Whenever conservatives get caught with their hands in the till they shout, “Class Warfare!” at those of us who would like to stop their looting. Thinking this a negative, they forget, I guess, that the American democratic experiment was and is just that: a class war.
It has always been about equality vs. aristocracy. It was in the beginning, is now, and will always be. No one has described the class war and the American spirit of equality as well as Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Gordon S. Wood. He recognized equality as America’s home-grown radical philosophy.
Wood wrote:
As early as the 1780s the principal antagonists in the society were no longer patriots vs. courtiers but had become democrats v. aristocrats.
Today’s political and cultural antagonists – progressives vs. conservatives, OWS versus Wall Street – are engaged in the very same battle. It’s muddied up a bit by the agitations of a populist Right, people charmed by hierarchy and the aristocracy’s slight-of-hand into believing their real enemies were those beside them and not the Machiavels above them. But propaganda’s tissue-thin; the reality it presumes to wrap is always visible beneath it – for those who look.
By any measure – political power, income distribution, educational opportunity, access to health care – it’s frighteningly clear that aristocratic anti-egalitarians have been winning. As the suffering caused by their anti-democratic movement becomes more widespread and widely seen, however, they grow ever more nervous. It’s not Wall Street we occupy so much as the fevered nightmares of an embattled elite. They wave their wands still, but the magic deserts them.
We have sometimes lost track of the egalitarian origins of American democracy, persuaded by the myth (bolstered by the Framers’ failures on slavery and universal suffrage) that “the American revolution was sober and conservative while the French Revolution was chaotic and radical,” as Wood notes. He continues:
But only if we measure radicalism by violence and bloodshed can the myth be sustained; by any other measure the American Revolution was radical – and most of the Federalists knew it.
And the most radical thing about it was the empathy-based recognition of our common humanity. Its shapers recognized that humans really are created equal. They sought to build our cultural, political and economic environments in ways that recognize that equality and provide opportunity for all to live free and flourish.
Today’s aristocratic conservative movement wants to rewrite that history and have us believe America’s was a Dog-Eat-Dog Constitution. Theirs has always been a “look-over-there” strategy as the aristocrats point to foreign immigrants, or former slaves, or communists, or socialists, or street thugs, or Hollywood, or whatever. Then, when we turn to see where they’re pointing, they pick our pockets.
The OWS movement (and other new initiatives like Cenk Uygur’s Wolf Pac or the We the People movement) are just the latest to take up an American battle that began in the late 18th Century. Conservative pundits can hurl accusations of “class warfare” all they want. It may be the only true thing they’ve argued in years.
As I noted, nobody gets this history better than Wood. Everyone engaged in today’s battles should read the chapter “Equality” in his book, The Radicalism of the American Revolution. Here are some additional quotes from the book. They can help counter the Right’s efforts to somehow make equality, the very soul of American democracy, seem un-American.
Nothing contributed more to this [democratic] explosion of energy than did the idea of equality. Equality was in fact the most radical and most powerful ideological force let loose in the Revolution.
[Equality] became what Herman Melville called ‘the great God absolute! The centre and circumference of all democracy!’
Indeed, if equality had meant only equality of opportunity or a rough equality of property-holding, it could never have become, as it has, the single most powerful and radical ideological force in all of American history. Equality became so potent for Americans because it came to mean that everyone was really the same as everyone else, not just at birth, not in talent or property or wealth, and not just in some transcendental religious sense of equality of all souls. Ordinary Americans came to believe that no one in a basic down-to-earth and day-in-and-day-out manner was really better than anyone else. That was equality as no other nation has ever quite had it.
It was this commonality that linked people together in natural affection and made it possible for them to share each other’s feelings. There was something in each human being – some sort of moral sense or sympathetic instinct – that made possible natural compassion and affection and that bound everyone together in a common humanity.



