“The
people” is subjected to unintended consequences in necessary, multi-level civic
governance. Awareness of the uncertainties in governance empowers individuals,
whether citizen or not, to pursue the happiness they perceive even though chaos
may persist around them. The first level of governance is global, which the
people strains to influence. However, because America is relatively safe, happiness
as you see it is more practicable
here than in many other places in the world. But that condition will not hold,
if “the people” is just another idea destined for failure. Widespread appreciation
of the people’s advantage, republican governance influenced by democracy, could
reduce the mutual polarization and alienation that citizens of 2014 feel. Political
regimes, always vying for power, have produced domestic dysfunction. If the
people will ever govern its governance, as Abraham Lincoln imagined—governance of,
by, and for the people-- citizens must agree to specific goals, and the
preamble to the US Constitution, perhaps serendipitously offers sufficient,
common purpose. If not sufficient, seven shared goals are enough to start
learning how to be neighbors, and the people may add common goals as it
recognizes them.
I doubt
any lawyer would claim the preamble has legal power, and the Federalist Papers claim
that public virtue or personal
sacrifice by people with the nation’s best talents is required to control the
people’s conduct. But there are many evidences that the people provide the
abiding American civic virtue.[1]
For example, the people, without the best leadership or political regimes,
ended slavery and is attacking racial discrimination, despite abiding racial
leadership, such as the discriminatory Black Legislative Caucus. The preamble
literally states, “We the People of the United States” govern us, our states, and the country. Civic self-governance
is claimed by the seven listed goals, in my one-word reminders: integrity,
justice, civility, defense, perseverance, liberty, and continuity.
These are civic goals, designed to
foster domestic safety and domestic justice yet provide for cooperative
autonomy and mutual accommodation, the two primary civic virtues. With
fulfillment of the preamble, every citizen would pursue happiness as they
perceive it, neither in social conformance (beyond commitment to the preamble) nor
in subjugation to tyranny. In other words, the majority of citizens would live
in civic compromise but personal pursuits, like safe drivers at traffic lights
during power outages.
Religious
opinion offers a prime example of how cooperative autonomy and civic
accommodation works. This statement would be difficult to disprove: notwithstanding
judicial defense of “freedom of religion,” practical governance in America
began with theism in general according to Protestantism in particular and has
morphed into a theism that is despotically defended by the Supreme Court. Practically,
America remains “Christian.” Theistic and non-theistic citizens are divided and
often act as aliens if not enemies instead of neighbors. If citizens try to
address despotism by the Christian majority (about 244 million citizens) toward
the non-theist minority (about 73 million citizens), alienation occurs: one
neighbor “dusts off” the other, following “scripture.” The religious one labels
the neighbor’s arguments “secular,” which, being an antonym to “religious,” is
circular and avoids the civic basis
for compromise. Communications stop. Yet, it seems self-evident that theism does
not prove “god” and non-theism does not disprove “god.” Thus, both parties to
the issue, admitted or not, seek the
objective truth; perhaps each hopes that their beliefs will prove to be in
conformance with reality. Religion’s civic despotism is maintained by power
seekers: both religious institutions and political regimes that favor theism
instead of attention to the objective
truth. The Supreme Court holds that the growing minority just has to accept
being in a majority environment. Citizens can effect the needed compromise.
They have the opportunity to live in peace by appreciating each other as a civic majority who transcend personal
beliefs and hopes by acting to civically fulfill the preamble, maintaining
their personal interests such as religious associations in private. As civic
majority, theists and non-theists would not
adopt each other’s faith and reason, but would both appreciate each other’s informed
commitment to the preamble. Such neighbors may cheerfully debate religious
opinion as well as political opinion. The civic majority would enjoy cooperative
autonomy and mutual accommodation--those two civic virtues, and that requires the hard work of blunt, civil
exchange of ideas that can lead to mutual understanding and compromise.
Fulfilling the preamble is not an easy task.
The objective truth is the mediator
regarding all opinion, and it is the basis for compromise. Much of the
objective truth is not known. For example, statistical reasoning suggests that
extraterrestrial life exists. However, none has been discovered. Yet the
objective truth regarding extraterrestrial life exists. On the other hand,
mankind has proven that the earth is not flat: it is like a globe. In general,
the objective truth exists but often its discovery has not been accomplished. Mankind’s
understanding approaches the objective truth, but mankind observes a changing
universe and may never accumulate full understanding. What is known by humankind is staggering and ranges from facts, fiction
and art, to falsehoods. Few individuals can grasp even a fraction of what has
been discovered or invented: understanding can be a rewarding, lifetime
pursuit. No one should every stop learning.
The
fact that some of the objective truth is yet to be discovered or understood is
the reason people form opinions. Once a part of the objective truth is
understood, there is no need for opinion on that issue. Yet, often, an opinion
is essential to a person. For example, long before the deadly effects of
smoking cigarettes were proven, many smokers perceived the ruin they were
inviting. They coughed and spit up nasty looking phlegm, felt shortness of
breath and sometimes chest pains, yet had to have a cigarette with any cup of coffee
and the first thing in the morning and during any relaxation. They put up with
smelly clothing and furniture and home and car. Some formed the opinion that
cigarette smoking must not be good and therefore did not smoke. Their
consequence was better life and longer life. The cigarette debate seems over
for most, but a debate about marijuana-smoking rages. In either case, forming a
personal opinion and acting on it may be a matter of life and death: opinion is
essential.
