American Mythology

(Note: This piece was first published last July in an online political forum I frequent.)

When discussing politics or national affairs with someone, it isn’t uncommon to hear arguments which use the “founding fathers” and the original 1787 version of the Constitution as the basis for their positions. Many take these arguments on face value or will often counter with their own quotes and articles from the later half of the 18th century, but is this really a good and proper way in which to discuss contemporary America? Whereas the old adage of “those who fail to learn from history are bound to repeat it” does carry a valid notion about historical consideration, the modern popular hisotries and points of interest used in debate should not be without due consideration about their total implications.

The first and most obviously pressing matter regarding historical contexting, as many of you will likely agree, is inevitably the validity and relevance of hisotrical quotes, assumptions of character and association to modern matters. Recently, historical researchers and portions of the academic community have begun a “debunking” of sorts, regarding many of our national legends. The ride of Paul Revere, Molly Pitcher’s heroic deeds and even the revolutionary character archetype of Samuel Adams have all begun to wither in the face of new historical data.

We are now beginning to see that much of our historical understanding regarding revolutionary times and the heroes we idolize is largely rooted in simple myth. Much in the tradition of religious texts, our history and heroes come not from contemporary works which last through the ages, but a progressive series of afterthoughts, some made as much as a century after the events and persons involved are all but memories.

As these myths and legends from our past begin to give way to the true, widespread social democratic nationalist movement and revolution that was our founding, the reference of romantic quotes such as “O’ what a glorious morning for America,” become less relevant. So it may be fair to say then, that to try to contextualize modern events through the prizm of what we are learning to be a largely romanticized series of epic fables, perhaps it is time that we consider ourselves for a moment and remember that we ourselves are capable of coherent political thought which we can filter through our own understanding and experience.

Another point, which works off of this first one, is that in our consideration of our heroes, we should remember that Mr. Adams, Hancock, Warren, Jefferson, etc…did not carry either the movement, nor the leadership alone. Countless of other brave patriots, many of whose names are lost to history, aided equally, if not to a greater degree than the icons we celebrate publicly. Beyond this as well, we need to remember that even prior to many of these men’s direct efforts, thousands upon thousands of noble patriots, dressed not as gentlemen, but as farmers and peasants, rallied with their neighbors to create the true backbone of the revolution.

In our idolization of a select handful of men, we do a great disservice not only to ourselves, but also to the true founders and forefathers of this nation, the organized masses. We need also remember that it was through their combined efforts, working together, that they were able not only to throw off a foreign oppressor, but to build the very nation and it’s Government. When considering our places in society, our passions and positions and how we come to our conclusions, it should be considered that it was people more akin to ourselves than any of our leaders, who, working together truly found, took and held the power to make change in their country.

When asserting positions and invoking the “founding fathers” as the backing for it, it is also important to remember that even prior to the Declaration of Independence and event prior to the 1st Congress, that the politicians, merchants, activists and pre-revolutionaries all, like today, had different agendas, opinions and even parties. This being the case, the very invocation of “the founding fathers,” or reference to their “liberal” or “conservative” stances on matters in essence only reaffirms the inevitable political divides which exist today. As such, the justification or line of reasoning designed to support a given point in essence is only a comparison of situations, in that while an argument is going on now, one was going on then as well.

Likewise with the Constitution, we need to remember that this was not the perfect work of a body of men seeking to enshrine forever a series of eternal and unchanging commandments, but rather a document forged of compromise, to set up a general framework for the Government and legislation to come. Rather than an order given to their children, it was a project framework handed down continuously throughout generations, to be kept relevant and purposeful as times change, while at the same time establishing a clear record of general intent for government. As many of the signers were initially unsure of the wisdom of creating a constitution in the first place (for fear that one generation would continually rule the next and remove the spirit of Democratic self government for the society as a whole) the document was left open and adaptable, so that we as a people may govern ourselves, as opposed to living according to the will and wisdom of centuries ago.

And so here we meet the crux of historical revisionism and vicarious modern associations. While learning lessons from history is a valuable consideration, we must not forget that this is our country and always has been. It was not Samuel Adams, John Adams, John Hancock, Warren, Washington or any of them who began the revolt, met and talked of matters of state as the mattered at the time or began the true founding of this country, but rather the contemporary everyman, united under the general principles of liberty* and sovereignty**.

It is up to us now as citizens of today’s America, to take our ques, not from the legends of centuries past, that we find to agree or support our position, but on the logic and facts of our time.

* – To be a free people in a free and civil society

** – Not only the national soverignty of a free nation, but also that of a free people who rather than following the leaders as legend tells, took their local and regional self Government as seriously as the national government.

“Common Sense”: The Moron’s Panic Room (a short op-ed on conversation)

Are you having trouble selling stupid ideas to people by using the words “constitution” and “founding fathers” in rapid and pointless repetition? Do you encounter difficulty at convincing those around you of the impending communist plots at work to kill grandma? Does it seem sometimes as though all those smarty pants with their educations and their critical thinking skills just can’t stop oppressing you with valid argument and credentials?

Have no fear…for now there is common sense! Thats right, common sense! With “common sense” you can make any one dimensional logical fallacy into your own common knowledge, just by dropping the words in periodically throughout a discussion.

“Well I have a degree and years of experience in the field and frankly, I think you’re just wrong.” “Well fuk dat, I’m gonna go to college one day and I’ve got common sense!”

Or,

“GAO reports show that the program is working rather effectively with limited amounts of waste since the new oversight reform measures have gone into effect. So why do you think government needs to be eliminated?” “Cuz they’re lying. Its so obvious. Its common sense.”

Common sense might just very well be most overplayed, poorly used term in modern conversation.

Beyond the pedestrian applications of ending every persuasive sentence with “it’s just common sense,” there is a far more sinister use in play which is eroding the value of basic human intellect. This is, what I have affectionately come to call, the moron’s panic room. The Moron’s Panic Room is a safe and inscrutable place tucked somewhere in the moron’s mind just between “the Jews did it” and “Ron Paul for President.”

This “panic room” as I call it serves as the self defeating cheat code for political enthusiasts who talk before they bother learning. Whenever backed into a corner about their credentials, knowledge base or intellect, they are able to whip out “common sense” and regardless of whether or not it applies, provides them with a further level of self delusion with which to continue pretending that an absence of an education and an opinion is equal to an informed and enlightened perspective.