51吃瓜

Tomorrow, July 4, 2026, the United States of America will be celebrating the 250th anniversary of the moment when 56 subjects of the king of England appended their signature to Thomas Jefferson鈥檚 Declaration of Independence. On such occasions pundits and public speakers 鈥� whether standing on a platform in a park or speaking via broadcast media 鈥� tend to treat not so much as a moment of historical reflection as an occasion for hagiographic celebration.

Very early in the nation鈥檚 history, the group of men now referred to as 鈥渢he Founding Fathers鈥� were canonized for what we have been told was their vision and virtue. If the Quatorze Juillet in France 鈥� which Americans call Bastille Day 鈥� celebrates a moment of violence and revolt, the 鈥淔ourth of July鈥� celebrates the adoption of a text enunciating a new moral system to guide politics. In the public鈥檚 mind, Jefferson鈥檚 text and the Constitution, ratified more than a decade later, have achieved in the minds of most Americans the status of sacred scripture.

In his influential 1967 essay, 鈥淐ivil Religion in America,鈥� the sociologist Robert Bellah argued that in its brief history, the US cultivated a well-institutionalized civil religion that exists alongside, and is distinct from, churches. Pushing the logic further, one might conclude that the bold political idea of the separation of church and state expressed in the Constitution鈥檚 first amendment will inevitably lead to the state becoming confounded with the church. We sometimes forget that it was King Henry VIII of England who ended a much longer tradition of separation of church and state, when he declared himself 鈥淪upreme Head鈥� of the English church in 1535.

When the Founders declared their independence from England, they saw their vocation as fundamentally political and economic and certainly not as religious in nature. Once the nation existed, the citizens of the new republic began to identify the authors of these sacred texts as prophets. Men like John Adams and Benjamin Franklin were cast into the role of apostles 鈥� new Peters and Pauls, who went out into the world (specifically to Europe) to preach the gospel of American liberty and secure the alliances needed to save the nation.

Fast-tracking sanctity

No Devil鈥檚 Advocate existed on American soil to contest the popular claim of sanctity for the heroes of the republic. The prophets and apostles quickly became saints by popular proclamation. Unlike traditional saints who embodied private virtue as models to imitate, these new saints offered more. They provided a framework for the average citizen鈥檚 security and prosperity. In Jefferson鈥檚 words, 鈥渢he pursuit of happiness.鈥� George Washington, the victorious general of the War of Independence and the nation鈥檚 first president, gradually evolved in the popular mind from, as Bellah notes, the American Moses to attain the status of godhead, as witnessed by the painting that adorns the ceiling of the US Capitol Dome.      

The founders were educated men, many of them fluent in Latin and Greek. They were familiar with Aristotle鈥檚 contention that whether a state defined its system of governance as a kingdom, an aristocracy or a 鈥減olity鈥� (rule by citizens), it earned its legitimacy through the convergence of two factors: the rationality of its constitution and the moral quality of those who are called to govern. Aristotle identified phronesis (蠁蟻蠈谓畏蟽喂蟼) as the core value a leader must possess. It translates as 鈥減ractical wisdom鈥� or 鈥減rudence.鈥� A stable and healthy state is therefore defined by two essential traits: its political vision and the virtue of its leaders.

In the uncertain period that followed the War of Independence, fears of a return to monarchy loomed large. Years before the Constitutional Convention, Colonel Lewis Nicola proposed making the victorious General Washington king. In the mid-1780s, a distinct segment of the American elite grew so terrified of impending anarchy and civil war that they secretly plotted to install a foreign monarch to save the country. By the time of the 1787 debates, the founders tended to agree on one important principle: that democracy, which could easily collapse into anarchy, and monarchy were two extremes to be avoided. The primary conflict regarding the executive branch was how to design a presidency strong enough to govern effectively without letting it degenerate into a monarchy.

The men subsequently known as 鈥渢he Founders鈥� managed to meet the challenge as they collectively worked on and intensely debated the vision that would become embodied in the constitution. Today鈥檚 historians still marvel at the combination of creativity and discipline attributable to those individuals鈥� collaborative skills. It allowed them, with no sense of vanity or personal pride, to construct, consolidate and impose on the global stage a viable political system. They mastered an art and skillset that appear to have disappeared from the contemporary political landscape, in which vanity and personal pride (to say nothing of shameless greed) play the central role.

鈥淲hat a falling off was there鈥�

Prince Hamlet鈥檚 words describing the difference between his slain father and his duplicitous uncle Claudius appear as an appropriate assessment of the state of US politics 250 years on. Collaborative skill has been assassinated by succeeding generations of politicians just as definitively as the uncle鈥檚 dispatching of his royal brother. We have reached a stage at which every significant issue debated in Congress becomes a pretext for partisan bickering. The of both parties can be summed up by the Republican Senate majority leader back in 2010: 鈥淭he single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.鈥� Not to be outdone, Democratic lawmakers openly embraced the term, 鈥淭he Resistance,鈥� following Donald Trump鈥檚 election in 2016. The pathology is now abundantly shared across party lines.

In the aftermath of their victorious War of Independence, the representatives of the thirteen former colonies exchanged ideas, debated complex issues of rights and responsibilities and crafted their ideas into a constitution that defined a new nation. In so doing, they demonstrated a remarkable talent for overcoming obvious differences of perspective to consolidate a new political entity unlike anything that had existed within the European tradition.

