The Answer to the Democratic Party Dilemma of What to Do to Defeat Trump and the MAGA Movement

A few months ago, I did a Google search for “Preserving American Values.”  Many state and local Republican Party organizations came up in the search results because they use that phrase in policy documents.  Not a single Democratic Party organization showed up in the search results.

Then the other day, as I was looking for a new platform for this blog, I entered the title "Preserving American Values" and the sub-line: "Our nation stands under attack ... from within not without.  Both our politics and culture have been corrupted."  And this one platform, using AI, designed a whole new blog.  There was one big problem—the new blog was a MAGA site!  AI had assumed because of the words I used that I was a Trumpist, a MAGA adherent.  Talk about proof for the following argument.

I have for the past 2 decades—since writing the book, We Still Hold These Truths—argued that the Democratic Party should embrace America’s founding documents—the Declaration of Independence and Constitution—as the basis for their policies, making it their Mission statement.  That they should rightfully wrap themselves in the flag.  But they have not followed my advice.

Instead, it is the MAGA Republicans who have embraced the phrase “Preserving American Values,” cherry-picking those that they choose to advocate.  While Republicans have always wrapped themselves in the flag, claiming to be more patriotic than Democrats, they have now taken this a step further.  

This broader approach probably was influenced by Matthew Spaulding’s 2009 book, We Still Hold These Truths, excoriating liberals for perverting the country’s conservative founding values.  Given that I wrote a book of the same title in 2004, arguing that our foundation documents were decidedly liberal, not conservative, I disagree with him.  FYI, Spaulding was Vice President for American Studies at the Heritage Foundation for 2 decades.

By not tying their policies to our founding documents, Democrats have left themselves open to Republican criticism for being “elite”, somehow un-American, and not supporting the working man. 

Whereas in actuality, it is the Republicans who have always sided with the true elite—large corporations and banks—in their policy priorities. They have never been for the common man.  Donald Trump certainly talks the talk, but so far he has not really walked the walk.  Instead, he has surrounded himself with billionaires whose only interest is in enriching themselves and their class.  He has done little for the average American.

It is past time for Democrats to expose Trump and MAGA Republicans for what they are … hypocrites masquerading as the party of the people.

I will say once again what I've been saying since I wrote my book in 2004: Democrats must fight for the hearts and minds of the American people by creating a vision for America that the American people understand, one that they get.  A centrist liberal vision that speaks to all Americans, that does not pit one segment against another. And this includes corporations; they have a vital role to play, but they cannot to be allowed to control government or act against the greater good.

Luckily, there is a vision that is as American as apple pie; that every American knows by heart: the words of the Declaration of Independence.  I therefore proposed in 2004, and have since, that the Party adopt a Mission statement based on the words of the Declaration of Independence that brings all these policies together in a coherent message:

“To build a country of greater opportunity where:

• each and every American has a real chance to experience the promises made in the Declaration of Independence: 'that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness' ;
• government meets its responsibility as set forth in the Declaration—‘to secure these rights’—; and
• all citizens have a shared responsibility to support the government’s efforts to secure these rights and promote the public good, each according to his ability.”

The longer Democrats wait to wake up to the reality of how they have allowed themselves to be perceived, the longer they and this country will suffer under the so-called leadership of Trump and his Republican allies. 

 

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.

 

Why the Declaration of Independence Argues for the Removal of Trump

The Declaration of Independence set forth a list of grievances against the English king that warranted the revolution that the Declaration announced.

Some of these grievances dealt with the king's relationship with the judiciary.  To quote: “He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.”

To quote a Heritage Foundation paper, "The declaration stated that the executive was intent on bending the judicial power to his will. In short, these are the actions of an aspiring tyrant."

Trump's actions and words in his first 100 days against the judiciary certainly are an example of trying to bend the judiciary to his will. His call to impeach judges is like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland demanding, "Off with their heads!"  It is clear that he feels that there is no legitimate law other than his.  

