The current en vogue political arrangement is to prove one’s principles to the “ideals” of a party or ideological group. Both major political parties have fallen victim to this practice of confusing the opinions of some with philosophical principles. Some Democrats have criticized Speaker Pelosi for not standing up for abortion rights, while recently Republicans have circulated a possible purity test of 10 points – any candidate seeking to be considered a Republican must accept no fewer than 8 of the points under that proposal.
Under the present understanding of principles, I have to wonder if our Founding Fathers would pass the test. After all, it was the Great Compromise that ended the biggest stalemate of the Constitutional Convention. James Madison, the Constitution’s principle author, was educated in a Calvinist tradition but held highly skeptical religious views and wrote a document with very few religious references; argued against having a bill of rights, which would help solidify the individual rights we value today, but later changed his mind to author the Bill of Rights that was accepted; wrote a Constitution that was an enormous centralization of government power in its day and Madison was one of its most vocal supporters, but he was a supporter of Thomas Jefferson and decentralization, only to finish his career as a pro-federal government president. Jefferson himself was not always consistent either. As an ardent supporter of limited government, it is somewhat surprising that Jefferson was staunchly against judicial review, which was established during the Jefferson administration in the Marbury v. Madison decision. One of Jefferson’s biggest political opponents was Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton wrote a majority of The Federalist Papers supporting the Constitution but had previously advocated for a constitutional monarchy rather than a federal government because he strongly believed the United States needed a king to maintain stability and consistency. However, with all of their seeming inconsistencies, these men were able to come together 222 years ago to adopt a document with little to no precedent that would become the model for future countries seeking a republican form of government.
The fact of the matter is these men were principled. Their opinions differed and changed over time, but they always sought a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Their philosophical bases consisted of Hobbes, Locke, Smith, Montesquieu, and others, not of their opinions at any given moment. Even after forming the first two parties, when their core beliefs began to slightly diverge, they never made their fundamental philosophical principles about their opinions; rather they formed their opinions based on their interpretations of core principles. I am not suggesting the principles of Republicans and Democrats are or should be the same. I simply think it is important to understand what real principles are and that within a single party or group different interpretations of those principles exist, just as they did 222 years ago.
Email this post
Leave a Reply