The Radical-Right/MAGA Perspective Is Not True to the Intent of Our Founding Fathers

The Radical Right of the Republican Party—whether it's the MAGA movement or radical jurists and historians who may not be MAGA—all hold to the same basic tenet:  that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are to be interpreted as the words were intended at the time it was adopted.  The theory is called "strict construction" by jurists weighing the Constitution or it's called "self-evident" truths by historians analyzing the Declaration.  They find a difference between what was intended when written and the way the words have been interpreted in modern times.

This theory is contrary to the perspective of liberal thinkers who view the Constitution as a "living" document, meaning that the words retain their essence, but their application changes as the world the words are applied to changes. They find the intent of the Founding Fathers to be different than the Radical Right does.  Are these two ways of looking at our founding documents contradictory or complementary?

First, let's discuss the idea of strict construction.  The Constitution was written to last a long time.  Jefferson may have famously said that having a revolution regularly would be a good thing and that the Constitution should be reevaluated every 20 years, but for most of the Founding Fathers, the Constitution was written in such a way that it could be applied as written for a long time, with appropriate amendments when needed. It was thought to be a flexible document.

And indeed, that's the only way of looking at the Constitution that makes sense.  Literally rewriting the Constitution periodically would create harmful instability.  Jefferson's thought about reevaluating the Constitution is exactly what the courts do—deciding what is covered and what is not; applying the original intent to current circumstances—so there has been no need to rewrite it, except for adding amendments.

If we look at the Founder's intent—and it always comes back to their intent—we see that they were creating a document for the future, not just the here and now.  The question should be how would the Founder's interpret their words applied to the current situation, not how we interpret their words looking at the context in which they lived.  See below.

Next, let's look at the meaning of "self-evident."   Matthew Spaulding, formerly Director of American Studies at the Heritage Foundation, says he is a believer in the self-evident truths proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and argues that liberals do not believe in the self-evident truths.

On its face, his statement seems incredulous, for who more than liberals, i.e. Democrats, believe fervently in the principle of equality and that all of us, each and every one, has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

What becomes clear in reading Spaulding is that "self-evident", meaning obvious, is determined for him by what the a person would see or think looking around at the world he exists in.  As he sees it, the truth of equality then would not be the concept of equality that we have today.  The meaning of the word "men" would not have the all-inclusive implication we give to that word today.

But while the phrase "self-evident" does indeed mean obvious, requiring no reasoning, he uses the man on the street in 1776 to interpret what the words "equal" or "men" mean.  This is where Spaulding's interpretation is in error.  

John Adams and his fellow Founding Fathers were not the average man on the street in 1776.  The were men of the Enlightenment, the philosophical movement that held sway among learned men in the 18th century.

What did "equal" mean to John Adams?  While Adams said that there were many false notions of equality—words the Heritage Foundation focuses on—he goes on to say that equality "really means little more than that We are all of the same Species: made by the same God: possessed of Minds and Bodies alike in Essence: having all the same Reason, Passions, Affections and Appetites."

This is what the Declaration means when it says that it is self-evident that all men are created equal.  A more modern notion of equality could not be stated, except the reference to God.  (Today, those who don't believe in God would say that we are all the same miracle of creation.)  Clearly, Adams believed that regardless of color, regardless of social status, we are all basically the same when we are born, even as to how we are wired.

As for the meaning of "men,"  those who subscribed to the Enlightenment often used that word as a shorthand for "humanity."  Thus the use of that term by Jefferson in writing the Declaration means that all people are created equal.

In both cases, the intellectual/philosophical justification for the narrow reading of our Founding Documents used by both the intellectual thinkers of the Radical Right and the average Radical Republican or MAGA adherent does not hold water.  It is contrary to the intent of the Founders. And so their whole system of interpretation falls.

The Founding Fathers were not "small" men.  They were great men with huge intellectual capacity.  Some, like Jefferson, were bound to earth by their association with slavery, but their minds soared.  It is that soaring mind that is reflected in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  And it is their minds and intent that should form the basis for interpreting these documents and applying them to the present.

