constitution

Americans Once More?

Are some of the most practical and timely solutions to our mounting civic crises awaiting rediscovery in the plain light of the Declaration’s Truths?

I occasionally lecture in various venues around the country on the miracles and challenges peculiar to our singular civic order. On a few occasions, I have taught at locations made sacred by the great things that Americans have spoken or wrought. I often find that actually standing on some sacred spot of civic history permits truths to penetrate more deeply, greatness to stand forth more sharply, and the challenge of rising to Americanism at its best to distill upon heart and mind more clearly.

In sharp contrast, there is a dispiriting malaise that increasingly characterizes our lived experience of the state of our American Union. With many readers of Public Square Magazine, I find myself reflecting with increasing frequency of late on:

  • The frightening unfreedom and the deepening division, mutual suspicion, and rancor in which we have become ensnared as a nation.
  • And the flagging hope that God will yet work the miracle in our minds and hearts that he once wrought in the minds and hearts of our fathers (Note #1). That is, that he will prod us to discover, believe, espouse, and live the truths of the Declaration of Independence and, by so prodding, teach us to become Americans, unite us in self-government, and redeem the American Project.

With mounting anxiety for our country, I’ve been reflecting more deeply in this vein this year than in any previous year. My own conviction is that all hope for renewal lies in “re-knowal”—in being led to consciously and deliberately re-embrace that syllogism of five self-evident Truths articulated in the second paragraph of the Declaration:

(1) “That all men are created equal”

(2) “That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”

(3) “That among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

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

(5) “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

It was only the discovery and belief of these truths, followed up by the humble faithful, and courageous espousal and living of them, that once transformed Englishmen into Americans, empowering them to bring forth the only truly free country of which secular history bears record. Nothing short of an analogous conversion can make Americans of us today or bring forth a purer and more permanent instantiation of that Blessed Free Country now slipping our grasp.

Some have questioned how distinctly, unreservedly, and unanimously our first American fathers really did once hold those saving civic truths. Others, not doubting the fathers’ clarity, sincerity, or unanimity, have asked: Were they wrong? Are those truths really true?

Thankfully, there are unambiguous answers to such questions. More importantly, the more thoroughly we explore both questions and answers, the more we will be brought to confront consciously and deliberately the question of our own, personal civic faith. Do we still hold these truths? And what might the practical consequences be of holding them to be true today?

In the howling tempest of our present civic discontent, as the cold civil war that embroils us becomes increasingly hot, George Mason’s admonishment to “frequent recurrence to fundamental principles” (Note #2) beams like a lighthouse in the dark. If we should so recur now, might we not find those truths of the Declaration as relevant today, even essential to the success of the American Project, as ever?

My own conviction is that the miraculous historic phenomenon of Americans and America was possible only to a nation of truth-tellers. With many of our greatest presidents, I believe in the intrinsic connection between individual and national probity, on the one hand, and liberty and self-government, on the other.

All of which begs the question today: Has a nation of truth-tellers become a nation of liars? If so, how has this come about, and what have been the consequences for the American Project?

All such questions deserve deep exploration and attention, but perhaps none more than the essential question of conciliation. Why, in the mutual estrangement that threatens a national divorce, should we still insist upon seeking together this mutual conciliation? What is the difference between conciliation and appeasement? For a nation so peculiarly conceived and dedicated as ours, can there be, ultimately, any other ground for genuine conciliation than those same five truths asserted in the Declaration?

I invite you, in the weeks and months ahead, to join me in reflecting more deeply on questions such as these—not as idle philosophical speculations, but as the locus of enduring solutions to what is most urgently confronting us as an American people. As we do so, may God shine some light on our examinations, and coax forth some wholesome fruit therefrom.

Notes: 

1. I employ the term fathers in the special American sense so aptly described by Lincoln, in which he who understands, believes, and subscribes to those same truths becomes—by the same process of spiritual and civic rebirth, which had once transformed the fathers—blood of the blood, flesh of the flesh, of those first Americans. (See his speech at Chicago, IL, 10 JUL 1858, in reply to that of Judge Stephen A. Douglas of the previous day.)

