Words that still matter
27/09/16 05:26
There are moments in history that bring out the best in people. There are times when people rise to significant occasions demonstrating remarkable vision, clarity and insight. The founders of our American Democracy were participants in one of those dramatic and incredible moments of history. Every once in a while it makes sense to remember their words and contemplate their meanings.Our constitution begins with these words:
“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.”
It think that is is possible that the words are even greater than the people who wrote them. Those colonies, established on a foreign continent, with abundant natural resources. were remarkably diverse. There were Catholics and Quakers and Congregationalists and Episcopalians. There were people who had left Europe as a form of religious protest and others who had been sentenced to expatriation because of crimes, both petty and large. There were adventurers and scoundrels. The phrase “We the people” included a lot of differences and was a grand vision.
But it was a case in which the words were greater than the authors. Those who penned the words, “We the people,” didn’t include the indigenous people who had inhabited the continent before the arrival of the settlers for the most part. They didn’t count as people African slaves who had been imported against their will to the colonies for 150 years before the writing of the Constitution. It took many decades for we the people to understand that phrase included more than just some of the people. Part of the genius of the constitution lies in its ability to self correct and be amended. Part of its genius lies in the creation of courts that could make an independent analysis of the laws to reveal an even greater meaning of those words.
We, who are the inheritors of both the words of our founders and the generations of their interpretation, would do well to return to the concept of “We the people.” That phrase does not mean “some of the people,” or “the people who agree with me,” or “the people who look like me.” It means all of the people.
Yes, there are a lot more of us than was the case when that document was written. Yes we are in many ways more diverse and have more differences than was the case in those days. The distance between the ultra-rich and the very poor is greater than at any point in the history of the globe. But we are still the people. And our government is based on all of us, not just some of us.
There are other words in that preamble that have inspired generations. Worthy of our contemplation is the goal, “in order to form a more perfect Union.”
You might get the impression, from listening to much of contemporary political debate that our country exists for the purpose of competing with China, or finding the best technological advances, or serving as the world’s police force, or amassing wealth. Our founders believed we formed ourselves as a nation “in order to form a more perfect Union.” Our purpose is to draw closer to one another - to form a community - to discover our purpose as a people.
At our core, each of us has been given the task of discovering what ti means to be truly human. When we take that task seriously we discover that being truly human has to do with forming relationships with other humans. We cannot achieve our purpose alone. We are made for each other. What is our purpose in this life? And what responsibilities come with the discovery of that purpose? These are questions which have been at the heart of religion for millennia. They are also questions at the heart of the American Democratic experiment.
I call it an experiment because we have a long ways to go before we can say that we have achieved the goals our founders set out before us. Perhaps it would be fair to say that after the Civil Rights Movement and some of the great court cases on human equality our union is “more perfect” than it was at our founding. But it would be ludicrous to argue that we have achieved the goal. We have a long ways to go before ours could be called a more perfect union.
Consider the election maps of red states and blue states. What does it mean to form a more perfect union? Consider the harsh rhetoric of political advertising and the tone of congressional debate. What does it mean to form a more perfect union? Consider the clear cases of elected officials to place partisan bickering above their responsibilities as elected officials. What does it mean to form a more perfect union?
A quick glance at social media will reveal that one of the popular modes of political rhetoric these days is blaming others for the ills we perceive. We keep looking for scapegoats and pointing the finger at others. In doing so, we miss the genius of the words of our founders. Ours is a nation of “We the people.” When we disagree with the actions of government, we must be willing to take responsibility for our role in those decisions. Just because our party lost the election doesn’t make us any less citizens. It doesn’t absolve us from the responsibility to work towards a more perfect union. When our leaders act, they do so, in part on my behalf. As citizen I need to be willing to stand up for my ideals, but also to take responsibility for my failure to convince a majority of my fellow citizens of those ideals. The actions of our government are the result, in part, of my action and/or inaction.
