A Conservative Declaration; M. Bardelon

Considering that the debate over egalitarianism has been at the heart of American political dialogue for at least half a century now, it would seem that both the meaning of equality and its place in the Amer ican political tradition would be firmly established. But it is not so. Dr. Bordelon is Chairman. Department of Social Stud ies. St. Thomas Episcopal School, Houston, Texas. 516 Conservative Declaration Although many observers, sophisti cated and unsophisticated alike, have attempted to link "the equality principle" with our Founding Fa thers, the connection is still dubious, mainly because the Fathers were far more fond of talking about liberty than about equality. The priority of liberty to our na tion's Founders is clear. If the var ious documents of the last quarter of eighteenth-century American his tory are examined carefully, the reader will find them filled with ref erences to the effect that liberty is the "greatest good,"2 or that the preservation of liberty is "the most valuable end of government,"3 or that government exists "to secure the blessings of liberty." This last reference is, of course, taken from the preamble to the Constitution, the A CONSERVATIVE DECLARATION 517 most solemn statement of promises that we Americans have ever made to each other. In fact, references in late eighteenth-century American political literature proclaiming a great love for liberty are so numer ous that painstaking research is not needed to find many of them. We may wonder what the Fathers meant by liberty, or whether liberty may be properly regarded as an end in itself, or should instead be regarded as a means of achieving some greater good. But whatever our uncertainty, the fact remains that in the late 17 ODs many Americans did pro nounce liberty to be one of life's greatest goods, especially in that all important listing of ends in the Con stitution's preamble.

The Importance of Liberty By contrast, formal and explicit statements maintaining that equal ity is a goal of American life are few and far between. Indeed, the level ing spirit which has often been as sociated with democracy was one of the most oft-mentioned fears· of our Founding Fathers. It would be dif ficult to find any explicit passage stating that it was their object to make America a land of greater equality; it is not difficult to find passages in which the Fathers boldly stated their aim to secure liberty for themsel ves and their descendants. This is not to deny the observa tions of Franklin and Tocqueville that the early United States was a land characterized by a high degree of equality in comparison to the nations of contemporary Europe. Investigations by more recent observers 4 have likewise revealed that certain developments of the Revolutionary period tended to re duce some of the political, social, and economic inequalities ofthe day. The dispossession of the Tories, the abo lition of primogeniture and entail, and the relaxation of property and religious requirements for voting and holding office are all cases in point. On a few occasions some Americans (notably Antifederalists) even speculated that America would be a healthier place if it were not di vided into wealthy families and im poverished masses such as existed in Rome in the century preceding Cae sar Augustus.

Nevertheless, even granting these concessions to the importance of an implied equality at the time of the Founding, it is still clear that the Founding Fathers never dedicated themselves to a conscious and active pursuit of the equality principle to a degree comparable to the strength of their devotion to liberty. Liberty was eulogized far more frequently, openly, and forcefully than equality, which was only rarely mentioned by the Fathers with any enthusiasm. The result has been that those who seek an American commitment to the equality "principle" have found 518 THE FREEMAN September themselves almost of necessity de pending upon analysis of the most famous statement on equality in our political heritage, the "all men are created equal" clause in the Decla ration of Independence. The great problem with the equal ity principle as stated in the Decla ration of Independence is its brevity.

The simple truth is that the equal ity clause lacks any explicit mean ing. The statement is simply too short. Whatever meaning is to be gained from the famous clause must therefore be derived by implication. Consequently, the clause has been subjected to numerous different interpretations by many different advocates of "the doctrine of Equal ity," all of them seeking to remake America into a hind of equality as they understand it, including the view so often urged upon us that it is our duty, where equality does not exist, to make men equal. There are, of course, other less radical inter pretations suggesting that "all men are created equal in the sight of God," or that "the Americans are equal to the British," or that "all races are equal to each other," or any number of other, often ingenious, understandings. The Ambiguity of Equality Such interpretations all suffer from the same basic weakness: they are not self-evidently true or "ob vious." It has often been pointed out that the term "self-evident" can have a more philosophical meaning: that is, a self-evident truth may be one in which the truthfulness of the proposition is contained within the meaning of the terms. Nevertheless, even granting the merits of this ar gument, it does not explain the tre mendous power that the equality clause has exercised' over the minds of men.

To explain the power of the asser tion we must understand it as self evident not in philosophical terms but in terms of the obvious. That is, we must somehow find some mean ing of the equality clause which can explain why all who ponder it are in stinctively inclined to accept it as ob vious, or as "self-evident." The force fulness ofthe statement is lost unless it contains a meaning which is clearly true, and even more than that, pertains equally to every mem ber of the human race, in all places and at all times in human history. Even more, the meaning must be un affected by the manifold differences among men including their varying talents, intelligence levels, nation alities, races, and genders as well as a host of other distinctions too nu merous to mention. Without in any way denying this tremendous variety of distinguish ing features, we may note at least two simple ways in which the basic equality of men is generally con ceded. First, there is little dispute 1985 A CONSERVATIVE DECLARATION 519 that all men are equal in that every man has one and only one body.

