US

‘Interdependence’? Think Progress Exploits Declaration of Independence, Says GOP Has ‘Abandoned’ Abraham Lincoln’s Values

Interdependence? Think Progress Exploits Declaration of Independence, Says GOP Has Abandoned Abraham Lincolns ValuesJoe Romm, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, has a new blog post in which he calls America’s founding document the “Declaration of Interdependence,“ slams global warming critics and claims that the GOP has ”tragically, abandoned the values embraced and articulated by” Abraham Lincoln.

To begin, allow me to present the first portion of the Declaration (which Romm uses to defend his global warming stance throughout his piece):

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Romm begins his article by claiming that America’s founding document is advocating “interdependence” among all of mankind, rather than simply announcing America’s proclamation of dependence from the British. He writes:

By saying that it is a self-evident truth that all humans are created equal and that our inalienable rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, our Founding Fathers were telling us that we are all in this together, that we are interdependent, that we have a moral duty to protect these inalienable rights for all humans.

The Declaration was, in itself, a bold call for separation. Utilizing it to advocate for various partisan policies doesn’t fit in with its intended purpose. While Romm isn’t entirely wrong here in claiming that Americans should come together to protect human rights (we have a history of doing so), his piece, on the whole, exploits the nation’s founding document as a means to his own, policy-driven end (i.e. convincing the public that the “Declaration of Interdependence” would demand we address global warming).

Also, Romm very interestingly leaves out the word “Creator” in addressing this section of the Declaration. Certainly, the Founders believed that every man, woman and child is created equally and with inherent rights, but this portion of the document is about more than that. It’s about an admittance, on behalf of America’s forefathers, that God (i.e. “Creator) bestows these rights upon mankind. Should these rights be protected? Certainly. But, explaining this section without recognizing that it is a Higher Power that allocates them is, again, an improper or, at the least, incomplete analysis of the Founders’ intended meaning.

Next, Romm writes:

The double appeal to “Nature” — including the explicit appeal to “the laws of Nature” in the first sentence — is particularly salient. For masters of rhetoric like the authors of the Declaration, a repeated word, especially in an opening sentence, is repeated for the singular purpose of drawing attention to it…

Yes, the phrase “laws of nature” meant something different to Jefferson than it does to us (see here). But as a living document, and as a modern Declaration of Interdependence, the words have grown in meaning.

This should cause pause for a number of reasons. To begin, is the Declaration truly a “living document?” Even if it is living, which many contend that it is not, the meaning of “nature” in this instance is related to the character and nature of God and of humanity. Expanding this definition to include anything other than that is a major stretch that doesn’t pass the smell test. How can a document that was intended to free a nation be “living” to a degree that would allow for such distortion?

As the piece continues, Romm explains that “unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions” are threatening the “unalienable rights” of “billions of humans“:

Ironically — or perhaps intentionally — the toughest inalienable right to maintain is “the pursuit of happiness.” Certainly, the catastrophic global warming we know we face (thanks to our understanding of the laws of nature) threatens life and liberty.

Then, he goes on to present Apocalyptic projections that the world will face if America does not pass legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Then, he attacks Republicans’ take on climate change and writes:

The party of Lincoln has, tragically, abandoned the values embraced and articulated by its greatest thinker and rhetorician — and those embraced and articulated by our Founders in the Declaration…

In this instance, Romm is exploiting the Declaration of Independence, not to mention the Founders’ intentions, to drive home policy points that simply don’t mesh. While the author is certainly entitled to his opinions, in this article they happen to be tough to follow and, historically speaking, incorrect.

Comments (120)

1 2 3 4
  • TeaForMe
    Posted on July 4, 2011 at 4:10pm

    Think Progress’s concept of “interdependence” is actually parasitism, in which some people in this country feed off of those who work harder or earn more money.

    Of course, they try to dress it up with words like “fairness” and “compassion,” but the fact is that a great many people get government handouts or favors paid for by the rest of us. This includes able-bodied welfare recipients or “low-income” workers who could work more hours, government union workers, and corporate cronies.

    Report Post »  
  • Baikonur
    Posted on July 4, 2011 at 4:08pm

    The Constitution is not based on the Bible. It is based on the 18th Century Enlightenment philosophy. The sooner those of you who worship the Constitution as some sort of golden calf realize this, the better. Study the Enlightenment, then you will understand what the US Constitution is all about.