It's easy to cherry-pick statements from a life of writing to make your point as the Radical Right does.  Conservatives have done the same with the Bible in order to make their arguments.  But when the Founding Fathers' life work or the Bible is looked at as a whole, then the real self-evident truth is revealed.  There is no conflict between looking at the Founders' intent and looking at the Constitution as a living document.

 

Are Liberals Destroying America's Ideals?

In the opening paragraph of the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, it wrote, "America is now divided between two opposing forces: woke revolutionaries and those who believe in the ideals of the American revolution,"  

What a perfect example of fake news.  By taking on the mantle of American values and attacking their opponents as destroying those values, the Heritage Foundation has done what Trump and his allies always do: they accuse their opponents of doing what they themselves have actually done.  In truth, it is the MAGA-Right that perverts and destroys our founding values.

This distorted view of our founding documents was formalized in Matthew Spaulding's 2009 book, We Still Hold These Truths.  Spaulding is a former Director of American Studies at the Heritage Foundation.  In the book, Spaulding faults liberals for perverting the vision of the Founding Fathers.  Liberalism is the enemy.

For example, in speaking of the "certain unalienable truths" proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, he states that liberals have "rejected the idea of self-evident truths and enduring principles."

How bizarre.  It is liberals, i.e. Democrats, who embrace the words of the Declaration of Independence.  Given the MAGA-Right's assaults on immigrants, LGBTQ, people of color, and women, it is clear that it is the MAGA-Right that has rejected these truths.

The position that support for conservative arguments can be found in our founding documents is not without basis, as I stated in my 2004 book, We Still Hold These Truths: An American Manifesto. But the MAGA-Right disavow traditional conservative positions. 

What they advocate instead is the dismantling of the Federal government to comport more with the Anti-Federalist view—a weak and limited national government—that was the basis of the Articles of Confederation, rather than the view that was adopted by the Founding Fathers after the failure of the Articles and was the basis for the Constitution—a strong and multi-faceted Federal government with proscribed checks and balances.  

True, some of the Founding Fathers, such as Jefferson, were concerned that a strong federal government would constrict the rights of citizens and so he proposed what became the Bill of Rights.

But for the MAGA-Right, there is no recognition, appreciation, or tolerance in their point of view of the rights of others.  For example, as MAGA Christians in what they consider a Christian country, they believe they can forbid gays to marry and demand that women act in accordance with MAGA beliefs. This is not protecting MAGA freedom of religion. This is imposing MAGA's religious views on others, violating others' rights.  They pursue the denial of liberty to others. 

If you read Spaulding's book—if you didn't read it carefully—you could come away thinking he is a reasonable man who respects our founding documents and history.  He has, for example, a section on equality and equal rights that is a powerful exposition, which one would think would presage support for all civil rights legislation as well as the DEI efforts of government.  He certainly talks the talk.  

But when it comes to the implementation, to the interpretation, of these words, he doesn't walk the walk, but distorts their meaning to suit his own political ends.  He and the MAGA-Right have a one-sided view of liberty.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are profoundly liberal documents for their era that depend on the balancing of powers and of rights. What the MAGA-Right is attempting to do, and in the short-term are succeeding, is to destroy that balance—whether it's between the branches of government or the rights of people. Their goal is to create a government and system of laws that is a radical departure from our historic ideals and values.

This destruction of American ideals can only be stopped by the people, by their realizing what the Trump administration is doing, and how it affects them and their children.  It is only by their votes that this perversion of America can be stopped.

Given the massive misinformation campaign by the MAGA-Right, for this to happen the Democratic Party must mount a counter-campaign to inform the public what America's true ideals are—what our founding documents and the Founding Fathers said—how the Trump administration cynically perverts those ideals, and how that perversion impacts us all.  That is the focus of my book, We Still Hold These Truths: An American Manifesto.

The MAGA-Right and Spaulding speak of equality, of freedom of religion and speech, and liberty being dependent on a respect for both rights and responsibilities—these are indeed America's ideals—but they just mouth the words; their implementation of those concepts limits and perverts the Founders' meaning.  And that meaning comes from the Enlightenment—the words were aspirational—not from the facts on the ground at that time.

