By Edwin Cooney
Let's begin with the obvious and the inevitable. The common folks and the learned among us have one thing in common — both are error-prone. Additionally, both types are constitutional. Aspects of the Constitution adopted in 1788 reflect both democratic and republic-oriented provisions and elements. The Electoral College which is republic-oriented has been slowly democratized since 1789. Back when it chose George Washington it was made up by the well-educated property holder, but approximately 50 plus years later that same body elected Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan, two of our worst presidents. The original Constitution also favored the popular election of congressmen while at the same time allowing the state legislatures to elect members of the United States Senate. The Electoral College that chose General Washington may have been equally learned as was the Electoral College of the 1850s, but political partisanship had by then largely replaced public spiritedness as the factor behind their choice of leadership.
As writer Heather Cox Richardson pointed out in a recent excellent essay, two Americans argued the value of republicanism verses democracy just before the Civil War. North Carolina senator and slave owner Henry James Hammond argued that the Constitution doesn't dictate that representative’s vote according to voters' instructions. The issue in 1858 was whether the people of Kansas Territory should be compelled to accept slavery despite the fact that Kansans had recently voted not to be a slave state.
The other notable American involved in that era's debate was Abraham Lincoln. He argued that government worked best not when it protected the property and power of a few wealthy elites, but when it protected the equality of access to resources and equality before the law for everyone. Rather than concentrating wealth upward, society should protect the rights of all men to the fruits of their own labor. Mr. Lincoln believed that free men inherited the right of equal access to law and liberty. Mr. Lincoln, throughout his political career, asserted the supremacy of the idea that "All men are created equal." (Note: Conservatives have asserted that Mr. Lincoln was a splendid example of the fallacy of his own statement.) Twenty-first Century Republicans, Ms. Richardson points out, believe that their struggle is for better voters rather than lesser voters.
Throughout our history political leaders have quarreled over the significance of the number of Americans encouraged or discouraged to participate in any particular election. In 1944, FDR made every effort to include soldiers battling overseas to participate in the upcoming election. Speaking before the Teamsters Union on Saturday night, September 23rd, 1944, he asserted that the Republicans, in Congress and out, seemed to think that they'd be better off if the vote total was "...small enough." On the other hand, in 1862, President Lincoln did what he could to see to it that soldiers living in New England got sufficient leave to vote Republican in that congressional election year.
A century or so after Mr. Lincoln's time, author David Halberstam titled his book criticizing the Kennedy administration's Vietnam policy "The Best and the Brightest." The Kennedy administration was full of learned academicians named McNamara, Schlesinger, Bundy, Kissinger and Lodge, all of whom possessed intellect and knowledge but nevertheless created the deadly quagmire that was the Vietnam War.
The history of the United States, it seems to me, constitutes the development of both the human mind and spirit. There will always exist fools and geniuses among us. Some people are instinctive fools despite their knowledge while others display ultimate wisdom despite limited access to education.
Ultimately, I side with Abraham Lincoln because I buy the importance of everyone's access to the sources of wisdom be those sources academic or instinctual.
What say you?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No comments:
Post a Comment