Regarding the king's perspective on administration, the Declaration stated, "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to Harass our people."

While Trump has not erected a multitude of new offices, he certainly has destroyed a multitude of existing offices that protected the people.  And the descent of DOGE, Musk, and his acolytes on the agencies of government certainly sounded like a swarm off people harassing government officials.

Finally, while not enumerated in the Declaration, by trying by hook or crook to invalidate the 2020 election and even now refusing to accept that the people voted him out office—despite a multitude of court decisions rejecting his claims of fraud—he has defied one of the most central aspects of our democracy: free elections and the peaceful transfer of power.

These grievances, along with many others, would be sufficient for Americans to rise up against Trump and remove him from office.  

But that is not the American way.  Trump was fairly elected and there he must stay unless impeached.  The people can voice their displeasure, however, by backing Democrats for Congress in the 2026 midterms and electing Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate.  And returning a Democrat to the White House in 2028.

 

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.

The 2020 Election Is about the Survival of American Democracy, of Historic American Values

The title of this piece may strike the reader as over the top, but it really isn’t.  Because it isn’t about whether the form of democracy will survive.  It probably will despite some dark words from Trump at one point about his supporters not accepting a narrow loss.  This post is about whether the concept of democracy that led to the founding of our country and our founding documents … the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution … will survive.

This concept is what ultimately made America great, made us a beacon to the world.  I love Trump’s slogan, “Make America Great Again.”  Unfortunately, he has no idea what made America great.  It wasn’t our power, our military, our economy, or our strong middle class.  Though of course in once sense it was.  But what enabled our country to have that power, to develop in this manner compared to other countries, whether democratic or communist, was the concept of American democracy.

What are the key elements of that concept?  Note: These elements, like equality, are clearly aspirational.  They may not have been or be true on the ground, 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 elements of American democracy.

        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.

        We are equal citizens also in the sense that we all 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.  That concept is the basis for all our laws, both criminal and civil.  We do not live in an anarchy; one can’t just do what one wants to do.  Even if you are exercising a constitutional right, you cannot in so doing harm another person or restrict that person in exercising their right.  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 be 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.

        Unity with Diversity:  The United States has been from its very founding a country of immigrants.  And as with any large groupings of people, people have from the start had disagreements, both within the groups but especially between the groups.  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 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 through the paying of taxes, each according to his ability.  And when there was a military draft, all participated (except draft dodgers) and supported America, even at the cost of their lives.  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 people of color, became illegal.  And all minority groups benefitted from laws that guaranteed equal protection in public accommodations and other areas of commerce.  This does not mean that some level of us v them didn’t exist anymore; it certainly did.  And people were still discriminated against.  But it was far less.  Political correctness has been given a bad name, but there is much to be said for people feeling that it is not socially acceptable to have or utter certain thoughts, or take certain actions.

         In the halls of Congress, this unity/diversity was reflected in the air of civility that existed between people on opposite sides of issues.  People agreed to disagree.

But several decades ago, things began to change.  Ronald Reagan ushered in the “me” generation and a broad distrust of government … “government isn’t the solution, it’s the problem.”  As the years passed, Republicans in Congress became less civil.  They went from having a conservative outlook on what government’s responsibilities were to being antagonistic towards government and the people of color and others that government helps.

Now the Trump presidency has dropped all pretense of being committed to democracy, to governing for all Americans, to being a unifying force.  Instead he has provoked and manufactured grievances that have exacerbated the already existing divisions in our society, to the point where we are polarized as possibly never before.  Where Trump supporters and those on the progressive left truly hate each other.  Where talking and compromise is no longer an option.

The dynamics of American politics and group interaction have deteriorated to such an extent that it raises serious question whether something can return this country and its people back to sanity and respectful coexistence.  But we must try.  The Democratic Party must make returning this country to its true roots the central platform of its 2020 campaign.  It must present a cohesive, positive, vision that speaks to all Americans.  It must drop the strategy of identity politics.