For example, in saying that all "men" are created equal, the Founders meant that all mankind have certain unalienable rights.  Their "self-evident" came from the fact of creation—that "we were all of the same species; made by the same God"—not what they saw looking around them. These rights don't belong just to white men or the MAGA-RIght.

The traditional meaning of "balance of rights and responsibilities" is that someone in the exercise of his rights has the responsibility not to thereby interfere with the rights of another.  But the MAGA-RIght's interpretation is that others have the responsibility not to interfere unjustly with the practice of their rights; for example, by regulating business.  Whereas they aggressively interfere with the rights of others because, again, they do not acknowledge the rights of others.

But beyond this information campaign, the Democratic Party must rediscover the source of their policies and communicate that source to the people.  This source is not "liberal" thinking, or progressive "woke" thinking.  Instead, the foundation of all their policies are the words of the Declaration of Independence. 

To this end, I have proposed a domestic Mission statement for the Democratic Party:

"To build a country of greater opportunity for all where:

• each and every American has a real chance to experience the promises made in the Declaration of Independence … ‘that all men [mankind] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights … Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness;’ 
• government meets its responsibility as set forth in the Declaration … ‘to secure those rights’ … within the constraints of fiscal responsibility; and
• all citizens have a shared responsibility to support the government’s efforts to secure those rights and promote the public good, each according to their ability, and to not, through the exercise of their rights, impinge on the rights of others."

This statement is the moral philosophy, the heart, the soul of American democracy. This is, or was, America’s common faith. 

I believe that this is the path out of the abyss of Trumpism and back to a government and policies that will truly make America great again—government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

 

What are American Values?

Politicians of all stripes are talking about American values these days.  That they should be voted for rather than their opponent because they will preserve and protect American values.  But what are American values?

I have never written a post defining American values because they have always been so clear to me that the thought didn't occur to me.  Talk about begging the question.  Obviously this is a topic on which there are deep divisions.  You have fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives in their perspective on our founding documents.  And certainly what individuals define as American values is not only changing, it probably never had the clarity that I find in our founding history.  Perhaps that's because I have always focused on the aspirations of the Founding Fathers and our founding documents, not all the compromises that were necessary.  And the values of individuals are greatly affected by the values of the society they keep.

First, “American values” must be distinguished from the values of the American people.  To me, the term connotes something larger than us, grounding, permanent, of lasting meaning.  The values of people instead change as the times change, as the culture changes, as the political temperament changes.  And so there have been numerous articles reporting how American values have changed, citing polling data.  This is important information, but not the definition of American values.

This is the description of a ship adrift at sea, not a grounded fortress.  I would therefore argue that “American values” instead refers to the values inherent in the very existence of this country as stated in our founding documents … the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  Those values are our grounding; the source of America’s stability and greatness.

That, however, does not answer the question, for depending on how you approach those documents, whether you are a conservative or a liberal, you can pretty much find what you want … up to a point.

For example, the Heritage Foundation scholar Matthew Spaulding wrote a book in 2009 titled We Still Hold These Truths: Rediscovering Our Principles, which sees our founding documents as decidedly conservative.  He finds that the Progressive (Republican) movement of the late 19th century, FDR’s New Deal, LBJ’s Great Society, and the new progressives have eroded the principles of our founding documents.  He finds that what many consider to be the maturation of the principles contained in those documents, the concept of a Living Constitution, our becoming truer to the ideals of the Founders, to be instead examples of the perversion of our founding principles. 

There is no question that there is plenty of language in our founding documents to support a conservative interpretation.  In my 2004 book, We Still Hold These Truths: An American Manifesto, I stated that while the words of the Declaration of Independence were and remain revolutionary, and are profoundly liberal, “in their interpretation lies the core of both the Liberal and Conservative ideologies  that have run through American political life and the tension between them.”

Perhaps never has the tension been greater than now.  The main problem stems from the conservative emphasis on the rights of each individual, especially as granted by the Bill of Rights, whereas liberals stress the concept of equality and the implications of each person having equal rights.

There can be no question that in our legal system no rights are absolute.  No one, by exercising his right to pursue life, liberty, or happiness can infringe on someone else’s right to do the same.  All of our laws and regulations, both civil and criminal, are examples of proscribing action that would harm an individual or the general good.  That is the impact of our system of equal rights.  

