After seven years of George W. Bush, I’d say it’s at the very least something to be concerned about.

But yes (and with the obvious disclaimer that I am not a progressive movement and that other people with these views might indeed draw inspiration from the DoI [like Ralph Nader, apparently]), you have re-stated the point of my own claim. I said that Nader’s appeal to the DoI annoyed me because I don’t actually believe that these ideas can stem from it. That doesn’t make them wrong or unjustifiable. It just means that the DoI is not the right place to be looking. It hasn’t been 1776 for a long time. Tyranny is not the one and only concern of our times.

The values in the DoI are good for justifying revolt against royal tyranny, as mentioned above; they are good for justifying action against government. They are not so good for justifying government action with regards to citizens’ supposedly “private property” (like incomes, properties, etc).

All this (which is important) along with this (also important): I tend to think it’s kind of problematic that “all men are created equal” co-existed with “black people are slaves” and “slaves are 3/5ths of a man.”

The reason you don’t find the other candidates citing the DoI is that, with the partial exception of Nader, they don’t believe in it or care about (small-r) republican principles in general.

Or instead of constesting it on empirical grounds and pointing out the gap between ideals of human rights/natural rights and their reality (think of Frederick Douglass’ later phase where he becomes non-Garisonian), I also think we can look at it theoretically through what the document itself represents and our inability to contemporize it.

I like how Derrida discussed how there is a pragmatic gap between the words of a Declaration and its actual performance (whether or not people are able to be persuaded by it). Nonetheless, the early colonists were moved by it. I am not.

Furthermore, the Declaration is a foundation document upon which a lot of our understandings of rights and liberties are built upon- and yet, tragically still operate. We’re basically still thinking according to the logic of 17th- 18th century understanding of those rights and liberties.

Frankly, I don’t think monarchy is really the problem in our (American) historical moment of advanced modernity. Let’s admit that much and face the cold truth that our real problem boils down into asking ourselves about the merits and possibilities of a more participatory democracy that lends itself towards social justice and economic rights.

just a thought

and to Nev- I should have made it clear: being someone who still identifies themselves more as a leftist than as a liberal, I am willing to accept my fractured political identity and still get stoked on Obama whilst still thinking he’s a part of a bankrupt political culture. His blackness isn’t taken in a vacuum, but rather still coming from a leftist persuasion