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 commentthanks fromdust.....
I'm not very easily offended, so I let that one go over, but you're right.
Grendel - I also think those are vague. I know that FOX spent a lot of time on Solyndra - but unfortunately I think the focus was off, and again, possible over-stretch, and lacking many pertinent details, as FOX so often does, in this "everything we think is bad now began in January of 2009" age. The energy department's loan program was begun in 2005 with bipartisan support.
- First, Solyndra was 1.3 percent of the total 38 billion dollar project, and the only default.
- Second, Solyndra's loan process was initiated under President Bush's administration, and is backed by several large Republican investors.
(blog - but links to source docs included here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/five-myths-about-the...)
I think what should have been fully investigated was making sure the timeline and any internal documents were obtained, to make sure the process was transparent and not manipulated. Might be something there, but FOX drowns the possible real story in a caucauphany of ridiculous half-truths and catch phrases.
I don't object to anyone's disagreeing with Democrats, or the current President. But specific examples or at least an outline of the policy and why you disagree might be helpful, instead of vague innuendo.
Also, swimmer, Solyndra
Also, swimmer, Solyndra failed because the Chinese REALLY invested in solar technology, which resulted in a large influx of solar panels to the market, lowering prices and rendering Solyndra unprofitable. Conservatives seem to often forget that the free market does not guarantee success--just the opposite, in fact.
@PP
No example is going to penetrate your grape. Bygones. How about we focus on the op-piece: the current president and why he should articulate a vision for "Forward" if he expects another term. Seriously, any insights on his direction? 100 words or less. I'm a slow reader.
Grendel - cop out
Grendel - come on, rise to the occassion with a couple of examples just this once.
@Sg, and 2P, I guess
I gave 5, and they're specific. How about you tell me what his vision is? I asked FIRST. Time to back up that bumpersticker, shake the fairydust out of your locks, and tell me what he's going to do.
Here's a hint: take a look at his talking points from last SoU address -- that's the last time he presented his roadmap to the People.
Ask him what his vision is.
Ask him what his vision is. All I see is a guy who's trying to run the country, overcome our problems, and achieve the political, social, and economic equality for all. And he has accomplished a fair amount, despite your useless invocation of "Obamacare: boo!" He repealed DADT, which I know you think was a bad idea for reasons that turned out to be totally false, but why throw out a perfectly good opinion just because it has no basis in reality?
Oh, and he killed bin Laden. I know, I know, it was actually Navy SEALs. And Apple was successful because of engineers and designers, not Steve Jobs. And Mark Zuckerberg is a billionaire because of all of us who have a Facebook account.
Let's see... He passed a Wall Street Reform bill (not as strong as it should have been, but hey, that's congress' fault), he ended the war in Iraq, he saved the U.S. auto industry, he stopped torturing people (not so much an achievement, I know, but it's a damn good thing he did), he expanded hate crimes legislation, he ratified the START treaty, and OH SO MUCH MORE. Seriously. You have Google. You probably even know how to use it. It baffles me that you haven't already. But I think we've been over the importance of fact-checking oneself already, so I don't expect another lecture to take.
On the opposing side we have the GOP. Their presidential candidate is a man who has trouble keeping track of his opinions, but he is pretty presidential-looking. The party that backs him shows no interest in governing, and the head of at least one body of congress has made clear that his chamber's explicit goal is oppose Obama (Mitch McConnell, Nov. 4th, 2010). This is a party that, just to spite Michelle Obama, would gorge itself with Twinkies and fried foods and deny that so-called "healthy" foods are anything more than a socialist institution.
This is not a party remotely interested in governing. If Obama were a Speak & Spell I'd still vote for him over Mitt Romney, because at least the Speak & Spell's party is interested in getting things done, and not just out to do the opposite of what the other party wants.
2P - dun that
I've heard you peddling your wares before. And you went over 100 words. How about a fresh voice, one less caustic & sardonic...
Swimmergirl, you have given no indication that BHO has your vote, but you're not going with Romney. Do you think Obama has a vision? What is it? There's no wrong answer, but if you come up empty then you've been duped.
I want more points
How do I get more points next to my name, and what can I redeem them for?
I need a new toaster oven.
