« For all of those who feel that Obama is undeserving of the Nobel Peace Prize | SocialJustice's Blog | Media Matters Catalogues Fox's War on the White House »
Life, Liberty and What-Was-That-Last-One?
Before we had our Constituation, we had our manifesto: The Declaration of Independence. It contains one of the cornerstones on which our country's ideology is founded: the opinion that all men are endowed with the unalienable rights of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness".
That 5-person committee of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert R. Livingston, and Roger Sherman were either propheptic or they enacted a self-fulfilling prophecy. Those three linchpins upon which America was built have become three of the most heated sources of debate and outrage in our country. In regard to Life, one need only consider the divide over capital punishment, abortion, or euthanasia. How earnestly we fight over freedom of speech, freedom of religion, a right to privacy and for what we consider our god-given Liberty.
But what of the pursuit of Happiness. How do you define Happiness? How do you achieve Happiness? How important is Happiness? Ask yourself the question: "What makes me happy." For me, it is the hope that one day I will be able to have a family and a place of my own. I imagine many of you might have the same hope. For the rest of you, it may be something else, equally satisfying and joyous. Whatever that may be, just hold that in your mind.
Are you pursuing that Happiness? According to the Continental Congress you have a right to do so. An unalienable right. They were pretty good at covering the Life and the Liberty, there must be a reason for that last one. They spent 17 days working on the first draft of the Declaration, and Thomas Jefferson was no slouch.
So if law and governance of that law provides us with Life and Liberty, it should committed to providing us with the pursuit of Happiness. When it comes to my initial conception of what makes me happy, that means I have the right to pursue all legals means to start a family and own a piece of land that I can call home. It also means that whatever your happiness may be, you too have a right to pursue it.
Everything follows from this idea. We cannot pursue happiness if we are too sick and cannot afford to keep ourselves well enough to work and earn a living, which is really our only means to achieve worthwhile happiness. We are denied pursuit if laws are in place which unfairly allow one group of people to attain happiness over the other. The good neighbor policy stands; one group should not be allowed to pursue happiness if it is as at the cost of another group's pursuit. This can be translated to the freedoms that the ultra-rich and upper class have in comparison to those that the poor and destitute do not.
Obama is not a socialist. He is not a marxist. He is not Hitler (Hitler's platform was built on the backs of those whom he would deny even a moment's happiness). He is a Happiness pursuer. He has taken it upon himself and his Presidency to set in motion a series of events and legislation that will lead to a country, and in all hopes, a world focused on pursuing happiness.
Those on the far right of the political spectrum fear this because they feel that if someone else prospers, they suffer. If more people are given opportunity and the same tools that they have, then the fear is that it will ultimately lead to their loss of power, their being in the minority, their inability to pursue happiness. Perhaps this is just a projection of what they would do in place of the underprivileged were they underprivileged themselves. Perhaps it is because this socio-political sect of American humanity believes only in man's self-interest and not his desire for social equity and harmony.
Perhaps those who can truly pursue happiness wish to keep it all for themselves.
Whatever the case, President Obama is the first President in my lifetime who seems to be taking the Declaration of Independence to heart. All are welcome. All have these unalienable rights. That is one thing that is as true as it was in 1776 as it is now.
That 5-person committee of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert R. Livingston, and Roger Sherman were either propheptic or they enacted a self-fulfilling prophecy. Those three linchpins upon which America was built have become three of the most heated sources of debate and outrage in our country. In regard to Life, one need only consider the divide over capital punishment, abortion, or euthanasia. How earnestly we fight over freedom of speech, freedom of religion, a right to privacy and for what we consider our god-given Liberty.
But what of the pursuit of Happiness. How do you define Happiness? How do you achieve Happiness? How important is Happiness? Ask yourself the question: "What makes me happy." For me, it is the hope that one day I will be able to have a family and a place of my own. I imagine many of you might have the same hope. For the rest of you, it may be something else, equally satisfying and joyous. Whatever that may be, just hold that in your mind.
Are you pursuing that Happiness? According to the Continental Congress you have a right to do so. An unalienable right. They were pretty good at covering the Life and the Liberty, there must be a reason for that last one. They spent 17 days working on the first draft of the Declaration, and Thomas Jefferson was no slouch.
So if law and governance of that law provides us with Life and Liberty, it should committed to providing us with the pursuit of Happiness. When it comes to my initial conception of what makes me happy, that means I have the right to pursue all legals means to start a family and own a piece of land that I can call home. It also means that whatever your happiness may be, you too have a right to pursue it.
Everything follows from this idea. We cannot pursue happiness if we are too sick and cannot afford to keep ourselves well enough to work and earn a living, which is really our only means to achieve worthwhile happiness. We are denied pursuit if laws are in place which unfairly allow one group of people to attain happiness over the other. The good neighbor policy stands; one group should not be allowed to pursue happiness if it is as at the cost of another group's pursuit. This can be translated to the freedoms that the ultra-rich and upper class have in comparison to those that the poor and destitute do not.
Obama is not a socialist. He is not a marxist. He is not Hitler (Hitler's platform was built on the backs of those whom he would deny even a moment's happiness). He is a Happiness pursuer. He has taken it upon himself and his Presidency to set in motion a series of events and legislation that will lead to a country, and in all hopes, a world focused on pursuing happiness.
Those on the far right of the political spectrum fear this because they feel that if someone else prospers, they suffer. If more people are given opportunity and the same tools that they have, then the fear is that it will ultimately lead to their loss of power, their being in the minority, their inability to pursue happiness. Perhaps this is just a projection of what they would do in place of the underprivileged were they underprivileged themselves. Perhaps it is because this socio-political sect of American humanity believes only in man's self-interest and not his desire for social equity and harmony.
Perhaps those who can truly pursue happiness wish to keep it all for themselves.
