Recovering the Declaration

(http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/archives/52657)

As Americans celebrate July Fourth and enter into an election cycle in which politicians are apt to misappropriate the Founders' legacy, there has never been a better time for us to reflect on the true meaning of the Declaration of Independence.

Contrary to popular misconceptions, July 4, 1776, was neither the beginning of the War of Independence nor the date on which our independence was secured. American patriots had already been fighting the British and their Loyalist allies for over a year when the delegates in Philadelphia signed the Declaration. It would be another five years before our independence was won on the battlefield at Yorktown.

If the Declaration did not establish our independence, what did it do? Jefferson drafted, and Congress ratified, a declaration of "the causes which impel them to the separation." They carefully explained to the world the grievances they had endured and set forth the theoretical justification for an independent American republic that would better protect our liberties than the British Empire had.

It is in the Declaration of Independence that we see best how the Founders envisioned state and federal authority uniting to form a national union.

Contrary to the now-popular view that regards the Declaration as Holy Writ, the Founders viewed the great document as illuminating and explaining the foundations of the American republic as resting upon a political compact. Such an agreement formed a republic in which there existed the same equality of rights among the states composing the union as existed among the citizens composing the states themselves.

The Declaration claimed legitimacy for a political compact that had developed with "time and experience" into a model of political and social stability. It preserved the center of authority within each individual state, and it allowed for secession when government "becomes destructive of these ends," for then "it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it."

While the Declaration appropriately described the status of "Free and Independent States" as essential to the republic, the document also confirmed the true story of the creation of the country: the states "ordained" or created the republic.

The Declaration introduced — or rather, officially recognized — the original design of the republic. The Articles of Confederation, the first American constitution, incorporated this design into the fundamental law of the regime. For the Founders, the provisions and language of the Articles served as an authentic guide to the American Constitution.

The Constitution of 1787 cannot be understood without first understanding the defense of local authority contained in the Articles. Drafted in stages from 1776 to 1777, the Articles extended and revised the Declaration's defense of local and state authority, and the delineation of state autonomy, while establishing popular rule based upon the deliberative, decentralized, community-centered participation of the citizenry. As with the Declaration, the Articles recognized the original design for a union of liberty, a republic of independent and sovereign states.

 

So, while charlatans seek to revise Paul Revere's ride or to diminish the accomplishments of Washington and Jefferson, let us pause to reflect on the true significance of our founding. We should rightly celebrate the Declaration as a beginning of our political principles, not the final word.

Often abused by politicians and scholars of every ilk, the grand document remains a fundamental American defense of diffused power that our leaders in Washington and the professorate cannot ignore.

H. Lee Cheek Jr. is dean of social sciences and professor of political science and religion at Gainesville State College. Sean R. Busick is a professor of history at Athens State University in Athens, Ala.

New Op-Ed on Political Correctness in today's Minneapolis Star Tribune

(http://www.startribune.com/opinion/123403508.html)

"Political Correctness" and Lake Calhoun

• Article by: H. LEE CHEEK JR. and SEAN R. BUSICK

The recent and misguided effort to rename Lake Calhoun is a sign of how we as contemporary Americans have a tendency to "forget who we are" and engage in what has become known as political correctness.

The advocates of political correctness want to corrupt history for temporary political gains more than they desire to keep or restore it, and their efforts are, sadly, a disease on the body politic.

The operatives of political correctness have met with some success of late.

With Orwellian irony, they succeeded in having a U.S Navy ship named for a person who hated the Navy (Cesar Chavez) and have imposed "speech codes" (with the actual purpose of restricting speech) on many college campuses -- as well as more destructive examples of assaulting First Amendment rights and redefining history.

The greatest threat to political correctness is an environment in which free and uninhibited discussion and disagreement can take place. In fact, diversity of thought is the opposite of political correctness, and is at the heart of a free society.

The proponents of political correctness -- and those who wish to rename Lake Calhoun -- stand on the side of censorship against free and diverse discussion.

Equally misguided, the Lake Calhoun critics want to misrepresent and vilify one of America's greatest statesmen, John Caldwell Calhoun. Born in 1782 near Abbeville, S.C., Calhoun graduated from Yale College and Litchfield Law School.

He served two terms in the South Carolina Legislature until elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1811. As a congressman, Calhoun's reputation was that of a moral statesman who regarded limited government and patriotism as synonymous.

President James Monroe asked Calhoun to assume the helm at the War Department (later given the more politically correct title of Department of Defense) in 1817, where he served until 1825, and he is described as the ablest war secretary the country had before the Civil War, while offering a fairer and more humane approach to Native American affairs than his predecessors.

While spending most of his public life in the United States Senate, he was also vice president under both John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson -- and he served as secretary of state to John Tyler.

He is generally regarded as one of the greatest senators ever, part of the "Great Triumvirate" with Henry Clay and Daniel Webster -- and each supported the Fugitive Slave Act.

What the advocates of a politically correct name change do not want you to know is that Calhoun was not only one of America's greatest statesmen, but also one of its greatest thinkers. His two treatises on American politics, the Disquisition and Discourse (published after his death), demonstrate his hope that America could avoid the pending conflict of the Civil War.

His persistent fear was that unpatriotic sectionalism would lead to civil war and a dissolution of the union. His last years were spent attempting to unify the country. On March 31, 1850, Calhoun died in Washington, D.C.

In Calhoun's interpretation, America's greatest hope lay in the interposing and amending power of the states, which was implicit in the Constitution. This alone could save the country by allowing for a greater diffusion of authority and undermining the cause of sectional conflict.

Calhoun's purpose was the preservation of the original balance of authority and the fortification of the American political system against the obstacles it faced.