For example, everyone has the right to drive, but you must pass a test to prove that you can drive a car safely so as not to injure other people or yourself.  The automobile is a potentially deadly machine.  The same reasoning should apply to gun ownership.

Even the hallowed right of free speech is not absolute.  For example, not only can you not cry “Fire” in a crowded theater, but you cannot slander another person.  False advertising is illegal because someone depending on such claims could be harmed.

But conservatives keep acting as though rights, at least those conferred in the Bill of Rights, are absolute, whether it’s freedom of religion, or free speech, or the right to bear arms, which only recently was held by the Supreme Court to apply as an individual right rather than the right of states of have militias.  But that perspective is totally opposed to our history and our system of laws.

So, given that “American values” means the values that are the essence of our founding documents and given the explanation above of the American legal perspective on rights, what are the core American values?

Note: These values, like equality, are clearly aspirational.  They may not have been true at the time of our founding or be true on the ground now, but they have enabled people to have faith and hope and accomplish what otherwise would have been impossible.

Equality:  We all know that the belief in equality was enshrined in the Declaration of Independence although its practice was significantly restricted in the Constitution.  But the concept was there, and it was that light that guided us towards the ending of slavery, the emancipation of women, the civil rights movement, and same-sex marriage.  We still have far to go, but that light is still guiding us.

Indeed, it is this central aspiration of equality that drives the other key American values/elements of American democracy.

     Equality of Citizenship:  We are all equal citizens of the United States.  Certainly that wasn’t true at the start, when voting was limited to males who owned property.  But over the years, America moved more towards the ideal.  Today all adult citizens, whether you were born here or immigrated, have the right to vote.  The concept of one “man,” one vote is central, though attempts by some States to restrict voting rights is still very much with us.  

     We are also equal citizens in that we have equal rights, and we each have the right to pursue these rights.   That is why if exercising your right restricts another person’s right, you cannot due that.  No right is absolute.

     Upward Mobility:  We have no caste system in this country.  From a structural standpoint, there isn’t anything that anybody cannot do.  Someone from the poorest layer of society can rise to become President or head of a powerful corporation.  And this mobility is not just theoretical; it has been seen as a reality countless times in all areas of commerce, the arts, the professions, and politics.  Again, this is true for native born and immigrants. and more recently people of color.

     E Pluribus Unum - Unity with Diversity:  Although the latin phrase refers to the 13 colonies, the sentiment applies more broadly.  The United States has been from its very founding a country of immigrants.  And as one would expect, there have been disagreements from the start between different factions or groups of citizens/immigrants.  One immigrant group vied against another.  And as immigrants became established, they had problems with the next wave of immigrants.  Often even those from the same country.

     Yet despite the animosity and distrust and at times violence between groups, when the country called, all felt that they were Americans.  They may have been hyphenated Americans, they may have felt that they weren’t getting their fair share, they may have felt discriminated against, but they identified as American and were proud of it.

     This shared sense of shared citizenship led to what’s called the American social contract.  Under that contract, in exchange for the benefits of citizenship, all citizens agree to obey the laws and to share the burden of government, whether through the paying of taxes or by answering a military draft.  Under this social contract, we are not just responsible for ourselves; we have a distinct responsibility for the welfare of the whole and thus for all Americans.

     In the first half of the 20th century, workers gained significant rights in their employment.  In the second half, overt forms of discrimination that had been practiced against some groups, like Jews and Blacks, became illegal.  And all minority groups benefitted from laws that guaranteed equal protection in public accommodations and other areas of commerce.  The movement always being towards more equality, more unity.  Yes, bigotry and discrimination still exist; we are still a work in progress.

     In the halls of Congress, this diversity with unity, this regard for equality, was reflected in the air of civility that existed between people on opposite sides of issues.  People agreed to disagree.   Clearly this is no longer the case.

These are the American values that politicians should refer to.  All the other values that are often cited … for example, individuality, free speech, religious freedom, the right to bear arms … are only able to be properly understood within the context of these core values.  Taken out of that context, they are a prescription for anarchy not democracy.

