Americans can agree on some values in theory, but not in living practice | Opinion

In a recent essay Erwin Chemerinsky and J. Michael Luttig describe a project “We Hold These Truths” in which they brought together people from the political left and right to create a statement of American principles all could adhere to. They succeeded, according to the authors, in reaching unanimous agreement on a set of principles.

What the essay authors do not address is the fact that today’s Americans sharply disagree on how those commonly held values are to be understood and lived out. For instance: “The power of government and other actors must be limited by law and they must be accountable.”

But a whole lot of Americans found President Biden not being accountable when he sought to unilaterally forgive a half trillion dollars in debt payable to the U.S. government. While another set of Americans has found President Trump acting without accountability when he seeks to expel illegal immigrants without due process.

Throughout the nation’s history, Americans have accused federal judges of issuing opinions tied to political party positions not constitutional precepts. If justices rule against someone’s own partisan understanding of the constitution, then the justices must be partisan themselves.

The authors’ group agreed to the idea that a democratic society enfranchises people to the fullest extent possible, making elections as accessible as possible. But in recent years many Americans have insisted that only people with genuine identifications be allowed to vote, while a whole lot of other Americans say that is disenfranchisement. Then, too, some Americans (as in New York City and Washington, D. C.) have insisted on enfranchising non-citizens while a whole lot of other Americans find that a profound corruption of the right to vote.

The group found unanimous agreement on the necessity of a peaceful transfer of power, accepting, honoring and respecting election results while again many Americans think that such a sentiment should not bar citizens challenging results. Individual Americans shift back and forth on this one, depending on whether their candidate won.

The group said democracy depends on freedom of speech and press. But many citizens, including leading politicians, have insisted that “hate” speech is not protected by the constitution, even after the Supreme Court ruled it was. Those not taking the stance of disallowing hate speech ask “Who defines hate speech for everyone.?”

One must be at liberty “to make important decisions about one’s life.” One word illustrates that this is not a clear-cut principle all can abide by: abortion.

There must be equality of opportunity. But the Biden administration and much of American academia equated equality with a new definition of the word equity which refers to equal results in life’s competitions. A lot of citizens have rejected such as part of the national ideal of equality.

Another agreed upon fundamental understanding, according to the study group, was that we live in a democracy, not a monarchy, an autocracy, or a theocracy. Hence, the much used charge by the out-party that the in-party is full of autocrats. Also, does the posting of the Ten Commandments in public places represent remembering historical roots of present values and mores or an intolerable merging of church and state?

The study did not address a fundamental divide that has no overarching set of principles that can maybe hold contending interpretations together. For a long time now numerous Americans have rejected western civilization and its values emanating from the Judeo-Christian religion. These Americans divide the world into oppressor/colonizers and oppressed/colonized and find the West and especially the United States to be an irredeemable oppressor colonizer, a civilization that must be uprooted. Accordingly, they oppose the old religion and the nation’s constitution. Inside the United States there are two civilizations – witness American college demonstrators denouncing their nation as the great aggressor – the values of one are antonyms of the values of the other. There can be no middle ground, no encompassing grand ideals.

J. Larry Hood is a retired state government employee and has been adjunct faculty at area colleges.