It is not surprising that Michael Zuckert’s view* of President Donald Trump is populist. I understand "populist" to mean a politician who claims to represent “common man.” In 1776, Thomas Paine wrote, “I do not choose to be a common man.” I think the U.S. purpose is responsible human liberty. Among the We the People of the United States under the U.S. preamble---that is, psychologically free of English influence---there are no intended commoners.
Zuckert is a leading scholar on Englishman John Locke’s opinions. Locke-opinion may not be capable of imagining an American. In other words, many English traditions oppose the American intentions. American intentions are yet to be developed by an adult majority in an American generation. That is, no past U.S. generation has reformed from some colonial-English traditions. I doubt Trump has such reform in mind yet hope he will think of it during his presidency.
Zuckert makes a good point: vigilantism leads to lawlessness that can infect civic citizens---those who otherwise collaborate for equity under the U.S. preamble. I thought of the Democratic Party’s mob attack on now Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. I also recalled James Comey’s unbelievable conduct in the investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton; plus the subsequent evidence that Comey has yet to understand the meaning of integrity as a practice: doing the work to admit to self you do not know facts you do not know. The President-Trump surprise in this article makes me wonder about Zuckert’s psychological maturity.
It’s no surprise that a political scientist would admire “the founders.” It’s a way to impose personal opinion. To the writer “the founders” is not unlike “God.” To the reader, the writer’s God is whatever-God-is. In other words, the reader does not impose his or her God on the writer, but the writer keeps imposing his or her God. (Neither party appreciates whatever-God-is.) Nobody can agreeably name the founding fathers. Political science flourishes on opinion rather than ineluctable evidence.
Past and present English thought matters not to U.S. fellow citizens. What matters in the U.S. is the power of what the 55 framers constructed and the 39 signers approved on September 17, 1787 in Philadelphia. Reference to “the framers” probably indicates a viewpoint of one or more of the 15 dissidents from the 12 attending states’ delegates. With perhaps 4 representative dissidents from the rebel state, there might have been 19 total dissidents, such that the signers were 66% of U.S. representation. Representatives who were nevertheless champions of colonial-English oppression were among the 34% dissidents, and some of the signers probably held similar views but signed anyway. The USA was established on June 21, 1788, with at least 34% dissention among free citizens.
Back to Zuckert’s point, there are in this country fellow citizens who are dissenters, including groups who support vigilantism, zealots for social democracy, and skeptics with the intent to disguise actual reality with obscure arguments. Saul Alinsky thought violence was justified when his rights were at stake. And he was in charge of determining Alinsky’s rights. His vigilantism for the poor became mob disruption of civic, civil, and legal daily conduct. In general, the mob violence of the early 1960’s and President Johnson’s Great Society of 1964-65 spawned what I call Alinsky-Marxist organizing (AMO) that emerged by 1968. The Marxist slant is individuals erroneously claiming they are victims, much as John the Apostle (d. AD 100). In John 15:18-23, he erroneously accuses me of hate. (That is my opinion: not my judgement.)
AMO zealots have spawned prolifically on the promise that civic disruption can be used to coerce We the People of the United States into submission: a coalition of AMO causes can dominate and overcome the rule of law in the USA. Effecting Zuckert’s concern, AMO motivates the “lawless in practice” and five decades later the contagion has spread to “good men”---honest citizens who have not discovered integrity.
Perhaps Zuckert overlooks the genes, memes, and intentions of We the People of the United States, that portion of fellow citizens who on an individual level trust-in and commit-to the preamble to the U.S. Constitution and the rest of the amendable 1787 U.S. Constitution. Civic citizens care for neither John Locke’s “consent of the people” nor James Madison’s “right of self-government” because they are too busy with the self-discipline of living according to personal preferences yet in peace with both physics (e.g., preferential living is feasible only if earned) and fellow citizens. And equity means more to civic citizens than “equality,” which no entity can provide to human beings. Civic citizens may think a fellow citizen who does not support an agreement for equity under the law, for example, the U.S. preamble’s proposition, should not vote let alone serve on a jury or run for elected or appointed office.
I collaborate to understand the U.S. preamble’s proposition. At this moment, I perceive the proposition as follows: civic citizens of the U.S. collaborate for integrity, justice, peace, defense, and prosperity in order to approve and encourage responsible human liberty to living and future generations.
The dead generations are not involved in the collaboration for the five provisions. Dissidents against the proposition may live in peace as long as they do no harm. If a dissident does harm, he or she may face statutory law enforcement. This is only my articulation. But it is the U.S. preamble’s proposition I offer for public collaboration in my quest for equity under statutory justice in the USA, a worthy goal.
Zuckert, by mentioning “despotism . . . in the 1930s” seems to be accusing Trump of despotism. I suppose he would also call me a despot. I felt the sting of “heretic.” It hurts until you realize the accuser is a heretic against the-objective-truth, which may be discovered and affirmed by invariant evidence rather than human construct. Appreciation for the-objective-truth does not come easy. Often, appreciation is learned from loss and misery (Einstein, 1941) rather than hearing exhortation or reading scripture.
The fact that enough U.S. citizens voted twice for Trump/Pence and are on deck to vote for them the third time and the fourth time is an indication that more Americans treasure responsible human liberty than fellow citizens who enslave for an AMO movement's managers.
We work to move the needle from 2016’s populism---51.1% for Clinton/Kaine---to a 2019 vote that is 66% for Trump/Pence or better if more civic fellow citizens emerge as candidates. The message is that We the People of the United States is on an ineluctable march toward responsible human liberty. Dissidents who work for a religious faction or a political-science faction may continue to express themselves yet also consider the brevity of each individual’s singular opportunity to develop fidelity to the-objective-truth.
Zuckert assesses U.S. politics, I think unconstitutionally, as “our three-cornered political order, which combines popular sovereignty, constitutional democracy, and populism.” A civic culture combines individual self-discipline, a representative republic with the rule of law, and collaboration to discover the-objective-truth. I think the U.S. preamble’s proposition and the 1787 articles that follow it intend a civic culture and am collaborating for it to happen.
I appreciate Zuckert’s work to compose his essay, which seems to build the case against AMO but then spring a surprise accusation of President Trump. Surprise is the writer’s prerogative, but impact belongs to the reader.
Copyright©2019 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I want your opinion and intend to respond.