Prescription for Progressive Politics: I am a "PreAmbler", Will you Join?

I have either participated directly, or heard about, Progressive Political organizations' struggles to to articulate the principles that define them and animate their programs, plans and strategies. Frustration with designing a statement of principles often leads to substitution of programs and strategies and calling those "principles".

By contrast, the radical righties all have more-or-less the same mission that guides their machinations: to foster conservative principles, free enterprise, traditional American values, a strong national defense, and so on. Note that these have little to do with results, more to do with process.

I suggest a solution, a statement of principles we can all support and that communicates what a progressive political program is all about. As you will see, the words are completely original.

The Constitution is a contract among the people and the states about how they would operate together. The Preamble to the Constitution, then, can be read as what an organization would call its "Mission Statement".

"We, the people of the United States, in order to:
-"form a more perfect union,"
-"establish justice",
-"ensure domestic tranquillity",
-"provide for the common defense",
-"promote the general welfare, AND
-"to ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"
do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.

Before some readers become diaphoretic over words or phrases they think could be dangerous (e.g., that "ensure domestic tranquillity" could justify illegal wiretapping), let me point out the key word that makes all of this work: "AND".

In a contract that provides a list of obligations or conditions, as in this one, look very carefully for an "AND", or an "OR", as the string is ending. If that conjunction is "OR", it means that any one of those obligations or conditions may be met to the exclusion of the others. If, on the other hand, it is "AND", as it is here, it means that ALL of the conditions must be met together, that one cannot be completely sacrificed for the other.

"Justice" and "liberty", therefore, are a necessary part of ensuring domestic tranquility and providing a common defense. Indeed, "justice" must be part of "liberty" and conversely. Consider that my liberty (to use my property as I choose, or not to pay taxes for government services) intrudes upon your justice (not to have toxic waste migrate to your land, or for all of us to receive government services). That tension produces both justice and liberty as they can be practiced together. "For our posterity" requires appropriate stewardship of human, natural and financial resources so that the "blessings of liberty" are not only "for ourselves". "Promoting the general welfare" becomes subject to those limitations.

From the Preamble, a hidden truth emerges: the Founders (those who "ordained and established" this Constitution) were progressives. They committed themselves to justice and liberty and the general welfare and to future generations as well as the common functions of government, ensuring domestic tranquility and providing a common defense. None are dominant, and thus we deal with the "creative tensions" required to deliver on all.

I propose, therefore, the Preamble as the "Mission Statement" for progressive organizations, and individuals, not only because it captures the major elements of a society to which we can aspire, but also because we all learned it in the 5th, and 8th, and 11th grades. True, it was not immediately clear in the 5th grade that "posterity" meant you (or, actually, what it meant at all) but the words connect both to our individual childhoods and our collective consciousness as a nation, and thus the leap to embracing these principles is less than it would be by new alternatives. Moreover, the radical rightwing have tried to steal the Constitution as theirs by distorting the meaning of individual sections, and the Preamble puts the whole into context.

I am a Preambler; will you join me?

Comments

[Mormondude]

Any pro-illegal, pro-amnesty libs want to take a crack at explaining "for ourselves and our posterity"?

[PaulAbrams]

To all commentators on this article:
Thank you for your insights. In general, mission statements are about the length and scope of the Preamble. It is purposefully "vague" as some of you have mentioned, so that the organization (in this case, the country) has a variety of means of carrying out the mission. The Constitution provides the processes, and sets forth the limitations, by which the "mission" is accomplished.
Noteworthy by its absence (and the subject of a subsequent article on the subject) is any mention whatsoever of the Bible, the Creator, or even a religious reference. The Founders recognized that they were describing a secular society, with aspirations achievable by mortals.

[WBum]

I like the way you think. Sorry I can't join. I'm already a Constitutionalist, and I think the whole thing toghether works better for me.

[WBum]

together

[OhgReaTone]

Well said. The Preamble is the definition of principle, the Articles merely technique. Henry Kissing said we can compromise technique, but we can never compromise principle.
Ohg.
http://thefireside.wordpress.com/2007/09/18/founding-fathers-liberals-all/

[Rand]

Despite the glaring grammatical error (A thing either is or isn't "perfect". Some words do NOT take modifiers!), I've always been a big fan of the preamble

[Poboy]

This is where the religious subcontext comes in.

Christianity teaches that the world was perfect before the original sin, by Adam and Eve.

Christ redeems that original sin.

But since Adam and Ever none is perfect or ever will be perfect.

Thus the strive FOR perfection.

But it will never be reached.

Grammar is incidental.

[Rand]

The "religious subcontext" is only there for those who've decided it's there. Among the Founding Fathers wereAgnostics, Atheists, those who were only nominal Christians, etc

It is NOT a Christian document!

And the fact remains that "... in order to form a more perfect union..." is a grammatical error

[knosiswar]

This is exactly what we need, a real conversation about what the fore-fathers provided for and intended the REPUBLIC to be. Because it bears no relation to the government that Dick Cheney has manipulated us towards with a unitary executive and a self-rightously wrong-headed fanatical, rhetorical, self-serving facist regime.

