A recent quote from the Tea Party Patriots reveals an unfortunate blending of John Locke's commentary on the natural rights and an opposition to the majority in, I guess, the Federalist Papers. The person, whose posting name appears to be jfkbischoff, says that "by 'natural law' the wisdom of the 'crowd' is always superior to that of any individual or 'expert''. The punctuation errors aside, the statement, the idea, is flawed beyond repair. Mixing the natural rights philosophers with those who wrote against majority rule turns both ideas on their heads.

In his Second Treatise on government, John Locke wrote in response to Richard Hooker's essay in defense of the Anglican Church against Protestant and Puritan demands regarding the governance of churches. Hooker's job was to maintain the power of the Anglican Church in opposition to the Presbyterian and Puritan demands.

Locke stated that, in fact, government was required to protect the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. Without government, man's self-interested passions would create discord. He said, "it is unreasonable for men to be judges in their own cases, that self-love will make men partial to themselves and to their friends; and on the other side, the ill nature, passion and revenge will carry them too far in punishing others, and hence nothing but confusion and disorder will follow, and therefore God hath certainly appointed government to restrain partiality and violence of men."

The Framers, not to be confused with the Founders (but oh well why distinguish when you have claimed you are a patriot) designed a system of government to counter mob rule. In Federalist Paper #55 Madison (a Framer) wrote that we must "avoid the confusion and intemperance of a multitude. In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever characters composed, passion never fails to wrest the scepter from reason. Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob."

Further, aside from knowing nothing about the documents from which they allegedly quote, the Patriots also know nothing about the circumstances of the original men and women who declared independence from the British Empire on pain of death. Did I mention "on pain of death"? One is required to understand that the original rebels were not protected by the government in the way that today's so-called patriots are protected. Th original patriots, in fact, had no representation in the British government and its rule from Britain. Soldiers were quartered in the homes of the colonists. Are there soldiers quartered in any American home today? Each state has senators and representatives duly elected by the people of that state. This was definitely not true in 1776. In 1776 the colonists were governed by people whom they did not elect. They couldn't vote.

The government against which these neo-patriots rail, protects their right to speak and to assemble and to protest. This was not true in 1776. What is it that the current patriots risk? It is fine to march in protest to the government: I did it myself against the war in Vietnam and the war in Iraq. I marched for the Equal Rights Amendment. It's possible that I will march again on some issue.

But I am very clear that I am safe in exercising my right. I am protected by my government; I am not risking anything. My goodness, to equate oneself in 2010 with the men and women who did what they did ON PAIN OF DEATH in 1776 is narcissistic and cavalier. It overstates one's role and understates the role of the originators. C'mon.

The Framers detested mob rule and factions. That's why they wrote the Constitution in the first place.

And, finally, it can be dicey to quote the Framers.

The Framers opposed a standing army, but surely even the neo-patriots support and are grateful for our military.

The Framers did not abolish slavery until 1863. Surely all American oppose slavery.

The Framers did not allow women the vote. Surely, all Americans agree that a woman has a right to vote. Michelle Bachman would not be in Washington, D.C. if we ran the country based on the Constitution written and adopted in 1787.

The Framers did not envision, if we read their papers, a life-time Senator or Representative. Maybe we would all agree that they might have been right about that.

All I'm saying is that the rhetoric today is in no way comparable to the rhetoric of our Founders and Framers. Don't invoke their names and ideas unless you are prepared to elevate the discourse and live up to their high standards.

Racial slurs and bigotry had no place in the world of the men who created America. It had no place in the nation preserved by the Civil War.

At the end of the Revolutionary War, George Washington corresponded with the warden of the Touro Synagogue, the first synagogue in America in Newport, Rhode Island.

Here is what Washington wrote: "The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. . . . For happily the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."

Now maybe the neo-patriots believe that they are acting as "good citizens," but they have not lived up to the command that we live without bigotry.

How sad for the children who hear this hateful language from their parents.

About the title and the blog

The title comes from a speech by Thaddeus Stevens in December of 1865. The Civil War was over and Reconstruction had begun. Stevens felt strongly that the government needed to address the attend to "four million slaves" suddenly freed after two hundred years. As he said, "the infernal laws of slavery have prevented them from acquiring an education, understanding the common laws of contract, or of managing the ordinary business of life." He asserted that if Congress failed to provide them with "protective laws" until they could enter society as fully informed citizens that we would "deserve and receive the execration of history and of all future ages."

Execration means a curse.

For all future ages. That's a powerful idea.

Thaddeus Stevens, a Vermonter, became a Representative for Pennsylvania. He co-authored the Fourteenth Amendent, also known as the Civil Rights Amendment. In fact, as I write this, the Supreme Court is using the Fourteenth Amendment to determine a gun control issue.

This blog is for those who care about "all future ages." It is for people who believe that for all of its messiness and slowness that our system of government has consistently proven to be the most effective system to establish equality and justice. The language we choose to use, the behaviors we choose to exhibit, leave an imprint on our children. Our future ages.

We have clusters of people who want to secede from the Union. We have clusters of people who believe that our government is not to be trusted. We have clusters of people who have lionized a man who flew his plane into a building housing federal employees. We have clusters of people who believe it is appropriate to compare our President to Hitler.

This blog is about "future ages." We have to have a place where the average person who believes in the Republic can comment on the news and issues of the day. By average person, I mean a person who does believe in American principles, who will use the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as reference point, who have some idea of the principles on which Supreme Court rulings have been made, even if they disagree with them, and who is willing to explore an opposing point of view that is presented in such a way as to engage in a discussion.

Having at a least a passing understanding of the Federalist Papers would be a plus.

Please go to another blog if you wish to deride, slander, trash, swear, name-call, or threaten people who do not think as you do.

Please go to another blog if you do not subscribe to the notion that together we can find the balance between individual liberty and the "general welfare" of our people.

Please go to another blog if you are unable to see beyond your party affiliation or platform.

So. OK. Civil Discourse. What a concept. Just to reinforce the above, I want to refer to James Madison and his feelings about factions. He called them mobs. I recommend Federalist #10. We all understand being swept into a political mob. It feels purposeful and righteous. But does it serve the "common welfare"? If it does, explain it. Trust that if your argument is cogent it will be heard. Appealing to fear and bigotry did not build this nation.

So. OK.

Also, I can't find the editing application but I just want to get this on the page!