but want to point out this thread started with WHAT DOES FORWARD MEAN?
the op-piece was some gibberish about how BO's got to get a message out. You can guess I'm not a fan, so I'm asking, because maybe I missed it -- what's his message?
Obama's written 2 autobios, he's had a stellar career built on the possible, so if he's set to lead us forward, where is he taking us? SOMEONE has to know because if you cannot articulate it and demonstrate that there's a cause/effect continuum to lead us in that direction...then it's smoke.
Dude, Grendel, you still
Dude, Grendel, you still haven't provided concrete examples. Merely saying "oh, OBAMACARE" does not an argument make. Nor does taking an out-of-context statement from a speech and applying your own ideological slant (something is not untrue or divisive or absurd just because you disagree with it). And your example of empty rhetoric is pretty [filtered word] poor, I must say. Empty rhetoric would be something like explaining how Americans are totally awesome and can succeed at anything and GOD BLESS 'MURIKAH and GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS. That is empty rhetoric. Obama's plea to pass his jobs bill actually had a purpose: to pass his jobs bill. Unfortunately we have a congress whose explicit goal is to oppose Obama (Mitch McConnell, Nov 4, 2010).
Obama Takes a Stand
Nice to see that Obama is taking a firm stand on something that most Americans agree with.
As Thomas Jefferson once said, "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
Hey dust, why ya still sore?
Hey dust, why ya still sore? That little episode happened over a week ago. What do I have to do to make-up - take a deeper bow?! Come on...
I'd say swimmer was close to frothing with her "thorough presentation of evidential support". However, it was dismissed as "somehow erroneous" because it was all rhetoric from left leaning sources. The whole list could be easily disputed.
For starters I heard Rumsfeld say, out of his own mouth, that the Mission Accomplished sign was put up by the military. The Administration did not do it. By the way, I think Rumsfeld is a great guy. I like him.