Founders Assault Continued
In the latest salvo against the relevance or significance of the Founding Fathers, Mark Kurlansky of the LA Times has written a hit piece in which he attempts to belittle and reduce the Founding Fathers by pointing out the Left's favorite talking points against them. Anyone who has kept up with the modern press knows there's not much new in that. Perhaps what is new, but becoming more common, is the blatant willingness to put such vitriol into print.
SOMEONE HAS TO SAY IT or we are never going to get out of this rut: I am sick and tired of the founding fathers and all their intents.
Couldn't be much clearer than that if he tried, but what is it that he's really blaming them for? Well, he makes that equally as clear right away.
U.S. offers the worst healthcare program, one of the worst public school systems and the worst benefits for workers. The margin between rich and poor has been growing precipitously while it has been decreasing in Europe. Among the great democracies, we use military might less cautiously, show less respect for international law and are the stumbling block in international environmental cooperation. Few informed people look to the United States anymore for progressive ideas.
Welcome to Socialism 101. Again, he couldn't be much more clear. The Founding Fathers are an impediment, by their very nature, in instituting any socialist agenda, like worker's benefits, "international" law, the environment and of course the often talked about never displayed gap between the rich and poor.
It could be argued easily that we have the world's best healthcare program, because all the advances in medicine of any significance, especially pharmaceutical, are made here. We don't have waiting lines for treatment (except in the part of the system that's already socialized - Medicare/Medicaid). We don't have denial of service and we don't have a crushing tax burden (well, we do a little) that feeds the behemoth like it does in just about every other "great democracy" that has socialized medicine.
Our public school systems suffer from socialist medelling and experimentation as they strive to replace parents, certainly not for lack of money. Studies of parochial/private schools, that spend far less, versus public schools show that money certainly isn't the issue. That is a tired old canard.
The gap between rich and poor is usually code for "everyone should get paid the same - well, except us elite Leftists of course". That people get paid according to their skills and abilities is one of the Hallmarks of this country.
The whole "using military might less cautiously" means we defend ourselves. The atrophied militaries of the other "great democracies", most of which gladly accepted sixty years of our military protection, and their inability to even keep their citizenry safe or respond to foreign attacks speaks volumes to that. I'll take our lack of caution over that any day and twice on Sunday.
International law and environmentalism are also codes for "UN trumps US" laws. The longer these NGO bureaucracies and unsigned "laws" fester and grow, the more they seem to develop some false air of legitimacy that the Left clings to as some sort of handcuff restraint on US policy. And who isn't for cleaner air, water and a nice place to live? That was never the issue. It's all about control and for-profit groups and NGO's like Sierra Club want to be the ones who end up with that control.
Betsy's Page has a wonderful refutation of Mr. Kurlansky's historical references and I will not presume to outshine her. Her response puts paid to his "examples".
Note this, though, of what he also says.
Instead, we keep worrying about the vision of a bunch of sexist, slave-owning 18th century white men in wigs and breeches. Even in the 18th century, the founding fathers were not the most enlightened thinkers available.
Rarely do you see one paragraph so concisely break down the general impression of the Founders by the Left. Because the Founders were not perfect super-beings, we must discount them. And listen to whom? Who is without sin? Certainly not Kurlansky, me, or any of those I'm sure he admires like Lenin or Mao.
The Founders were men, just men. They were products of their times and did the best they could to establish an enlightened and new form of government that would be better than them, even transcend them. They poured all their hopes into a few pieces of paper that espoused what they believed to be universal truths, and for this we should eternally thank them, that such men, amazingly men of their time, could create something that has endured so long and weathered so many assaults. I salute them.
And then he makes the case that the Founding Fathers, the very ones he just spent most of his rant telling you don't matter, don't even buy into making their opinions and beliefs ones set in stone, and thus we can consider any ideas they had, like the Bill of Rights, to be just flights of fancy or "of the times" and outdated notions.
