Wonderful Compromise

The word “perfect,” when used to describe any subject, elicits thoughts of unity, integrity, wholeness, completeness, purity, etc. As the endeavors of the Founders have been described as intended to create “a more perfect union,” the amount of compromise that was required to bring about the product seems to be in contrast with the idea of perfection.

While watching the film A More Perfect Union, I found myself growing frustrated with the battle between the small and large states. To me, as to Madison and others, it seems that true liberty would have been served by having both houses of the Legislature determined by the population. The failure of the “larger states” to secure this would make me think that the desire to create a “perfect” nation was not fulfilled. And that is definitely true.

The epiphany that Madison has about the need to compromise had quite an effect on me, despite the fact the movie was plagued with a terrible score, acting, cinematography, and sound quality. While the ideals to create a perfect nation served as motivation for the Congress and all of Madison’s work, the great good that eventually came out of that work was that a more perfect nation was created.

One of my main struggles with politics is that it is so subjective, and that there are no absolutes. What is best for one person might not be what is best for me. This complicates things. Or so I thought. This is only a problem if the goal of government is to be perfect. I no longer think that it is. Its goal is to meet the needs of people, whatever they may be. This requires compromise and a give and take attitude.

This attitude, this willingness to give and take that government requires, is actually a great thing. In life, it is required of s to give and take, to be willing to sacrifice our wants to the wants of others at times. This is what makes us good people. And a system of government that encourages that by necessity is accomplishing good. Such might have been Madison’s epiphany, and even though it was hundreds of years ago that this idea came to him, I experience it still today as a powerful and useful discovery.

Writing the Constitution

The following are some questions that the Founding Fathers of America dealt with when establishing their new nation. In thinking about such questions, I wonder what factors allowed them to identify such questions, and what sources gave them the insight to answer them.

-What is the fundamental assumption behind the Constitution?  

Their answer to that might have been something like this: “We need a gov't, or that a gov't is essential.”
-What does an ideal gov't do?

In my own words, I would say, “Encourages moral behavior through permitting liberty.” The answer that the Founders derived was a bit broader than mine, but it did include what I said.
 

One of the sources of inspiration for how to model their new government was to look at the past governments of the world and try to learn from their mistakes and success. They did this by comparing idealistic principles to real situations--this leads Founders to consider various solutions. The result is the Constitution.
The Constitution was a response to the recognition of the Human Predicament, which is outlined in the following flow diagram:

 
tyranny=>revolution=>anarchy=>competing groups=>back to tyranny, etc...

This predicament had been addressed in at least four way in the past, all of which tried in different ways to balance the issues of Government, Freedom, Human Nature. Those four options were, Autocracy, Classical, Libertarianism, and Liberalism. The fundamental assumptions behind each of these modes of political thought are as follows:
Autocracy- people are like children and they need teaching. Strong gov’t.
Classical- idea that man could be corrupted, and so gov’t was intended to instruct people so they could govern themselves. This also applied to gov’ts—they too could be corrupted.
Libertarianism- idea that humans are essentially good, not just clean slate, but good, and minimal gov’t is best. “Best gov’t is the gov’t that governs least”
Liberalism- people are basically good but gov’t can be used to improve society even more. Gov’t is a tool of releasing human potential.

All of the Founders saw each of these options and considered them. They were not black and white about which was good and which was bad, but they agreed that not any one answered all the questions on its own.  The Founders decided to build a government that took ideas from all of the modes of thought above. They also instituted checks and balances so that the various powers would not win out over each other. This is the original genius of the US Constitution. The Founders then set bounds by laws, courts, and police.

Also, the Founding Fathers did not see a difference between politics and economics. Therefore, the same variation that we see in the political sphere, we see in the economic. Within the economic sphere, there is a system of checks and balances in place. Out economy is not strictly a market economy, nor a socialist, neither is laissez faire nor communism the modus operandi.

Organizing the Constitution was a mighty work, because it had to incorporate many things, such as: structure, participation, law, custom and tradition, moral sense, and leadership. Also, it needed to find a way to insure that laws be implied impartially, and this is one of the great steps forward of the Constitution, though it is reminiscent of  the Rule of Law—no one is above the law, which was part of the English political canon.

Conclusion
The Founding Fathers wanted to tackle the problem of gov’t once and for all. This necessitated an inherent ability within the gov’t to change and adapt. This required that individuals did not make changes, and that they were deliberate, that a mad or self-interested man did not drive them. 

John Adams Miniseries

The HBO miniseries John Adams is one of the best television experiences I have ever had. For me, it went way beyond good entertainment, like the rest of the shows on TV. It was educational, like a History Channel special, mixed with inspiration, like a LDS General Conference, and drama, better than LOST, if you ask me.

            One of the main reasons that I enjoyed the show so much was the portrayal of John Adams. Many times we hear the Founders referred to as demigods, yet this series shows Adams as a simple yet passionate man. He struggled with pride, a bad temper, and family difficulties. It was inspiring for me to see him struggle with all of his challenges, all the while holding to his ideals and remaining true to his duty to his country and people.

            After watching the entire series, I decided to dedicate myself to being a better American. Watching this show reminded me that I too have a responsibility to serve my country and fellow citizens, and being passive about it will amount to nothing. John Adams was a man, despite his many flaws, who was not passive. He fought to create this country, and he fought to maintain it.