What are the points for? Surely it ain't for sexy, otherwise I'd have the most points in here...
the evil of two lessers
Romney is the same old brand the repubs have been marketing for generations, which is why all the fringe elements who came into the Big Tent with the Tea Party are so uncomfortable with him.
Obama, with his vaunted 2 degree course-change from the radical swings of the last Bush Administration, is Romney's analog for the dems: A big disappointment to a base that was "hoping" for a little more than window dressing---Like maybe a repudiation of the executive power grabs of GWB, for starters.
In reality, professional entertainers and TV addicts aside, we continue to have one of the narrowest political dialogues in the developed world---Far from being a force for change, Obama has shown he's part of the machine, hollered at ad nauseam by his opponents for not being quite ENOUGH a part of the machine...
So do we vote for someone who has shown himself perfectly willing to execute even American citizens without a trial, or someone who advertises himself as being even more willing to do so?
It's a classic form of manipulation which all too many of us are falling for.
But we have to pick a name-brand, don't we? We're sold on being sold, and wouldn't have it any other way.
jamison
Your comments on this forum are consistently brilliant. And that makes me sad in a way.
thanks
i think...
I'll agree with Lat!
Even the sad part, mostly because of the content of said brilliant observations and the implications for the state of American politics and our electorate.
Agreed
Maybe someone with brains- like Jamison - will throw his hat in the ring.
Where's the inspiration today?
Thomas Jefferson, where art thou?
lacking corporate sponsorship, obviously
In a strange similarity to the Reagan analogy (if Reagan were running now, would his ideas find shrift with what the "right" has become...?), any modern day Thomas Jeffersons are probably lost in the marketing hubub---They were products of their time and wouldn't know what to do with what Hollywood and Madison Ave. have made of our political system, or the immense amounts of cash the media has grown accustomed to having shoveled its way, now on a fairly consistent basis.
My thought, for what it's worth, is anti-incumbency---A method of voting rather than a party-line, to counter the pervasive corruption of both parties---Vote against anyone who occupies the seat, even Obama, and keep doing it until they get the message. Avoid major political parties, but if there is no other choice, hold your nose and vote for the other guy---The good news is he won't be all that different.
It's a pipe dream, admittedly, but if enough of us do it for a few election cycles, it might work to remind these people of the precepts of our republic while we still have one.
joe -
you crack me up.
Grendel -
PP did a pretty good job.
I'd add that the vision includes thinking about and supporting development of the energy sources of the future NOW, and reducing our dependence on foreign oil through innovation.
The vision includes the idea that it is important to balance the needs of the nation in terms of industry and resources with the protection of our seas, forests, and air. All the jobs in the world won't matter if the ocean biosystem fails.
That the vision includes ensuring that all of us are equal, even those who are gay, not religious, or women - that soldiers fighting for this country have the right to also enjoy it's freedoms and get married if they happen to be gay, that separation of church and state works and the religious right should not be allowed to hijack all of us with legislation seeking to enforce their religious beliefs upon us all (see: personhood, pro-life, creationism, anti-muslim legislation in many states).
The vision includes insuring that a safety net is still available for the old, the sick, those falling on hard times - and that those funds are not instead increasingly siphoned off by the most capable (think: oil company subsidies, tax loopholes for billionares) among us.
That the United States reclaims it's global reputation as a nation lead by a thoughtful, calm, intelligent leader - not one lead by a cowboy who goes to war becase "god told him to".
SG
Like I said, no wrong answer. I wont pull a petty stunt like demand examples because it's a vision and subject to interpretation. I would caution, however, that a vision without results is nothing, and his last vision in '08 has not met expectations. Also, are you sure these things arent what you want to see?
It's a good day
when i get to read any comments by jamison.
i often vote for 3rd party candidates like Ralph Nadar in the hopes someone will get the message. nice to know there are one or two others out there. personally, i may write in Jim Hightower this election cycle. Or Buddy Roemer - I really liked what he had to say and he was actually willing to take the job.
i am going to celebrate Obama's support for marriage equality regardless of motivation or political expediency. it was the right thing to do. i wish he was more courageous in his policy positions, but he never would have been elected had he been capable of such bravery.
Grendel -
Save your condescension, please, I don't need it.
I'd rather be me, and be FOR and work TOWARDS something, than be someone who seems to only be AGAINST everything.
SG
me too! except for that "me" part -- sounds lonely, atavistic, and ultimately unfulfilling