Thursday, January 10, 2008

Declaration of Misinformation

During a rousing moment in the final New Hampshire debate, Mike Huckabee misquoted the Declaration of Independence. This in itself may be excused, except that the nature of his misquote betrays his misunderstanding of the Declaration. It may also reveal a more insidious intention to purposefully misread the Declaration and promote destructive ignorance. It may be a good electoral tactic, but it is truly unfortunate. Huckabee declared that,
  • “the primary purpose of a government, is to recognize that those rights did not come from government, they came from God. They are to be protected, and then defined, as the right to a life, the right to liberty, our freedom to live our lives like we wanna live them without government telling us how to do it.”
He is simply wrong—substantively and conceptually. Whether misinformed, ignorant, or deceptive, we cannot afford a president who either misunderstands the founding principles of our government and civil society or is trying to undermine those principles.
No one (other than some law & order conservatives or pro-torture hardliners) believes that rights come from government. He sets up this straw man in order to make is argument that rights came from God. This is simply a distortion (at best) of the intentions and ideas of the Framers. The Declaration actually says that,
  • “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
The framers believed that the liberty of acting according to our own will is grounded in the possession of reason. John Locke said it is reason that makes us free and equal. Reason allows us to recognize the humanistic principle “that all being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.”

Because all have access to the Law of Reason, we the people are able to institute government in order to protect and preserve those rights we naturally possess. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. The “Creator” is not important to this principle. We have Rights because we are human and we extend Rights to others because we can recognize our shared humanity. Government is charged with the administrative task of guaranteeing our Rights. In no way is it the “primary purpose of a government . . . to recognize that those rights . . . came from God” as Huckabee imagines.

Furthermore, Huckabee’s idea of “God” has little in common with the deistic “Creator” of the Declaration. The founders where actually quite careful to exclude “God” from our charter documents and they certainly did not believe in a theistic God like Huckabee’s. But this is probably the real coded message of misinformation that Huckabee intends. If Huckabee wants to turn these United States into a theocracy, he should say so. There are those among his supporters who would like to create a Christian Nation. If this is Huckabee intent he should say as much. To distort Locke, Jefferson, Madison, et al is a betrayal of ideas and people who established the government that Huckabee wants to lead. The Constitution offers significant protection against politicians that would undermine its principles or who try to tear down the wall separating church and state, but we must be vigilant in listening to the coded words our would-be presidents speak.

Labels: , , , , , ,

2 Comments:

Blogger Bob Robinson said...

I don’t think that Huckabee is setting up a straw man. If that is the case, then the very Declaration of Independence is guilty of the same straw man argument. The Declaration makes the same case for why the United States has the right to come into existence. It is saying that rights come from God and not the State. Therefore, the state has no authority to take these rights away or override them.

You quote the Declaration and then interpret it to say that it is merely about “Reason” and then say that “the ‘Creator’ is not important to this principle.” I think that you are too ready to dismiss the implications of the Declaration clearly identifying a “Creator.” I submit that the Declaration is not merely about “Reason” as the end; it is about Reason as a means to an end: That it is “self-evident” via Reason that these things are true:
-that all men are created equal,
-that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
-that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
-that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The Declaration is saying that we are not equal because of any government’s declaration that we are such; we are equal because we are created equal. One cannot be created without a Creator. Remember, contrary to your contention that "the founders were actually quite careful to exclude 'God' from our charter documents, God is referenced four times in the Declaration: the very basis of its authority is in the Laws of Nature and “Nature’s God”; men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”; the signers appeal to the “Supreme Judge of the world”; and rely on “Divine Providence.” So, according to the Declaration, the divine origin of authority is the fundamental guarantor of rights and democracy.

I certainly understand people’s suspicion of evangelical Christians using code words for an attempt to create a Theocracy. However, I can only name a handful of wackos on the far right that actually think that America should be a Christian theocracy.

References to the divine origin of political authority are abundant in the Western world, and they have nothing in common with the bugaboo that is often called “theocracy.” For instance, the Canadian constitution even states that it is founded on principles that recognize the “Supremacy of God.” If, by the term “theocracy,” we mean direct rule by God, then few want or even expect that today.

Recognition of a divine source for human rights does not undermine the separation of Church and State. It does no good to write off a candidate as an advocate for theocracy based simply on his appeal to natural law. Christian political theory that embraces that Declaration of Independence should not be read as something more than it is: A good thing that says that governmental authority can only go as far as God has mandated it to go. People have rights not because they given them by government; people have rights because they are given by “Nature’s God.”

11:46 AM  
Blogger Richard Stanislaw said...

Thanks Bob! :)

I get to all your points eventually I hope. But to start, it IS important that Locke (and Jefferson) starts with Reason. Reason comes first for Locke--it is both an instrument for use and a central component of Human Nature.

According to Locke (& Jefferson) the state certainly does not have rights--that is my beef with Huckabee's mischaracterization. For better or worse the state is established (by the people) to protect rights that exist prior to the state and will endure the dissolution of the state. (I certainly did not intend to suggest that state has rights over the people.) :-)

12:48 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home