"Classical Roots of our Republic" - 9AM-3:30PM Saturday, September 15 - Bloomfield Township Hall, 4200 Telegraph Road
Ryan Olson Ph.D., David Bobb Ph.D., Daniel Ray J.D. and John Todd J.D presenting
Our founding fathers were great politicians - but politics is not a dirty word
That was one message when four prestigious PhDs and JDs addressed a gathering to commemorate and celebrate the U.S. Constitution. The constitution is the result of self-interested individuals and states negotiating and compromising as rational self-interseted human beings, and not as saints.
The event which attracted approximately 100 individuals from political activists to home-schooled students was arranged by four Republican organizations, including the Royal Oak Republican Women's Club. Simply looking at the four topic-titles and identifications of the presenters gives one a grasp of the intellectual climate at the Bloomfield Township Hall.
- The Greeks and the Romans, Ryan Olson, Ph.D., Mackinac Center for Public Policy
- Can Nations Be Built?, David Bobb, PH.D., Hillsdale College
- Locke and Montesquieu, Daniel Ray, J.D., Cooley Law School, Lansing
- Philosophy of American Politics, John Todd. J.D., Rochester College
Dr. Olson reminded us that our founding fart hers were educated in the classics, could read and write Greek and Latin, cited classic history both knowingly and not as they created our constitution and our nation. He decried such current facts as that in 2005 only 13% of American 12th-graders were proficient in history, only 37% in grammar. He urged his audience to practice and to encourage the use of good speaking and writing to communicate important ideas, especially about civic/political matters.
Dr. Bobb made it clear that government is not the grantor of rights, but the protector of rights. Rights, though, require related duties, which can best be characterized as virtues. He compared the the founders' concept of human nature as consistent throughout the ages and the progressives concept of malleable man, who can become perfected. Asked how the present political parties might overcome polarization, Dr. Bobb gave two answers. First, party differences are a good thing in democracy; today's extreme polarization comes from personalization of differences. Second, the country and the parties would benefit if the parties returned to their principles -- the beliefs of Lincoln for Republicans, those of Jefferson for Democrats.
Mr. Ray stressed that a constitution has to be more than words on paper if it is to guarantee liberty. He pointed out that the constitution of the now-defunct Soviet Union contained language very similar to ours --promising freedom of speech and religion, no undue punishment, equality under the law, due process, and the like. But the Russians had had no experience with other than authoritarian government, where our founding fathers had lived under liberty and knew that the most serious threat to liberty is governmental power. Hence, our revolution against the perceived unjust power of the British government.
Mr. Todd showed that the consistency of human nature was a factor in, as one example, the creating of out bicameral Congress. Small states wanted any unicameral legislature to be based on equal representation for each state. Larger states preferred one man-one vote, which would allow them to dominate a unicameral legislation. Our Senate and House or Representatives was the result of individuals and states following their self-interests then negotiating and compromising.
Interaction between the speakers and the audience touched on such topics as: How does Iraqis experience compare with our nation's founding? (It took us years to reach the point where our constitution could be created then accepted by the 13 states.) . . . Does the Supreme Court amend the constitution when it makes such decisions as Roe v Wade>? . . . The separation of powers is not quite absolute, and that is a good thing. . . . The Supreme Court and federal courts in general operate in an anti-majoritarian mode to protect minorities of all kinds. . . . Our constitution if flexible enough to permit the U.S. to participate actively in any One World efforts, without losing sovereignty in the sense of control over domestic affairs. . . .We complain about judicial activism only when we disagree with a decision.
Relevant information links
Return to Purpose Page