It seems apropos to rerun this post as we look back on a year of the Trump administration. We originally ran it in 2008 when Barack Obama was first elected, and we re-ran it last year when Trump was elected. Perhaps we will run it every November, that great election month, to remind people of what is at stake each time they vote.
America is an experiment. From the time of its establishment as part of a New World in the late 1400s, the land that has become the United States of America has been a place where people came to experiment with doing things differently. It’s been a place to gamble, to see if you could be one of the lucky ones who became landowners or lawyers or independent merchants. You gambled on the weather, politics, your own skills, and your own ability to commit to the experiment of living in America, and being an American.
During the 18th century, the experiment deepened, as Americans began to speculate that they could form the first democratic nation in modern times. Intense experimentation went on from the 1760s to 1787, as Americans adapted and invented forms of government fit for the scope of their needs, the gaping hole of their inexperience, and the high and intense expectations for their future.
On and on went the experiment: could we create a strong and stable centralized government? Could we grow without destabilizing? Could we solve the problem of slavery? Could we truly create a melting pot in which to forge Americans out of peoples of all nations? Could we give women the vote? Could we accept Jewish people as true Americans? Could we desegregate? Could we assure civil rights regardless of sexuality?
America’s story is one of constantly tackling the big—the biggest—problems, ahead of everyone else, with very little to guide us but those founding principles of liberty and justice for all that nag at our conscience. And each time we’ve made progress, extending civil rights to more and more people, it’s been because that old spirit of taking a gamble, of performing the ultimate experiment, took over and led us to the right decision.
As we think today about what divides Americans, I think it boils down to the fact that some Americans no longer want to experiment. They want to close the lab down. We’ve gone far enough into the unknown, making it known, they say; now let’s stop—let’s even go backward. We were wrong to conduct some of our experiments in liberty, and that’s the source of all our problems. Gay people shouldn’t be treated equally. Black people shouldn’t run the country. Women shouldn’t hold high office. Muslims shouldn’t be granted habeas corpus.
Whenever one of those Americans talks about the problem with our country today, they talk about how we should be like we once were, back when white people who defined marriage as one man-one woman and were Protestant military veterans living in a small country town built this nation. They feel they are losing their birthright, their legacy—even when they don’t entirely fit that description given above.
But those Americans are wrong. What their ancestors really were was scientists. Experimenters. Radicals who always considered the impossible possible. To define those ancestral Americans as merely white or straight or Christian strips them of their most stunning feature, their near-supernatural qualities of optimism and defiance and willingness to go into the unknown and make it their home, to make the amazing the norm. They defied the status quo. That’s how they built America, the ideal that is represented by the Statue of Liberty.
Americans who want to end the experiment are few, but boisterous. They clamor at the national microphone. But Americans who know that there is no America without the experiment will keep at it, and they will persevere.
Sometimes we elect a president who is such an American, and his (so far only “his”) election is proof that the lab is still open, and that America in general will always be at the drawing board, expanding its concept of liberty and justice and equality until we finally fulfill the founding principles that created this nation so long ago.
Sometimes we elect a president who is not such an American—we elect someone from the loud minority who want to shut down the lab and restrict liberty and justice to some, not all. In that case, real Americans must redouble their efforts to restore our proper focus.
Whatever time you find yourself in, live up to your duty as an American, and keep the experiment going, not because it is easy, as one president once said, but because it is your birthright.
7 thoughts on “The Great American Experiment–a reminder”
Progressives have waged an all-out war against the U.S. Constitution.
Hello Jeffrey; can you share your concerns more explicitly by describing this war?
Progressives screwed us over by ratifying illegitimately the 16th Amendment, which many states never actually wanted. They also screwed things up by allowing direct election of Senators. As originally intended, Senators were to be appointed by state legislatures.
Hello Jeffrey; while Ohio’s 1803 admission to statehood was not officially confirmed until 1953 (which is very odd), the fact that it ratified many other amendments to the Constitution should be kept in mind. Why aren’t all the amendments 1803-1953 invalid because of this technical/bureaucratic oversight?
Of course people are divided over whether the Constitution should be followed to the letter or interpreted afresh as time goes by. You seem to be in the former camp. We at the HP are in the latter, as our reading of the relevant Federalist Papers convince us that the possibility of altering/amending the Constitution was embraced and planned for by many of the Founders. So we can’t really say that the unanimous intention was never to change the Constitution. And we know what trouble they went through coming up with a system to populate our Congress, so it seems reasonable that they would have accepted the fact that we changed how senators are chosen based on our experience post-1787.
What exactly is it that you feel makes direct election of senators a bad idea?
As I understand it, Senators were supposed to represent the interests of the states. State legislators were supposed to represent the people.
All members of Congress are supposed to represent the interests of the people. To differentiate between the interests of the States and the People is to move in the direction the U.S. has consistently moved away from since 1787, which is to see the states as a loose conglomerate at best, rather than integrated components of a whole that is far more than the sum of its 50 parts.
If we don’t believe that Congress represents the people, it become a meaningless organization. Every elected official should be elected by the people, for the people, and of the people.
Your points are valid.