The Declaration and our American Identity

As we approach the 250th birthday of the Declaration of Independence, we find our country teetering on an identity struggle of mammoth proportions and severity, not only about who we think we are but who we want to be. Jefferson called the Declaration “an expression of the American mind,” and it is this American mind that is being challenged today at every turn.

We recently watched an avowed socialist become mayor of our greatest city, unthinkable even a decade or two ago.  Acts of political violence have increased precipitously across the land and anti-semitism is more popular than it has ever been on college campuses. 

Social media buzzes with bizarre conspiracy theories and the clammering voices of radical extremists.  On the far right, we have the likes of Nick Fuentes who says he admires Hitler and Stalin, and has a sizable listening audience that takes him seriously.  On the far left, we have his match in Hasan Piker and his fellow zanies who are enamored with Karl Marx and kindred spirits with Antifa thugs.

At the heart of this national sickness is a series of poisonous doctrines that fundamentally reject the founding ideals summarized in the most exquisite political document in history.  This drug has been so effectively injected into the bloodstream of our national corpus, a significant segment of our society now seems incapable of discerning right from wrong, up from down, rational from irrational, wisdom from abject foolishness, and American from anti-American.

How long have the drug peddlers been at work?  Well, it might surprise the reader to learn it goes back to before the Civil War, starting with the proslavery politician John Calhoun, who loathed the Declaration’s proclamation of equality.  He called it “the most false and dangerous of all political errors.”  

The next modern political voice was Woodrow Wilson who said the Declaration of Independence was obsolete, penned for another era.  He believed Darwinism challenged its very premises, insisting we view government as a living organism that changes with the times.  From this new “enlightened” view came the notion of a Constitution that was a “living, breathing” document, making it vulnerable to a bevy of subjective and cultural interpretations.  This was music to the ears of anyone who did not affirm a divine reality or hold to objective, eternal truths. 

One of Wilson’s closest advisors, Colonel House, wrote that “Our Constitution and our laws served us well for the first hundred years of our existence, but under the condition of today they are not only obsolete, but even grotesque.”

And none other than ardent progressive John Dewey, long beloved in higher education circles, thought the Constitution’s view of liberty was “relative to the forces that at a given time and place are increasingly felt to be oppressive.”

Frank Goodnow, another leading socialist in the early 1900s, concurred.  As the founder of the American Political Science Association, he maintained that the claims of the Declaration were the “result of the then existing social conditions.”

All of which set the stage for FDR, who reinforced these ideas deep into the American psyche through his New Deal policies, the applied side of progressive heresy.  His was a much more clever approach, however, knowing the upfront manner of earlier progressives would appeal only to university intellectuals and likely be rejected out-of-hand by “we the people.”  So rather than trying to discard or trash the Declaration and Constitution, he divorced them.

He was careful not to reject the eternal verities outright that were referenced by the Declaration (self-evident truths, human equality, the divine source of inalienable rights).  Instead, he simply redefined them. In his own words, “The task of statesmanship has always been the redefinition of these rights in terms of the changing and growing social order.”  There it is.

Roosevelt understood intuitively the inexorable link between the Declaration and the Constitution, like two sides of the same coin or two edges of the same sword.  So to get around one (the Constitution), he had to sever it from the other (the Declaration).

And this is when the assault on both the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution began in earnest.  Which hearkens back to those haunting words of Benjamin Franklin: “You have a Republic, if you can keep it.”  That’s the challenge, and it falls to every American patriot who understands the Declaration and the unique American identity it reflects, to meet it.  

Brian Schroeder is the former Wyoming Superintendent of Public Instruction, an ordained minister and founder/president of The ChrisCorps Commission (bschroeder081858@gmail.com) 

Ensure These Stories Are Told

Despite the challenges facing independent local journalism, what sustains us — and fills us with deep gratitude — is the loyal support of readers who believe our communities deserve accurate, trusted, and locally rooted news.

It is no exaggeration to say that we are here because of you. Every story we report, every local issue we follow, every public meeting we cover, and every community voice we lift up is made possible by readers who understand the value of an independent newspaper.

Your support does more than fund articles. It helps protect the independence that allows us to report honestly, ask important questions, and keep our community informed without fear or favor.

If you are able, please consider supporting the News Letter Journal by donating to our Unabridged Fund today. Whether your gift helps cover reporting time, printing costs, video, photography, editing, or distribution, every contribution helps keep local journalism strong in Wyoming.

All gifts are deeply appreciated. Your support helps ensure that local stories continue to be told, local decisions continue to be watched, and local voices continue to be heard.

Thank you for standing with independent community journalism.