July 05, 2005
If The Declaration Had Been Written By The Left
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God and Gaia entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind fellows with our way of thinking requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation divorce.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal with some men more equal than others, that they are endowed by their Creator those of us with the intelligence to rule with certain unalienable alterable Rights, that among these are Life (unless you are a fetus), Liberty (save the freedom to think conservatively) and the pursuit of Happiness (providing you do it our way). –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed intelligencia, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it take it to the United Nations for consideration by the Security Council and or the Human Rights Committee, and to institute new Government federally funded programs, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness according to what we say is allowable. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes if at all; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed and thus, we support for decades such tyranny as we find in opposition to conservative thought and or freedom loving peoples. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government duty to continue to live under rules promulgated by those that truly know better, and to provide new Guards for their future security more funding for such programs as we can devise for the betterment of mankind. â€â€ÂSuch has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States and while we find this to be difficult, we understand that his upbringing and society at large are to blame for his Tyranny and that prior to our full and unalterable no-contest divorce, said George III requires therapy and understanding. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
And if the Declaration had been written by conservatives? Well...there wouldn't have been one. Republicans would still call themselves Tories, beholden to God and King...hey, wait a minute, that's starting to sound familiar...
_______________________
Actually Jim my friend, it was written by what we would now call conservatives... conserving life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Cheers...
GM
Posted by jim hitchcock at July 6, 2005 04:52 AM
I was thinking of writing a parallel post, something to the effect of "If the Declaration had been written by the Right," or maybe the Religious Right (but that would be almost too easy). It'd be too derivative, though, I think. :)
_____________________________
Yeah, I know, us conservatives just are too damn quick. We keep winning the war of ideas. ;-)
GM
Posted by Fargus at July 6, 2005 06:26 AM
....conserving life (i.e. unborn life; after that you're on your own, or if you're Terri Schiavo, in which we step in to revoke the liberty of choosing your destiny)...liberty (which to the right may be construed as the the right to maximize profit through low wages or the right to pollute(Clean Air Act anyone))...the pursuit of happiness (as long as it doesn't offend our (moral)sensibilites...:)
While one could argue that Jefferson (who lobbied for the vote to only go to the elite landowners) was conservative, the other authors of the second most revolutionary document in our history were anything but. Jefferson pretty much stayed clear of the Revolutionary War...the ones who fought it (the George Washingtons, the Thomas Paines, etc...we're willing to risk everything for a concept. Not what I would call conservative.
Posted by jim hitchcock at July 6, 2005 08:16 AM
Oh, did I forget to mention Ben Franklin, the original hippy...?
Posted by jim hitchcock at July 6, 2005 09:04 AM
Actually, GMR, the biggest difference - which I'd hardly expect you to grasp - had the Declaration or the original Constitution been "revised" by the Left Wing of the revolutionaries, for example Thomas Paine who was a member of the first Anti-Slavery society, would have been the inclusion of slaves in those subject to grievous wrongs. But short of that, a litmus test of "conservatives" vs. "liberals" and "leftists" in that day was their attitutde toward the French Revolution. Edmund Burke, conservative icon, was marginally sympathetic to the American colonists' grievances but certainly was no tribune for their cause, but he rather famously opposed the French Revolution while the American founders such as Jefferson and Franklin supported it, despite it's excesses. We can argue about the French revolution, but it's not the point. The point is that it was a defining issue for "conservatives" of the time, if you are trying to determine who stood in which camp among the contemporary "greats". Also, the "Creator" referred to in the Declaratioin was a deist conception that was radically different from the dogma-laden "God" that the Religious Right claims as patron of our country. Check Thomas Paine's writings on Chrisitanity for this. Or Jefferson. Jefferson, Paine and Franklin are all burning in hell according to the dogmas of people who currently have hijacked the term "evangelical Christians". Franky, if Falwell and Robertson end up in heaven, I'll take hell with Thomas Paine.
If this bilge is your idea of "winning the war of ideas" you're the George Armstrong Custer of the "culture war".
