How to Celebrate the Idea of America

As we gear up for a celebration of family, summer food and America, a queasy feeling can creep up on us regarding all three. We can anticipate the squabbling at the grill on who does the better burgers, and the heartburn from indulging in just one too many hotdogs or pieces of pie. But it is also the flag, the red-white-and-blue, the concept of America, that may be causing us unease, for it is hard to discern what it even stands for today, at home and in the world.

Here’s a radical proposal to help with all three challenges of this holiday: read the Declaration of Independence (see here for a link to the complete text) with the people with whom you are breaking bread. Crazy as it may seem, a slow, guided, group read of these 1337 words may distract from family drama and prevent indigestion, and most certainly can help make this celebration of the Declaration of Independence a rediscovery of what truly makes America great.

I don’t mean whipping out your phone and reading the text superficially as a celebration of American independence from England and the birth of our nation. I mean taking the time to savor every word, to read it as a love letter to humanity and as a deep binding contract of all people in America, citizens or not, with principles of freedom, justice and equality. Despite all of the challenges we have faced in making the ideals come to life, despite the many ways in which people have violated them in their actions and habits, let us reconnect with them as a source of inspiration for the future.

The best way to do this would be to read Harvard Philosopher Danielle Allen’s phenomenal work Our Declaration: A reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality(2014). In it, she carefully paints a portrait of the sentiments and aspirations that inspired our political unit at the moment of its creation. But you won’t get through the book by lunchtime, for it’s a richly argued work that warrants a careful read. For the sake of bringing her to your picnic table, I am going to distill 10 of the brilliant points she makes on the first few paragraphs, just to allow everyone to enjoy the true flavor of the American spirit as they eat their lunch. In doing so, I shall take the liberty of referring to Prof. Allen as Danielle, and pretend that she is a friend, while acknowledging that she is perhaps the most accomplished and distinguished political philosopher of our time. I do so not because I lack respect, but because I would like to bring her in close as a human being who is a fellow believer in the fundamental equality of human dignity, and to underscore that deep thinking is a democratic endeavor.

#1: It’s a document by the people, for the people. The first thing Danielle has you remember when you pick up this document is that it is the product of what she calls “the Art of Democratic writing”. It was written by a committee of people trying to capture complex ideas and conversations that were happening in all 13 colonies in the Spring of 1776. The committee appointed by the continental congress in Philadelphia included John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston and, of course, Thomas Jefferson as the lead draftsman. It went through a complicated process that involved at least 50 separate instances of having to achieve agreement through consensus or majority vote, making it not the work of one author, but a document written with the people of the colonies.

#2: Enjoy Slow Reading.Then she reminds you to breathe and slow down. Just like Carlo Petrini and the slow food movement championed the benefits of extracting all nutrients and flavor from ingredients, Danielle champions slow reading as the practice of extracting ideas from text by appreciating each word in full. The way this works is you first read a paragraph, and then you go back and read it word by word, and you let yourself soak in the richness of every phrase on its own terms. Let’s start by taking the first paragraph from “When in the course…” to the word “Separation”. Now go back to the trumpet-blast at the beginning: “When in the course of human events it becomes necessary.”

#3: People have power to make progress. With a chapter on these very first ten words Danielle draws out two ways in which they present a double celebration of human power. First of all, by summoning up the image of a river with the word “course”, the authors of the Declaration make it clear that they believe in a flow of human events towards an end. There is a course of time moving with directionality and a purpose — the purpose of advancing the interests of humankind. The other idea hiding in this fragment is that human beings can make decisions on how to redirect the river. There may be a flow of events, but we as humans are not just drifting along in a raft. When it “becomes necessary” for us to do something, we can. We can steer the vessel we are in, we can even change the course of the river. The first ten words of the Declaration carry a powerful belief in progress and in our human capacity to make things better.

#4: A people is defined by a shared political will. Moving right along to the next part of the sentence, you will read “for one people to dissolve the political bonds that connect it to another”. Who is this people? As Danielle points out, it is not an ethnically defined group — in 1775 there was no unifying ethnic or religious heritage in the colonies to speak of — nor is it the “people” understood as the “common folk”. Here, the people is used to describe those who make up a community with a shared political will. This idea had gained momentum in the 100 or so years before the writing of the Declaration, with a variety of political thinkers putting into words the energy that they saw emerging around them: the energy from a growing number of individuals trying to form a shared opinion on the rules by which they want to be governed. The people of America are those who opt into this new set of rules. We’ll get to the complications of who actually was included in a minute, but for now, let’s just sit with that incredibly radical thought that there is such a thing as a group of people defined primarily. by a political will.

