Don’t let party dogma frame our discourse

Though progressives and conservatives differ in opinion regarding policy, we agree on principle that society is worth defending. While the former feel the state should adapt to meet people’s needs, the latter feel it should have minimal involvement in people’s lives. The American founding fathers agreed that, in a free society, the minority should expect protection under the law against the tyranny of the majority. If the founders believed that the political system of their fathers was good enough for them, the revolution would never have taken place. They would have all died as orthodox Loyalists and there would not have been a free citizen in the New World.
Instead we tune into our favorite news channel and listen to heated discussions on what the founders might’ve had to say about social issues of the day. Of course, what best exemplifies their intentions for the republic, other than their speeches, debates and correspondence, is the Constitution itself. This document, unprecedented for its day, established a government of, by and for the people when tradition dictated that government was only legitimate under hereditary rule. Rather than uphold tradition for its own sake, the founders saw it fit to draw inspiration from new ideas. They established three branches of federal power rather than allow an emperor to make every decision. They insisted upon a representative republic as opposed to an Athenian model of direct democracy. They recognized the problems that arise when the monarch allied with any one church, and endeavored to prevent them all together.
Rather than settle for the lesser of two evils, and allow party dogma to frame our discourse, we should learn from our history and insist on innovation of political thought. The free expression of new ideas best honors what the revolutionaries fought to realize for us.
Jeffery Szudzik