    Report Post » Baikonur  
  • UlyssesP
    Posted on July 4, 2011 at 4:07pm

    There’s some money poorly spent by Soros.
    Next.

    Report Post » UlyssesP  
  • chips1
    Posted on July 4, 2011 at 4:06pm

    After millions of years fighting our way to the top of the food chain, might as well eat everything below us.

    Report Post »  
  • 338lapua
    Posted on July 4, 2011 at 4:06pm

    Declaration of DUH HEE HAW!!!
    Stupid dems.

    Report Post »  
  • formerwelfarerecipient
    Posted on July 4, 2011 at 4:01pm

    the constitution ‘lives’ through the ammendment process…NOT a modern interpretation or re-defining of a particular word. any lawyers out there? does the intent of a contractual obligation carry any legal weight? further, does the point in time definition of a word or phrase or context change the meaning of the contract?

    Report Post »  
  • SavingtheRepublic.com
    Posted on July 4, 2011 at 4:00pm

    ^____^____^
    Nothing is sacred or protected anymore with this batch of radicals. They are really stepping up their game! How much more until its enough? I fear those who answer this when they do it will be too late!
    http://tinyurl.com/3tg4s98

    Report Post » SavingtheRepublic.com  
  • LewisLorenz
    Posted on July 4, 2011 at 4:00pm

    He missed the “the separate and equal station” part.

    Report Post »  
  • Seabee79
    Posted on July 4, 2011 at 4:00pm

    Maybe the idiot should smoke less crack.

    Report Post » Seabee79  
  • allensmithee789
    Posted on July 4, 2011 at 3:59pm

    There is no “right” to be fed although we all need food. You wouldn’t go into a restaurant and demand a meal without paying for it. Neither would you expect another restaurant patron pay for your food. What kind of society would we have if we legalized the theft of one’s property to support another? Misplaced philanthropy through progressive taxation and wealth redistribution discourages individual excellence and charity while at the same time encourages the slavery of an entitlement mentality.

    An individual has but three rights — life, liberty, and property. Without the right to your own property (what you create physically and intellectually), there is no liberty in your pursuit of happiness and you have no life but that of a slave or serf working for someone else. MediCaid is a perfect example of misplaced philanthropy that has only added more Americans to the governmental dole. Enacted in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson‘s MediCaid program hasn’t brought “freedom from poverty” as promised to America yet, but it has bought a very “big government” dependent political constituency.

    MediCaid is insolvent with an ever growing number of dependents who have traded their liberty to whomever promises them more of their neighbors’ property, euphemistically referred to as “Economic Justice.” 47 million Americans are on food stamps and the number is growing. Could any other governmental program be more cancerous to our fundamental rights as individual

    Report Post » allensmithee789  
  • liberalsarealiens
    Posted on July 4, 2011 at 3:52pm

    Typical liberal revisionist twisted history! Someone needs to cram a little real history into this SOB’s head. Not that it would stick but it would be a good thing to colon cleans his head!

    Report Post » liberalsarealiens  
  • @leftfighter
    Posted on July 4, 2011 at 3:51pm

    Well there’s a nugget of truth in his argument. *One* of the American political parties has turned it’s back on its founding members. I just wish they’d take a much closer look at the words of Jefferson and bring themselves back to some semblance of sanity.

    Report Post » @leftfighter  
  • vennoye
    Posted on July 4, 2011 at 3:40pm

    Well, well…….constitution founded upon Biblical principles..people have been twisting the Bible for years to make it say what “they” want it to say. We now have 38,000 denominations in Christianity. People have been SOOOOOO successful with the Bible, have decided can do the same thing with the Constitution, since we are starting to complain about their trashing it….just twist it to say whatever!! Aren’t they precious!!!!!!

    Report Post » vennoye  
  • 338lapua
    Posted on July 4, 2011 at 3:34pm

    Just exactly WHO are these people?
    The sixties really fried many minds!
    Hemp rope futures…..going UP.