#5: People can declare independence. This people’s will at the time of the Declaration is first and foremost to get out of its toxic relationship with Britain. Danielle aptly compares it to them asking for a divorce. They feel fully entitled and empowered to do so, because they have found that people in the colonies are fed up with being dominated, and are tired of being subjected to a values system with which they do not agree. Danielle carefully points out that this frustration with British oppression did not grow on its own; it was a long process of a few thought leaders helping their fellow colonists to see what they could all gain from separation, and that it was even an option. At the time, that was anything but common understanding. Declarations of independence were just not done. We’ve seen so many such declarations in our life-time that we might forget just how big a deal this was. While the book carefully avoids bringing in too much historical knowledge to allow everyone equal access to the text, it is worth pointing out that only twice before had a group of people declared that they were separating into a distinct political unit: in 1320 in Scotland (yes, that’s the story of Braveheart and Robert the Bruce) and in 1581 in the Netherlands, with the Dutch Rebellion (featuring William of Orange and others) against the Spanish throne. That had been 200 years ago. This declaration of independence was an extremely radical step.

We won’t parse all 1337 words this way, because the beer is getting warm and hamburgers only need 8 minutes. But stay with me for the first two paragraphs, and then we will let everyone get to their food, hopefully uplifted by a sense that America is an idea we can all get behind.

#6: All political entities are equal in status. The next line is a mouthful: “and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to with the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them”. So not only can a people declare itself independent, it can place itself alongside the other powers of the earth on its own terms, separated as a political unit, and equal in status. Danielle reminds us that it would be absurd to think that they were placing the small, scrappy colonies on the same level of influence or wealth as the British, Spanish or the Russian Empire, but they were clearly saying “I may be small, but I am equal in status as a nation”, just like a child can look to its parents and say “I may be a kid, but I am a person and you don’t own me”. Where on earth do they get that idea? They are claiming that there is an international world order in which every separate nation has, thanks to the laws of nature, a right to claim its equal status and voice. That means these guys were working with a mental image of the United Nations and of international law before we even have a democracy established anywhere in the world. The two ideas go hand in hand: the laws of nature that provide the colonists with the right to self-determination are the same laws for all people, everywhere in the world. They are codifying a global humanist claim to a world order in which all people are created equal and can self-organize into political units.

#7: There is no magic involved. Danielle does into great detail on Jefferson’s relationship with religion and on how the authors of the Declaration negotiated the way they would refer to the Divine. You see that they ended up referring to him as Nature’s God. There is no reference to a Christian God. This is a sort of neutral Creator God without any connection to a specific version of faith. This is important. The authors of the declaration were a motley crew of Christian denominations and Deists. Jefferson in particular was not one for “magic” and salvation, so the God referred to here is the watchmaker God, the creator of the universe and of the laws that underlie it.

#8: There’s such a thing as International Law. As we come to the end of this incredibly rich sentence, the authors close with a humble acknowledgement that “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” This means two things. First, that they can’t just declare divorce without stating a just cause, because separation is serious business. Secondly, it means that they acknowledge the existence of a body that holds judgement over whether you have cause to separate. That body is the “opinion of mankind.” What is the opinion of mankind? It conjures up the image of a court of global public opinion, a court with the right to judge and determine whether an action was taken justly. The UN has struggled to find a way to codify this “opinion of mankind” into a formal international legal framework. Only in 2010, did the International Court of Justice finally formulate a treaty stating that they generally would recognize unilateral declarations of independence. In 1775, there was no UN and no ICJ. There was no CNN and no global opinion polls. There were no phones, and no global newspapers. But there was still an imaginary court of public, global opinion, created in the imaginations of the revolutionaries who imagined a world of equal human rights.

#9: Our rights are self-evident truths that construct a logical argument for revolution. After this introduction comes the beautiful preamble, which became a rallying cry in the global fight for creating democratic governments and advancing individual human rights. Danielle, in her elegant way of summarizing complex thought, points out the three truths in this declaration that together form a logical argument:

All people are equal in being endowed by their creator with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, among others;

Humans build government to secure these rights and political legitimacy rests on the consent of the governed;

When government fail to protect these rights, people have a right to revolt

These are not just any truths. They are “self-evident”, meaning that any human being who looks at them from a rational point of view, would come to the same conclusion. They are not an opinion or a belief. They are self-evident truths attained by reasoning. Here again we see the deep faith of the revolutionary writers in the beauty of human spirit and humanity’s capacity to create good.

On the first truth of equality of rights, it does not mean that all men are equal. It means, just like above in the reference to the status of peoples, that all men are equal in status, in that they received the same rights from their Creator — rights which, like a dowry, cannot be taken away. including (among other things) the right to life, the right to be free and the right to pursue happiness.

Continuing: “ — that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed, — ” This is the second truth. Government is made to secure rights and exists only at the consent of the governed. Government by the people, and for the people — it is right there, long before Abraham Lincoln used the phrase. That is the fundamental creed of democracy.

