Deluded Inspiration

Lehto writes, "The Declaration of Independence especially was intended not just for Americans, it was declared for the benefit of all of humanity." 

The original draft of the Declaration of Independence included amongst its inalienable rights "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property."  The (rich white) Founding Fathers realized that the "pursuit of property," their motivation, would not be much of a selling point with the common folk, so changed the propaganda to "Liberty."  Although compulsory military service was part of the revolution, rich men were by law permitted by buy-out that obligation with gold, and after the revolution the right to vote was denied to women and white males without property.  Blacks were property and had no vote.

Lehto writes, "As President Ronald Reagan put it 'Ours was a philosophical revolution that changed the very concept of government.' " Reagan was put into office by right-wing Christian fascists, Dominionist-Reconstructionists and far-right Catholics who proudly sponsored and funded death squads throughout Central America to suppress wages,eliminate workers' rights, and eliminate political resistance to the comprador class that "did business" with the United States ruling elite.  The tip of this iceberg was the "Iran-Contra" scandal, drug-peddling by this far-right elite with connections to CIA and military intellgience, in order to fund their covert operations and line their own pockets. 

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., whose father and uncle were murdered by these folk because of his liberal politics, notes the response of Dominionist-Reconstructionist Secretary of the Interior James Watt, who distributed public lands as well as water and mineral rights to his close friends at what the General Account Office termed "fire sale prices."  When asked by a gelded Congress to justify his actions that savaged future generations, "I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns."  (RFK, Jr., Crimes Against Nature, pp. 25-26).    Kennedy is too polite to repeat what really got Watts in trouble, his witticism that "all a nigger wants to be happy is loose shoes, tight pussy, and a warm place to shit."

Reagan's Revolution, with his speechwriters' carefully crafted double-entendre of a 'philosophical revolution that changed the very concept of government,' was the deliberate destruction of every New Deal benefit to the common good and the systematic transfer of wealth from the middle-class of this country to the ruling class, as detailed by several recent political economists, including Jack Rasmus, The War at Home, The Corporate Offensive From Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush.

American ideals have never meant much to the rulers of this nation except insofar as they served their own interests and managed to mobilize patriotic support for revolutions and wars waged primarily for their benefit, though in the process -- largely through a process of mind-numbing pacification and wealth distribution pursued consistently by the Council on Foreign Relations and its predecessor, the National Civic Federation -- have until now benefited many who live in the United States at the cruel expense of the rest of the world.  The Republicans who have warm fuzzy feelings for Reagan and wish that Bush43 lived up to his and their ideals are as blind to the facts, and the actual ideology of their rulers, as is this article.

by Michael Green (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 8 comments) on Wednesday, July 4, 2007 at 12:17:33 PM
 

Your charge is that the ideals are hypocritically followed

or simply broken.   But that's irrelevant to the ideals themselves.  They speak for themselves, and I've already addressed the idea that if ideals are intended to be for "all time" they must necessarily set forth standards against which we will be arguably hypocritical for a long, long time.

 And if the Devil cites scripture for his own purposes, so too will politicians cite ideals for their purposes.  But that doesn't corrupt the ideals, it just corrupts the politicians. 

 If you understand that there's hypocrisy then you know the ideal is different than the reality.   So it's easy to separate the two, no??

If we are moving in the direction of our ideals, we are not hypocrites we are heroes - or similar, making progress.  It is only when we are moving directly in the opposite direction of the ideal that the charge of hypocrisy is applicable.

by Paul Lehto (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 46 comments) on Wednesday, July 4, 2007 at 3:35:40 PM
 

Inspiration not Deluded, just its hijackers

In response to Mr. Green, and having read and/or written to Barrister Lehto, a lot, I'd say that I agree with almost all of what Mr. Green writes here, but he missed the point of Lehto's citations of Reagan and Bush.  Lehto's was an underlying irony that such hypocrites could refer to our democratic and inherently populist ideals while at the same time doing everything they could to reverse and revoke them.  Like he says, and Martin Luther before him, and many others since, "The Devil knows and can quote Scripture" if it will serve his ends. 

What was pertinent here was not so much that they knew and could quote the Scriptures of our "inalienable" God-given rights ( and those are surely a form of indelible scripture, and "written upon your hearts," so unlike our current "ballots" ) but that they will be judged by that sacred rule, howsowever deceitfully they measured our common life by it. 

by muservin (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 42 comments) on Wednesday, July 4, 2007 at 6:31:41 PM
 

Michael Green full of it on Declaration of Indep & Property

Here's a copy of the original draft of the Declaration with emendations by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin.   http://shorl.com/drygrugenehesta
 

You will see that the "pursuit of happiness" is in the original draft, not the "pursuit of property" as Green frivolously alleges in his comment above.  There was a prior phrase "life, liberty and property" and Jefferson and others changed that from "property" to "pursuit of happiness," but not for the bad motives Green alleges, while empty of justification for the same based on the record of Jefferson as a whole.  To the best of my knowledge, I don't know of any formulation "pursuit of PROPERTY" which really does sound bad.  That is actually a formulation by British economist Adam Smith.  The fact that "pursuit of property" is rejected in the Declaration in both the first and final drafts is good for those who like the idea that property or the pursuit of property is NOT listed as an inalienable right.