I’m no politician. I haven’t got the stomach for that arena. But I am a citizen. And, like all citizens, I am a part of “We the people” as we seek to form “a more perfect union.”
“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.”
It think that is is possible that the words are even greater than the people who wrote them. Those colonies, established on a foreign continent, with abundant natural resources. were remarkably diverse. There were Catholics and Quakers and Congregationalists and Episcopalians. There were people who had left Europe as a form of religious protest and others who had been sentenced to expatriation because of crimes, both petty and large. There were adventurers and scoundrels. The phrase “We the people” included a lot of differences and was a grand vision.
But it was a case in which the words were greater than the authors. Those who penned the words, “We the people,” didn’t include the indigenous people who had inhabited the continent before the arrival of the settlers for the most part. They didn’t count as people African slaves who had been imported against their will to the colonies for 150 years before the writing of the Constitution. It took many decades for we the people to understand that phrase included more than just some of the people. Part of the genius of the constitution lies in its ability to self correct and be amended. Part of its genius lies in the creation of courts that could make an independent analysis of the laws to reveal an even greater meaning of those words.
We, who are the inheritors of both the words of our founders and the generations of their interpretation, would do well to return to the concept of “We the people.” That phrase does not mean “some of the people,” or “the people who agree with me,” or “the people who look like me.” It means all of the people.
Yes, there are a lot more of us than was the case when that document was written. Yes we are in many ways more diverse and have more differences than was the case in those days. The distance between the ultra-rich and the very poor is greater than at any point in the history of the globe. But we are still the people. And our government is based on all of us, not just some of us.
There are other words in that preamble that have inspired generations. Worthy of our contemplation is the goal, “in order to form a more perfect Union.”
You might get the impression, from listening to much of contemporary political debate that our country exists for the purpose of competing with China, or finding the best technological advances, or serving as the world’s police force, or amassing wealth. Our founders believed we formed ourselves as a nation “in order to form a more perfect Union.” Our purpose is to draw closer to one another - to form a community - to discover our purpose as a people.
At our core, each of us has been given the task of discovering what ti means to be truly human. When we take that task seriously we discover that being truly human has to do with forming relationships with other humans. We cannot achieve our purpose alone. We are made for each other. What is our purpose in this life? And what responsibilities come with the discovery of that purpose? These are questions which have been at the heart of religion for millennia. They are also questions at the heart of the American Democratic experiment.
I call it an experiment because we have a long ways to go before we can say that we have achieved the goals our founders set out before us. Perhaps it would be fair to say that after the Civil Rights Movement and some of the great court cases on human equality our union is “more perfect” than it was at our founding. But it would be ludicrous to argue that we have achieved the goal. We have a long ways to go before ours could be called a more perfect union.
Consider the election maps of red states and blue states. What does it mean to form a more perfect union? Consider the harsh rhetoric of political advertising and the tone of congressional debate. What does it mean to form a more perfect union? Consider the clear cases of elected officials to place partisan bickering above their responsibilities as elected officials. What does it mean to form a more perfect union?
A quick glance at social media will reveal that one of the popular modes of political rhetoric these days is blaming others for the ills we perceive. We keep looking for scapegoats and pointing the finger at others. In doing so, we miss the genius of the words of our founders. Ours is a nation of “We the people.” When we disagree with the actions of government, we must be willing to take responsibility for our role in those decisions. Just because our party lost the election doesn’t make us any less citizens. It doesn’t absolve us from the responsibility to work towards a more perfect union. When our leaders act, they do so, in part on my behalf. As citizen I need to be willing to stand up for my ideals, but also to take responsibility for my failure to convince a majority of my fellow citizens of those ideals. The actions of our government are the result, in part, of my action and/or inaction.
I’m no politician. I haven’t got the stomach for that arena. But I am a citizen. And, like all citizens, I am a part of “We the people” as we seek to form “a more perfect union.”