When I heard that Norman Lear and the “liberal” People for the American Way (PFAW) bought an original print of the Declaration of Independence, I got scared. I thought they were going to burn it. They do support the right to burn such things. But then I realized they would never burn the Declaration because of their fear that the combustion might contribute to global warming. That was a relief, but then I started worrying that maybe they would try to somehow repeal the Declaration and rejoin us with the federal government in London.
According to the latest liberal line on the Second Amendment, the American Revolution was based on a misconception. Gary Wills, for example, argues that colonial Americans actually owned few muskets and even fewer that worked. New York Post, July 13, 1999. If that is the case, then a gigantic historical misunderstanding has occurred. The Revolutionary War started when the British Army went out on a gun control mission at Lexington and Concord. Thus, I was afraid that Norman Lear might argue that we should apologize to Britain, reinstate the Monarchy and march the Queen up Fifth Avenue. But I did a little research on the battles of Lexington and Concord and discovered that Pulitzer-prize-winning historian Wills was wrong. Since the Americans inflicted 273 casualties on the British Army – the world's best-trained army at the time – it appears that the colonists did have some guns that worked. The War was not the result of a misunderstanding after all.
Having concluded that we were safe from being reunited with the Monarchy, I still wondered why PFAW bought the Declaration. I knew instinctively that Lear and his group were hostile to its central themes and premises, and I could only conceive of evil intent in their expensive purchase. When, however, I learned they planned to use it a propaganda tool to advance their political agenda, I was outraged. There is already enough ignorance and confusion about the meaning of the Declaration without PFAW distorting it beyond recognition.
Though the Declaration is written in abstract terms, it is not subject to infinitely malleable interpretation. It is a terse statement of the central tenets of radical republicanism, the predominant political philosophy of the founders: that individuals have natural and unalienable rights, the rights to life, liberty, and property, that the limited role of government is to protect those rights; that the people, not the government are sovereign, and they may alter or abolish a government which abuses its power. Since the people are sovereign, they have the right to bear arms, the right of revolution, and of course, the right of secession from a larger polity that is exploiting them.
PFAW has declared its independence from these republican principles. Its website attacks Clarence Thomas, the current justice whose views most closely resemble Thomas Jefferson's. The web site also promotes “gun control” which puts it at odds with Jefferson's stance: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” PFAW supports the right to bare breasts but not the right to bear arms. Without such a right, however, the rights of revolution and secession and popular sovereignty have no means of enforcement. Without such a right, there would have been no American Revolution, no United States, and no Declaration of Independence for Norman Lear to purchase. Where does PFAW stand on the right to secede? Let's just say that PFAW opposes the private ownership of the means of production of liberty.
Norman Lear said he cried when he read the Declaration he had just purchased. I'd like to think he cried because, having read the text for the first time since high school, he realized how little he has in common with the radical republican philosophy of the Declaration. But perhaps I am being too harsh. Too judgmental. Perhaps I overlooked Lear's advanced age. Perhaps he got confused about what he was buying. Was he really looking for a historical document written by another man named Jefferson? In his inaugural address, William Jefferson Clinton stated: “My fellow citizens: Today we celebrate the mystery of American renewal. This ceremony is held in the depth of winter. But, by the words we speak and the faces we show the world, we force the spring.” Clinton started out forcing the spring and ended up forcing big government down our throats. Now that's a philosophy a liberal like Norman Lear can embrace.
July 11, 2000
James Ostrowski is an attorney practicing at 984 Ellicott Square, Buffalo, New York 14203; (716) 854-1440; FAX 853-1303. See his website at http://jamesostrowski.com.