101 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Great article Glenn. I just happened to finish a book called “Muse of a Revolution” the account written by Mercy Otis Warren. It seems the fear of tyranny was prevalent in here mind as well. Nothing ever seems to change.
x2
Right you are. It’s the same battles all of the time. I don’t know why people make-believe some mythical time in America’s past where things were different. They weren’t, and they likely never will be. If you take it to its farthest conclusion, it’s what makes anarchists, as IOZ says in response to Glenn’s new book:
Shrinking government is class warfare
Lowering taxes is class warfare
Cutting entitlements is class warfare
Making the poor fight useless wars is class warfare
The R’s whole approach is class warfare.
To paraphrase Zinn, revolutionary war was all about RWM on this side of the pond taking over from RWM on other side of the pond. These guys did it by convincing 1/3 of pop that they would have greater rights & freedumb, while keeping most of the power by allowing only RMSs (aka property owners) to vote & giving RRWM slaveowners double or triple their share of the vote.
Also U.S. rev war prolly created the proportionately largest refugee pop in recorded history (well except for the Amerindians, of course), 1/3 of pop, loyalists who had to get out.
Nicely done.
I would offer this critique for readers from Philip Agre.
http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html
“From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives.
The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use “social issues” as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.”
Hold no illusions, Conservatives want an Aristocracy of lords and peasants.
Whatever the motivations of the revolutionary leaders might have been, they loosed something new in the world, the understanding of our common humanity and the political equality that understanding led the public to seek. We don’t have to argue about the Framers’ failings. The bigger truth, I think, is that a spirit escaped that has enlivened progressive emancipatory movements ever since.
my ire is for the DIM-0-CRAP$ who can’t beat fascist liars –
WTF are these liars gonna do? Tell the truth so they can’t rip us all off anymore? They must lie, they have to lie – and they do lie.
what about the hundreds of millions of dollars EVERY year that go to the Dim-0-crap party so that the current crop of phake ass “leaders” can whine about mean meanies being mean – unless they’re just selling us out.
good points you make – and remind me why I’ll be writing in “Medicare ForALL” in 2012 for ALL statewide and federal offices.
rmm.
Reasonable people might disagree. Don’t see that U.S. empire is any better than those of the past.
Thanks for this, Glenn. I’m always making things too difficult, confusing myself, by trying to parse the origins of the American political mind. Confusing myself, that is, over the apparent conflict between French social contract/common good origins, and English natural right/individual liberty strains. Yet, at base, opposing the historical, financial or military hierarchy’s control of the instrument of government to oppress cuts to the more fundamental core.
Nothing wrong with a reasonable version of the American dream I guess, as far as it goes, except that it has been turned into the American fairy tale and nightmare by generations of oligarchs (and their intellectual lackeys) who have used it as a mind bending cudgel to confuse and manipulate the rest.
As for laissez faire capitalism, that poisonous piece of propaganda should be consigned to the bin of history’s greatest hoaxes.
Lest we forget, not only did the Constitution of 1787 defend property in general against the political machinations of common Americans, it also defended the property specific to the Southern slave economy. This defense precipitated a Civil War and its aftermath. We live today with the political compromise of 1787 encapsulated in constitutional law. It was not until the mid-1960s that the United States became wholly democratic. The Republican Party, ironically, wants to reverse that achievement by renewing Jim Crow under a new name. The Republican and Tea Party responses to Barack Obama speak for themselves.
A nice article. Thanks!
But I’m not certain where the disagreement is, really. That there is, among the American people (not exclusively or exceptionally, of course), a spirit of liberation that lives on? That it might have grown in a particular historical context?
I am genuinely curious, here.
You still believe that with the current assault of the PTB to dismantle all the meager benefits the 99ers have scratched out over time? Do Iraq and Afghan warz, bombing of Libya not convince you of completely rapacious U.S. leadership, a power they use at every possible opportunity, to kill anyone & everyone they wish, including U.S. child without any hint of process of law & be proud of it? Hard for me to see how much worse it could be.
