Friday, February 25, 2005
Of History and Political Parties
T.A. Frank recently urged New Republic-reading Democrats to stop thinking of American history as something that began with Franklin Roosevelt:
During this [CPAC] conference, one of the interludes between panels featured Patrick Henry--that is, a gentleman dressed up as Patrick Henry who exhorted his audience to live virtuously and recited a lengthy passage from the "Give me liberty, or give me death" speech. It's a stirring bit of oratory. And it made me ask myself: How much do liberals today draw convincingly on 1776 or 1787? They often present themselves as the heirs to FDR or JFK, but rarely, it seems, to Madison or Washington--it's as if liberal history begins in 1933. Sure, I like Medicare and Head Start, but they don't resonate with me as strongly as the Federalist Papers or the Bill of Rights. Conservatives, perhaps by nature, understand this, and they've effectively grabbed our revolutionary history for themselves.
One problem with Frank's suggestion was identified by blogger Norman Singleton:
I wonder if Frank, and the other Democrats calling on the party to rediscover their Jeffersonian roots, are aware that several years ago leading Democrat Representative Lynn Woolsey dismissed Jefferson as a "slave holder" whose views should not be taken seriously.
America's Founding Fathers were not perfect, just as no politician today is perfect. Yet some would have us dwell only upon the warts of the Founders while contemplating solely the virtues of their modern successors. Thus Thomas Jefferson is unworthy of study, but we are to seriously consider the Lynn Woolseys of our time as fonts of wisdom.
No one has ever grown larger simply by seeking to make others look small. I also wonder if there are things we take for granted today that will require future generations to either marvel at our ignorance or declare us unfit for polite society.
|posted by Jim on 9:04 PM|
Link
. . .
|
. . .
|
