The Progressive Ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution

Have you ever read the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution? It goes like this:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I find it odd that so many Tea Party activists refer to the Constitution and Founding Fathers in their issues around big government when the very first part of the document they crafted refers to things like "more perfect Union", "common defence", and "general Welfare".

E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post must have had the same thought rattling around in his head because he penned an excellent column about the progressive ideals of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence:

"In the long list of “abuses and usurpations” the Declaration documents, taxes don’t come up until the 17th item, and that item is neither a complaint about tax rates nor an objection to the idea of taxation. Our Founders remonstrated against the British crown “for imposing taxes on us without our consent.” They were concerned about “consent,” i.e. popular rule, not taxes.

The very first item on their list condemned the king because he “refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” Note that the signers wanted to pass laws, not repeal them, and they began by speaking of “the public good,” not about individuals or “the private sector.” They knew that it takes public action — including effective and responsive government — to secure “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Their second grievance reinforced the first, accusing the king of having “forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance.” Again, our forebears wanted to enact laws; they were not anti-government zealots.

Abuses three through nine also referred in some way to how laws were passed or justice was administered. The document doesn’t really get to anything that looks like Big Government oppression (“He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance”) until grievance No. 10."

Of course, keep in mind the Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson, hardly the staunch advocate for a big central government.

Happy Belated 100th Birthday Hubert H. Humphrey!

Excellent op-ed piece in the New York Times on Thursday on the 100th anniversary of the birth of Hubert Humphrey:

"His Balanced Growth and Economic Planning Act, introduced in May 1975, when unemployment was at a post-Depression high of 9 percent, proposed a sort of domestic World Bank to route capital to job creators. (It spoke to his conviction, in a knee-jerk, anti-corporate age, that pro-labor and pro-business policies were complementary.)

And at a time when other liberals were besotted with affirmative action as a strategy to undo the cruel injustices of American history, Humphrey pointed out that race-based remedies could only prove divisive when good jobs were disappearing for everyone. Liberal policy, he said, must stress "common denominators - mutual needs, mutual wants, common hopes, the same fears."

In 1976 he joined Representative Augustus Hawkins, a Democrat from the Watts section of Los Angeles, to introduce a bill requiring the government, especially the Federal Reserve, to keep unemployment below 3 percent - and if that failed, to provide emergency government jobs to the unemployed.

It sounds heretical now. But this newspaper endorsed it then, while 70 percent of Americans believed the government should offer jobs to everyone who wanted one."

The op-ed piece also talks about how we revered Ronald Reagan on the anniversary of his 100th birthday but forgot about Humphrey for his. Of course, Reagan being a former president had a lot to do with it. It also got me thinking though: many of today's conservatives hold up Reagan as an icon even though he provided amnesty to illegal immigrants and raised taxes during his presidency.

If Humphrey was held by progressives in the same regard, would his positions that are contrary to modern progressive views also be overlooked? The skeptic in me thinks that is likely so.