WRT OWS, I hope for the best, but am withholding judgement to see if/when big troops will be called out. Posse comitatus has been dead letter law from the day it was passed.
I was so impressed with the way Jeffrey Sachs expressed the underlying concerns of the 99% and with the way he stood up to Niall Ferguson during the debate on the Occupy protests and on economics generally this morning on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS that I’m going to pick up a copy of Jeffrey Sachs’s The Price of Civilization: Reawakening American Virtue and Prosperity (2011).
What if they say that they’ll never surrender? Even liberal progressives like Jean Quan have given their answer. #OWS has tested the mettle and allegiance of political leaders and they’ve all failed.
Sachs is a good guy but way off base on how to stimulate the economy out of the recession, IMO.
Whenever conservatives get caught with their hands in the till they shout, “Class Warfare!”
Isn’t that what happened a little over 2000 years ago, (and many time since, but not to the same extent) but, by the Pharisees and Some Others, to You Know Who.
If we had more economists like Sachs and fewer like Ferguson, perhaps we wouldn’t be in this recession created by the very a$$holes Ferguson is defending.
My hope may have it’s blind spots. Only perfect knowledge could eliminate them, and that is most decidedly not available. But I don’t think my hope is blind or unrealistic.
Yep.
Sure like your writing Mr. Smith and right on about it’s always been class war . . . that dramatic theme goes back to the first villages co opted by shamans . . . indeed.
I think Zinn doesn’t give enough credit to the language of the Declaration of Independence. That document defines the American character and provides a basis for the growth of the American persona in a way that the Constitution does not even begin to approach.
Garry Wills’ book Lincoln at Gettysburg is a clear demonstration of the centrality of the Declaration of Independence.
One way to read Zinn is to see it as the massive extended efforts of ordinary Americans to bring equality into play, in the face of the armed might of the American Oligarchy, and the rocky road to partial success and unending struggle that it implies.
Ferguson is a self-described imperialistic, colonial aristocrat. How in the world CNN thinks he is anything but a throwback…oh wait, they want a throwback. In any case, Ferguson is a dangerous fool.
Well said masaccio. Thank you.
Agree. Ferguson is a first-class fraud.
Sachs jumps around from one issue to another, just ahead of the sheriff as they used to say, hoping he’ll finally find one where he’ll end up on the right side of history. Given his history in Russia, I doubt that he’ll ever figure out what the ‘right’ side is. But hey, his embarrassment quotient is zero, so what does he care.
That’s a diary right there in and of itself.
Well done, n thanks.
Great writing n historical perspectives.
You give Ferguson too much credit.
The empire is not any different, agreed.
However, I’d back Mr. Smith agreeing that there IS some modicum of spirit that was unleashed and still exists in we the people that transcends all but the magna carta in historical scope.
Sadly, that spirit is crushed daily, and has been crushed daily, since it was released long ago in our founding.
But it trudges on, somehow, as we all do . . . win or lose, up or down, it remains like a lighthouse, like the lantern of Diogenes.
;-)
As a member of the Fourth Estate, I can say you would be surprised at how ordinary in ability are members of the ruling class and their aristocratic masters.
Well crafted and true that, nice.
Thanks.
Thank you, very instructive article. I think that many of us are only beginning to realize that not only do we live in a class war, but that the fix is in:
From “The Class War Has Already Begun,” by Frank Rich: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/10/30-4
“Everyone just assumes the fix is in for the highest bidder, no matter what. Take—please!—the latest bipartisan Beltway panacea: the congressional supercommittee charged by the president and GOP leaders to hammer out the deficit-reduction compromise they couldn’t do on their own. The Washington Post recently discovered that nearly 100 of the registered lobbyists no doubt charged with besieging the committee to protect the interests of the financial, defense, and health-care industries are former employees of its dozen members. Indeed, six of those members (three from each party) currently have former lobbyists on their staffs.”
There has always been a spirit of the 99ers to resist. Think that is not unique to U.S.