Sex - Misused and Abused - A Different Perspective

The reader might well ask, what does sex have to do with preserving American values?  Well, for one thing, as we know from the #MeToo experience, the male craving for sex often impacts the independence and integrity of women.  Their freedom from such abuse should certainly be an American value.  

But also regarding the male, when an individual has a craving for anything, let alone sex, he is not free  He may be free in the political sense, but he is not free in the sense of being the master of himself. of being able to decide and do what is in his best interest.  The American value of freedom goes beyond the political.  Your ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness is not just impacted by external forces, it is greatly impacted by one’s own internal forces.

And while healthy committed relationships or marriages may not be an American value as such, it is certainly something which society says it wants to foster.  And should.  It is critical that future generations of Americans be raised in supportive families, free of neurotic dynamics.  Free of the craving for “sex, drugs, and rock and roll.”  We must cleanse ourselves of the scourge of addiction.

Here is the case against sex as we know it.  The lust for sex is a huge force in directing man’s actions.  Second only to the craving for money and power.   As such, it is a major source of stress, it comes between people as much as it binds them together, and it is an antagonist to spirituality.  It has ruined relationships.  It has ruined more than one political career, and in the #MeToo generation, it has brought many powerful people in different sectors of our culture low. 

Sex is a function critical to the survival of almost all species of life on Earth.  How then has sex become such a negative factor for man?  

With the exception of man, evolution has developed the function of sex to be discreet in its purpose and limited and particular as to its timing.  It’s purpose is procreation and survival of the fittest; Whether one looks at plants, fish, or even man’s closest animal relative - the apes - this is the limited function of sex.  And it can only occur during finite periods of time.

For man, however, sex has become something very different.  How did that come to be?  While women have been found to be more “lusty” during their fertile days, women, contrary to females of all other species, are “available” for sex throughout the year.  

And since males of most mammal species are horny beasts (we’ve all experienced a dog arousing himself on someone’s leg), the human male certainly takes advantage of that, even when procreation is unlikely.  Why?  Because we derive pleasure and other satisfaction from the sex act.  

That men and even women derive pleasure from sex is hardly a new phenomenon.  But in our contemporary culture, pleasure has become the primary purpose of sex … consistent with the pleasure syndrome which predominates our culture.  It also serves various psychological needs as noted below.  Procreation is now only a tangential function since through the use of various means of contraception, sex typically only results in pregnancy when you want it to, which is rarely.

The result is that sex is now one of the leading problems in relationships.  Basically said, if men especially aren’t finding sex pleasurable anymore, they either look elsewhere for that satisfaction and/or it becomes one of several factors that leads to a failed relationship and divorce. 

A related problem is that if a couple does have good sex, that gets confused, especially in the early stages of a relationship, with feeling they are in love or loved.  And that just isn’t the case.  It just means they have good sex.  Lust does not equal love.  But nevertheless couples get married based to a large extent on whether they have a good sex life because modern man does not know what love really is.  Feeling loved is thus dependent on having good sex.  When that’s gone, we want to move on.

The other ways in which sex is used in relationships to meet psychological needs are also not conducive to a healthy attitude towards sex and relationships.  For men especially, but also for women, the use or withholding of sex is an expression of power in a relationship where otherwise one may feel inadequate or weak.   When there are problems in a relationship, using sex to patch things up puts a burden on sex and rarely works for more than a limited time.  And for people who are unhappy with their work or other aspects of their life, the pleasure or release of sex is a respite, a distraction.  For all these reasons, the general attitude is that good sex is an essential part of a healthy relationship. 

Using sex primarily as a source of gratification, power, or bonding makes sex a source of major stress for man and is harmful to relationships.  Sex is used in the search for something which is essentially a fleeting illusion.  At the same time, its role in the procreation process is mostly negative, in that  most of the time people want to make sure that pregnancy does not result from sex.

How to improve the stability and nourishing nature of marriage and other committed relationships?  The answer is to base relationships on true love (more on that below), return sex to its primary purpose of procreation, and realize that there are other, more stable ways to establish a loving, intimate bond with a spouse/partner that do not involve the sex act.  “What?!”  the reader will undoubtedly exclaim.  “How absurd.”  