Every man, always and everywhere, is equal to every other man in bodily number; every man has exactly one body to nourish and use and, even tually, lose, in this world. Yet despite the manifest clarity of this rather simple observation, it is rarely ut tered as a political statement. When men come to interpret the "all men are created equal" clause, they gen erally prefer to devise novel inter pretations (often formulated to serve ulterior purposes). These intellec tual exercises are not necessary. The assertion of the bodily equality of all men, simple as it is, is not barren of practical political implications, and in fact can be taken to be the start ing point of social contract theory. The bodily equality of men may well be regarded as the basis of the Lock ean natural rights to life and prop erty, i.e., sustenance. The second basic equality of all men is spiritual rather than physi cal. Although men disagree about the exact character of man's spiri tual powers, few are willing to con test that man is endowed with a non physical faculty of some kind, whether it be understood as soul or intellect. And as in the physical sense, this conception of equality has a mathematical simplicity: every man has one soul or intellect, and one is clearly. equal to one. Although this argument may be regarded with justice as commonplace, it nonethe less deserves mention because it is asserted far less often in connection with the equality clause than is the more vague contention that "all men are equal in the sight of God." From the clearly defined belief that every man is endowed with a soul come very definite implications which precl ude the propriety of treating men as if they were animals. 5 That is, if man is dignified by a spirit which informs his very being, then the concentration camps and other cruelties of twentieth-century total itarianism are clearly indefensible.

Viewed in the light of such impli cations, the Declaration's assertion of a right to "the pursuit of happi ness" may then be construed as meaning that each man should have the freedom to attempt to fulfill both his bodily and his spiritual needs. What Equality Isn't The simplicity of such fundamen tal interpretations of the equality principle may seem to leave open the possibility of an inexhaustible num ber of political implications, but it is important to consider certain mean ings which do not seem to be implied, particularly when such meanings have been given wide circulation in recent decades. First, the clause it self does not specify any concrete way in which all men may be re garded as equal. For that matter, it does not even go so far as to suggest 520 THE FREEMAN September The AmericanTraditionof Equality 1. It is a very limited kind of equality that is avowed. Equality before the law and an equality of rights subsume the various expressions of it.

2. It assumes a negative role for government. This theme occurs re peatedly: Congress shall make no law ... ; No bill of attainder ... ; No title of nobility ... shall be granted. The impact of this is positive, though the statements are negative. It means that men are freed from the restraints of fixed classes and orders, that they can use their energies to achieve their ends, so long as they do not violate the equal rights of others in doing so. 3. It in no way prescribes that men shall cease to make distinctions nor that differences will cease to exist. On the contrary, in the absence of legally prescribed positions, there may be as many differences of de gree as there are individuals. 4. Such a conception of equality is consonant with liberty; indeed, it is a concomitant of the greatest liberty. CLARENCE CARSON, The American Tradition any ways in which men ought to be equal. Second, the clause does not contain any implication that men should be made equal in ways in which they are not already equal.

And third, there is no hint that gov ernment should take up the job of the Creator and make men equal; there is no evidence that the welfare state is hidden in the expression "all men are created equal." In short, there is no implication whatsoever that equality is itself a goal or end of gov ernment or of life in society.6 In fact, even the Declaration argues that government exists to secure liberty and not equality, clearly implying liberty as an end of government action. It can be argued that the Decla ration was and should be revered at least as much for its role in securing our liberty or independence from En gland as for its famous statement on equality. This argument is all the more plausible since the Declaration connects government far more di rectly with liberty than with equal ity: liberty is one of the three basic rights listed in the Declaration as 1985 A CONSERVATIVE DECLARATION 521 being the objects of protection by le gitimate action. Thus also the Bill of Rights was cherished by its advo cates as a bulwark of liberty, a point made often by its most zealous pro ponents. And even Lincoln sought for the slave not equality so much as liberty. Perhaps Lincoln's most sig nificant political act was the Eman cipation Proclamation, a gesture which sought to free the slaves, not to make them equal to the whites.

The opposite of slavery is liberty, not equality. The March Toward Uniformity For some decades now people have concluded that mere emancipation has not been sufficient-for our var ious "underprivileged" groups to be truly free, it is argued, they must be on an equal footing with "main stream" Americans politically, so cially, and economically. Thus in the twentieth century we have seen an enormous effort made to secure these equalities for our various "disadvan taged" citizens so that they will eventually enjoy full "equality of op portunity" with the nation's more established citizens. But there is tremendous confusion over the use of the phrase "equality of opportunity," which is often used in terms of an athletic footrace. 7 Al though at first glance this metaphor may seem simple enough, a little thought makes the comparison con fusing. Everyone is agreed as to what is "fair" in an athletic contest: all the participants should begin the race at the same starting point and begin to run at the same time. How ever, the concept "equality of oppor tunity" is not so clear when it is ap plied to the operations of individuals involved in the manifold activities of modern society.