    Report Post »  
  • does this burka make me look fat?
    Posted on July 4, 2011 at 3:32pm

    Global warming is @rap….like all of the left wing agenda. It’s all just a money making scheme and we the people are the ones left paying the bill. I’m tired of it.

    Report Post » does this burka make me look fat?  
  • Baron_Doom
    Posted on July 4, 2011 at 3:31pm

    Abraham Lincoln was no friend of the Constitution to begin with, so he may be right about that point. The rest is hogwash.

    Report Post » Baron_Doom  
    • southernboy
      Posted on July 4, 2011 at 5:48pm

      Baron_Doom

      You are correct about Lincoln. As far as the Constitution is concerned Lincoln did more to destroy the founders intention to have strong states rights and a less powerful central government.

      Report Post »  
  • frustratedwithgovt
    Posted on July 4, 2011 at 3:31pm

    Just more libberish from a lefty loonie….

    Report Post » frustratedwithgovt  
  • Gonzo
    Posted on July 4, 2011 at 3:27pm

    I’ve noticed that in recent years, it’s darker at night than in the daytime. Must be those nasty SUVs.

    Report Post » Gonzo  
    • eadamico70
      Posted on July 4, 2011 at 5:14pm

      I’ve noticed too, that it‘s’ darker at night than in the day. LOL! I’m sorry, I couldn’t let that one go by.
      Seriously though, living up in the NE, you wouldn‘t know it’s Global Warming, it’s more like Global Cooling, we’ve had a mild summer so far, but shhhhhh, don’t tell them, they‘ll start saying we’re heading for an ice age now.
      LOL! Oy vey.

      Report Post » eadamico70  
  • cheezwhiz
    Posted on July 4, 2011 at 3:26pm

    Then, he goes on to present Apocalyptic projections that the world will face if America does not pass legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
    ————
    If that doesn’t work, he’ll tell us that not only our Founding Fathers but even Jesus Christ wanted Cap and Tax and wanted us to ride bicycles to work…..
    oh wait, they already preach that in
    ‘ social justice ’ churches :D

    Report Post » cheezwhiz  
  • conservativeBC
    Posted on July 4, 2011 at 3:19pm

    Michele Bachmann Dancing On Stage!

    http://thebachmanncometh.blogspot.com/2011/07/michele-bachmann-dancing-on-stage.html

    She sure dances a heck of a lot better than Obama!

    Report Post » conservativeBC  
    • TreeTrimmerJim
      Posted on July 4, 2011 at 3:57pm

      Looks like a reasonable dancer.

      Next can she toss a baseball 60 feet? Greta can. George can. Obama, not so good.

      Report Post » TreeTrimmerJim  
  • cheezwhiz
    Posted on July 4, 2011 at 3:18pm

    Certainly, the catastrophic global warming we know we face
    ————-
    You can prove that stringbean ?

    Report Post » cheezwhiz  
  • HappyStretchedThin
    Posted on July 4, 2011 at 3:16pm

    Billions of prosperous human beings with American-style Constitutions limiting their governments to the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would have enough disposable income to be responsible about cleaning up their messes. No global govt necessary. No EPA necessary. And I’m sorry, but I produce plant food when I burn hydrocarbons, not pollution.

    Report Post » HappyStretchedThin  
  • nannyatnannydotgov
    Posted on July 4, 2011 at 3:15pm

    Global warming is like a piece of taffy that can be twisted and shaped into anything they want to fit their need of the day.

    Report Post » nannyatnannydotgov  
    • HappyStretchedThin
      Posted on July 4, 2011 at 3:17pm

      I disagree, Nanny: global warming is nowhere near as tasty. ;-)

      Report Post » HappyStretchedThin  
    • chalkdust
      Posted on July 4, 2011 at 5:01pm

      “Certainly, the catastrophic global warming we know we face (thanks to our understanding of the laws of nature) threatens life and liberty”.

      More like, laws of pseudo science. Or better yet: Grant science.

      Report Post » chalkdust  
  • WILLIAM E.
    Posted on July 4, 2011 at 3:15pm

    Nice opinion Joe, But I honestly don’t care about your liberal thinking.

    Report Post »  
  • cheezwhiz
    Posted on July 4, 2011 at 3:14pm

    that all men are created equal,
    IF they are NOT KILLED by the socialists first

    Report Post » cheezwhiz  
    • banjarmon
      Posted on July 4, 2011 at 3:24pm

      Romm is a dingbat! What did Linclon have to do with the “Declaration of Interdependence”?