Most historians see the birth of the new North American nation as an unmitigated political success. It established a historical precedent that would subsequently influence the political history of Europe itself. They achieved these by respecting a tradition that spanned history from Aristotle to John Locke and Charles Montesquieu, envisioning successful politics as the combination of a reasoned vision and the personal virtue of what Plato and Aristotle called 鈥渢he guardians.鈥� It was Franklin who insisted: 鈥淥nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom.鈥�

The 鈥渞easoned vision鈥� required to constitute a state has pretty decently stood the test of time, though the phronesis required to make it work now seems to be lacking. Could that explain why the saintly status of the Founders has been increasingly called into question? It鈥檚 not because of their lack of the essential virtue of phronesis, which they seemed to have exercised in exemplary fashion, but because of our awareness of what now appear as their manifest vices, notably racism and sexism. Who can fail to notice that their impeccably reasoned constitution validated the institution of slavery? Not nominatively, but through the shameful 鈥�3/5 of a human鈥� used to boost the level of representation of the southern states that embraced slavery.

Several of the key Founders 鈥� James Madison, Jefferson and Washington were themselves slaveholders 鈥� and Jefferson in particular, who claimed that 鈥渁ll men are created equal,鈥� is known to have abused his slaves and more particularly some of his slaves. It appears ironic to note that today鈥檚 commentators, even those convinced by the notion of separation of church and state, feel it necessary to borrow from traditional Christian theology the notion of 鈥渙riginal sin鈥� to explain away what modern moralists tend to cast as the Founders鈥� hypocrisy.

Invoking original sin is one method for papering over the moral ambiguity felt by the citizens of a nation that indignantly broke away from a dominant global empire to go on and form an even more dominant world order. Britannia 鈥渞uled the seas鈥� but the new republic expanded to the point of imposing a 鈥渞ules-based order鈥� on the land as well, understood as the land of the entire globe.

Two true readings and an uncertain future

If we wish to break down the ambiguity in a coldly cynical fashion, at the very moment we celebrate a quarter of a millennium of the nation鈥檚 existence, we might suggest that just as the Founders saw monarchy and democracy as two extremes to be avoided, there are two opposing ways of analyzing what actually occurred in 1776:

1. It was a bunch of white guys who realized it would be more profitable and satisfying for their egos to have full control over the system they were already in charge of.
   
2. It was a group of educated original thinkers whose classical culture allowed them to understand that the time was ripe to propose a new model of governance, made possible by the disciplined collaboration of a well-intentioned and responsible coterie of volunteer 鈥済uardians鈥� (in the Greek tradition) capable of sharing responsibilities amongst themselves to create a viable political system.

When I asked an AI chatbot whether either of these two positions hold water, I received the following well-reasoned response: 鈥淏oth readings contain real truth, and the most intellectually honest position is not to split the difference but to hold the tension 鈥� because the American founding was genuinely both things simultaneously, in ways that are structurally inseparable.鈥�

This leaves us with a serious question we should ask ourselves on this Fourth of July, 2026: Which of these two orientations best reflects what the US has become? Which better describes the instincts and reflexes of today鈥檚 鈥済uardians?鈥�

Some would say that a government led by Trump proves that the first reading reflects and reveals the true historical trajectory of the nation. Trump鈥檚 obvious vices demonstrate what America has always been about. In three words: greed, ambition and control.

In today鈥檚 national politics, most traces of the influence of 鈥渆ducated original thinkers鈥� with collaborative skills have faded. Today鈥檚 pragmatic thinkers and doers 鈥� people focused on looking after their narrowly-defined interests 鈥� see 鈥渃lassical culture鈥� as a distraction. Reading Aristotle in English because you haven鈥檛 studied Greek is no source of shame. But the notion of 鈥済uardian鈥� has been replaced at best by that of 鈥渃ivic-minded profit seeker,鈥� with an emphasis on 鈥減rofit鈥� and a studied indifference to anything that鈥檚 truly 鈥渃ivic.鈥�

Democrats would like us to believe that Trump is the problem. Once in office again, their party will restore the grand tradition Plato and Aristotle grappled with of the collaborative, deliberative republic run by the virtuous in the interest of promoting each citizen鈥檚 pursuit of happiness鈥� before their own.

But, looking back at recent history, is that what Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden did in the 20 years of the past 35 when they ran the show? Or did they just do pretty much the same thing, catering to the same interests, but behind a veneer of social responsibility and a rhetoric of commitment to long forgotten ideals?

That is the falling off we鈥檝e seen, dear Hamlet, and 鈥� with regard to the Founders 鈥� alas, we 鈥渟hall not look upon [their] like again.鈥�

*[The Devil鈥檚 Advocate pursues the tradition 51吃瓜 began in 2017 with the launch of our 鈥淒evil鈥檚 Dictionary.鈥� It does so with a slight change of focus, moving from language itself 鈥� political and journalistic rhetoric 鈥� to the substantial issues in the news. Read more of the 51吃瓜 Devil鈥檚 Dictionary. The news we consume deserves to be seen from an outsider鈥檚 point of view. And who could be more outside official discourse than Old Nick himself?]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author鈥檚 own and do not necessarily reflect 51吃瓜鈥檚 editorial policy.