However,
some unknowns do not require an opinion. Often, understanding the debate and accepting
that you do not know is sufficient, if not preferred. For example, admitting
that you do not know whether extraterrestrial life exists or not positions you
to discover an alien if you encounter one, instead of simply disbelieving. Similarly,
admitting you do not know whether “god” exists or not prepares you to accept
the discovery, whatever it may be. This is not to say it is wrong to either
believe or disbelieve what has not been discovered, but rather to point out
that it is alright if someone does the noble work to understand and admits they do not know what they do not know. People who have
practiced being “We the People of the United States” as defined by the preamble
can discuss these kinds of issues with appreciation for each other’s views, not
expecting to change each other’s mind: appreciating the fact that personal
opinion is essential to each individual when the objective truth has not been
discovered. For example, I can discuss “god” with my spouse and she kindly
responds with her opinions about God, each of us understanding that we are
discussing two different entities.
Like
never before, the Internet empowers each individual to explore different institutional
opinions, such as forms of government and religious dogma, and many people are
rebelling when discovered objective truth
renders religious doctrine obsolete. Often, affected institutions modify dogma
to accommodate discovery. For example, some religious institutions mollify
creation in seven days four thousand years ago with extended time and with
evolution as the method of creation (“evolution” being Darwin’s adaptation to changing
environment, not Spencer’s survival of the fittest). Believers value their
religious practices but are placed in psychological tension when doctrine
contradicts the objective truth. The people could require their institutions to
maintain the practices, but quickly eliminate dogma that does not respect the
objective truth. For example, many people follow the human tendency to take
responsibility for everything,
including afterdeath; some hope for eternal life in heaven. Eternal life does
not conflict with discovered truth, and the hope should not be discouraged by
people who disbelieve. It’s like a
fan of soccer claiming American football fans are stupid. The institutional
believer’s posture could become, “We don’t know, but these are our beliefs and
hopes.” They could require their institutions to serve them according to the
objective truth, just as in civic governance the people require elected and appointed
officials to serve them, the 67% majority—not the ever cycling 50% plus one
vote.
Opinion
about discrimination offers another prime example of how cooperative autonomy
and civic accommodation works. In the information explosion we enjoy, most
people understand that humans in fact have a common, evolutionary origin dating
from millions of years ago on the species level and billions of years ago on
the biological level. However, we have a common origin, referenced Online at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color
.
All modern
humans share a common ancestor
who lived around 200,000 years ago in sub-Saharan Africa. Comparisons between known skin pigmentation
genes in chimpanzees and modern Africans show that dark skin
evolved along with the loss of body hair about 1.2 million years ago and is the
ancestral state of all humans. (Emphasis
mine.)
More than ever before, American citizens may regard
each other as neighbors. American citizens who insist on racial discrimination
are rejecting our common origin and the opportunity to be of “We the People of
the United States” as defined in the preamble.
Further, at a much
faster pace than biological evolution, humankind, in most cultures, evolves—in
millennia, centuries, even decades. For example, divine human sacrifice was
practiced around the world a millennium ago and in particular cultures as late
as the nineteenth century. Divine sacrifice is nearly extinct, but enslavement
of people, both by force and by voluntary subjugation persists. Thanks to the
people, in just 400 years, this country was subjected to slavery, won
independence from the oppressor, abolished slavery, acted against
discrimination, and is in the process of abolishing discrimination. Every
citizen is a beneficiary of these accomplishments, but few appreciate the
importance of understanding what has happened; people are busy living. However,
a super majority continually communicating to fulfill the preamble would create
the needed awareness. The slaves and their ancestors until the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 were not part of “We the People of the United States” as defined in the
preamble. But neither were women, until 1920. Citizens of all skin colors may
ask themselves what it takes to become of “We the People of the United States”
as defined in the preamble and make it happen if they want it. I think all it
takes is the decision to join.
In the first half of
that four-hundred years, patriots saw the evil of slavery and the despotism of
civic religion, but unaware of some of the facts now understood, could not rid
the country of those plagues. Additionally, the early patriots could not
overcome their own Calvinistic impression that humans cannot learn civic virtue
and therefore organized a contradiction
in federal government: a citizen’s republic
with centralized force. Federalists and anti-federalists inacted a politic
divided on states’ rights, distracting focus from the people. Regimes have vied
for power in every age, pitting the majority of 50% plus-one-vote against the minority of 50% less-one-vote. A 67% majority of the people that is compromising to
give every citizen the opportunity to live in peace according to their view of
happiness would end the cycle of oppression of the 50% minority.
No generation has ever
been led by a political regime to organize existing citizens for a 67% majority
from every legal interest group--people dedicated to fulfilling the seven civic
goals stated in the preamble, each person conducting life according their
personal opinion as to what happiness is, during each decade of their lives.
Such living requires compromise. The purpose of Ratification Day Celebration
2014 is for interested citizens to imagine how that super majority, “We the
People of the United States” as defined by the preamble, can be established.
The present agenda came from the cave of my mind and is not important: it needs
the light of your opinion. Please offer better ideas.
If you have not reviewed the registration form,
please click on the “Conference” folder and notice the changes. Most important
is that the venue is the East Baton Rouge Parish Library, Main Branch, 1700
Goodwood Blvd, Conference Room B. There are twenty-three seats available today,
May 1.
Copyright©2014 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights
reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions
of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included.
[1]
Both “public virtue” and “civic virtue” are concepts I learned from Mark
Douglas McGarvie’s book, One Nation Under
Law, Northern Illinois University Press, 2004.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I want your opinion and intend to respond.