2. George Mason, original draft (20 – 26 May 1776) of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, “That no free Government, or the Blessings of Liberty can be preserved to any People, but by a firm adherence to Justice, Moderation, Temperance, Frugality, and Virtue and by frequent Recurrence to fundamental Principles.”

About the author

David R. Gillie

CDR David R. Gillie, USN (ret) has taught Intelligence, National Security, Russian, and German at American Military University and several U.S. Government and private institutions. He also teaches American Civics in a variety of settings and capacities.
On Key

You Might Also Like

The Room Next Door Review

“The Room Next Door” is the latest example of arthouse social engineering.  The film is about a troubled woman, Martha, who in the midst of cancer treatments decides to commit suicide. If this bothers you, the film implies, it is because there is something wrong with you. This is all the more troubling, because the film, in many ways, is beautiful. It is directed by Pedro Almodóvar, one of the most acclaimed living film directors, in his first full-length film in English. And you can’t help but be taken by the beauty of it all. The film is suffused with the soft colors of the woods. Despite being an entire screenplay full of little except two friends talking, the camera work keeps the film alive and moving. And Julianne Moore and Tilda Swinton who play Ingrid and Martha once again give impeccable, engaging performances, that you can’t help but admire.  But all the beauty in this film is in service of a story that is decidedly ugly—but not self-awarely so. Our two main characters are old friends who met as young writers. Ingrid has published a best seller recently, where she writes about how she can’t accept death. On her publicity tour, she learns that Martha is in the hospital with cancer. She goes to visit her and reignite their friendship. We learn through the conversations that these characters aren’t bad people, necessarily, they just struggle to see a world outside of their own desires and consciousness. They have repeatedly avoided building relationships or having families. Martha does have a daughter. But she chased her father away, then lied to her about who he was her whole life, and then proceeded to be an absent mother so she could chase the romanticism of being a war correspondent.  Now that she is sick and dying, she notices that she has no one in her life. The movie comments on this like an unusual quirk, rather than the inevitable result of a life of bad decisions. We learn early on that cancer treatment can be a roller coaster with euphoric peaks, and miserable nadirs. During one such rut, Martha purchases a suicide pill, and decides she will kill herself. She reaches out to Ingrid and asks her to come on vacation with her, so that she will have someone in the house when she does it.  Ingrid agrees. And although she early on expresses some discomfort, she quickly respects Martha’s wishes to largely pretend nothing is happening. They have a lovely vacation in upstate New York watching old movies and reading books. While they are there, Ingrid reconnects with Damien (John Turturo) an ex-boyfriend of both hers and Martha’s. He is horrified at the state of the world, and seems to only live for sex (or to constantly talk about sex.) Damien is not a sympathetic character, and perhaps the audience is supposed to read that his unpleasant and helpless politics are akin to Martha’s helpless approach to life. If so the audience hardly has time to ponder it under a heavy heaping of affirmations about the power to choose, and the dignity to die.  Eventually, Martha does exactly what she promised to do. There is a brief police investigation where the officer (Alessandro Nivola) expresses concern that Ingrid would have knowingly not gotten help for her friend. A lawyer comes and helpfully tells the audience we can ignore that concern because he is a religious fanatic. This is the kind of movie that alludes to James Joyce not just once but three times. It is so pleased with just how artsy it is. And for a film with a message like “life isn’t worth fighting for,” the best comfort is that it’s so artsy not a lot of people will watch it.  The only people I would recommend watching this film is for those studying how society has devalued human life, and how good tools can be misused to harm people. The film is rated PG-13. It includes several normalized same-sex relationships, and some joking about polyamorous relationships. But obviously the biggest warning is the way it normalizes and glamorizes suicide. If you watch it with older teenagers, I would focus on questions about the choice that Martha made, and how family and relationships could have helped her make better choices. I might ask about how Ingrid could have been a better or more caring friend. One out of five stars. “The Room Next Door” will be released in theaters nationwide January 17, 2025.