That is the ego-mind reacting.  Bear with me while I explain.  There is great comfort, satisfaction, and intimacy to be had within a loving relationship from hugging and various types of non-sexual touching … not as foreplay to sex, but just for the warmth and intimacy it engenders.  

I speak from experience.  I am in a deeply-loving, long-term relationship with my partner who is my best friend.  We are family.  We do not have sex.  But we do have a very physical relationship.  I feel more loved and more secure than in any relationship I have ever had.  I should note that we are totally committed to our relationship and are not looking for sex elsewhere because we have all the love we need and understand that to be happy sex cannot be used as a source of pleasure.

I know this will sound crazy to most readers, whether straight or gay, but that is the truth.  Sex has become so deeply engrained in our ego-drives, our self-image, that we cannot imagine life or a relationship without it; it is a craving.  But as with all other cravings, that is just a product of the ego-mind.  Yes, sex has a biological function.  But what man has turned sex into has little to do with that function.

NOTE:  The often-held belief that ejaculation is essential for a man’s health is just not true.  There is no clear evidence of a health benefit to ejaculating or risk from not ejaculating.  There is some very weak evidence that frequent ejaculation may help prevent prostate cancer, but that’s all it is.  Arousal, however, does release certain chemicals which increase feelings of wellbeing.  But those same chemicals are released by hugging and other types of touching connected with sincere affection.

For gays and lesbians, this would mean that while their relationships would be very physical and loving, sex would not be part of the relationship.  To be blunt, orgasm would not be part of their relationship or their lives.  As for their raising a family, having a sex-less relationship will obviously not impact that since sex was never part of that for them anyway; gays and lesbians have found methods to have biologically-related children without engaging in procreative sex,.

What about teenagers and older uncommitted individuals?  For them, sex would no longer be part of the right of passage into adulthood or a means of satisfying oneself or coarsely expressing oneself or having the pleasure of someone’s company by hooking up.  These are measures, often desperate, that people take to fill an emptiness in their lives.  We must instead raise children so there is no emptiness that needs to be filled.  (See my book, Raising a Happy Child.)

I am not underestimating the huge change this would entail for most people.  The initial gap in their lives.  Again people would have to be taught that there are other forms of physical interaction which are very satisfying and far less problematic.  People will have to be taught to have a different relationship with themselves.

With sex returned to its biologically-intended purpose … procreation, sex will then regain real meaning and be a source of growth and maturity.   Both male and female will be making a statement, a real commitment to the future, when they have procreative sex.  The ecstasy of sex will be connected with the desire to create a family, not satisfying some ego-desire for a high.

But there is another real kicker in my proposal … most people have no clue as to what true love is.  Yet this must form the basis of the new relationship.  

This is unfortunately not something we typically learn through our experience … not from our parents, movies, or any aspect of our culture.  Since love not sex will be the cornerstone of a relationship, this means that couples will need to learn what love really means and how to develop it between two people.   

Simply said, love develops from mutual feelings of trust, respect, caring, and thoughtfulness.  One will have to be taught this or learn it from a book since it is not part of our culture.  Shedding the cultural connection between sex and love will be difficult.  But these mutual feelings I listed are the sine qua non of a loving, lasting, relationship.  Of course issues of character and interest compatibility also play an important role in a relationship’s longevity.

I should say that I do not mean to imply that there are no lasting relationships based on true love that have sex as an integral part of the relationship, not just used for procreation.  What I’m saying is that our current attitude towards sex is for the most part destructive both to the individual and to relationships.  And so the dynamic needs to change.

The benefits of this change to both the individual and society would be significant.  For individuals, couples and their children it would bring an increased feeling of security and peace, which would in turn substantially change the dynamics within a typical family, benefiting the psyches of all.  For society it would mean a decrease in both illegitimate and unwanted pregnancies/births, a substantial decrease in the divorce rate, a decrease in all forms of spousal and child abuse, both physical and psychological, and a substantial decrease if not elimination of sex addiction.  Just for starters.  Spiritually, it would enable man to overcome a major barrier to being a master of himself.

