The Bastardization of our Founding Fathers' Enlightenment Values

I'll take a break from my footballing passion today to write about something that may well be interesting for a greater number of my readers. As those of you familiar with the American political situation of the last decades are well aware, the political right has consistently turned towards the "Founding Fathers" (a term ripe with patriarchal connotations in and of itself) to justify this, that, or the other thing. My pretext for examining the (ab)use of the Founding Fathers as a political tool is a brief article from the Lexington blog at the Economist.

The article, which rightly seeks to relegate American Exceptionalist political rhetoric to the annals of the linguistic archives stated the following in reference to the United States: Its 18th-century founders had no doubt that they were embarking on a daring experiment inspired by the highest ideals of the Enlightenment. But what were these Enlightenment ideals and how were they expressed politically? The average layman is right here to mention John Locke and Montesquieu and their influence on the creation of our government, but this is still a very vague notion of Enlightenment ideals. Voltaire, arguably the most well known Enlightenment thinker didn't favor democracy at all; he had a rather greater affinity for enlightened despotism and spent several years as an adviser to Frederick the Great, King of Prussia. Thus, it would be folly to suggest that there was one dominant ideal of political philosophy among the philosophes of the Enlightenment.

Although I suspect, at the risk of being disingenuous, that the author here has intended this reference to the Enlightenment to mean John Locke specifically, we could take a more generous approach and look at some dominant principles of the Enlightenment. Frequently, when we think of the Enlightenment, we think of progress, rationality, and individualism - in essence, a mathematical/scientific approach to the world. I have just written an essay that supports this idea. I argue that after the Lisbon Earthquake of 1755, a political rationalism replaced a fatalistic optimism as the guiding approach to viewing society. (For now I'll spare you the 13 pages of philosophical argumentation.)

But what do I mean by political rationalism? In my paper, I provide two practical examples (in addition to the philosophical writings of the philosophers in question). First is the Marques do Pombal, the Portuguese minister who wielded Richelieu-like powers (with less malevolence) during this period. After the massively destructive earthquake in which it is estimated that roughly one third of Lisbon was destroyed, he embarked on an audacious reconstruction project and based the center of the city on a grid-like pattern around several plaza's and the main Praça do Comércio on the bay. In Spain, although there was far less damage caused by the earthquake, the cost was still significant, and Pedro Rodriguez de Campomanes who would become the Economy Minister in 1760 ordered that a census of the damages be conducted in every Spanish city and town from Barcelona to Cádiz. In both of these countries, these rational policies coincided with the increasing secularization of people's day-to-day lives as government gradually took control of the vital life processes (life, marriage, and death).

And from these examples it easy to see where the Founding Fathers saw themselves as upholding "the highest ideals of the Enlightenment." They believed that government should act rationally in providing services for its citizens. Additionally, they created a secular state. But what is the political right who purports to be following the ideals of our Founding Fathers arguing for? They want more God (and explicitly a Christian one), and they want to block the implementation of or remove altogether rational government programs. I find it difficult, especially in the case of religion, to see where these pundits (Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc.) get the idea that they are following the wishes of our Founding Fathers.

Of course, there's another problem altogether, a meta-level problem. Supposing our Founding Fathers were firm believers in political rationalism, then they never would have wanted pundits to be asking the question "What Would our Founding Fathers Do?". "It's a ridiculous question," they would say. "Why would one base his political considerations on what a bunch of pseudo-philosophers said over 200 years ago? What relevance would their writing have to contemporary society? And one would one find it obligatory to uphold some interpretation of their desires? Wouldn't it be better to always do what is in the best interests of the country?" Political rationalism requires a historical perspective only insofar as that historical perspective helps identify what policies to implement for the benefit of society in the present. All emotional sentiments should be left out of politics.

Not only is the political right out of touch with what the Founding Fathers actually believed in, but it is committing a meta-level fallacy by making an appeal to authorities who wouldn't have believed in making such an appeal. Thus, if I were to make an additional proposal to the proposal for the abstention of American Exceptionalist rhetoric in politics by the authors of Lexington, I would propose that the "ideals of our Founding Fathers" cease to be used as a justification for whatever policy. For one thing, if you're using this phrase, you've probably not understood what the Founding Fathers said anyway, and even if you had it right, they wouldn't want you to be using them as your justification for doing something anyway.