A Nation Divided

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnR

And at our current rates, what we are doing as a nation is not sustainable.

GenX is now becoming of age where they (we'll) be taking more of the reigns. Can we fix things? How do we fix things? We're supposed to be the generation that breaks the mold on race, allowing for more tolerance, but can we do it? We're supposed to be the generation that fixes education but that doesn't look to be taking root.

Where a lot of Boomers have gotten us to where we are now, can the current awaking generation do a better job? Can many of the faults be hoisted on the boomers? Not that laying blame will fix any problems.

I do weep for my country.

Perhaps as a hypothetical exercise, we come up with a way to fix the USA's ills ?

If the hypothetical fracture comes along - I can likely be reached in TX or North Carolina.

John, the fix was made after the first division/separation/Revolution. It was a superb document which was formed by the lessons of history, and the evolution of law from biblical times through to Roman Law and through trials of Western Civilization to the Magna Charta and the ensuing voluminous case history of the English Court system. It was devised at a point in time when men were, through that revolution, free and far from tyrannical power, a kind of historical moment that rarely exists. It was, in that rare circumstance, necessary to create a system of governance that would allow division but not allow factions to deprive individual liberty. The Framers were in a relatively "pristine" mode of thought concerning how to create and maintain such a system. Though many had different opinions and selfish personal or sectarian motives, they understood that all must be accomodated within the system. There was, in the final creation, no room for a government that allowed factional divisiveness to dominate individual liberty. The Constitution they created allowed for that liberty to flourish, as in no other known society, for a hundred years. Those Founders knew that it was a fragile system that would probably decay--even Madison predicted it would last a century.

The decay, of course, is not an organic decomposition of the parchment, but a corrosion of political and judicial fidelity to the words on that parchment as written and intended. And just as that infidelity has been intentional by progressive leaders and jurists, so can fidelity intentionally be restored. There is no need for a break-up or partitioning of this country. That original Constitution superbly allows for individuals and communities with differing ideas to stay united. It was tried successfully. But the departure from it has led to ideas of separation, and to a fiscal mess fostered by a domineering, unconstitutionally operating Federal Government.

I know that most of us are pessimistic that we can revert to correct, Constitutional government, many even believe it is not good to do so. But the fix is there, in our hands, if, as a people, we understood that. If not, there will be the constant bitching about how to fix it, and wonks will tweak at the present corrupt edges, and drift further from the fix, and, who knows . . . ?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

John, the fix was made after the first division/separation/Revolution. It was a superb document which was formed by the lessons of history, and the evolution of law from biblical times through to Roman Law and through trials of Western Civilization to the Magna Charta and the ensuing voluminous case history of the English Court system. It was devised at a point in time when men were, through that revolution, free and far from tyrannical power, a kind of historical moment that rarely exists. It was, in that rare circumstance, necessary to create a system of governance that would allow division but not allow factions to deprive individual liberty. The Framers were in a relatively "pristine" mode of thought concerning how to create and maintain such a system.

Great summation,Detbuch.
These were men of a deep spiritual faith who knew first hand what tyranny was
and had the intelligence to know history and look back and see what
needed to be done to live under liberty.
It all came together as the most perfect govenment document the world has ever known.
To look at it as a "living, breathing" document is bunk.
Living by it's original intent will bring a "perfect union".

What's lacking now, imho, is the Patriotism that brings us together as Americans.
The great leaders were able to bring out the best of us as Americans and made us
feel proud of who we were, even though we are imperfect.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Great summation,Detbuch.
These were men of a deep spiritual faith who knew first hand what tyranny was
and had the intelligence to know history and look back and see what
needed to be done to live under liberty.
It all came together as the most perfect govenment document the world has ever known.
To look at it as a "living, breathing" document is bunk.
Living by it's original intent will bring a "perfect union".

What's lacking now, imho, is the Patriotism that brings us together as Americans.
The great leaders were able to bring out the best of us as Americans and made us
feel proud of who we were, even though we are imperfect.

In the summation, I left out what might be another important factor and contribution to the writing of the Constitution--the influence of the native Indian tribes on the colonists, especially the Iroquois Confederacy. North America was exceptionally fertile for the existence of individual liberty. Even the people that theoretically emigrated from Asia to the Americas created different cultures in North and Middle/South America, at least as has been studied. The notable Indian civilizations of Middle and South America were what we call great, advanced cultures, but oppressive, autocratic versions of old world empires. North American natives, though far less "advanced," seemed to have fostered more civil societies, especially the Iriquois Nation. There is evidence, though no concrete proof, that contact with Native Americans, especially the treaties and contacts with the Iroquois Confederacy, may have had an influence on the colonists and the Founders in the writing of the Constitution.

So the Founders were not only inoculated against old world tyranny through their experience and study of history, but were living in a climate distinct from what was occuring in Europe with its French Revolution and developing theories of class struggle and the animous of "the people" against their rulers and upper classes and developing socialistic philosophies that eventually produced Marxism. The emphasis here was individual liberty, in Europe it became collective equality. And the divided nation as the subject of this thread is really about the division that occurred with the introduction here of "progressive" ideology and its intrinsic basis of class struggle. This might be the worm in the bud that defeats us and our Constitutional foundation. It is an ideology that basically does not allow for bringing together differing points of view and allowing individuals to live and let live. It is about the constant struggle of collective masses against, at present, their capitalist owners of production. During the height of progressive and academic historiagraphy in this country, the Founders were looked upon as capitalist oppressors who exploited their workers, not as a special group of men creating a great document of liberty. To them, the Constitution was a co-option of the Revolution to restore and maintain power to the capitalists. The true progressives today, especially in academia, still believe this. This is why the Constitution, which is still dear to the hearts of most citizens, cannot be openly dismissed, but we can pretend to honor it by saying that it is "living, breathing" and as such, changing to suit modern times and needs. If you want to see the nightmare of what a progressive Constitution would be, google Rexford G. Tugwell, New States of America Constitution. Tugwell was one of the three important Braintrusts for FDR. He admitted in a later article in CENTER MAGAZINE, March 1968, page 20 that the legislative schemes he helped promote for the New Deal were "torutured interpretations of a document [the Constitution] intended to prevent them."