So, it's a scurrilous accusation and false to suggest Jefferson had "pursuit of property" in at any time, and even if he had, the admitted fact that it did not make the final copy of the declaration would be decisive evidence that it was rejected.  That would be bad news for property advocates, so the property advocates would go around trying to convince people that there was a secret motive of some sort (irrelevant, even if it existed) that somehow makes the express words mean something other than what it does. 

For a discussion of the pursuit of happiness vs the pursuit of property, see  http://shorl.com/brusitofifosu

by Paul Lehto (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 46 comments) on Wednesday, July 4, 2007 at 11:06:22 PM
 

It is important to reflect on our ideals

Thank you for this thought provoking essay, Paul.  Despite Michael Green's well-founded cynicism about the origin of our ideals, or at least the facade they were given to make propaganda palatable, we are nonetheless in dire straits today.  It is beyond a Constitutional crisis and indeed has ended any realistic illusion of our status as Free People.  The frequent recurrence to principles is solid advice, even if we have to project our own idealism on top of questionable motives that produced our founding documents.  As I wrote in a piece published on this site earlier this week, it is an important exercise for each of us to perform our own Reflections On Independence, as Paul Lehto has done here.

by Dave Berman (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 45 comments) on Wednesday, July 4, 2007 at 12:36:51 PM
 

Ideals are what they are in text, question is will we use

Ideals are what they are in text, question is will  we use them.  The "motivations" of unspecified Founders are really quite irrelevant when the documents have texts to them.   Unless there is a showing that the wording is ambiguous, there's no basis in law to go beyond the text.

 But I've gone beyond the text quite a lot.  I carry numerous books around with me on Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and others.  Michael Green doesn't know what he's talking about.  Look carefully, just general allegations and no specific evidence.

Note that the fact that something was INTENDED as a gift to the world doesn't mean that everyone will understand it correctly.  Like Michael Green.  So there goes the Ho Chi Minh paragraph.  All the stuff about rich whites is misleading at best.   As explained in detail in Thom Hartmann's book What Would Jefferson Do none of the signers of the Declaration made money, none of their families today have money, many of them died, Jefferson himself was basically bankrupt at this death, Tom Paine had less than 20 people attend his funeral and he was refused a grave because of his later opinions on religious liberty. 

Because our country's founding is a rich source of inspiration for all americans and for all democracy, so it must be stopped by those who are threatened by that.  Whatever it was back then, it was amazing then and it's gotten better over history, generally speaking. 

 If others have abandoned the flag, it doesn't follow that we should abandon the flag as well. Indeed, if any were to abandon the flag of 1776, they would abandon the fount of american rights, and all political power emanates from rights. To ignore a revolutionary spirit consciously designed to liberate the entire world and for all time is to commit demo-cide. Of course, with such long term goals, the ideals set forth could not be all achieved right away, yet the Declaration of Independence has still been used as the model political document to free slaves, get women the right to vote, and for Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream speech. Those who get stuck on the faults of Founders totally miss how hard they worked to establish ideals that would pay dividends in freedom and democracy forever.

by Paul Lehto (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 46 comments) on Wednesday, July 4, 2007 at 3:24:18 PM
 

Even with fair elections, the US would still be a corrupt

monster, leading the world into a new Dark Ages of violence & "might makes right." The matter of crooked elections is just a symptom of a far deeper disease.

US elections were reasonably fair until 2000. John Kennedy may very well have "won" an election he didn't really win in 1960, but other than that, presidential elections in the 20th century were all probably awarded to the actual winner.

Yet the US, following WWII, became a corrupt monster, ruled by the malignant cancer called the "miltary industrial complex." Vietnam was the worst instance of mass murder of innocent civilians since WWII. The US overthrew scores of governments in about 60 years, either directly or indirectly. Millions were killed as these events unfolded in Indonesia, SE Asia, Iran, all through Latin America, the Congo, & in the Caribbean. Many of the targeted governments had committed no worse crime than attempting to chart an independent economic course for themselves, using their own resources -- and NONE of them had in any way threatened the American people. And all of this happened with only a small fraction of the US public even being aware of it. It had nothing whatever to do with stolen elections here in the US.