As I’ve suggested in the past, the best way of doing that is to turn America’s focus to the Declaration of Independence and base the Party’s vision on those words which are familiar to every American.  It is those words that are the heart and soul of the concept of American democracy.

I therefore suggest the following mission/vision for the Democratic Party:

To build a country of greater opportunity where:

• each and every American has the best chance to experience the promises made in the Declaration of Independence … “that all men 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 his ability.

This statement will speak to all Americans.  Most specifically, it will speak both to those aggrieved Midwestern whites who voted for Trump in 2016 and to those disillusioned blacks who did not turn out to vote for Hillary.  

There is no need for identity politics.  For there is no real conflict between the interests of the various groups in our society, so long as no group is greedy.  The right mix of policies will provide all groups with the opportunity they deserve in our democracy.  What they make of that opportunity is then up to them; that is the American way.

All the policies of the Party must flow from this mission statement.  Whether the issue is health care, immigration, education, jobs, defense, civil rights, or religion … the Democratic position must further the greater opportunity of all.  For a more detailed explication of this concept, see my book, We Still Hold These Truths: An American Manifesto.

ATTN: Liberals and Conservatives - What Is the Role of Government?

In these days of enraged people on both sides of the political spectrum, it would be helpful to take a deep breath, step back from the battle, and ask the question, “What is the role of government?”  Specifically, our government.  In answering this question we look to our founding documents.

According to the Constitution the purpose of government is to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”  If we look at the Declaration of Independence the role is defined more broadly, which is “to secure” the unalienable rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”  I say more broadly because everything stated in the Constitution is necessary if one is to be able to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.

Clearly the role of government is an active one.  Words such as “insure,”  “provide,” “promote,” and “secure” are all verbs denoting an ongoing active responsibility.

There are two aspects of the role as stated in both these documents that deserve focus.  First the Constitution refers to promoting the “general Welfare.”  This is clearly a statement that government must look to the welfare of all its citizens, not just some.  It is the general welfare that is important, not just the welfare of some segments of society.  Taken together with the Declaration’s statement that “all men are created equal” and have “unalienable rights,” our founding documents clearly stand for the value and the rights of each and every citizen, of all segments of society.

The second aspect I will focus on is that both documents state that the role of government is to “secure” what the Constitution broadly characterizes as “the blessings of liberty,” and which the Declaration more particularly describes as the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

To what extent has our government lived up to its responsibilities as set forth in our founding documents?  

First, let’s get one thing straight … regardless the political party in power or the era, the United States has harbored huge inequality, not just regarding wealth but well-being.  This is true despite all the social welfare programs that were enacted in the 20th century.  While one can talk about the poor being worse off or better off under a particular administration, and one can say that materially the poor are better off in modern times than ever, their state of well-being remains a negative one.  (Perhaps this is why so many of the poor don’t vote; why they say it doesn’t make a difference who is in power, which liberals find maddening.)  

Why is life for the poor degrading?  Widespread discrimination, unequal access to quality education, substandard housing to name perhaps the most important factors.  This negative well-being has in turn spawned an environment of gangs, violence, and drugs which haw made a bad situation that much worse.  Note:  it is not poverty itself that makes life degrading, it is these attendant factors.

This is true regardless whether one is looking at people of color or whites, urban or rural.  And, to counter a widely held perception, while the majority of those living in poverty are people of color, 44% are white.  In 2018, the figures were white - 44%, black - 23%, Hispanic - 28%, and Asian - 5%.  Yes, blacks disproportionately commit more crimes and engage in drug trafficking, but they also suffer disproportionately more discrimination, bad education, and substandard housing.  Many whites blame blacks for inflicting the drugs and violence environment on themselves, but such accusations totally overlook the role of the white-imposed reality of life for blacks in America.

Bottom line.  Government has not promoted the general welfare.

