The American dream: is it about freedom and equality, or about money? To listen to presidential candidates today, you would think that the Revolutionary War was about the pursuit of happine$$. To be sure, that was and is a part of the picture. But it was third -- “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.“ And when Lincoln summarized it, he talked about a “a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” No one noticed then or since that he summarized the Declaration of Independence without mentioning the “pursuit of happiness.”
The Dream Act is about the identity of the nation. Are we the first nation in history that is defined by adherence to ideals, or are we just another place where Europeans accumulated wealth and kept it?
Well...from strictly a political science and historical perspective...
ReplyDeletePerhaps the "pursuit of happiness" is a misnomer. It would be more appropriately stated "life, liberty and property," which on the surface may appear to be happine$$, but it was exactly the idea of government protection of property that the Founders, particularly Jefferson, believed was crucial to all other rights. Questions regarding the identity of the nation need to understand the foundations of the nation. This is readily accomplished by looking to Thomas Jefferson.
Jefferson has been the object of much revisionist history. In academic circles he is characterized as a proto-socialist, a proponent of pure democracy and an anti-possessivist, for lack of a better term. This leads to the claim he is the father of liberalism.
His writings, however, show his ideology to be the antithesis of these claims. In fact, they show him to be radically Lockean. Accordingly, his view was more libertarian than liberal. While John Locke did hold too high an opinion of mankind, his postulate that knowledge was gained intuitively gave rise to the idea of natural rights. These natural rights were embodied in the phrase “life, liberty and property.”
The Preamble to the Declaration of Independence, which Jefferson is known to have written, unmistakably sets these ideas forward. It is natural rights, that is, the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” that are “self-evident,” and the foundation for all rights. This idea is far from the English idea of man’s positive rights, and incompatible with revisionist claims.
When coupled with his admiration of Adam Smith and Destuitt de Tracy (in his later years), the correct understanding of Jefferson is complete. An advocate of laissez-faire economics and an ardent opponent of redistributive efforts lies diametrically opposed to recent labels as a proto-socialist.
It is appropriate to let Jefferson speak for himself:
"If the overgrown wealth of an individual is deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra-taxation violates it." (From Note on Destuiit de Tracy’s Political Economy)
"I believe . . . that a right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible beings." (From a letter to Pierre Samuel Du Pont de Nemours)
"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, “the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.” (From Note on Destuitt de Tracy’s Political Economy)
So where does this place the American Dream? Does it paint the nation as greedy accumulators of wealth, or does it allow for a thrifty citizenry to pursue their livelihood without interference from over-reaching government? This nation sprung from a rejection of the tyranny of European monarchs as reflected in Jefferson's ideas of natural law.
In the final analysis, government's duty under natural law is to protect the rights of its citizens. That includes the government of these United States. The pursuit of the American Dream is left to its people.
This leaves us with a rather cold and impersonal observation. From a political science and historical perspective, the Dream Act, as altruistic as it may be, falls outside these foundational "ideals." Those who framed our Constitution warned us in regard to expanded government. Are questions in regard to the Dream Act about happine$$, or are they based on concerns regarding the radical reshaping of federalism? Jefferson clearly established where he stood.
I have missed your ways, friend.
DeleteThe role of the government, you assert, is to protect the rights of its citizens. But within what boundaries? For Jefferson (and for Jesus), the question of where our obligations to others cease was a significant issue. What is my responsibility toward blacks in Virginia, Indians in Louisiana, and Samaritans everywhere?
Some American citizens assert that they have not just a right but also a duty to offer hospitality to strangers/immigrants. Who gave the government the authority to criminalize migration -- and even to criminalize hospitality?
And I yours! What break-room discussions we had!
DeleteI do not think I would put Jefferson and our Lord in the same sentence. Mr. Jefferson was not in any true sense of the word a believer, so his motivation for altruism was not out of obligation to our Lord.
While we are in agreement regarding the Christian's duty to do right by all people, that has historically been the province of the church, not government. Sadly, with secularization, that has been lost in great measure. Not the obligation, mind you, but the practice.
