What Would the Founding Fathers Envision?

Why do we always want to deify the "founding fathers" of our country? We act as if they were all-knowing, all-wise, perfect beings. In any national policy debate there is invariably one side or the other (or both) citing what the "founding fathers envisioned". Newsflash for all y'all... our founding fathers were just a buncha blokes like you and me.

I know, I know... this is blasphemy. We have learned from day one of kindergarten that Washington chopped down the cherry tree and when faced with owning up to his actions he famously stated "I cannot tell a lie...". It is pounded into our heads from day one that these men (Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, Adams, Madison, etc.) knew the way and could foresee any challenge our law-makers would face in the years to come, hence the "what did our founding fathers envision" argument. But there are a few things wrong with these assumptions...


But before I get into all that, let me point out that the work these guys did was, and continues to be, invaluable. They were intelligent and wise beyond their time. A great example of this was when the Articles of Confederation, as our first system of government, were floundering, Washington was asked by many to become the King of the United States. Recognizing that our young country had just fought a war to rid us of one king, he wisely declined the offer. He saw that only through a true democracy could our country flourish. Further, when the Articles finally failed beyond repair, the men who went to the Constitutional Convention in Philly in 1787 wisely crafted a document with the famed checks and balances that prohibits one branch of government from gaining too much power. This Constitution still guides our system of government today. And the omnipotence of these men ends there...

The Constitution is a living, breathing document that changes with time. This is not to say that we just change it at our whims and fancies. The procedure to change the Constitution through the amendment process was intentionally made to be quite prohibitive. This acts as a safeguard against, say, Congress making a willy-nilly law to restrict our freedom of speech or impede our freedom to privacy (although the Patriot Act does come to mind). Congress indeed has the constitutional power to make laws, provided they fall within the framework of the Constitution. And that Constitution does change, slowly, over time.

The best example of this is the slavery issue. The founding fathers were mostly wealthy men from Virginia, and most of those were slave owners. To actively be a slave owner meant that you could not "envision" the Constitution to disallow slavery. The United States, with the "more perfect union" the Constitution was intended to create, did indeed allow for slavery. Most in our time would agree that slavery is an abhorrent practice and its prohibition came far too late, and many of these people will also ask, on questions of public policy, "what would the founding fathers have envisioned?" These two thoughts actually contradict themselves as simply deferring to the founding fathers on this issue would mean the United States would still be a country that permits slavery. It is, after all, what the founding fathers envisioned.

So, if they were wrong about slavery, what else were they wrong about? The Constitution, as written in 1787, does not recognize the rights of women, or minorities, or those who do not own property, to vote. So did the founding fathers envision a country where a black woman who rents an apartment on the east-side could vote? Probably not.

The beauty of our Constitution is that it can change. When it became apparent just how wrong slavery is, the Constitution changed to reflect the updated values of a nation. And these updated values are at direct odds with the vision of the founding fathers.

Washington never actually chopped down that cherry tree... and even if he did and told the truth about it... what the heck was he doing chopping it down in the first place? He wasn't a god... just a really smart guy.

What's So Important About Now?

As a loyal third party voter (I have never voted for one of the two major parties for President... and very few for any other office), I am often asked how I could possibly waste my vote like I do. After all, don't I know that voting for a third party candidate is akin to giving a vote to the candidate from the two major parties that I like the least? In other words, wasn't voting for Michael Badnarik for president in 2004 the same thing as giving a vote to Kerry, since I saw Bush as the lesser of two evils? Badnarik, after all, had no chance of winning. I should vote for someone who actually does have a chance, otherwise I will just be wasting my vote... especially in this important time in our history when our nation is so divided. "It is more important now than it ever has been to make sure my vote is not wasted." I actually hear these words from otherwise intelligent people.

My response... at what point in our history has our vote not been important? Has there ever been a presidential election cycle where the nation wasn't divided, where the issues dividing the two major candidates weren't important enough to not "waste my vote"? The very first race between a Republican candidate and a Democratic one was in 1860. Were the issues facing Lincoln and Douglas any less important than they are today? Or what about when Roosevelt defeated Hoover in 1932... were those issues less important than today's? Or Kennedy v. Nixon in 1960? Johnson v. Goldwater in '64? Or how about after the Watergate scandal, when the nation had lost faith in its electoral system, was the '76 Carter v. Ford race any less important than any more recent one? And let's touch on that particular one for a minute...

After Watergate the nation's faith in our electoral system was in shambles. The power and prestige of the Presidency was at an all time low and the nation, more than anything, needed someone to step into the Oval Office and act as a healer... and we got Carter, one of the more forgettable presidents in our history. Not until Reagan took office four years later did the healing process truly begin. As "important" as the '76 election was, it didn't turn out to be that important.

My point is this... a vote for the person with whom your values most closely aligns is never a wasted one. There has never been, and will never be, an election that is so important so as to not vote your conscience simply to vote for the person you think has the best chance to win. Were that the case I would have voted for Bush in 2004 instead of Badnarik... now, with a couple years of hindsight, tell me that would not have been a wasted vote.