The words of the Declaration of Independence still ring across the centuries with as a vibrant a statement of principles -- not merely the practical, bill of particulars of the singular injustices unde which the Colonies chafed, but for the bold statement of the philosophy of the quarrel:
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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Let us focus on one particular clause of that statement:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....
In this country right now the question before us all now, as it was then, is "What does it mean to have government 'secure these rights'?"
How does someone exercise their right to life or pursuit of happiness when they are infirm, or poor, or elderly? When access to the means to right those circumstances are limited by "market forces," pricing them, in effect, out of their rights? How much of an infringement (if any) should be tolerated of those with the means in order to allow those without to have some modicum of access to the opportunity to obtain similar means?
In other words how does a government function to secure rights in the face of immense and growing inequality to the means to exercise those same rights? And how does that government function to secure those rights without depriving others of their enjoyment of those same rights?
This is the question a representative, democratic government -- and society -- should be seeking to address. Democracy allows for a dialogue of citizens (and, ideally, non-citizens) to mediate and arbitrate their mutual clash of interests among themselves. And it really is what underlies everything from the social issues to the Ryan budget plan. And it should work and be effective as long as all voices can equally speak and equally be heard. Because if voices are missing from the debate among representatives, can a government claim to be securing the rights of its whole citizenry? If only a privileged few can have a real voice in the debate and thereby influence and manipulate the whole course of representation, then the government ceases to be representative. It ceases to govern, in effect, as the Founders defined that term in the Declaration, becoming a mere wall safe for only those privileged few to have been granted the combination to the lock, leaving those without such access -- or the means to secure such access -- to run the Red Queen's race.
This latter, it may be argued (as I do) is when government becomes "destructive" of the ends of securing rights. That is the side I feel we all here at DKos are on, in one form or another. When "the least of these" are denied some measure of balancing out the access available to those of means and privilege, they are forced into doing all the running they can, or even twice as much, just to stay in place, depriving them of the full exercise of those rights of which they are endowed by virtue of being human.
One might put it thusly: Poverty and dire circumstances -- unemployment or catastrophic illness, for example -- circumscribe the ability of those so made infirm to enjoy even a modicum of the rights they possess simply by the virtue of their being human. Inequality in social and economic circumstance thus leads to inequality in political circumstances.
Government in my view thus must address and work toward addressing the inequality of access to the means to enjoy those rights. The other viewpoint, now dominant in Republican and conservative circles, does not: It holds that letting the inequality not merely exist, but thrive and grow (the practical effect of their budget plan) is the surest way to rectify the unequal access to the means to enjoy our rights.
Yes, it's that stark. There are no shades of gray. The task of government is to secure rights. What the Republican agenda has shown is a great tendency to have government be destructive of those ends.
The question now before us is how do we fight back.
(This has all been a bit rambling, I know, but it was on the fly, and I needed to post it today. Feel free to flame it, add to it, flesh it out in discussion. It's part of a sort of ongoing effort on my part to think about first principles -- for us, the country, and the world. Contributions welcome.)