In answer to your question: as you live in a representative republic, you (and I) gave the government the authority to criminalize migration. Because it is the law of the land, and government is given its authority by God if you believe Romans 13, and I dare say we all should, then we are to submit ourselves to government unless it is blatantly oppressive.
In today's world, migration laws protect a nation's citizens from ideologues who would do harm. Additionally, the burden on a nation's budget has its limits. Would you knowingly go into a restaurant that was filled beyond its capacity and expect to be safe or served? Of course not. Why is it that such common sense principles do not apply to those who bypass our laws?
When we were in high school, several years ago, astronauts flew around the earth taking pictures like tourists. Like tourists, when they got home, they had to struggle to figure out where they were when they took that picture. There was one photo that puzzled NASA and the Army Map Service and other experts. It showed a lake that was large -- 150 miles long -- and easy to identify because it was L-shaped. After a lot of work, it became clear that that lake was not on any map in the world in the 1960s. The world was big then, and probably still is.
DeleteIn most of the country, it's hard to find people. We tend to cluster in cities, or at least along roads. But if you jump out of a plane randomly (don't -- this is a thought experiment, not a proposal), you will have to work hard to find a sandwich.
The Maryland law is limited, and is not a challenge to Federal law or the Constitution. It's about our response to immigrants already here. I don't have to argue about whether Romans 13 trumps Matthew 25, let alone 200 other Biblical references to migrants. I don't have to, but I will. Jesus commanded, in the strongest possible terms: Be hospitable to strangers. A few states, particularly Arizona, have demanded that we be inhospitable to them. The contradiction is clear and sharp. So your test, blatant oppression, is met.
I always took the pursuit of happiness as to chase your dreams, and i dont mean the superficial dreams that involve getting rich so you can live the rest of your life in prosperity and never actually have to do a days worth of hard work. I mean doing something that truly makes you happy and makes it worth getting up each day, even if you do have to work hard. In some ways I wish the government did have a little more control over these business and jobs getting out of hand. Seriously who honestly needs to make 100 dollars an hour? When there are people who work and it takes them a full week to make that much.
ReplyDelete-Katreena Stracke (PS. Miss you Mr. Okeefe
I miss you, too, Katreena. Chase your dreams! Keep writing poetry! And keep being gentle and hospitable!
DeleteThis will take some time for me to read and understand everything on your blog, as I'm not of the same caliber as the awesome Cavanaugh-O'Keefe! It will be very simply stated...Obviously, I can say that I'm in agreement with allowing foreign students into the country, except that I think they should pay like everyone else. I pay taxes to the state of Maryland, and my daughter, (class valedictorian with above a 4.0 gpa, and whom you love!) could not get a scholarship because she is not a minority. Now she can't even get internships that would benefit her tremendously because, again, she is not a minority. How is this fair? She worked hard her entire life so she would be able to qualify for a scholarship, but because she is white, she received nothing. Now mind you, technically, she is a minority, because I am Native American on both sides of my family. However, there is no official documentation to prove this. So with all this said, am I expected to accept the fact that students from other countries are entitled to a free education that my American children are not? It would cost a bloody fortune if my kids went to study abroad. Shouldn't they be entitled to the same educational benefits as other foreign students? I'm all for allowing immigrants into the country, but I'm not in support of the free ride that seems to accompany it. I work hard and pay my taxes, as do my children, so that we are able to receive certain benefits. I'm all for foreigners coming into the country, but shouldn't they have to follow the same rules to recieve the same benefits? It just doesn't seem fair that they get all the freebies and we, as American citizens, do not. So, come one, come all. Just work for what you get!
ReplyDeleteHow good to hear you! Hi to all your wonderful family!
DeleteWe're pretty much on the same page here. But the Maryland law (the MD Dream Act) does not offer benefits that are not available to you. For most folks, if you live in MD for a year or two, you can pay $8K per year for tuition in state colleges, instead of $24K (for Virginians and other foreigners). For immigrants without papers, they get the in-state rate if: they have been in MD for several years, have paid taxes, and have already paid out-of-state rates for two years in college. So this law does not offer any breaks that you don't get.