Posted by reg at July 6, 2005 11:31 AM
I wonder who this reg fellow is? He certainly has a rather billious outlook on life. Tsk, poor fellow.
Posted by George A. Custer at July 6, 2005 12:45 PM
reg is okay. He represents a segment of society that does not agree with conservatives, but conservatives must attempt to understand that segment to convince them differently or work out agreements. That's what I like about this site--it allows all politely expressed viewpoints--right, left, and, in my case, the middle. (Right, reg?) It has been my experience that reg is very smart and can be quite funny, but he can also be very extreme in his attacks. Also, because he comes from the left, I usually consider his interpretations as wrong--but, he does mine, too. However, I have to view that as my failure to explain my positions well, as my positions are usually correct.
Posted by Woody at July 6, 2005 02:28 PM
Kind words Woody...
Appreciated. I don't have hard feelings...just strong opinions. I DO try to back them up with some facts and historical context.
Posted by reg at July 6, 2005 09:38 PM
reg, I agree that you (and steve) do back up your opinions with support from other sites or publications. My experience has been that most from the left work on emotion rather than facts, so that does make you different.--and more of a challenge.
However, I have found that any position can be supported by some legitimate or half-way legitimate links on the internet. Therefore, the support, for both sides, is getting watered down from volumes of data, and it takes some research to wade through the information to get what is correct. No offense, but sometimes I don't read all the links from you or steve if I consider the sources questionable and when my time is limited. You might do the same with me.
Also, we may interpret history differently because we come from different experiences. For instance, one of my grandfathers hated Roosevelt with a passion and he was a big influence in my life. On the other hand, his wife and my grandmother used to throw away her votes on the socialist candidate because she didn't like either major party. She was not a big influence in my formative years. My grandfather was involved in coal and steel labor negotiations, and he influenced me on labor matters. I suspect that you had earlier influences that were opposite those to me. One isn't necessarily right or wrong, but we end up with two different interpretations of history. Also, I will mention that my mom taught history in college, so I was exposed to more of it and more analyses than most.
Because of our different views and because I still can learn, I enjoy discussing issues with people who don't think as I do. I keep learning and refining my thoughts. I do not have the same views that I had at ages 35, and when I was 25 I had different views than when I was 15. If I was always right, I wouldn't moderate my positions.
So, we keep on disagreeing but maybe get closer to each other with each discussion.
Posted by Woody at July 6, 2005 11:29 PM
Well said Woody!
Posted by G M Roper at July 7, 2005 07:16 AM
And to think I had something to do with stopping Reg and Woody from continually hurling invectives at each other over at Cooper's site...
Can I...dare I, say it? I AM A UNITER, NOT A DIVIDER!
Yes, friends, I WAS laughing at myself as I typed that...
Posted by jim hitchcock at July 7, 2005 09:37 AM
Jim, a sincere thank you. You can say the right thing at the right time or give me a laugh to stop the back-and-forth bantering.
Additionally, I want to thank you for taking up for me and my reputation when one of Cooper's regulars decided to change the discussions from ideas to personal attacks. This morning I read your exchanges from last night and was flabbergasted at someone's attempt to discredit me personally rather than debate my beliefs; but, I was more pleased when I read your posts defending my character, which more than offset those attacks. I usually will not respond to people who engage in personal attacks, so thanks for being there for me.
I don't know why it is so easy for people to stop discussing differences and start slinging mud. You and I often don't agree, but both of us can listen and understand--and, sometimes change minds. Why can't others do that?
Thanks for taking up for me when I was away. You can say with pride that you are a uniter!
Posted by Woody at July 7, 2005 11:32 AM
Aw shucks. But thanks. That guy was full of beans.
Posted by jim hitchcock at July 7, 2005 02:24 PM
Jim, take a bow. Your willingness to have argument as opposed to oppobrium is one of the reasons you are one of my favorite lefty type commenters. You are part of the looney left, but you are my kind of guy!
Thanks for everything, and that is from the heart!
Posted by G M Roper at July 7, 2005 04:59 PM
