It seems to me that much
of the greatness and wisdom of the American Revolution, which was truly one of
the shining moments in American history, can be attributed to recognizing the
wisdom of restraint.
Restraint, that is, on
many levels:
-
restraint from the British monarchy's seeming ability to exercise
control over the colonies at will, including posting British troops in the
homes of the colonists.
-
restraint by insisting on no taxation without
representation, and that the colonies should be able to have a say in their own
affairs, instead of simply being dictated the terms by a superpower of it's
day, three thousand miles away on the other side of an ocean.
-
restraint in government, as the Constitution assured that a government
of the people, by the people, and for the people would be attempted, at least,
and was in theory a better idea than a non-elected monarchy. This notion that a
people should rule itself had been tried before, but never on such a scale, and
not in such times. It was still merely an experiment, and thus, as such, kind
of a new idea at the time.
-
restraint in that civil liberties were to be recognized and
protected against a potentially tyrannical government, or even against the
possibility of a tyrannical and intolerant majority of people. These rights
seem modest by modern day standards, but they nonetheless existed at the time,
and grew and grew in time, becoming ever more expansive and including more and
more Americans. Privileges should not be reserved for a tiny minority, they
believed - a lesson that we perhaps have forgotten over time.
-
restraint for a leader of a nation. Some wanted George Washington
to be crowned king, but he rejected this, not wanting full, virtual dictatorial
powers, and opting instead for a more limited role as leader when he as elected
America's first President. Compare this to the revolutionary movements in France and in South America, both of which ended
in dictatorships of sorts, under Napoleon in France ,
and Bolivar in South America .
There was also the
restraint of simply putting a limit on limitations themselves, which is to say,
on a small group of people being empowered to identify who were true "Americans",
or at least, who could vote in America .
I know, I know, it was still quite
limited afterwards, yes. No arguments there. However, the beginning of the
expansion of rights, of civil liberties, if you will, really began with the
ideas of the American Revolution and it's aftermath, which saw the
implementation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These documents may
have been flawed on some level by modern standards, yet they remain on the
books even to the present day. That would suggest that they had staying power
for a reason, and that reason was the possibility of future inclusion of more
and more people. This was possible because the emphasis on those documents was
on restraint, that nobody should be able to impose their will enough on others
to deny them their liberties, their rights.
The American Revolution happened for
a reason. It did not go as far as the French Revolution did, which did not go
unnoticed by those who participated back then, nor to historians since. It was
considerably less violent, and ended with a democracy trying to gain a stable
foothold, rather than a superpower at the time ending the political turmoil
with a dictatorship (Napoleon). This is to it's credit, and the main thing that
can be admired about it is, indeed, not just the notion of restrain, or paying
lip service to restraint, but acting on it, as well.
There is a lot of talk these days
about what the Founding Fathers would have wanted, what their vision for the
nation was, what their positions might be on many of the dominant issues in the
present era. In the process, many claim the wisdom of the Founding Fathers to
back up their own views, and sometimes, they do so quite erroneously – such as
Sarah Palin claiming that religions was the cornerstone that the Founding
Fathers established the American republic with.
With all of the talk about what the
Founding Fathers really wanted or intended, it was ultimately their moderate
stances that allowed the great democratic experiment to be tried and to thrive,
even. It expanded and become inclusive of far more people, ultimately, than it
did originally during the days of the Founding Fathers themselves, and this
seems like it was designed to be so. That was the true greatness of the
Founding Fathers, and why we still tend to look to them for guidance in our
present era. They displayed some great prominence with legendary restraint, and
what has been lost since is that sense of restraint, as fiery political
idealogues push their absolutist agendas, having lost any sense of compromise. The
Founding Fathers were prominent and accomplished men of their time, and their
concern was in helping to establish a floundering little republic that hugged
the Atlantic Coast , and was looking to gain
credibility. But the modern day politicians have been born into a superpower
nation that has lost all sense of restraint, and this has given the population
overall a false sense of entitlement and immunity. It is fitting, on many
levels, that politicians today would be a reflection of the extremity of this
age, and would be more selfish and transparently place what is in their own
best interests ahead of what is best for the country.
Back then, the country came first
above all. Now, a lot of things seem to come before the country, including individual
ambitions (as already stated), as well as political parties (the major two, in
particular), corporations, etc..
What is different? What has been
lost? I would put forth that the most valuable thing that we lost is any sense
of restraint, nationally and individually. There is something to be said for
that, and for the restraint that they put not only on other institutions,
including the British monarchy and the American government, but also on
themselves. We could use a little bit of that apparent wisdom of restraint ourselves
these days, towards institutions for sure, as well as individually, in our own
personal lives. We could certainly do worse than learn from their example.
No comments:
Post a Comment