I saw this also and agree. I was going to post on it also. He was brilliant. We could do well to preserve it and take our talking points from him.
AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Glenn W. Smith:
Great post, thanks Brother Glenn…and I would remind you that all through the course of what we have called western “civilization” and especially into the American “enlightenment” democracy has been seen as revolutionary. The court historians of American politics and social experiance have always poo-pooed the idea of the American revolution as being a revolution at all and have argued at the intellectual level that democracy does not guarantee social or economic equality and certainly not political equality. These arguments have succeeded to the extent that even left thinking folks have denied the truely revolutionary nature of the simple concept of democracy.
There can not be a successful revolution without a commitment of the mass of people to the idea of democratic relationships of economic power and the concept of economic justice…if you want an example of the truth of this just watch what happens in Ohio and Wisconsin in the next 6 motnhs. This does not mean that true revolutionary change will be achieved without violence but the violence of the opressor in maintaining power will eventually turn on itself as the 99% join shoulder to shoulder against the illusory power of capital. It has begun and nothing can stop it.
Thanks again citizen Smith…the struggle is all we have.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, THERE IS NO COMPROMISING WITH FACSISM!!
Great read and comments, gotta get out and get errands done . . . best to all FireBaggers everywhere. Thanks for the dialogues every day and night.
Agree.
As a former Wall Streeter, who attended standing weekly ‘risk’ committee meeting with Brady Dougan, now head of Credit Suisse, then head of Equities at CS First Boston (plus many other interactions with Wall St executives), it’s my experience that the only skill of executives is self-promotion. How Brady Dougan did it is a mystery to me, since he had the personality of mashed potatoes.
And hiring folks smarter than themselves and incentivizing them to “innovate” to screw their clients even more.
Of course, that could be covered under “self-promotion.”
It was a great debate and Jeffery out that ass Ferguson in his place..
BTW Glenn great Post and very thought provoking that not much has really changed the MOTU are still trying to walk back the benefits that the 99% have earned… And they are still trying to sell the illusion that by taxing them less the Economy will raise the boats of all of us. But the last forty years disproves way beyond any doubt when they have garnered 275% increases in wealth while the rest of us have been sliding backwards!!!!
This is why I love this blog and in particular Glenn’s Sundays which always seem to bring out commentary such as yours.
This is think is the seminal force driving and sustaining conservatism:
As a resident of the old Confederacy I have seen it as the glue that held it together and still today. I have been curious how and amazed at how well it works, whether from the mouth of Eugene Talmadge saying “I am the best friend you (n word) ever had.” to the immense success Rush Limbaugh has had in seducing his listeners to identify with, believe in, and vote with the wealth and privilege of the 1%. It is I think an aspect of a primitive and deeply embedded meme.
Troops were definitely intelligent & hard working.
. . . yet they wake up each morning (relatively), put their pants on one leg at a time, and think they are fit to make decisions for the whole world.
Agree.
Perhaps, the essay should have been accompanied by an illustration of the
Declaration of Independence as opposed to the Constituion.
The Constitution was not revolutionary document. It was designed to protect the central government from the vissitudes posed by democracy.
Here is one of Sachs quotes from 2010:
Link
This is wrong on so many levels … just sayin’
#OWS is a slave revolt and like all slave revolts it has to be crushed. The rich are like a pile of cats sitting around these mice revolts just waiting to pounce. The shit will hit the fan soon enough. My guess is they’ll cook up some kind of terrorist plot coming out of an Occupy site and use it as an excuse for the State Security thugs to send in the klowns to finish this off.
No way I am going to accept “equality” with that bunch. This is what is good taste for the 1% that Nieman Marcus caters to. Is there a word beyond vulger”
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/29/out_of_touch_the_cluelessness_of_the_1_percent/slide_show/
Norske,
I tentatively may be able to visit Occupy Madison. Any good links for information about those efforts?