The advocates of a name change may have good intentions, but as Shakespeare warned, "men are men; the best sometimes forget." John Calhoun was imperfect, but he remains one of the greatest statesmen in American history.

Keep Lake Calhoun for posterity, and for the rising generation.

H. Lee Cheek Jr. and Sean R. Busick are, respectively, professors of political science and history at Athens State University in Alabama.

Review of Kateb's Human Dignity

Review of George Kateb's Human Dignity (Harvard University Press, 2011)

In this lucid and highly readable "defense of human dignity" (xii) and rights, Kateb (Princeton University) explicitly avoids the use of theological insights (156), preferring the autonomous individual and human reason as his guides.  For Kateb, the equal status of persons and the dignity of the person are not synonymous with the dignity of the species.  Human "stature" is viewed as individual achievement, whereas a complete theory of human dignity must include "equal individual status" and the "status of the species" (9).  The study predictably values the individual over the community, often discounting communitarian achievements to the promotion of human dignity.  While exhibiting much perceptiveness, this study approaches human dignity with what some readers will view as overly modest expectations, perhaps not unrelated to the author's refusal to fully assess the contribution of religious thinking on the topic. 

In defending the "inviolability" (31) of human rights on moral and existential grounds, the "golden rule" is offered as the best guide for private morality, while a humane constitution is presented as the "best public morality" (52).  Kateb's critique of many prominent thinkers, including Peter Singer, J. S. Mill, and others, and his provocative application of a theory of human dignity and rights to contemporary politics, are significant accomplishments of the book.

H. Lee Cheek, Jr., Ph.D.

Review of Morrell's Empathy and Democracy

Morrell, Michael E.  Empathy and Democracy: Feeling, Thinking, and Deliberation (University of Pennslyvania Press, 2010)

Writing within the political tradition of contemporary liberalism, but offering insights of enduring importance on the value of empathy to democratic thought, Morrell (Univ. of Connecticut) attempts to advance "democracy's promise" by promoting both a deliberative and equal political order.  The study begins with a thoughtful survey of the tensions between deliberation as reflection and deliberation as equal consideration.  The concept of empathy, as well as empathy's potential contribution to democratic thought, is analyzed.  Empathy as a process, including affect and cognition, is defended.  In arguing for an "affective turn" as the best alternative for democratic life, the author affirms and surveys the contribution of political psychology regarding the role of "emotion, feelings, moods, and passions" in "explaining political attitudes and behavior."  When the process model of empathy is integrated within deliberative democratic practices, "legitimate decisions that give equal consideration to all those in a society" can be achieved.  The study fails to incorporate the discernments of classical, Christian, and phenomenological traditions regarding empathy into an otherwise noteworthy project.  This reevaluation of the importance of empathy to deliberative democracy fills a critical lacuna in current scholarship.

H. Lee Cheek, Jr., Ph.D.

Assoc. Vice President of Academic Affairs and

Professor of Political Science

Athens State University

lee.cheek@athens.edu

http://www.drleecheek.com/

Coming in April! A New Edition of _A Theory of Public Opinion_

Review of David Strauss, _The Living Constitution_ (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2010)

Strauss, David A.  The living Constitution.  Oxford, 2010.  150p index afp; ISBN 9780195377279, $21.95. Reviewed in 2010dec CHOICE.

In this volume, Strauss (law, Univ. of Chicago) provides an accessible and lucid refutation of originalist jurisprudence. In six chapters containing both new and previously published scholarship, originalism is analyzed as a flawed approach to interpreting the Constitution (chapter 1). The common law as the basis for American constitutionalism is defended (chapter 2), the "evolutionary common law" is applied to issues of speech and race (chapters 3 and 4), and the challenges of utilizing a written constitution are discussed (chapters 5 and 6). Unfortunately, the author's occasionally unreflective attitude toward originalism is most obvious when he argues incorrectly that the concept "cannot even claim the one advantage it purports to have over living constitutionalism," namely, the ability to limit judicial activism. Another weakness of an otherwise insightful critique is the author's omission of the nuances of the common law, especially in terms of how the common law contributes to a variety of modes of democratic theory. Regardless of how one interprets the Constitution, this volume will force the reader to reconsider fundamental assumptions about the nature of constitutional interpretation and the American regime while encountering a passionate defense of "an evolutionary form of living constitutionalism." Summing Up: Recommended. All readership levels. -- H. L. Cheek Jr., Athens State University

Review of Nemeth's _Aquinas and King_ (Carolina Academic Press, 2009)

Nemeth, Charles P.  Aquinas and King: a discourse on civil disobedience.  Carolina Academic, 2009.  125p index  afp ISBN 9781594606380 pbk, $16.00 

In this thoughtful, succinct study, Nemeth (California Univ. of Pennsylvania) attempts to synthesize the social, religious, and legal thought of St. Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther King Jr. regarding civil disobedience and the need for "an objective moral order."  In the first two chapters, the nature of law is explained, especially the categories of Thomistic legal thinking, as well as the meaning of civil disobedience.  Chapters 3 and 4 argue for the compatibility of civil disobedience and the Christian life.  The "radical" aspect of the interpretation suggests that an unjust law should not be obeyed.  The final chapter proposes areas of agreement between Aquinas and King regarding civil disobedience.  The book provides an engaging, lucid introduction to Aquinas on law.  Unfortunately, the analysis of King's thought is less discerning and fails to appreciate the overriding influence of Boston personalism upon his views of social and political life.  The author is correct to suggest both Aquinas and King "deliver an ethical construct that mirrors human life"; however, the divergence between Aquinas and King may be greater than the proposed convergence.  Summing Up: Recommended.  Upper-division undergraduate, graduate, research, and professional collections.