To round out this endless sentence, the Declaration states that “Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem the most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.” This the final, third truth, that when governments don’t serve the people, they lose their legitimacy. This makes any allegiance between the governed and the government conditional on the government doing its job. If governments stops protecting people’s rights, the people can change or cancel the government. The people have the right to institute new governments that capture the principles and execute their powers in a way that is most conducive to advancing safety and human happiness. Say what? If the government breaks the principles and values that brought it into power — in particular the safety, equality and happiness of the people — they are no longer legitimate.

The break from Britain came not because of a nationalist sentiment. This wasn’t American “Patriots” feeling like their national identity was being squashed by a colonial power. This was not a community that had developed a national sentiment at all: the age of nationalism had not even begun, nor had the term “Nation” gained currency. No, this was a group of idealistic dreamers trying to build a government based on principles of self-government and fairness, taking the best of the theories floating around at the time and turning them into a manifesto about the kind of just government that human beings deserve. Danielle refers to this passage as the core framework for democratic institutions. They are the spaces, she writes, in which people can “hold the massive shared, even if acrimonious, conversation in which we figure out how to relate our prospects for happiness to those of others.”

#10: Habits lag ideas. At this point we have to go back and tackle the thorny question of who they meant by “ALL MEN” — a question that Danielle explores with empathy and moral clarity. It is easy to treat this language with an eyeroll and dismiss the Founding Fathers as hypocrites who were only trying to solidify the supremacy of the white male species. Yes, several of them were slave owners, including Jefferson, who did more of the writing of the document than anyone else. It could be tempting to dismiss their ideas because of the fact that they were part of a system that caused immeasurable pain in the centuries that followed. Danielle gently reminds us “that there is a lot to learn about human beings from studying what it takes to get our habits to catch up to words and principles that have run on ahead. So what are words?” She asks. “A starting point. No less. No more.” Words are a starting point, and we should take them seriously and commit ourselves to carrying out the intent of spreading freedom, justice, happiness and equality, and to translating it into a lived reality for all.

To illustrate the challenge of habit, let me ask: How many of us reading this text believe in the ills of climate change? I’ll guess a fairly high number. And how many of us drive cars? Again, I will guess another fairly high number. So if we know that driving is bad for the environment, why do we do it? Danielle makes a powerful argument for seeing the challenge of bringing habit in line with the ideas and principles in our hearts, and making specific and concerted efforts to alter our habits. This is the problem these men faced. For all the fresh theory that filled their hearts about people being equal, this was very much not the habit or the reality in which they lived. I am not equating pollution with the horror of slavery, but I am convinced that the ideas underlying the Declaration included a dream of equal human rights across the globe. History intervened to mess up the realization of that dream.

Without excusing their habits, Danielle gives proof of their deep belief in equality by sharing a passage that was edited out of Jefferson’s original draft. It runs as follows: “King George] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the aprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain, determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold.” This statement said no more and no less than that the King was an abuser of elemental human rights, and that it was the king who stood behind the ignominious practice of slavery.

Even though the passage was deleted, the writers’ anger and frustration with the King’s moral and political ineptitude picks up steam throughout the rest of the Declaration. The long list of transgressions they provide is not primarily about economic issues and taxation. It’s is about disrespect for the American people’s rights of self-determination and the unfairness of his rule. In drawing up the portrait of a Tyrant, they are positing the values that they hold dear. At the end, they dramatically sign off with a pledge to uphold these values more or less in the spirit of “until death do us part.

That’s all for now. Leave the list of complaints for another day. These parts have already led us through the fundamental manifesto of human equality contained in this Declaration. The equality of people, in which no one party dominates. Equal access to tools of government. Equal voice in arguing about the future. Equal commitment to exchanging value amongst one another, and equality in sharing responsibility for public life. There is far more depth in Danielle’s book than this cliff-notes version can convey, so please do put it on your list for the summer and read it. But now that you have done the good work of connecting with the reason why so many different people celebrate this day with a passion, go enjoy your lunch.

It is a tragedy of American History, of World History, that the spirit of the Declaration did not survive the power struggles of the Constitution-writing period. After this revolutionary, idealistic declaration, the States’ representatives and power holders swarmed in to ensure that their own interests were protected. It is a tragedy that the radical spirit of equality and racial justice was not only edited out from the text, but rendered a farce with many of the actions that followed and the traditions that were formed. Shame on us.

When we celebrate the birth of America, we are celebrating an aspirational goal that is as of yet unfulfilled. We celebrate a radical commitment to equality, justice and happiness for all people in the world, with the right to self-determination and the right to defend their principles from threats that may come from the international system. We celebrate the opportunity we have today to resurrect this spirit and claim it as our core. We celebrate our commitment to inventing myriad ways to translate the ideas into new habits, and to making them a lived, felt reality for every person who is in our country today.

May we then all, regardless of where we are, say with hope and optimism: Happy Birthday, America. May your best years be yet to come.