While my proposal will sound absurd and futuristic to many, the argument that a marriage or other committed relationship should be based on true love rather than sex/lust, and that sex is actually detrimental to a relationship is not a new thought.  To my surprise, although I shouldn’t have been since Montaigne is always wise and amazingly pertinent, I discovered that the French 16th century philosopher/essayist had the following to say, after I began writing this post:

 “I see no marriages that sooner are troubled and fail than those that progress by means of beauty and amorous desires.  It needs more solid and stable foundations, and we need to go at it more circumspectly; this ebullient ardor is no good for it.”  

“A good marriage rejects the company and conditions of sex.  It tries to reproduce those of friendship.  It is a sweet association of life, full of constancy, trust, and an infinite number of useful and solid services and mutual obligations.”

It is unfortunately impossible to imagine such a change happening on a society-wide basis.  It would require a major change in the way many aspects of our culture operate, the experiences people have as they are growing up.  

But we as individuals have the ability to make these changes on our own, to listen to a different drummer, regardless what is going on around us.  It “just” requires making a commitment first to oneself and then finding another compatible soul to enter this journey.  This is something that is within your power to do.  Think about it!

This post is dedicated to my partner to whom this concept of sex was revealed recently and who shared it with me.

American Spirit v American Character

Recently I saw two very interesting and seemingly inconsistent interviews.  The one was with David McCullough about his book, The American Spirit.  The other was with Kurt Andersen about his book, Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire: A 500-Year History.  

McCullough talks about the American spirit in familiar terms.  It is based on the aspirations of the Declaration of Independence and those of the Founding Fathers:  equality, fairness, truth.  He spoke of the men who have lead this country as, for the most part, having had a certain gravitas.  They may not have always been wise or even good presidents, but they understood the responsibility, not just the power, of their office.  

A blurb for the books says: “The American Spirit reminds us of core American values to which we all subscribe, regardless of which region we live in, which political party we identify with, or our ethnic background.”  I certainly believe in those core American values and in their importance in guiding our country, witness my book, We STILL Hold These Truths.  However, I would not say that all American’s subscribe to these values.  Hardly.  And that is not just a fact today; it has always been a fact.

That brings me to Andersen’s book.  His argument is that the American character is composed of two very different strains.  On the one hand you have the religious fundamentalists, starting with the Puritans, who were beyond fervent in their often fantastical beliefs and would brooke no disagreement.  To believe was to be right.  As the population spread westward, religion followed often in the form of ministers who were hucksters, making show biz out of religion.

The other strain was formed by those who came to America searching for a pot of gold.  To them it was a land of opportunity, a chance to become rich.  There was no truth for them beyond the quest for money.

In both cases, he argues, fantasy was a core aspect of people’s belief system and character.  And they believed in their own truths.  I don’t know if Andersen makes this point, but I would say that this character is very much a self-centered one in both cases.

McCullough looks at the current political scene as an aberration from our historic spirit.  Andersen looks at it as the logical culmination of our historic character.

They are both right.  How can that be?  The tendencies that Andersen sees in our history have indeed always been there; the evidence is ample.  But for most of our history, the political and media establishment adhered, at least in form, to the higher American spirit.  The quote from John Adams that is inscribed on a mantle in the East Room of the White House says it all: “May none but Honest and Wise Men ever rule under This Roof.”  

And the power and prevalence of that establishment kept the lid on the unruly character of the people.  Even the largest corporations, which until the early 1900s were a law unto themselves, came to be regulated to enforce standards of fairness, equality, and truth.

But the political and social movements of the 60s upended much.  Everyone became entitled to their own truths and authority became suspect.  Watergate reinforced this.  Reagan legitimized this movement with his, “Government is the problem,” and the start of the Me generation.  Then, with cable television and the internet, the avenues for people to both express and listen to their own truths, their own facts, morphed exponentially.  Fantasy and hucksterism became the lifeblood of conservative talk radio.  And that has brought us today to the presidency of Donald Trump.

With pandora’s box opened, will we ever be able to return to a world where the American spirit prevails over the self-centered character of the people?  Painfully, it is hard to imagine.  The judgments and emotions are running so strong