Whatever the case, President Obama is the first President in my lifetime who seems to be taking the Declaration of Independence to heart. All are welcome. All have these unalienable rights. That is one thing that is as true as it was in 1776 as it is now.
Advertisement
















"It also means that whatever your happiness may be, you too have a right to pursue it."
Not really.
The "pursuit of happiness" as written in the declaration is not a literal phrase to be understood as if we understand it's literal meaning today. It is a euphemism. It is the Lockean idea of property acquisition. That is why in the Constitution it says clearly what the phrase in the Constitution means euphemistically: "life, Liberty, and property." Happiness, as you and I and everyone in modern America would interpret it is not at all what the founders had in mind... not even close.
Modern Americans insist on altering the meaning of the phase as used in the Declaration of Independence in the same way as Christian fundamentalists insist on interpreting all the words they read in the Bible as having the literal meaning of those words in today's world vs what the authors intended in the orginal language of the Bible written eons ago. Pursuit of happiness as used in the Declaration equals property, not "being happy" as we understand it.
October 10, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction.. should read "That is why in the Constitution it says clearly what the phrase in the Declaration of Independence means euphemistically: "life, Liberty, and property."
October 10, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
So we have a right to pursue "stuff?" No wonder we are so screwed up. I like it with happiness better. At least you can spin that to mean something good...
October 10, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correct!
But you have to remember the context in which the Lockean mindset came to pass which is something we moderns often fail to really appreciate and take into account. Life was dramatically different for our fore-fathers and mothers. It was the 18th Century. The industrial age was not quite upon us. Most "goods" were something that most people had little of... if any. Creature comforts of any kind were nearly unheard of except for the well off and very rich. The idea of owning property meant a better life. The thought of possessing things, in a very real sense for them, did mean happiness.
Having said that, I don't think it is even possible that they could have conceived of the kind of world we live in today in terms of how very materialistic it is. My guess is that if they could come back and see how we now live they would revise their definition of happiness and they would certainly be appalled at the excessive materialism that is pervasive today.
I don't think they could have ever conceived of a society in which so much stuff was so available to so many. Today's poor would seem very well off to them, at least from the standpoint of available "stuff". Just the access to stuff is mind boggling if viewed from an 18th century perspective. Why, look at the vast difference between the availablity of all kinds of things of every description just in the span of our lifetimes. Look at how much is available to most, if not all people, now compared to even 50 years ago. It's truly amazing.
Remember, when the Declaration of Independence was signed and the political philosophy of Locke was being discussed daily around the cracker barrel and in the pubs most people had dirt floors, nobody had running water or a toilet connected to a sewer system, the most common occupation in the country was farmer, overland travel was conducted by most people on foot, goods were transported by means of ox carts and horse drawn wagons (literal horsepower), meat was a relative luxury and while more abundant on the farm was still not a daily part of every meal for most people. Bathing was a luxury for the vast majority of the population. Doctors were always in short supply and most medicine was unavailable to almost everyone but the wealthy, life expectancy was much shorter than it is now for the average person, staggering numbers of children died on a routine basis, many others died from things we don't fear at all due to elementary sanitation and basic medicine. In short, we live in a very, very different world today. The people in the 18th did without as a matter of course in ways many of us cannot imagine. So, when we remember this sort of stuff it becomes a little easier to imagine happiness and stuff/property as being synonymous.
October 10, 2009 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no interest in argument based on what the original intent of the law was, as written in the Constitution or otherwise. But, you are not painting a full picture to your argument.
"Life, liberty, and property"
You can only be quoting the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which was added to the Constitution during Reconstruction to secure the rights of all free slaves to life, liberty and yes, property. You could argue that the writers of Article 1 were alluding to the Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, that if the African-Americans of our country were to be able to pursue any happiness they would need to be able to hold on to their property and not work themselves penniless through share-cropping or outright racist property rulings. But even I would say that that argument is a stretch.
It is my firm belief that any great lawmaker, any truly remarkable congressman, will write into law only that which he knows can hold relevance as much tomorrow as it does today. These men were founding a nation. Regardless of the circumstances of their 18th century existence, they were writing about, what were to them, the pillars of a successful civilization.
Plus, Article 1 of the 14th Amendment just doesn't seem to hold the precedence and importance to me that the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence does.
October 11, 2009 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
And your point is?
You seem to miss mine.
Happiness in Lockean terms does not translate into the meaning of happiness in the 21st Century. Intent and context provide meaning. Without it there is no true understanding.
The perspective of the founders was from the 18th Century and could not help but to be so. How they viewed property/happiness springs from that context. It makes no difference to my point where in the Constition property is specified in lieu of the word happiness. The point is that happiness in the first instance (the Declaration) is interchangeable with property in the second instance (the Constitution) because that is what the phrase refers to. Yes, they meant it to have meaning in the future but they meant it to have the meaning they commonly understood not some meaning we give to it on our own today.
October 11, 2009 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
But that is precisely my point. The meaning we give to happiness changes with the passage of time, but we should always have the right to pursue whatever that happiness may be, be it property or otherwise, within the limits of the law.
If you are saying that happiness meant property to the framers, that is fine. But Jefferson wrote "pursuit of Happiness", and that is what the Continental Congress signed their names to. The beauty of Jefferson's Declaration is that it is not limited to a materialistic interpretation -- the terminology he chooses are all philosophical abstractions. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness encompass so many things, leaving the new nation time to learn for itself how to fulfill those things. It is in that sense a spiritual piece of writing, or perhaps one could say politically spritualistic.
Yes, we are a product of the times in which we live. But it is the visionaries who are able leave a framework to always evolve with the times. That is what makes our country great and a true democracy.
October 11, 2009 2:42 AM | Reply | Permalink