Well, to look closely, Trump is the Frankenstein's monster created by the one hundred years or so of "Progressive" attack on Individual freedom and limited government our nation was designed to protect.
Trump is the symptom. Back to basic American principles and there is no need for Trump. Freedom, limited government and charity are not mutually exclusive. Gotta go. Take care.
Sure. So I agree that America is an idea, but it isn’t simply an idea. It is also a people and place. I admire the ideals set forth in the Declaration and in the Preamble to the Constitution, and I agree that we haven’t lived up to them, but the importance of our constitutional system isn’t simply the striving toward a “more perfect union.” It’s also encapsulated in our past and it’s unfair to the past to treat it simply as a history of the ways in which we fell short. More than an aspirational moment, the Founding was the establishment of a real country which had to function and exist in the real world, where nothing is ever perfect and there are always tradeoffs and compromises. The Constitution didn’t have to achieve the sort of perfection that might be had in a philosophical seminar. It had to work. I think the importance of the Constitution is that it did work. For almost 250 years so far. Imperfectly, but better than many expected. And better than anyone had reason to expect. Measured against the past and against other regimes, it has worked remarkably well, even if it will always fall short of some hypothetical future utopia (which I don’t believe will ever exist).
Among those committed to the American experiment, those on the left focus more on the ideals and aspirations and potential for future improvements, and those on the right are more skeptical of that potential and more committed to preserving what has been done up to now and celebrating just how extraordinary our achievements have been when reckoned against the tragic world in which we live. There is value in each outlook.
I agree with just about everything you say, with one key distinction. As a person on the left who does have an idealistic and aspirational view of the United States' future I can say, for me personally, that aspirational view is not rooted in any contempt of the past and it does not ignore the pragmatic realities of a government formed from an incredibly diverse population in a complex, hostile world. Rather, that aspirational view honors the vision of the Founding Father's and the absolute audacity required of them to create this Nation. I believe this Nation came into existence and succeeded only because the vision of the Founders/Framers, which if you get right down to it is based on the inherent rights of human beings to self determination, touched on a pure truth that resonates with, well, all human beings--it's something truly worth sacrificing for. Through its history the US has largely led the world in effectuating this vision. Obviously, it is has done so imperfectly, but the beauty of our government, at least in part, is that the Framers designed a system that has the capacity to self-improve and correct, while simultaneously enshrining core principles. That is what made the US capable of going from slavery, to emancipation, to desegregation, to the Civil Rights Act, etc. My aspirational view isn't rooted in the idea that the past is bad and the country needs to change, it's rooted in the idea that the work began by the Founders/Framers is ongoing. When the US was founded it was unique in the history of this world and it has, in my opinion, yielded far more good than bad for human kind. But existence is dynamic and freedom in a democratic republic is an active pursuit. While it's true our government created more peace and prosperity for more people than any previous government in history, not everyone in the US enjoyed that peace and prosperity because not everyone had the same *opportunity* to enjoy peace and prosperity--this should not be misconstrued as socialist/communist view of shared resources and perfectly equal wealth; I am talking about removing systemic roadblocks to ensure equal access to participation in education, governmental protection, geographic mobility, market participation, government/voting participation, real/personal property ownership rights, access to capital, etc; all those aspects which allow for a healthy and thriving free market economy and functioning democratic government. We must recognize where we fell short in the past to ensure that we shape a future that creates more *opportunity* for more people to achieve peace and prosperity, as opposed to merely preserving the status quo, or indeed as we see now, restricting and eliminating opportunities. We also see that where we once led the world, not just in a governmental democratic republic sense, but also in how we provided the masses with opportunity/access to education, access to information, made scientific contributions, created and provided market access, etc. etc. etc., we are now falling behind many countries in most key advanced development metrics. In short, my aspirational view isn't about tearing down and dishonoring our past, it is about honoring and building upon it.
One final comment, I'm under no illusion that we are working toward a utopia. I'm committed that tomorrow is better than today, even if only incrementally. That does not mean I do not appreciate today; but unless you're of the view that everything today is perfect, doesn't working to make tomorrow a little better make sense?
I agree with that. I’m a Burkean, not a reactionary. Burke was a Whig. I’m skeptical of progress that occurs to quickly becoming destabilizing, but I believe in a general incremental improvement that emphasizes continuity with the past and gradual change over time.
Well, to look closely, Trump is the Frankenstein's monster created by the one hundred years or so of "Progressive" attack on Individual freedom and limited government our nation was designed to protect.