Even with Vietnam, the worst crime of the US government until now, we had duly elected presidents of both parties carrying out policies of civilian mass murder, carpet bombings of awesome tonnage, use of chemical weapons, poisoning the land & water for generations to come. Yet the US mainstream media never talked (or talks) about these atrocities as "unprovoked aggression." It is never suggested that Presidents Johnson & Nixon were war criminals who should have been put before a tribunal in the Hague.

American society is a hell of a lot sicker than just the matter of crooked elections. This is a country in which the people don't understand what their government really does in the world. In part, this is because both the media & educational systems are hopelessly corrupt, and have always been corrupt. And it's partly because the culture itself encourages mindless selfish brutishness & stupidity.

Let's not confuse symptoms & causes. The crooked elections are just a symptom.  The cause is an economic & political framework which allows a tiny percentage of the population to control policy direction for the whole country.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments) on Wednesday, July 4, 2007 at 7:49:02 PM
 

Let's presume that you are right for the sake of argument

Then we'd have a sick society, and the question is whether or not we should have a set of American ideals to appeal to and argue from to get better.  (Actually this question or need arises no matter what the diagnosis of america may be)

 No matter where we may find ourselves, personally or politically as a country, we need guide-stars (ideals) to set our direction.   Thus, I really question anybody who acts to undermine those ideals unless they actually and truly disagree with them.  Undermining the ideals would then mean that a sick society would exist and there would be no realistic appeal that could be made for a better direction. That would definitely be worse.

 Back to my true opinions, I believe in praising the good and criticizing the bad.  So I will quote politicians of any party, even if my readers find some of the them to be, er, "devils."   In that case then they are devils citing our Scriptures of Independence.  

 BOTTOM LINE:  Paragraph 2 of the declaration of INdependence is the scripture of scriptures.  Worthy anyone's study, it's even pretty short!! : )

by Paul Lehto (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 46 comments) on Wednesday, July 4, 2007 at 8:56:52 PM
 

Here is an analogy

The US is like a carpet or piece of cloth -- it has a warp and a weft. The one is idealism, democracy, mother and apple pie -- the good stuff; the other is empire, war, racism, manifest destiny -- the bad stuff. LIke the threads in cloth, they operate in parallel, but do support each other, and are intimately tied to each other. That's why we invade a country, destroy it, and slaughter a million people in the name of bringing liberty and democracy: the thoughts run completely at right angles to each other, and one doesn't crowd out or compete with the other. Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde, and neither of them ever meet.

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Wednesday, July 4, 2007 at 9:52:21 PM
 

Every war is "for peace" and for "good" all thru history

The only question is whether there will be ideals available at all to check and challenge that behavior, or whether only "foreign" challenges to the politics and policies of the US would be available and the behavior you complain of would be totally unchecked.  

From your own worldview here, the US would rapidly worsen if there wasn't even the minor civilizing force of hypocrisy to contain it.  Is that what you are pushing for?  What would you like to see happen here?  Do you believe that hypocrisy makes the ideals themselves look bad?

by Paul Lehto (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 46 comments) on Wednesday, July 4, 2007 at 10:30:19 PM
 

Name the ideal, name the violation

If you get specific with an ideal and its violation, either the hypocrisy is huge in which case  you just keep focus on the hypocrisy and the situation can't be stable at that level.  Or, the hypocrisy is minor or nonexistent in which case your analogy above doesn't hold at all.  But there is no reason for an ideal and its violation to exist longterm other than a complete failure of people such as yourself to draw attention to it, and STAY there.

Focus may be a problem.  You don't focus on the article as a whole, since you don't address elections whatsoever.  Instead you choose to attack ideals without which you'd have no basis even for your very own anti-war critique.

Where do you think American antiwar philosophy originated?  I can give you plenty of antiwar quotes from Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Paine and others.   If you cut there sources off, your ideas, from an american perspective, are just your own personal ramblings of unconnected opinion.  If not grounding in american values and history, where do you propose to ground your arguments and why do you think that is more effective than grounding arguments in american values and history?

by Paul Lehto (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 46 comments) on Wednesday, July 4, 2007 at 10:39:02 PM
 

disconnect

(I meant to say do NOT operate in parallel).

When we talk of hypocracy we generally mean it to be a moral failure rather than a cognitive deficite, but the mind -- the brain -- is configured to tolerate hypocracy and dissonance. We can do much to train ourselves away from that through studying critical thinking, decision making, meditative techniques, and other mind disciplines -- but most people don't do that. Instead they often hold two or more opposing ideas and ignore the contradictions -- which is why logical argument so often fails to convince people. People like to have things decided neatly; to know a thing with confidence, or to believe a thing.

