"Conservative" Declaration and "Liberal" Constitution?

[Nick Arnett]

On Feb 3, 2008 4:54 PM, Dave Land <dmland at gmail.com> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> I'm going to attend an Aspen Institute seminar in a couple of weeks, so
> I've been reading the source materials, and an intriguing thought
> occurred to me. I'd like to see this group's reaction to it.
>
> In "American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the
> Republic", Joseph J. Ellis writes:
>
>     "There were really two founding moments: the first in 1776,
>     which declared American independence, and the second in 1787-88,
>     which declared American nationhood. The Declaration of
>     Independence is the seminal document in the first instance, the
>     Constitution in the second.The former is a radical document that
>     locates sovereignty in the individual and depicts government as
>     an alien force, making rebellion against it a natural act. The
>     latter is a conservative document that locates sovereignty in
>     that collective called "the people," makes government an
>     essential protector of liberty rather than its enemy, and values
>     social balance over personal liberation."
> <http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l>


Certainly an interesting way to look at them.  I just re-read the
Declaration and found myself imagining what it would sound like to an
Iraqi...

I'm having a hard time seeing the Declaration as strongly locating
sovereignty in the individual.  It speaks directly to individual rights, but
I think it justifies itself only because it represents shared beliefs and a
shared will.  I can only see it establishing individual sovereignty by
virtue of what is missing -- a declaration of nationhood.  Yet it declares
an intent to form a new nation and by implication, I think, treats total
individual sovereignty as a transient state between governments.  Only a
true anarchist believes in total individual sovereignty.

Still, the Declaration's statements about the consent of the governed speaks
to this question... but I'm searching for a word other than sovereignty to
describe it.  The trouble is that this document is very far from treating
government, in general, as an alien force and rebellion natural.  This was
rebellion against a specific government, not government in general.

Today's conservatives complain about the bigness of government and its
inefficiency, which are hardly the issues identified in the Declaration.
Rather than being against taxation without representation, they're against
taxation with liberal representation.  Seems to me that there isn't a
mainstream conservative who would say that taxes are bad per se.  They just
want them kept to an absolute minimum, believing that everything that can be
done without government should be.  (Which yields blessings such as
Blackwater, ugh.)

Interesting perspective.

Nick

-- 
Nick Arnett
narnett at mccmedia.com
Messages: 408-904-7198