As succinctly as practical, can you enlighten us as to what is wrong and or what better solutions there are? I am a novice but Sachs ideas sound rational.
Agree. Hard to imagine fuzzier thinking.
Gadfly was the word I was looking for wrt to Sachs in my earlier comment.
That’s just plain wrong, for starters.
U.S. has trillions for making war in every corner of the globe on an endless basis but can’t find more than $800 billion for one domestic stim? Doesn’t pass the giggle test.
Sure. The statement implies that:
–short term stimulus in this recession is not advisable
–a balanced budget is to be sought after, and
–fiscal policy should be driven by the deficit.
Wrong on three counts.
That’s a good guess. I would not bet against it. A gubmint staged fake terra plot within OWS could take it down by force.
The gubmint has a history of using false flag incidents with fervor.
See Iraq, Gulf of Tonkin, I/P conflicts, etc
I emailed Sachs several times about his appearance on Morning Joke. Some of his appearances were to be highly commended — e.g., arguing against that jackass, Scarborough, and his bar fly, Mika.
But some were off the rails.
Thanks. I have questioned this obsession with shrinking government spending as a must for dealing with the deficit, except in the case of war. This does indeed seem the height of hypocrisy. But I did let it pass without thought, probably because I am a victim of hearing the lies so often. Also “balancing” every increase in taxes with cuts in spending seems even crazier.
General comment on Fareed and the whole CNN bunch: They seem to be doing all they can to tastefully slam democracy in favor of the business model of the 1%.
Thanks. See my#55.
It is so strange that the model for an entire economy has been built on leverage down to the “supply side” enticing uninformed (and what ordinary person isn’t?) working people to borrow to buy. Then become obsessed with government deficits.
Your point 3 really sums it up. It is currently driving policy.
Democracy and Capitalism may be the best alternatives for arranging the political and economic affairs of mankind, but both contain the seeds of their own destruction — particularly, in combination.
Was it Groucho who said something similar?
The founders created a union of sovereign states. They were all long dead by the time Lincoln removed the sovereign part. The constitution ended and the empire began at Appomattox. Class warfare predates them both.
fw,
According to Wikipedia,
“The Estates of the realm were the broad social orders of the hierarchically conceived society, recognized in the Middle Ages and Early Modern period in Christian Europe; they are sometimes distinguished as the three estates: the clergy, the nobility, and commoners…
I’d like to rename the Oligarchy, the ruling class and the peasants.
Uncle Groucho had a lot right. :-) But we seem to be taking the model of Joh Fredersen in Metropolis: As described by Maria.
Reasonable people can also disagree about when the empire began. There is an argument to be made it began when the Pilgrims, god’s chosen people, landed in MA. There is another argument to be made that it was when the colonists invaded Canada early in the rev war bc they couldn’t have any loyalists on any land border with the U.S.
But I take your point. Lincoln certainly couldn’t brook any disobedience on the part of the pieces, and certainly would never tolerate any breakup of the empire on his watch.
O God, I can’t bring myself to look…Can you describe a bit? ;)
I am interested to learn more about China before the commercial invasion by the West. It covered half a world in land area and was comprised of lots of diverse governing units with a more or less central authority. The prevailing ideologies/theologies were more humanist and bureaucratic than any thing else. No strong “jealous god.” etc. I am now reading a general text in anthropology. Any good references?
Nieman Marcus (aka Needless Markup) has never been known for good taste. Take your worst imagination & multiply by 10 (or 100, or 1000; I’m no judge of the multiplier here).
On my first look I thought it was a photo of Kadaffi’s traveling tent with accouterments. If you are looking for a nice bra check this out.
I’ve done a little reading on Chinese history, but am no expert.
My short version is that Confucianism is highly hierarchical, starting with the family unit & extending all the way uphill to the emperor.
Can’t speak to humanist aspects, but I doubt that it was more so than any other empire. Eunuchs and bound feet come immediately to mind, and also the general nostrum that absolute power (emperor) corrupts absolutely.