The issue then becomes whether ideals will inform decisions and actions. Often they do not, and the arguments made are not logical because the underlying thinking lacks integrity -- does not 'come together'. Often decisions are made from emotion, or being talked into something, or from a long held belief (even if that contradicts some other belief). Thoughts tend to run to either-or, black or white, like a basketball going into the basket or not, but virtually never sitting on the rim. Once the 'decision' is made the mind tends to collect justifications and dismiss refutations.

Attacking Iraq may have been supported -- strongly supported -- originally by a belief it was a threat to security. Along with that, then, ideas of American superiority, freeing Iraqis from tyranny, and so forth are invoked to build the case and justify the decision. Even when the WMDs are not found and it becomes obvious there was no reason to attack, those supporting justification remain, and are bolstered or transformed to avoid admitting that one was fooled or mistaken. So now the argument is that even if was a mistake to invade we have to stay there because we still have to bring democracy, that NOW it IS a threat to our security if we leave (the terrorists will follow us here), and so forth. Those who engineered the war and propaganda understand this, and feed the people those things they want to hear, or need to hear for the occupation to continue to be acceptable.

That's the problem with ideals: they may exist and yet not be applied, or be applied in a distoted way.  And the psychological urge to 'stay on course' is strong. Once someone is invested in a pyramid scheme, for instance, they resist seeing the truth far more vigorously than if they thought about it going in in the first place. In actuallity, the ideals (bring democracy to the world) may be one of the strongest forces for driving the nation into war. There is a quote somewhere -- something like 'if someone came to me determined to do everything they could to help, I would do my best to leave town'.

It isn't that hypocracy makes ideals look bad, but that they can easily become too much of a good thing. Ideals canbe dangerous -- that's why ideologues are dangerous -- that's why the PNACers did so much damage: trying to impose their ideals of glorious empire on the world ---- yes there was also greed involved, but thier 'New American Century' is very appealing to the idealogue. Very similar to the Crusades when (grabbing land aside, for the moment) they were going to convert everyone into good Christians -- and we the same force from the Muslim extremists, the zionist's quest for the promised land, the great vision of the communists, the Thousand Year Reich, the Pax Romana -- all driven by idealism overlaid onto the baser desires.

Consider (what you said) "Thus, it is the government's #1 job to secure you your inalienable rights, to guarantee them and make them real.", and right there you should find a major flaw. There is truth in that -- but there is also the undercurrent of the government being powerful enough to assign and arrange rights, and 'take care of' people instead the people arranging and taking care of government -- which should be synonomous with the people. It is the really the people's job to secure their own rights, with the government not a cause but a product of the people's actions and decisions. You see how the disconect creeps in? How the focus is shifted to the goal and the process is forgotten?

There are many questions here -- whether ideals exist is not the only one at all. Another question is what else exists? What is the totality of the system?

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Thursday, July 5, 2007 at 1:18:21 AM
 

Responding to BluePilgrim's interesting points here

Blue Pilgrim wrote that there is a danger with ideologues.  That's true, but it is far more dangerous to have one's basic rights not recognized or treated as somehow dangerous to apply because they may be misinterpreted.  Yes, free speech could be misconstrued by the Supreme Court but far more dangerous is the notion that all ideals/rights are dangerous or problematic.

The Founders already set up the basic notion that we are born with our rights, they are not granted to us by government.  Thus when BluePilgrim bemoans a government powerful enough to "assign" rights he is agreeing with the Founders, not realizing that the Founders attempted to and did provide ideals and rights to protect against that, and yet using that basic revolution in the philosophy of rights AGAINST those very same Founders.

Rights are a very special class of Ideals, so much so that we should probably separate the two because rights carry mandatory obligations on the part of others to respect them.  This is the very special class of ideals we are talking about.  A pure ideal would be civility, but note that when the ideal of civility clashes with the right of free speech, free speech prevails and we do have a first amendment right to be obnoxious, or rather the government may not prohibit obnoxious communications (at least the first time, not repeated for harassment) consistent with the First Amendment.

As Blue Pilgrim sees it, ideals can be dangerous because of ideologues.  But the only protection against the government short of force we don't want to use is RIGHTS (a form of ideals).  Thus, the whole notion of equivocation or confusion or mixed messages regarding rights is extraordinarily destructive and dangerous to your own personal protection and your country's health. 

Sure, rights can be misconstrued, but you are literally infinitely worse off with no conceptions of rights at all - since then what can be done TO you by the government or somebody else is unlimited by anything except your own ability to use force in self-defense.  Is this what you want?  Or would you rather embrace rights with their risks of being misinterpreted by ideologues?

by Paul Lehto (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 46 comments) on Thursday, July 5, 2007 at 1:27:57 PM