Constitution boot camp: Day Two
On leadership, indiviual v. communal & the Declaration

In Scipio's Dream (Book Six of The Republic), a true statesman is described as someone who can see the whole and not lose sight of the parts. Someone who resides both on earth and in the heavens. Who has a sense of eternity and of the here and now. Further, a true leader is someone who guides us towards what we want to be in the best way possible and who is not hung up on personal glory or legacy, but who is truly invested in providing the most happiness and security for the community.

There are candidates for President that I like, some much more than others, but if I look at the pool honestly, I have to admit that not a single one fits this classical notion of a statesman. And I wonder, how would politics - how would our world - be different if we held our elected officials to these requirements? Is it even possible - or good - to do so? And regardless of both those questions, how did we get so far gone from this idea of a good leader being a wise guide and not a coercive navigator?

The more I study foundational documents and theory of the United States, the more I worry that we have long ago past the ideas on which this country was formed. And I wonder how, and if, we will ever reclaim them. But then the modernist (and perhaps the pragmatist) in me wonders if we need to reclaim those ideas or if this is natural and welcome evolution. Of course, then the classicist in me is reminded of the fall of similar republics due to seemingly natural evolution.

Take, for example, the notion of individual rights versus the common good. I would argue that this is the fundamental crisis facing America today; we cannot find the proper balance between the two. My professor might argue that that is because we are failing to ask the appropriate questions, but, whether or not that is true, the crisis remains.

Looking at the Declaration today, it is evident, to me at least (with the help of my professor), that this document is not about the individual and his rights, it is about the communal right of the people to form a new government and break free of the oppressive government under which they were ruled. In fact, most of the document speaks to the collective. So, how then, did we get to a place where our country is so focused on the "me" and not the "we"? Here, I allow for no debate: to me, it is imperative that we reclaim some sense of community in this country (but, again, I worry a bit about stripping individual liberties).

Along those lines, the last thing I want to reflect on (I hope you know that I use this blog as a way to process my thoughts after a day of lecture and discussion) is the life of the Declaration. Our professor made a point that all teachers of government make, that the Declaration is a living document. As such, he argued, it must be maintained. Just as we maintain our bodies and our children and our plants and pets, we must maintain our foundations of government. What a novel idea in this day and age, that we talk about and debate over the very words which created our world (going back to yesterday's theme). We have to continue to struggle with the words, figure out their relevance to our lives and work to make those same words true. (MLK said something to this affect during the civil rights movement, that all blacks wanted was for the principles and ideas of our foundation of government to be enforced or enacted.) How you do that and how I do that and how the government does that...all of those will look different, but the idea is that, as a collective, we must continue to do it bc the Declaration, which was a huge risk when written, continues to be in danger of failing still today.