Hierarchy does seem deeply embedded in the Chinese psyche. I once read that is why Chinese in general are so proud of Mao, bc he reunited Chinese empire under Chinese leader.
Those more expert feel free to correct me or jump all over what I’ve typed.
I risked it….How could I have forgotten about the “Christmas Catalogue”? Thanks for the reminder. So much we do not need….One year they did gifts for the 12 days of Chrismas…a bit more pricey than the original….
Thanks eCah. I have much to learn. I was struck that the Chinese had not seen fit to do a lot of invading of other countries and managed to get by without a national religion, by most definitions. Yes my understanding of Confucious includes the focus 1. on the family unit as an organizing model, 2. the imperative of everyone to serve the needs of community and 3. restoration of the principles of Daoism, (or its precedents), which is a focus on nature and relationship with all life.
I tend to think in my own mind of Daosim as humanistic. But I am more of a novice in that area as economics. :-)
I also seem to recall Confucious eschewed the wishes of his followers to elevate his position.
Back when I had money to spend on baubles I received their Christmas catalogs and found them mostly wonderful, even the outrageous articles. These I would not decorate a brothel with.
The Chinese had a system of bureaucratic examinations that were used to select people to run the govt. Went vary far back in history. According to what I’ve read, that is what western scholars attribute the success of the central state in holding the diverse parts together, i.e., qualified bureaucrats. I have no idea how the Chinese write their own history, more’s the pity.
There is quite a bit of ethnic diversity but Han constitute a very large supermajority, which may also make it easier to hold the whole together.
Thanks…I think I have a similar take…There would be the sort of outrageous his-her gifts….Thanks for the reminder. I have not seen one in years…what a memory. Surprised I had really forgotten…weird.
Most of those trillions were spent in the flush past for the inventories being depleted in the present, no?
Not at all. In fact, quite the contrary. They are just the ongoing costs. DoD does not include depreciation in costs. So U.S. defense spending will have to be increased even more in the future to replace all the equipment worn out in the warz. And it does not include costs of lifetime medical care for all the severely injured vets. Nor interest on the debt that the warz are responsible for.
Thanks you all. Enjoyed it.
Glenn sorry if I got us off track some but it’s a lazy afternoon good for free associating.
Boy am I late to the party today.
The Constitution tells you in the preamble who it was made for – all of us. Any authority is confers originates with each of us. Those who read certain unprincipled exceptions to this basic idea broadly are bending the text beyond recognition. And the Civil War Amendments eliminated most of those exceptions (the other Framers, who rarely get the same sort of reverence.)
Glenn, I wonder if you have had a chance to read any Corey Robin? His dissection of conservatism, along with his insistence that there is no such thing as false consciousness, has provided me with a great deal to chew on. I am very much looking forward to reading the book.
14th amendment (property clause) has been used much more often to defend corp personhood than for any equal rights for humans.
That a tool has been abused tells us nothing about its intended purpose. But the due process clause has been used for good and ill throughout history – and I am not sure *much more often* is accurate. Since 1937 it has more often been used to protect people. (More recent forays into protecting corporations have had other sources, like the First Amendment).
I am ready to move on from the “occupation” as a fundamental, even though I believe it and went to jail to stand for it.
I am not sure it is worth dying in the streets to illustrate to our own citizens what our country stands for (war/occupation) all over the planet.
I am ready to move into libraries, schools, churches, and community centers where we can hold General Assemblies and bring more people along, from places where they are more comfortable to participate.
Couldn’t disagree more. Think that how it’s actually used sez all you need to know. Can’t remember the source, but it was prolly Zinn.
Like it or not corporations have always existed as the equivalent of ‘persons’, it’s intrinsic in the name, and the legal rights and powers always resembled or equated with ‘humans’. (Oddly enough, our word ‘person’ derives from the concept of a character or ‘persona’, a mask, or a player who plays a part.)