Taken literally the phrase "equal ity of opportunity" may be (and of course is) interpreted to mean that all individuals should have the same advantages (or suffer no particular disadvantages) in the "race" for the goods of this world. The corollary, as we all know, is that it is govern ment'sjob to see to it that individual advantages and disadvantages be cancelled out as far as possible so that the race is "fair." This is per haps the main reason that we have "big government" today: with every attempt to eradicate all the little dif ferences in life which make for in equality of opportunity, the govern ment has grown larger. Despite the attempt to lend re spectability to the expression "equality of opportunity," it is the simplistic meaning of equality which has prevailed; we are being steam rolled by it. From the New Deal to Brown vs. Board of Education to Baker vs. Carr to the Great Society to Women's Lib and Gay Liberation, the march toward uniformity goes on. And lately, for the first time in our history, we have been asked to 522 THE FREEMAN give the equality principle formal and explicit Constitutional status in the form of the Equal Rights Amendment.

Recent events have suggested that the egalitarian Zeitgeist in America is currently on the wane. If so, we have no reason to be embarrassed at such a development. One does not have to deny a basic equality among men in order to resist the various forces which would reduce us to a bland uniformity. Nor does it take a refined intellect to perceive that vul gar egalitarianism represents a dis tinct threat to the liberties Ameri cans have long cherished as fundamental to their heritage. An instinctive preference for liberty is quite in keeping with our national character. The American ethos has been informed far more by the prin ciple of liberty than of equality, and not even the Declaration of Indepen dence tells us otherwise. , -FOOTNOTESlWillmoore Kendall, "Basic Issues Between Conservatives and Liberals," Contra Mundum, edited by Nellie D. Kendall (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House), p. 579.

2JonathanElliot, ed., The Debates in the Sev eral State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention, in 1787.5 vols. (New York: Burt Franklin, 1966), II, 133. The speaker cited is Samuel Nason of Massachusetts. 3Cecelia Kenyon, The Antifederalists. (New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966), p. 262. The speaker cited is Patrick Henry of Virginia. 4J. Franklin Jameson, The American Revo lution Considered as a Social Movement (Bos ton: Beacon Press, 1959). Originally printed in 1926, this work exerted a powerful influence on later historical research. SIt should be noted that for the purposes of this essay the distinction between soul and mind is of secondary importance in its implications. 6By no means, however, have all the inter pretations of the Declaration's famous clause been simplistic equalitarian efforts. Some ofthe more perceptive students of the equality prin ciple (such as Harry Jaffa and Charles Kesler) have concluded that it does not imply any sort of leveling at all. Rather, they contend, it sug gests a basic equality of natural rights, viz., life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thus, the argument goes, "the doctrine of Equality"

is the central principle of the American Ex perience, rooted as it is in the basic equality of man. (Charles Kesler, "A Special Meaning of the Declaration of Independence," National Review XXXI, No. 27 (July 6,1979), pp. 850 859) As attractive as this argument may be, it suffers from several weaknesses. First, the Declaration of Independence itself does not ex plicitly give any content to its famous equality clause. Second, the priority of equality to lib erty as an end is not established. That is, we may concede for argument's sake that equality may have had to some of the Fathers a certain priority to liberty as a means to an end (as sur gery may be prior to health, for example), but certainly not in the sense of being of greater importance to them, a point clearly manifest in the Constitution's preamble. 7The phrase has been used on countless oc casions, not only by various liberals but by many respected non-equalitarians as well. To give just one instance, no less an authority than Harry Jaffa has been cited (by his devotee, Charles Kesler) as arguing in the name of op portunity that "The purpose of the (athletic) race is to find out who is the fastest, and this can be done only if the start of the race is fair."

(Kesler, p. 858) Hal Watkins The Two-Wheeler Lesson THEfirst major Japanese motorcycle company, Yamaha, came to the United States in 1958. At that time Harley-Davidson was the only American manufacturer left on the scene, and that year they made 12,676 motorcycles. Today Harley Davidson has only a small fraction of the market in this country, but they sold about 35,000 last year. That's 22,000 more than they sold in 1958. In twenty-seven years H-D has nearly tripled their production. Most of the people riding motor cycles today certainly would not be doing so-and probably would not even give the idea second· thoughtThe Reverend Mr. Watkins edits and publishes The Printed Preacher, a monthly gospel message, 303 North Third, Dayton, Washington 99328. if it were not for the Japanese bikes. The image of the bike rider has changed. Middle-class, Yuppies (young urban professionals), and senior citizens are cruising the free ways and vacationlands on two wheeled "Winnebagos." The Hell's Angels types are a definite minority and continuing to fade from the scene.