4th of July

Well, it's the 4th of July, an important holiday in my country. Today we celebrate the declaration of independence from the old British empire; an event which, among other things, intensified the armed conflict between the two parties. It is often customary as well to remember military veterans on this day, thanking them for their service and sacrifice for the sake of the country and its people. There are lots of parades and ceremonies, and barbecue and beer are had by many (though not all, since vegetarian and sobriety are growing in popularity seemingly). For all intents and purposes, the holiday is a popular one so far as I can tell.

Of late, a small but interesting debate has emerged among politicians and writers in this country. The debate in recent times has centered around prospective republican candidate and congresswoman Michele Bachmann's remarks regarding John Quincy Adams and his opinions on slavery. Several writers have come out against Mrs. Bachmann's words, seeking to give her a "history lesson" or two about what such-and-such said about this-and-that. I'm not especially interested in debating the finer points of the history put forward by these writers or Mrs. Bachmann; these sorts of debates are not new. What interests me most is perhaps the way that American history has been used more recently to push ideological programs.

A fairly recent phenomenon in the American electoral scheme is the emergence of a conservative organization known collectively as the "Tea-Party Patriots." Their name, so far as I can tell, is derived from the famous "Boston Tea-Party," where on 16 December, 1773, locals dressed as native americans boarded three tea-laden ships in Boston harbor, dumping the tea into the water in protest against a new British tax on the stuff. As might be imagined, the Tea-Party Patriots of today disagree with most taxes, oppose "large government," and believe that their views most honestly reflect the original intentions of the so-called "Founding  Fathers" of the country. Whatever else might be said of them as a group (always a dangerous move), they can and have proved a divisive bunch, disagreeing with main-stream democrats and republicans alike. Michele Bachmann, the congresswoman mentioned above, is a supporter of the group, and chief organizer of the "Tea-Party Caucus" in congress.

Again, it is dangerous, if sometimes helpful, to classify members of groups together. Nevertheless, there would seem to be a worrying under-current to the types of historical aguments made by such conservative groups as the Tea-Party Patriots. As many will no doubt have noticed, the recession of 2008 produced an unemployment situation in the United States that has stubbornly refused to mend under the best efforts of those seeking to remedy it. The failure to produce substantial growth and reduce unemployment, coupled with the sovereign-debt crises in Europe, have likely helped make deficit-reduction a major topic of the time.

Which is where Tea-Party Patriots of other conservatives come in. Many of their views, generalized perhaps unfairly, suggest that a govenment, especially a Federal government, should be limited in the extent to which its powers transgress on the lives of its citizens. Nothing new there really, as folk have been arguing this point in various forms as far back as the country has existed. In short, government mandates, taxes, and spending allocation are but some of the things which some conservative types tend to oppose or closely monitor. I've known folk to argue themselves hoarse that a proper reading of American history suggests that the founding principles of the country vehemently oppose excessive taxation, regulation, government mandate, and overly-ambitious foreign policy. At its core, government should be small, thrify, and most of the time, well out of the way.

Yet I worry. Not because politicians and writers are using and abusing history for their own ends, though it is rather sad, but they've been at it awhile and there seems no stopping them now. No, what I worry more about is that people who seem responsible and intelligent would choose to embrace a simple, semi-mythical interpretation of our country's founders in light of all the nonsense that we see and expect of public figures today.

Not to be overly hostile, but can we really expect that the congress we have today is, on the whole, that much different from the first congress that met 200+ years ago? The few primary sources of the Constitutional Convention that I've read all suggest that delegates of that period had just as much venom at their disposal, and were just as willing to heave verbal-rubbish at one another as has proven true today. Those folks were often interesting people, and some of them sure had a way with words, but that shouldn't prevent us from questioning their ideas, their values, and their behavior, so far as we know it. They were, in short, no more perfect or flawed than you and I.

But this is not a new idea either. In fact, it's as old as the country itself, and most certainly older than that even. As made famous by Jefferson and Martin Luther King Jr., "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."It's hard sometimes, but we should remember that even our heroes are human, and for all their great accomplishments, we cannot afford to ignore the lesser angels of their nature. For we may find that a scoundrel teaches us more about ourselves than the perfectly upright; that a man or woman who acts poorly may be a more useful instructor than he or she who never falters.  

One thing that I have come to dislike during 4th of July celebrations is the occasional declaration that America is the greatest country on Earth. I use to think that was true, but I don't any longer. It's not a bad country to my mind, though some believe that. I actually think it's a pretty good country, where you can lead a good life (whatever that means to you) if you choose, and can usually find peace of mind if you look hard enough. Yet with travel, time, and study I've found that to be true all over the world, though perhaps not everywhere. Someday perhaps, that will be true. Point is, we the people of the United States have to be careful not to over-esteem nor under-esteem those figures who have done much to bring our history up to the present. It's harder that way, but perhaps such an understanding would more accurately capture the essence of that defining founding idea, that all men (and women) are in fact created equal.

Happy 4th, kind readers :).