Consider his quote from Jefferson.
"Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind," Jefferson wrote in 1816. "As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstance, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
So you're saying Jefferson said things change? My God. We've been living a lie! Please, give me a break. Jefferson asked us not to be a slave to the society and culture of the day, and we have not. We have no more slavery. We have equal rights for all citizens regardless of sex or race or creed. We have many of the things they could only have dreamed of at the time, but which they hoped the United States, from its creation in the Constitution, might one day achieve.
Does that mean our rights and freedoms should change as well, that somehow they are as mutable as our culture. Well, don't ask me. Ask Jefferson.
"Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:48
I believe that's game, set and match, but you'll find many more of Jefferson's quotes that equally defend our liberties and rights, something the modern Left wishes to see squelched. Hand in hand with their "Brave New World" will come oppressive taxation and reform from the barrel of a gun. In our society, someone can say "No" when government says we need a new tax or a new restriction on freedom or a new social program. There are mechanisms to address and defeat such government proposals and although it is never easy, it is doable.
The whole priniciple of the Left, especially the laundry list of "initiatives" Kurlansky feeds us at the beginning of his rant all demand that no one be able to say "No" and if they do they will be removed from the equation. Lessons of history on that courtesy of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro and Kim Il Sung to name some of their greats. You can choose those as your "Founders" or the ones we already have. Which do you prefer?
In the latest salvo against the relevance or significance of the Founding Fathers, Mark Kurlansky of the LA Times has written a hit piece in which he attempts to belittle and reduce the Founding Fathers by pointing out the Left's favorite talking points against them. Anyone who has kept up with the modern press knows there's not much new in that. Perhaps what is new, but becoming more common, is the blatant willingness to put such vitriol into print.
SOMEONE HAS TO SAY IT or we are never going to get out of this rut: I am sick and tired of the founding fathers and all their intents.
Couldn't be much clearer than that if he tried, but what is it that he's really blaming them for? Well, he makes that equally as clear right away.
U.S. offers the worst healthcare program, one of the worst public school systems and the worst benefits for workers. The margin between rich and poor has been growing precipitously while it has been decreasing in Europe. Among the great democracies, we use military might less cautiously, show less respect for international law and are the stumbling block in international environmental cooperation. Few informed people look to the United States anymore for progressive ideas.
Welcome to Socialism 101. Again, he couldn't be much more clear. The Founding Fathers are an impediment, by their very nature, in instituting any socialist agenda, like worker's benefits, "international" law, the environment and of course the often talked about never displayed gap between the rich and poor.
It could be argued easily that we have the world's best healthcare program, because all the advances in medicine of any significance, especially pharmaceutical, are made here. We don't have waiting lines for treatment (except in the part of the system that's already socialized - Medicare/Medicaid). We don't have denial of service and we don't have a crushing tax burden (well, we do a little) that feeds the behemoth like it does in just about every other "great democracy" that has socialized medicine.
Our public school systems suffer from socialist medelling and experimentation as they strive to replace parents, certainly not for lack of money. Studies of parochial/private schools, that spend far less, versus public schools show that money certainly isn't the issue. That is a tired old canard.
The gap between rich and poor is usually code for "everyone should get paid the same - well, except us elite Leftists of course". That people get paid according to their skills and abilities is one of the Hallmarks of this country.
The whole "using military might less cautiously" means we defend ourselves. The atrophied militaries of the other "great democracies", most of which gladly accepted sixty years of our military protection, and their inability to even keep their citizenry safe or respond to foreign attacks speaks volumes to that. I'll take our lack of caution over that any day and twice on Sunday.
International law and environmentalism are also codes for "UN trumps US" laws. The longer these NGO bureaucracies and unsigned "laws" fester and grow, the more they seem to develop some false air of legitimacy that the Left clings to as some sort of handcuff restraint on US policy. And who isn't for cleaner air, water and a nice place to live? That was never the issue. It's all about control and for-profit groups and NGO's like Sierra Club want to be the ones who end up with that control.
