It was on July 4, 1776 that representatives of the people of every colony unanimously announced themselves as member states that would form a new nation. Before there was a constitution or a president, there was our Declaration of Independence.
In just one eloquent sentence that declaration laid the philosophical foundation for the United States of America, its Constitution, laws and traditions. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” That sentence provides glimpses of the shining city on the hill that Americans aspire to build. As each generation adds to the city, there are debates and battles over laws, the role of government and our vision for the future.
Some see the “culture war” under way in our nation as a sign of failure. Although it’s often unpleasant and sometimes violent, I think of it as a sign of fitful progress, not failure. In the midst of our generation’s troubles and controversies some Americans look back, wishing and praying for the return of times when people lived by mutually agreed values and religious beliefs. But that Utopian time never existed. Self-rule (government by and for the people) has always been a messy and troublesome process. The ideal expressed in the Declaration is an opportunity for every American to “pursue happiness” in her or his own way with minimal interference from others or from government. But before the ink dried on the document Americans were arguing about the meaning of unalienable rights and placing limits on them.
Slaves and Native Americans didn’t have unalienable rights and white women had few of them. Women not only couldn’t vote; in most states they had few property or other legal rights. We fought a civil war and several wars against Native Americans over those rights. Today, 242 years after the Declaration of Independence, we’re still arguing about equal and fair treatment of women and minorities. That fact doesn’t, by any stretch of the imagination, represent failure. Our ongoing arguments actually show that self-government is working pretty much as it should. We argue, debate, try new things and eventually evolve agreeable ways of thinking.
From a 21st Century perspective most of us see slavery as an abomination; and we see unequal treatment of minorities and women as denial of unalienable rights. In retrospect, our progress seems excruciatingly slow but 18th century Americans would be stunned by the changes that we have made.
Maybe the most basic of unalienable rights is the right to life. It means that we can’t take the life of another person; yet the nation was born in a murderous war and still imposes death penalties for crimes. The loudest of the current “life” debates is about whether government can impose laws limiting a pregnant woman’s right to liberty – in this case limiting what she can do with her own body.
What about liberty? A law that bans growing or using marijuana restricts the liberty of those who want it. Several states have legalized it. Less than a century ago we passed a constitutional amendment banning alcoholic beverages. Then we decided that was a mistake and repealed it. The core question might be, “by what right does government impose limits on the liberty of individuals to drink or smoke or eat whatever they choose?” The question remained the same over time but the subject changed from alcohol to marijuana.
Religious freedom, voting rights, affirmative action, universal health care, marriage equality, women’s rights, all of today’s hot issues boil down to this self-government question. “How far can government go in restricting the liberty of individuals?” For example, do laws that prevent medically assisted suicide violate the right to personal liberty?
The questions that we debate are about creating a society where we can live together agreeably. We look to congress and courts for answers. But congress and courts can’t act successfully until the people agree. We need to continue the messy process of debate, consideration and compromise to find areas of acceptable agreement and grant “consent of the governed”. For 242 years, we’ve been dealing with controversies and coming up with imperfect but acceptable answers. Let’s keep up the traditions of our founders, not by being perfect but by finding ways to live together agreeably within the framework that they provided for us.