College of Political Knowledge
Subject: American History/US Constitution/Government
Paper #41
For weeks now I have been writing and asking questions about different concepts in the political sphere with the hopes that it will increase people’s attention and knowledge on the issues that they have to deal with daily and especially at election time…..
Recently I had a post about the common good (or in some cases “common cause) and in it I discussed what was meant when you hear pundits and speakers and campaigners use the term and they use it liberally (that is a small “l” and not the large “L”)……..
Let us talk about the Constitution, especially the 1st Amendment Section 8 which states….
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;……
There is the term that I would like to discuss…”the general welfare”…..we hear this term all the time, well you do if you do much reading or writing on the political side of life, but what does it mean?
First of all we must remember that the days that the document was written there were many ways of saying a thing…..for instance, general welfare could be of today’s equivalent of the “common good”….great huh? But what does that mean?
Or we could take a different tact……with all the fake concern on the rise of socialism being thrown around by the motor mouths on the Right……we could make the case that ” general welfare or common good” could be interpreted as the Founders saying that they supported a form of socialism…if you use the same vague logic of our Rightie brothers and sisters…….
I mean if you can stretch the facts in today’s world to make the Dems out as some sort of secret socialists then why not extend your thinking and go back to the Founding Fathers on what their agenda was all about?
Equality……a corner stone of socialist thought……just a thought……
Hmm… to take your last remark first – we’ve done this one and I think we agree that there is no such thing as “equal” – equally IMPORTANT – yes of course, but little is actually truly equal…
However, the main post – yes – a good one (as is so often the case). This is a bit like equality, you can interpret anything you personally feel is important as being “for the general welfare of the nation” – heck, if you’re a racist, you probably think that ethnic cleansing falls into that category, or if you’re a real misogynist, that all women should be locked up in sex camps and beaten regularly to make them submissive – I mean, vague statements like that can mean anything you damned well please – but perhaps that’s what the writers of the constitution intended???
Agreed……the Founders were masters at saying a lot without saying anything at all….and yes…the personal filter plays into this question…..the Founders were NOT, repeat NOT, revolutionaries….they were moderates that wanted a bigger piece of the trade dollar……the main guys were not so noble as to want anything else…the American Revolution was an economic decision more than a political one……all it did was enhance the elites…normal farmers and tradesmen were NO better off one way or the other….
“we could make the case that ” general welfare or common good” could be interpreted as the Founders saying that they supported a form of socialism”
I think you’re talking about the articles of the Constitution, not the amendment, but ok, I’ll make my point based on the article (I know how it is to type without coffee too).
This one’s actually pretty simple: The writers wrote “provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States”. The context of general Welfare is related to Defense. In this case, the article was written at a time when we had nothing more than state militia, and that did us no good against a foreign power. Couple this with the fact that our forefathers had just fought to free us from tyrannical government that invaded every part of their lives, socialism (or the idea that government would own the people) was a complete 180 degree turn from their intention.
The case could be made, but it would be thrown out of any sane court.
I agree – good points – but only for you… That is to say that is a perfectly reasonable interpretation, but isn’t that really the problem? You can interpret most parts of the constitution in whatever way suits your personal bias, likes, or dislikes.
As an aside, where the heck do you propose we should find this “sane court” you mention?
But I digress, I don’t personally agree that the founders were lumping together the national welfare and the military, but simply placing together things they were unable to define and thus making a general statement that allowed future administrations to interpret them in any way they chose – which is (or at least has become) the source of endless arguing and bitching instead of getting on with anything useful.
Of course, I could sum most of that wordiness up in just two words – those words are, of course, “politics” and “bureaucracy”.
Hiya LOUDelf…nice to see you again….my intention was not to interpret only to point out that all the secret socialism theorists could make a point that the term could well be some reference to socialism….when some on the Right hear socialism every time someone on the Left makes a statement……
Great to be back on your blog!
I think the term could be used to reference socialism, but it would be as weak at best. I think it would be better to use Chris’ argument that times are different now.
Frankly, I believe you do adhere to these guidelines however as the framework and words of the founding fathers are the architecture that made this country great. The great civilizations of the world that have fallen owe this to straying from the course that brought them greatness. In our case, extreme limitation of federal government in our daily lives.
As always I appreciate your participation…..
IMO. it was the people that put the words to work…..I agree that they are great words and should be read and understood by every American, sadly that is not the case……for the times they were written, it needed to be a general statements…after all it was something that had not been tried effectively and needed to be molded to fit…..
Parsing the words of long dead 18th century aristocrats seems to me to be an exercise in futility. Appeals to the genius of the founders is only used as a rhetorical device to silence critics of your preferred policies. Look deep enough and you can find justification for whatever you like, whether it be unlimited power for the President, unlimited money spent on war or welfare, or perhaps the right to deny voting to minorities.
What we should do is figure out what’s best for us in the here and now. Forget what those long dead dudes said, they weren’t time travelers, they couldn’t predict the internet, the airplane, etc.
Hi Chris….that is why the dudes from the past wrote in generalities. at least IMO……..they had NO intention of being precise or specific
Exactly! But then you have to accept interpretation, don’t you? Personally, I think you must, but the minute you do so, whose version will you plump for???
Thanx for the Ping….and interesting post…..have a good weekend….chuq