Betsy's Page has a wonderful refutation of Mr. Kurlansky's historical references and I will not presume to outshine her. Her response puts paid to his "examples".
Note this, though, of what he also says.
Instead, we keep worrying about the vision of a bunch of sexist, slave-owning 18th century white men in wigs and breeches. Even in the 18th century, the founding fathers were not the most enlightened thinkers available.
Rarely do you see one paragraph so concisely break down the general impression of the Founders by the Left. Because the Founders were not perfect super-beings, we must discount them. And listen to whom? Who is without sin? Certainly not Kurlansky, me, or any of those I'm sure he admires like Lenin or Mao.
The Founders were men, just men. They were products of their times and did the best they could to establish an enlightened and new form of government that would be better than them, even transcend them. They poured all their hopes into a few pieces of paper that espoused what they believed to be universal truths, and for this we should eternally thank them, that such men, amazingly men of their time, could create something that has endured so long and weathered so many assaults. I salute them.
And then he makes the case that the Founding Fathers, the very ones he just spent most of his rant telling you don't matter, don't even buy into making their opinions and beliefs ones set in stone, and thus we can consider any ideas they had, like the Bill of Rights, to be just flights of fancy or "of the times" and outdated notions.
Consider his quote from Jefferson.
"Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind," Jefferson wrote in 1816. "As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstance, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
So you're saying Jefferson said things change? My God. We've been living a lie! Please, give me a break. Jefferson asked us not to be a slave to the society and culture of the day, and we have not. We have no more slavery. We have equal rights for all citizens regardless of sex or race or creed. We have many of the things they could only have dreamed of at the time, but which they hoped the United States, from its creation in the Constitution, might one day achieve.
Does that mean our rights and freedoms should change as well, that somehow they are as mutable as our culture. Well, don't ask me. Ask Jefferson.
"Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:48
I believe that's game, set and match, but you'll find many more of Jefferson's quotes that equally defend our liberties and rights, something the modern Left wishes to see squelched. Hand in hand with their "Brave New World" will come oppressive taxation and reform from the barrel of a gun. In our society, someone can say "No" when government says we need a new tax or a new restriction on freedom or a new social program. There are mechanisms to address and defeat such government proposals and although it is never easy, it is doable.
The whole priniciple of the Left, especially the laundry list of "initiatives" Kurlansky feeds us at the beginning of his rant all demand that no one be able to say "No" and if they do they will be removed from the equation. Lessons of history on that courtesy of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro and Kim Il Sung to name some of their greats. You can choose those as your "Founders" or the ones we already have. Which do you prefer?
posted by Rob Beck | 2:35 PM
1 Comments:
Hrm. I don't know if this really qualifies as a "hit piece" . . . a bit hyperbolic, perhaps, but he seems to be arguing the same basic point you are.
You say: "The Founders were men, just men. They were products of their times and did the best they could to establish an enlightened and new form of government that would be better than them, even transcend them."
He says: "But the founding fathers, unlike the Americans of today, understood their own shortcomings. Thomas Jefferson warned against a slavish worship of their work, which he referred to as 'sanctimonious reverence' for the Constitution."
This sounds less like an attack on the Founders than on the current state of things.
Blind nationalism is a problem. Mythologizing the Founders gets us nowhere. And the kind of argument that rebukes any and all criticism of the US as antiAmerican is flat-out dangerous, but unfortunately seems to be everywhere these days.
In fact, what this piece seems to be arguing is the idea that we need iconoclasts to get anywhere, that abject worship of the establishment is dangerous. I have to agree. That argument doesn't speak to me of hidden socialist agendas or rejection of American principles . . . only of a healthy skepticism about deifying any bunch of "just men" -- be they the Founders or any others.
Post a Comment
<< Home