“If we had more economists like Sachs…”
http://www.naomiklein.org/meet-naomi/interviews/red-pepper
So, Sachs is not quite the gadfly I characterized him as. Much more consistent in shock doctrine than I had realized bc after Russia he was dead to me. Yet another miserable excuse for a human.
Always since when?
We find a lot of that among liberals. It is our Achilles heel.
I disagree. The right gains strength from distorting the Constitution (among others things.) To concede it to them to to give them a tool. I do not see any value in doing that.
After what I heard from Sachs this morning, I’m willing to take a look at his more recent The Price of Civilization: Reawakening American Virtue and Prosperity (2011).
In light of Obama, a lot of people have had to rethink positions they held during Clinton and Bush.
This morning, he expressed the point of the Occupy movement perfectly.
Thank you, Glenn, for yet another thoughtful piece. I enjoy probing the history of various political and moral theories as much as anyone, it’s good intellectual exercise. And I agree that it is the spirit of the Declaration of Independence that carries the essence of the American mythology and ideals. But I also think that tradition and precedent have their place, and their place is always rightfully to be maintained as somewhere behind “What makes sense now?” Modern Americans have, throughout their entire lives, been relentlessly fed a mythology based on individual freedom and equality, and the rule of law. They have been induced to believe in and act in reliance on that mythology. IMO, the legal concept of promissory estoppel is applicable now to insist that the implied and explicit promises must be honored. Period. End of story. That’s as moral and pragmatically sensible a position as any other that could be articulated.
The interview that lindaj cited was from 2007, four years ago, before it was obvious to most Americans just how badly the political and economic elite screwed us all. A lot of people have woken up since then.
I think it has nothing to do with giving anyone tools but to acknowledge what is rather than live in denial.
White Man’s Burden.
U.S. is chosen people & knows better than anyone else how they should live their lives.
After all, U.S. does so well at home that they hate us for our freedumbs.
I don’t know exactly, so I’ll guess ever since they were devised as such (to correspond to so-called natural persons) and named ‘corporation’ (1600′s or so).
Skipping ahead in the philosophical exercise, I doubt that a court would listen to the argument that a corporation shouldn’t be allowed to enter a legal contract until it’s 18 years old. But a good lawyer ought to be able to argue that, if corporations are equivalent to natural persons under the law; and since the law prohibits any (natural) person from owning another (natural) person; no corporation may own another corporation.
(Corps aren’t evil or the problem; that they can buy and sell other corps is the infernal horror. Such a peculiar institution!)
Best one liner on corps: When TX executes one, I’ll believe they are persons.
Amended to, “When Texas executes an innocent one . . .”
Is there a diff? Does TX care?
Overrated & silly.
http://law.onecle.com/texas/business-corporation/7.01.00.html
Well, thanks, that gave me the best laugh I’ve had all month. When is the last time you, or anyone else, heard of such dissolution power being enforced?
Texas does not care. Running up the score is all that matters to Texas.
bull. the plantation owners wanted to invade cuba and make it a slave state. they also drove western expansion into the louisiana territory in order to expand slaveries influence and dominance over the American legislature.
Also if you paulites really hated the fed, and the banking cartel you would bring back lincolns greenbacks, not the gold standard, which is what the revolutionary war was fought over.
it was the compromise we made with slavery that ruined our revolution, and fueled imperialism, not lincoln or the new deal.
the last comment was directed at workingclass comment 58
World without end. Amen.
The people that wrote the Constitution were not the same people that wrote the Declaration of Independence. And the purpose of the Constitution was to (hopefully) establish a workable system of government, not posit a rationale for political self-determination. The Declaration stands alone, with no need of amendment nor emendment. The Constitution, on the other hand, from its formation to the present day, is an interpretive work-in-progress. If I might close with a premptive rebuttal to those who might presume an application of ‘original intent’ to such interpretation; what faction’s ‘original intent’ in the Constitution’s drafting should take precedence? The document was founded in compromise, not clarity.