Trump is the symptom. Back to basic American principles and there is no need for Trump. Freedom, limited government and charity are not mutually exclusive. Gotta go. Take care.
“It is an America that has never yet been realized,”
It’s interesting that as a conservative critic of Donald Trump, I agree with almost all of both critiques, except for this sentence.
That is interesting! Care to expound on your disagreement?
Sure. So I agree that America is an idea, but it isn’t simply an idea. It is also a people and place. I admire the ideals set forth in the Declaration and in the Preamble to the Constitution, and I agree that we haven’t lived up to them, but the importance of our constitutional system isn’t simply the striving toward a “more perfect union.” It’s also encapsulated in our past and it’s unfair to the past to treat it simply as a history of the ways in which we fell short. More than an aspirational moment, the Founding was the establishment of a real country which had to function and exist in the real world, where nothing is ever perfect and there are always tradeoffs and compromises. The Constitution didn’t have to achieve the sort of perfection that might be had in a philosophical seminar. It had to work. I think the importance of the Constitution is that it did work. For almost 250 years so far. Imperfectly, but better than many expected. And better than anyone had reason to expect. Measured against the past and against other regimes, it has worked remarkably well, even if it will always fall short of some hypothetical future utopia (which I don’t believe will ever exist).
Among those committed to the American experiment, those on the left focus more on the ideals and aspirations and potential for future improvements, and those on the right are more skeptical of that potential and more committed to preserving what has been done up to now and celebrating just how extraordinary our achievements have been when reckoned against the tragic world in which we live. There is value in each outlook.
I think that’s a great answer—thank you for taking the time to write it out. We’ll see if anyone else chimes in.
I agree with just about everything you say, with one key distinction. As a person on the left who does have an idealistic and aspirational view of the United States' future I can say, for me personally, that aspirational view is not rooted in any contempt of the past and it does not ignore the pragmatic realities of a government formed from an incredibly diverse population in a complex, hostile world. Rather, that aspirational view honors the vision of the Founding Father's and the absolute audacity required of them to create this Nation. I believe this Nation came into existence and succeeded only because the vision of the Founders/Framers, which if you get right down to it is based on the inherent rights of human beings to self determination, touched on a pure truth that resonates with, well, all human beings--it's something truly worth sacrificing for. Through its history the US has largely led the world in effectuating this vision. Obviously, it is has done so imperfectly, but the beauty of our government, at least in part, is that the Framers designed a system that has the capacity to self-improve and correct, while simultaneously enshrining core principles. That is what made the US capable of going from slavery, to emancipation, to desegregation, to the Civil Rights Act, etc. My aspirational view isn't rooted in the idea that the past is bad and the country needs to change, it's rooted in the idea that the work began by the Founders/Framers is ongoing. When the US was founded it was unique in the history of this world and it has, in my opinion, yielded far more good than bad for human kind. But existence is dynamic and freedom in a democratic republic is an active pursuit. While it's true our government created more peace and prosperity for more people than any previous government in history, not everyone in the US enjoyed that peace and prosperity because not everyone had the same *opportunity* to enjoy peace and prosperity--this should not be misconstrued as socialist/communist view of shared resources and perfectly equal wealth; I am talking about removing systemic roadblocks to ensure equal access to participation in education, governmental protection, geographic mobility, market participation, government/voting participation, real/personal property ownership rights, access to capital, etc; all those aspects which allow for a healthy and thriving free market economy and functioning democratic government. We must recognize where we fell short in the past to ensure that we shape a future that creates more *opportunity* for more people to achieve peace and prosperity, as opposed to merely preserving the status quo, or indeed as we see now, restricting and eliminating opportunities. We also see that where we once led the world, not just in a governmental democratic republic sense, but also in how we provided the masses with opportunity/access to education, access to information, made scientific contributions, created and provided market access, etc. etc. etc., we are now falling behind many countries in most key advanced development metrics. In short, my aspirational view isn't about tearing down and dishonoring our past, it is about honoring and building upon it.
I largely agree with all of that, although we would probably disagree on the prescriptions for how to go about ensuring equality of opportunity.
One final comment, I'm under no illusion that we are working toward a utopia. I'm committed that tomorrow is better than today, even if only incrementally. That does not mean I do not appreciate today; but unless you're of the view that everything today is perfect, doesn't working to make tomorrow a little better make sense?
I agree with that. I’m a Burkean, not a reactionary. Burke was a Whig. I’m skeptical of progress that occurs to quickly becoming destabilizing, but I believe in a general incremental improvement that emphasizes continuity with the past and gradual change over time.