I ask a question regarding our polity arising from recent reading on Coleridge. As you know, the older Coleridge decried the partisans of the “rights of men,” who mistook their universal abstractions for the actual rights of Englishmen. Thus, he noted that “[i]t is the chief of many blessings derived from the insular character and circumstances of our country, that our social institutions have formed themselves out of our proper needs and interests” There is a universal, knowable Idea of the state, but here one can see that the Idea may unfold in a specific manner, such as being conformable to the peculiar nature of the English. The unfolding of the Idea is much like the evolution of the common law: It is informed by universal principles of justice as reasoned out by generations of human communities, but it is also sensitive to the idiosyncrasies of the English people. The unwritten constitution of the English had emerged through centuries of collective reasoning and experience, not through the a priori abstractions of a few hubristic men.”
Now my question-Thomas Paine quipped that a country only has a constitution if one could put it in his pocket; America’s Constitution, though written, was deeply indebted to its British predecessor, which Hamilton had called the “best in the world.”
Has the increase of population over the years in this country created such a crazy quilt such that the idiosyncrasies of the people in the United States, living in the several States, are so befuddled that for some years now our government has been nothing other than a priori abstractions of a few hubristic men?
And now with Biden does our 1776 "a priori abstraction" end with a whimper of whipped dogs?
Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Oldsmobile!!! Lose any one of these, and we no longer have the country I was so privileged to be born in. Polish, Russian, and German grandparents came here for what this country was. They would not recognize this place.
Good post thanks. Interesting slants. You bring up cultural distinctions. One is how closely our Constitution is to the British predecessor. This is important.
Our founding ancestors were in fact British subjects of the King up until they rebelled and succeeded in separating from Britain. This is why I believe the Revolution is best viewed as a Civil War. Much like where many of us find ourselves today. We find we stand against the actions and philosophy of our government and it helps me to understand both our history and our current troubles in that light.
No matter how a Constitution is written - Britain's or our own - and whether we can put it in our pockets or not - when it ceases to mean something to the people it is useless. As it was to our British ancestors at the outset and as ours lies largely useless and misunderstood today.
To me it is cultural through all the things that culture provides or fails to provide. The bottom line is a failure to pay attention to the fundamental unit of any culture - the individual within the family. That and education are the biggies.
When the government runs the education system diversity dies and the health and wealth of the culture with it. But to change it now - incredibly difficult to imagine I agree.