[Previous entry: "Rush’s Modest Proposal"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Muses of Mirth"]

03/16/2005: "Declaration of Interdependence"

The language of the Declaration of Independence has been much in the news lately due to its religious references. Lost in the hubbub are the real objectives of the document. As pointed out in earlier entries in this journal, the reason for the religious language was not to score points with the Big Guy but to stick a thumb in the royal eye (or should I say the Royal We?) of King George III and His supposed divine right to rule. I’m more compelled by the next phrase: “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…” In other words, government has a key role in ensuring “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The extreme right wing ideologues currently holding the reins of power in the US are much less enthusiastic about the governmental institutions of Men that secure these rights than they are with the Creator who (somewhat passively, to my ear) merely endows these rights. You don’t hear the right wing quoting the phrase I’ve called out, despite its clear language. There are two reasons. First, its obvious implication was that the Founding Fathers wanted to temper the references to God in the previous sentence, lest posterity get the mistaken idea that they wanted the US to be a theocracy. Eleven years later (and wiser), they went even farther; in the Constitution, “We the People” are the source of political power, with nary a single reference to God or even to religion other than to prevent Congress from promoting or interfering with it. The right wing is also mum on the “secure these rights” phrase because right wing ideology does not tolerate a role for government in individual pursuit of happiness. Government’s having an active role in pursuit of happiness is in contravention to right wing advocacy of sharply limited government. In reality, though, happiness in large part dependent on factors partly and often completely out of the control of individuals – health, job security and macro-economic conditions, and personal security from criminal action being a few of these factors. Government has always had an important role in these areas. Could their lack of empathy stem from the shield against the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” that family wealth provides?