2 Comments
Jul 9Liked by Richard Parker

I don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that it was aspirational rhetorical flair. Were Native Americans supposed to have universal “inalienable rights?” Were slaves supposed to have “inalienable rights?” Did anyone sincerely believe that? I think it was empty talk from the beginning. At best it was semi-sincere aspirational but incoherent and internally inconsistent talk.

Today the talk about freedom or democracy is a joke. The more totalitarian the regime gets, the more the regime has to talk about how much free everyone is to keep up the illusion. The masses need their feel-good platitudes. These inalienable rights exist up until the moment they get in the way of those who are in power.

Expand full comment
author

The plight of the American Natives and black seemed like low hanging fruit, and Lord knows the left makes that point for me. The essay is somewhat long so I just left all of that unstated. You are right, of coursealthough it seems clear that many of the framers of the Constitution were thinking of white Anglo-Saxons.

Expand full comment