From the foregoing, it is also clear that government has not secured the “blessings of liberty” for a large proportion of Americans (40 million people live poverty, 12.3% of the population).  The charge is not that government hasn’t provided these blessings, because that is not government’s role.  

It’s role is to secure the “right” to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.   What does that mean?  It means that government has the responsibility for insuring that all citizens have an equal opportunity to pursue their right to life, liberty, and happiness.  What an individual makes of that right is his or her responsibility.  

So for example, it is government’s role to insure that the education provided in all schools is of equivalent quality.  That is sadly far from the case.  It is government’s responsibility to insure that there is no discrimination by educating children and adults about equality, passing appropriate laws, and vigorously enforcing them.  It is government’s responsibility to insure that no one lives in substandard housing through building codes, etc. that are vigorously enforced.  Then there is the right to vote.  Before the Voting Rights Act of 1964, Blacks were routinely denied the vote in much of the South.  In recent years, Republican forces have been attacking this right in a deceitful way which primarily impacts poor people of color in order to reduce Democratic voter turnout.

While government has certainly made advances in addressing these issues, most have been half-hearted.  None have come even close to fundamentally changing the status quo.

The one area where government’s effort to secure a right has been to a large extent successful has been in the area of access to health care.  Through Medicaid, the vast majority of people living in poverty have health insurance.  There are still problems of health care access, especially in rural areas, but this nevertheless has largely been a successful effort.  And it has been made even more so with the passage of Obamacare and its expansion of Medicaid.

So what do we do with the basic fact that our government is not truly fulfilling its role.  It’s doing many things it should be doing, and probably very little of what it does is unnecessary, outside the area of defense.  But when it comes to promoting the general welfare and securing the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all its citizens, it has barely scratched the surface.

Why not?  It isn’t for lack of resources.  But it is a matter of priorities.  What I’m referring to is not really even on the list of priorities.  And that is for two very different reasons.  

For conservatives, they just don’t see the role of government as being more than providing for our defense, insuring domestic tranquility (i.e. order), and letting business and people be free to do pretty much what they want to do without government “interference” (that’s their definition of the blessings of liberty).  They are comfortable with government subsidizing business and farmers (a subset of business) in many ways; it’s individuals that they don’t think deserve government support.

For liberals, while they see the role of government very differently, as a source of help for those who need it, changing the fundamental status quo is not on their radar.  Whether that’s because they don’t see it as a viable option, or because it’s not something that has even entered their thought process, it’s just not there.  They are mentally and spiritually limited by the world as they know it.  They are not visionaries.  And what this country needs is visionaries.

How do we develop visionaries in the population and in our politicians?  It starts by not accepting the status quo, by understanding that there is something basically wrong with the way things are and have always been.  That what is going on is contrary to the basic tenets of our founding documents.  It means going back to the content of our education system as it pertains to civics.

But that is not going to happen.  And one reason why is that, as noted, you have such diametrically opposed intellectual approaches to our founding documents.  For example, on the one hand you have the thoughts expressed in my book, We Still Hold These Truths, published in 2004, which present our founding documents as primarily liberal in spirit.  On the other hand, you have Mathew Spaulding’s book of the same title, published in 2009, which argues for a conservative reading of those same documents.  And he castigates progressives for perverting those documents.

I don't think there is anything one can do to convince a Spaulding or any of his followers that the liberal interpretation of our founding documents is correct.  However, one can focus liberals/progressives on the fact that their position is supported by these documents.  And one can educate independents.  

I find it amazing not only that the Democratic Party has never taken my book to its heart and used it productively, they’ve never really taken notice of it, but that they haven’t come up with anything to counter Spaulding’s argument.  They have walked away from our liberal birthright and left this elemental source of strength to the conservatives.

This is what must change if there is to be any hope of bringing the force of our founding documents to bear on this central issue of social justice.  Only then will we have a chance to end discrimination, provide equal access to education, end the blight of substandard housing for the poor, insure voting rights for all, and correct many other wrongs.