            Sometimes, I think, “If I had lived in those times, I would have done the same. I would have been one of the leaders, pushing for change and good.” Then I have to ask myself, Am I doing that now? Am I pushing for change now? Am I willing to sacrifice for something bigger and better than myself? And at times, I have to honestly answer myself with a no.

            The portrayal of John Adams in this miniseries has encouraged me to be more active, and it is for that reason, I say that it is a good show.

           

            Even though the HBO John Adams was a Hollywood interpretation of historical events, I feel that they were true to the spirit of the Revolution. There are so many different, politicized accounts of what occurred during the founding of America. As a matter of fact, when I was watching the miniseries at home over Christmas break, my liberal grandfather was visiting, and he was very critical of the series because he felt that it venerated Adams too much and did Jefferson a disservice. I thought about what he said, and see where he was coming from.

            For me, however, as I have already mentioned a bit, the series was about plain people who recognized that change needed to occur and set about making sure that it was good change. Jefferson was undoubtedly a significant figure in the Founding, and his ideals for government certainly influenced the outcome. What was magnificent about the Founding, and what remains magnificent about the government today is that it is a collection of ideas that are used to counterbalance and compliment each other.

            Following this thought, I see that my involvement in government does not need to be perfect. I do not need to have everything figured out. I do not need to be right. I simply need to bring uplifting and positive ideas to the table, where they can be matched with the ideas of others to produce a part of the whole. The whole is greater than the sum of the part.

Types and Shadows: Intimations of Divinity

Art is a fun thing. And like any fun thing, it’s more fun when enjoyed with more people. I have been accustomed to visiting museums, reading books, looking at architecture, listening to music, considering ideas, and watching performances alone, alone, alone. While many of those experiences are dear to me, I must say that the few times that I have truly experienced art with someone else, in sync, simultaneously, have been most rewarding.

The point is that, sure, I’ve been to art museums with people before. I’ve watched movies with others many times. But just because our eyes were cast the same direction did not mean that we were seeing the same thing. There have been a few occasions, however, when it felt like we were. We were being stretched in similar ways, challenged together. That is a unique and powerful experience.

Our class visit to the BYU Museum of Art to see the Types and Shadows: Intimations of Divinity exhibit was truly a group experience. Through the comments made by others, I felt that we were enjoying the art together.

The experience with one particular painting sticks out. The piece with the chairs, one standing and one fallen elicited thoughts and feelings within me that I knew others were experiencing as well. As we talked about the journey of life, about sin and redemption, about the process of repentance, and about the majesty of God, I could tell that others were deeply contemplating these issues.

As the scriptures teach, “all have sinned,” and for those of us who desire to be guilt free and clean, repentance is a very important part of our lives. As we viewed that painting, I felt supported in my quest for growth toward perfection by the idea that others too were taking steps in their minds, motivated by that beautiful painting.

As people, we are social beings. We want to belong and be a part of something greater than ourselves. Our trip to the MOA really showed me how art can be a powerful tool in uniting people across so many different barriers.  Art is a social entity, not meant to be enjoyed in a vacuum. This in and of itself is a type of Divinity.

We can experience God on our own. This is a valuable experience. But I believe that the heart of religion is the interpersonal relationships that it helps to create and to perfect. Through such relationships, we become perfected. 

Revolution of Sober Expectations

One of the great questions of history is “Why does one people flourish while another does not to the same extent?” This question can be asked, for example, of the difference between certain Latin American countries and the United States of America. While both were settled at similar times, and both have similar resources, one has become the most powerful nation in the world, possibly that the world has ever known, while the other remains a third world country (I won’t clarify which country fits where in order to avoid offending anyone.) Answers to our original question shed great light on the way we understand the world.

I believe that this question is what led to Martin Diamond’s observation that the American Revolution was a “revolution of sober expectations.” By asking why the American Revolution was so successful in breaking the cycle of the human predicament while the French and the Russian revolutions were not, Diamond discovers that it was the modesty of the founding fathers that brought about that change.

I find Diamond’s conclusion very interesting. It seems to me that the more common deduction as to what the reasons for the success of the American Revolution were would be the genius of the founders, their passion, and also the zeal of the people in general for liberty. This, however, is contrary to what Diamond finds.

Referring to Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as the two founding documents of the U.S., Diamond says “Only in the unity of the Declaration’s principle and the Constitution’s institutions does the American Republic achieve its complete being.” He goes on to say that this is because, while the Declaration begins the Revolution, it “is devoid of guidance as to what those institutions should be.” It is only after another eleven years of consideration and compromise that the Revolution “reaches its completion with the Constitution.” This shows that at the time of issuing the Declaration, the founders were not yet confident in asserting what type of government should replace the existing one.

It is this eleven-year silence, this gap between the beginning and completion that Diamond calls the “splendid distinction” of the American Revolution. The Jacobin and Leninist revolutions were driven by devotion to the Reign of Liberty or unlimited equality in all respects, where as the American was devoted to the idea of civil liberty. This devotion civil liberty encourages moderation and sobriety. And those are the sentiments that drove the Revolution to completion.

Furthermore, the American Revolution, while devoted to democracy what not too hasty in subsiding all power to the ideals of democracy. However, a dispersal of powers was put into place, with checks and balances.

All of the considerations presented by Diamond are impressive, once again, because they are so counter-intuitive to the common ideas of revolutions in general. It was the mature nature of the American Revolution that allowed it to be so successful. I feel that this is a powerful example of the Christian ideals intertwined with the founding of America. Sobriety, moderation, maturity, and ultimately humility were the keys to the success of the Revolution.