Political Crossfire Forums

[Shepherd]

do you guys think the constitution was a conservative reaction to the revolutilns liberalism.
The declaration of Indepdance seems like a very liberal document especially compared to the constitution. I have often heard liberalism is based of feelings, not necessarily rationale. also liberalism is compared to the "teenager" mentality and so is some of the colonists attitudes.

[Wyatt Earp]

the Free masons had a lot to do with the Constitution, it was not a reaction to the libs

[bigstick61]

Partly, but not really. The egalitarianism writtenin the Declaration of Independence did not reflect the true thoughts of the Founders, but was necessary to get more people to join the revolution. Egalitarianism is essentially equated to democracy. The Constitution was more of a reaction to the near-anarchy which was the Articles of Confederation.

[zMtLlC]

Instead of conservatism vs liberalism, I believe it was pragmatism vs idealism. The idealism embodied by the revolution were reflected in the Articles and other documents such as Pennsylvania's Constitution proved to be a little unworkable, so it was countered by the relative pragmatism of the Constitution and Federal system. But, if you think about it, the revolutionary idealism was a reaction to the British system in the first place.

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: Instead of conservatism vs liberalism, I believe it was pragmatism vs idealism. The idealism embodied by the revolution were reflected in the Articles and other documents such as Pennsylvania's Constitution proved to be a little unworkable, so it was countered by the relative pragmatism of the Constitution and Federal system. But, if you think about it, the revolutionary idealism was a reaction to the British system in the first place

Thats a very good point - It is like trying to take martin Luthur Kings "I have a dream speech" And turning it into a working constitution.

[eynon]

MG1962 wrote: Quote: Instead of conservatism vs liberalism, I believe it was pragmatism vs idealism. The idealism embodied by the revolution were reflected in the Articles and other documents such as Pennsylvania's Constitution proved to be a little unworkable, so it was countered by the relative pragmatism of the Constitution and Federal system. But, if you think about it, the revolutionary idealism was a reaction to the British system in the first place

Thats a very good point - It is like trying to take martin Luthur Kings "I have a dream speech" And turning it into a working constitution.

I agreed, it wasn't a matter of political ideologies as much as dealing with political realities........one major issue was the fear that states would begin breaking away(specifically the new states west of the blue-ridge and appaliachan mountains) and that other states would begin fighting each other(Vermont and New York for example).

The Constitution kept the country together.

[californian conservative]

Shepherd wrote: do you guys think the constitution was a conservative reaction to the revolutilns liberalism.
The declaration of Indepdance seems like a very liberal document especially compared to the constitution. I have often heard liberalism is based of feelings, not necessarily rationale. also liberalism is compared to the "teenager" mentality and so is some of the colonists attitudes.

I would dare to say that the constitution is a fairly "liberal" document for the time. It places (at least with the bill of rights) a very large emphasis on freedom for the individual. This counters with much of what British rule was like at the time.

[veritas lux mea]

First we might want to clarify what we mean by 'liberal' and 'conservative' in this context.

If what you mean is modern American liberalism, i.e. democratic socialism then I would say neither document is particularly liberal.

The Constitution is certainly not; it's simply a document outlining the terms of the alliance between 13 separate polities, and only allowed the federal government certain, listed powers which are generally not particularly 'liberal' by the very fact that they are not far reaching at all.

The Declaration of Independence is trickier, given the "all men are created equal" stuff. First it should be noted that the document itself is anti-statist, being of all things a declaration of secession; moreover, it actually implores the populace to overthrow governments which become tyrannical; in reality this means states which exercise many of the powers we now find the United States Federal Government exercising and which modern American liberals support.

The equality is tricky; and I'm not quite sure about it to be honest. Most modern American liberals seek substantive equality, but the document says nothing of this; rather, it speaks of our innate, natural equality. To find the real meaning of that line it might be best to simply take it in context with the rest of Jefferson's writings as well as his primary influence on matters of political philosophy: John Locke. Now I'm no expert, but these ideas are not particularly in accordance with the generally statist tact of most modern American liberals.

If by liberal you mean classical liberal, then I would say both documents are liberal documents; as classical liberalism generally prescribes limited government and a hostility toward centralized power.

I don't really see the Constitution as anything other than the elites of the society attempting to consolidate power to some small extent throughout the union. Perhaps in reaction to the Articles of Confederation; though it's debatable as to whether things were that bad during those 7 (?) years. Moreover, the problems caused by the Articles (namely, the state's being able to print their own money) were more issues of governments taking too much power, i.e. the power to print fiat bank notes, than to extreme decentralization, though I shouldn't go on too long about this as it's not my specialty.