In their recent Politico article, “Constitution is inherently progressive,” John Podesta (former chief of staff to President Clinton and current president of the Center for American Progress) and John Halpin argue that the “values” of the Constitution are progressive, not conservative, and that conservatives should stop claiming that progressivism is at odds with the Constitution. “Since our nation’s founding,” the authors claim, “progressives have drawn on the Declaration of Independence’s inspirational values of human liberty and equality in their own search for social justice and freedom.”  The progressive “framework” of public-private cooperation, they continue, is “the essence of the constitutional promise of a never-ending search for ‘a more perfect union.’”  In short, the progressive “vision” of the Constitution best represents the American tradition. This argument, which is part of recent progressive efforts to rehabilitate their constitutional bona fides, might come as a surprise to the real founders of progressivism, for while some contemporary progressives might preach a Declaration-based faith and try to get right with the Constitution, early progressives had little use for either document.

According to Woodrow Wilson, what he called the “preface” of the Declaration of Independence—the part about “self-evident truths,” “unalienable rights” given to human beings by the Creator, and the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”—was not the “real Declaration of Independence.”  If you want to understand that, Wilson said, “do not repeat the preface.”  For Wilson, the point of the Declaration—and the Constitution, too—was not the permanence of any principles.  “No doubt,” he wrote, “we are meant to have liberty, but each generation must form its own conception of what liberty is.”  The Founders, early progressives held, wrote for their own time in our first documents, but not for future generations. For Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Croly, Frank Goodnow and other founding fathers of progressivism, the Constitution of the American Founding was an obstacle to be overcome.  Insisting that the Constitution must be interpreted in view of the new but increasingly dominant Darwinian model of constant change, progressives pronounced our Constitution a “living” document.  The Constitution, they believed, is as malleable as human nature itself.  The Founders’ old ideas about separation of powers could be discarded in favor of new and improved notions of “enlightened administration.”

Podesta and Halpin allege that conservatives “often mask social Darwinism . . . in a cloak of liberty,” but in fact it is progressivism whose roots run deepest in the political ideology of Darwinism.  The fittest among us, it turns out, are the bureaucrats, empowered by a Constitution whose original restraints, like federalism and the limitations imposed by enumerated powers, have been stripped by progressives in favor of a more “dynamic” model.

(more…)

Thomas Paine said that “It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government.”  He did so amidst the long shadow of a centralized government which regarded individual rights as secondary to its own.  Today, “56% of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey  . . . say they think the federal government’s become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens.”  They do so in the shadow of a government seeking to take control of nearly 17% of the US economy, if not that portion of our lives, in the name of caring for our health.

For any that have cared to listen to the debates over multi-trillion dollar spending programs, tax hikes, cap and trade or health care, at issue is not simply whether those huge government programs would provide lasting solutions – they will not – at issue is our basic right to Liberty.  Quite frankly, it was never the assumption of the Founding Fathers that it was the role of government to provide a moving target standard of living for Americans.  It was their sincere hope that the government of limited powers they set up would allow people to pursue their lives, Liberty and happiness.  To do so they, wanted to hamstring government’s ability to act – not ours.

Since then, of course, the scale has tipped in favor of government power over our pursuits.  Each step along the way, those concerned with our Liberty have heard the echoes of Senator Daniel Webster when he said:

“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”

As you consider his words, it may worthy to also consider the lives of Americans, at the dawn of these United States, and the lives of Americans today.

(more…)