[jcboston]

Paul

I'm in.

James

[Poboy]

I agree about the preamble as a mission statement.

I disagree that all are equal.

I think the better way of looking at the mission statement is to look at it as the order of business, as anyone would who is responsible for carrying it out.

The first order of business is JUSTICE!

In particular, justice for Black people!

[Pdubya]

I encourage everyone to call and write their representatives and get this bill passed!

HR Bill 3835 The American Freedom Agenda Act

DO IT, for all of us!

[Rand]

It's either justice for ALL people or no justice at all

[Poboy]

While I agree justice for ALL, there was a glaring contridiction in the Declaration of Independence where this was declared:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. " That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed


Does this apply to Black people? This is the country's original sin!

If so, then justice must be served!

How?

Reparations!! That is to repare the damage.

[NoFactsJustTruth]

Alone I think it is far too vague, and it doesn't quite 'do it' for me..

I prefer the Establishment Clause and the Civil Rights Amendment to ANYTHING so vague as the preamble's "establish justice" phrase.

And, you're right, I can guaran-damn-tee you THIS administration's idea of "ensure domestic tranquility" is NOTHING like mine and so I'm guessing it's most likely subjective for everyone.

Although the Preamble falls a bit short as an 'enlightenment icon' to build a grass-roots movement around, had they OUR buzz-words in their time, the Founding Fathers just might have indeed labeled it the 'mission statement'.

[SamThornton]

I'm all for the Preamble. I like to quote it to libertarians who argue that the only thing a government should do is provide for law and order and defense against attack.

However, it's worth pointing out that "liberty" in the modern sense -- in the sense discussed above, of personal freedom -- was not necessarily what the founders had in mind when including "liberty" in the Preamble. "Liberty," for them, had at least three other, more common meanings in their day:

1) Liberty in the sense of a dispensation from a general restriction, such as the liberty to hunt and fish on public lands granted to property owning males of a certain age.

2) Liberty in the sense that a citizen had the liberty to attend a public meeting and move a question.

3) New England Puritans had the idea of "soul liberty," freedom to serve God in the world, probably not what the founders had in mind.

The actual meaning of "liberty" in the Preamble, to ensure "...the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," acquires a somewhat different meaning from our modern sense, given what the founders actually took liberty to be.

[CaseyBabes]

Kinda silly trying to redefine the liberal/anarchist/moveonmorons/socialist factions into "progressive." Call the democrat party whatever, it is still a party of the exreme, the eccentric, the anti visionaries, the effete. Agreed, the republican party has its own maladjustments, but they're not trying to hide behind an invented label........"progressive, yeah, right.

[Rand]

Can you explain how the majority can be defined as "... the extreme, the eccentric, the anti visionaries, the effete"?

[Poboy]

So I guess "conservative" is not an invented label.

And anyway what are you trying to conserve?

Is it "white supremacy?"

[Mormondude]

The Preamble defines both ACTIVE and PASSIVE roles of the government.

For instance, the job of the government is to establish justice. To set up a system whereby someone who has been wronged can seek redress of their grievances. It's not necessarily the government's job to go out looking for injustice and making it right. That's the job of the people.

Providing for the common defense is much more active. They don't just stand idly by and cheer on the militias, they need to provide revenues and training facilities and research sufficient to defend the country.

Promoting the general welfare is much more passive. It's absolutely NOT the same as providing for the general welfare. And only in those cases where a large effort can bear fruit on behalf of everyone should the government have a role. The government should not obstruct projects that would benefit the general population. But it definitely does not mean giving money to one individual or another, or class warfare.

If you're going to use this as your standard, you should take some time to analyze it, and remember that those writing it were very worried about a domineering federal government taking too much freedom away from the states and the people.

[knosiswar]

The CHAIN is only as strong as it's weakest link, and Humanity is a chain that is only as strong as the weakest among them. A society is only as good as it's poorest member. And by building and supporting the foundation, a government can fulfill it's purpose to promote peace, liberty and tranquility.

[SamThornton]

Where in the world are you getting this nonsense? Active, passive? I don't see those words in the Preamble. Reading the minds of people who've been dead for 200 years seems equally strange. Maybe you're just having a bad day.

[Misanthrope2]

The Constitution does not mention active or passive government. That is just your spin. In fact, all government is active because it does things. Like promoting general welfare.

You have made a distinction without a difference.

[zigzag1]

Great idea. I'm in.

[AOGutierrez]

I've been a Pre-Ambler for years. I think it should replace the Pledge of Allegiance in school recitations.

All together now . . ."We, the People . . "

[ValerieT]

I LOVE the idea of reciting the Preamble instead of the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge is so vacuous! Ok, so there are two meaningful words: liberty and justice. But otherwise it's just empty nationalism. The Preamble, by contrast, articulates our collective endeavor in a way that binds potentially conflicting values such as general welfare and liberty into a dynamic whole.

[SamEllison]

Sign me up!

I would like to add that when you have liberty you can't have a fascist government, one that acts that way for a time but not for posterity.

[MarkWAdams]

Sign me up, Paul. I'd rather hear school children pledging allegiance to this in the morning than a piece of cloth.