Posted by
Andrews on Wednesday, January 02, 2008 12:50:08 PM
Whenever I listen to arguments, especially those among strict constitutionalists, I hear again and again the attempt to end all argument by referring to quotes from the Founding Fathers. Over and over conservatives will try to win a debate by mining every speech by Jefferson or Washington for that one argument winning quote.
For example: Again and again isolationists (or non-interventionists, as they now call themselves) throw around the quote about "no entangling alliances", hoping to keep us form any involvement in foreign affairs by relying on the authority of George Washington (who entered happily into an entangling alliance with France). Or social libertarians will try to tear down the Patriot Act by throwing out Franklin's quote about the incompatability of freedom and security (though if they knew what Franklin and his contemporaries understood to be acceptable restraints on speech, for example, they would cringe).
Well, I am here to make the sacrelegious suggestion that this is all a waste of time.
Why? Well, for several reasons:
1. The Founding Fathers were just men. Yes, they were very clever men who developed a very fine system of government, put a lot of thought into governing, and did a good job, but they were just men. Sorry, but no man is without flaw, and the Founders were no exception. Just because a Founding Father said it does not make it right, or immune from dispute.
2. The Founders DID make errors: Jefferson was prone to silly agrarian and populist flights of fancy, ascribing way too much virtue to people who worked the land. Hamilton had a tendency toward authoritarianism and elitism that sometimes ran counter to his more well known, and more egalitarian, writing. And they were not alone. Given some time I can find a foolish statement from each of the Founders.
3. The Founders were not a monolithic group: It is foolish to say we should support the views of "the Founders" anyway. They were FAR from a homogeneous group. Look just at Jefferson and Adams, or Hamilton and Madison, these men had widely divergent views. So, if we are going to defer in all ways to the Founders, what happens if someone quotes Jefferson and I find a contradictory quote from Hamilton? Which trumps the other?
4. Many fall into anachronism: Many who quote the Founders also do so because they understand the quotes in an anachronistic way. When Franklin spoke about freedom and security, he also accepted that a free society could punish seditious speech and that many constraints on free speech were acceptable. In fact, what Franklin accepted as given, what he saw as allowable restraints on civil liberties would offend even the most conservative jurists of today. So to throw out that Franklin quote to object to tapping phones or getting lists of library books is absurd, Franklin accepted far worse as completely compatible with liberty.
So be on notice: I am no longer allowing anyone to quote the Founders in an attempt to cut off debate. And I suggest all others do the same. It has been too long that conservatives have allowed a (proper) veneration of the Founders turn their quotes into dogma. Most, if not all, of the Founders would not have accepted any mortal authority as beyond dispute, so why should we accept their own words as such?
It is time that we stopped letting the names Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, Jay, etc. cut off debate and trump even the most well reasoned argument.