      Report Post » banjarmon  
    • GONESURFING
      Posted on July 4, 2011 at 3:30pm

      Actually, those who believe in man made global warming threaten our life and liberty.

      Report Post » GONESURFING  
    • Bum thrower
      Posted on July 4, 2011 at 6:46pm

      AND, they want YOUR money, to “redistribute” it to the rightful ‘owners’…..over my DEAD body….

      Report Post »  
    • Tear Em Up
      Posted on July 4, 2011 at 3:49pm

      Not if we have anything to say about it!!! Come on 2012!

      http://traffic.libsyn.com/mikeleeandterrymartin/Number_71_July_3rd_2011.mp3

      Report Post » Tear Em Up  
    • Kalish
      Posted on July 4, 2011 at 3:56pm

      Oh, so now the libs like Lincoln’s values ? What a joke, they are so full of it, they even lie about what they say is their own beliefs ! I’m sure Lincoln would approve of abortion, or stealing other peoples earned money, or taking away peoples freedoms, freaking hypocrites !

      Report Post » Kalish  
    • obama-mecca-me-sick
      Posted on July 4, 2011 at 4:02pm

      What a bunch of whackadoos!! We have to stop minds like these from teaching impressionable children this propaganda or Americas future is doomed.

      Report Post »  
    • RightPolitically
      Posted on July 4, 2011 at 4:09pm

      You’re right, we have to stop leftist ideologues from teaching our kids before it is too late. Unfortunately, it might already be…….too late. Only 30% of young people today can say from which country we declared our independence in 1776. FINE JOB OF TEACHING. And The Left wants more billions pumped into public education. For what, more results like this? CLOSE DOWN PUBLIC SCHOOLS NOW! Happy Fourth of July to all.

      Report Post » RightPolitically  
    • Alvin691
      Posted on July 4, 2011 at 4:54pm

      You are correct, and it is not random they released this attempt now. The study showing how poorly students understand American history and Beck’s show ending may have triggered a window to attack.

      Report Post »  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on July 4, 2011 at 4:06pm

      Joe Romm said,

      “By saying that it is a self-evident truth that all humans are created equal and that our inalienable rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, our Founding Fathers were telling us that we are all in this together, that we are interdependent, that we have a moral duty to protect these inalienable rights for all humans.”

      You have to ignore the rest of the Declaration of Independence in order to come to the conclusion that the Founders believed we are all interdependent.

      One of the inalienable rights conveniently overlooked by Romm (and I mean he hopped right over it to make one of his other points), is:

      “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”.

      This inalienable right is an acknowledgement of the sovereignty of nations, which implies that we are NOT interdependent, but must respect other nations’ property.

      And in the Federalist Papers, our Founders argued AGAINST trying to unite people’s interests, and FOR the protection of DIVERSE and INDIVIDUAL interests.

      (continued on next post)

      Report Post »  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on July 4, 2011 at 4:08pm

      (continued from prior post)

      Federalist Papers #10
      http://constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

      “There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

      “There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

      “It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

      (continued on next post)

      Report Post »  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on July 4, 2011 at 4:09pm

      (continued from prior post)

      “The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

      “The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man;”

      … (snip) …

      “The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.”

      So, it wasn’t INTERDEPENDENCE that our Founders had in mind when they deliberately rejected a Democracy and instead set up our Constitutional Republic, but rather it was a respect for everyone’s individual, God-given, inalienable rights.

      Report Post »  
    • Ruler4You
      Posted on July 4, 2011 at 4:47pm

      It’s no surprise that progressive liberals want “inter-dependence” as most can not sustain themselves with their own ingenuity, drive and commitment. Since they have little or none of any of these things.

      Report Post » Ruler4You  
    • swalt
      Posted on July 4, 2011 at 9:49pm

      “My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.” — Thomas Jefferson

      “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
      – Thomas Jefferson

      “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” — Thomas Jefferson

      “To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
      – Thomas Jefferson

      President Jefferson was the most intelligent man in our country’s history.

      Report Post » swalt  
1 2 3 4

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love