President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Inaugural Address
Delivered in Washington, D.C. on January 20, 2021
As with all inaugural addresses of Presidents of the United States of America, President Biden’s speech included stylistic flourish; connections to the luminaries of our founding, namely George Washington; calls for unity; and recognition of the exceptional character of America and her citizens.
History, they say, is written by the victors. Inaugural addresses are not immune from that adage and its implications. These addresses are windows into the President’s worldview, which may not always be consistent with principles peculiar to the United States and its founding and establishment.
In today’s CivicsCheck, we will review some of Mr. Biden’s key statements in the context our American principles.
From the President’s speech…
“We have learned again that democracy is precious. Democracy is fragile.”
TRUE and FALSE
· It is TRUE that democracy is precious. Democracies, regardless of the form they take, vest supreme governing power in the people. As President Lincoln stated, ours is a government “of the people, by the people and for the people.” Something “precious” is something honorable or of great worth. Among the etymological roots of honorable, one finds the concept of acting justly. A just-acting system of government must recognize that its power is inherent in and derives from the people; otherwise, those who claim power over the people necessarily do so by force. When force is applied to gain a people’s submission, all actions are tainted and cannot be just, as they, by definition, lack the quality of being equitable.
· It is FALSE to claim out of hand that democracies are fragile. Only one example is required to prove the point. The Republic of San Marino was established Sept. 3, 301, and its present constitution dates from Oct. 8, 1600. No other government in existence today is older. Many point to other democratic societies that have crumbled (e.g., Athens and Rome) as proof that they are fragile or cannot work. These voices are also the ones that typically call for the transfer of more and more power out of the hands of the people and into the auspices of government. The Athenian and Roman republics were plagued by three key flaws. Neither permitted universal suffrage and both permitted slavery. By implication, both failed to recognize the inherent political power of wide swaths of people living in their societies. Additionally, the legislative bodies of both were constrained by few if any limits on their power. For example, the Agora in Athens exercised unlimited power, and unchecked in their rule over their citizens, they set in motion their own demise. Nations, such as San Marino with the prescience of its founders and the United States whose founders learned from the lessons of the past, that avoided the fatal traps of Athens and Rome have actually been quite hardy and resilient. The genius of our founding is that the flaws of the past, in terms of operationalizing democracy, were rigorously studied and mitigated by the Adams’, Franklin’s and Jefferson’s of Revolutionary-era America. Consequently, repeated attempts at conquest over the United States, similar to those faced by San Marino during the feudal ages, and a grueling civil war in the 19th century were unable to wrest power from the citizens. While the Third Republic of France — another example often cited — lacked the same measured approach to a new government that the United States pursued, its Fifth Republic, which is the current republic, seems better informed and grounded than its predecessors.
“We will press forward with speed and urgency, for we have much to do in this winter of peril and possibility. Much to repair. Much to restore. Much to heal. Much to build. And much to gain.”
&
“With unity we can do great things. Important things. We can right wrongs. We can put people to work in good jobs. We can teach our children in safe schools. We can overcome this deadly virus. We can reward work, rebuild the middle class, and make health care secure for all. We can deliver racial justice. We can make America, once again, the leading force for good in the world.”
MOSTLY FALSE
· In many ways, our nation does need to be repaired, restored, healed, and in some cases rebuilt. There are, without doubt, wrongs that must be righted. However, it is MOSTLY FALSE that the responsibility for emendation does or should fall to the government, apart from getting out of the way, so to speak. Behind the flourish of these statements, which on the surface sound irrefutable and good, are policy positions whereby the responsibility for action is proposed to be with the government. Without exception, the situations and circumstances that demand our attention, our correction and our righteous indignation are ones caused by government policy and intervention. The racial strife our country faces stems from the policies of the European monarchies that established the slave trade in America. It was continued primarily by Southern landowners from the time of Jefferson (as a side note, Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence called out the evil of slavery, but his view was stricken by others) through the time of Lincoln, and it continued in more insidious forms through the 1960s. It continues even until today in that, despite being free, certain segments of society are still treated in a disparate manner under U.S. law. Our economic strife results from so-called experts creating disastrous third-party effects in the exchange of goods and services. People decry the greed inherent in the free market, yet they ignore two facts, both of which history demonstrates with the clarity of crystal. First, in any situation in which the free market is allowed to function, the whole of that society is lifted in terms of prosperity. Second, no economic system is without greed. The system most divergent from capitalism is communism, and it was poisoned with greed; and it is essential to note that in systems departing from free market capitalism, economic benefit is reserved only for the most politically-connected, privileged and greedy few. Those outside the ruling class are among the most desperately destitute in human history. One last example, though we could go on and on and on, is education. In his tour of America, Alexis de Tocqueville commented repeatedly on the informed and learned character of Americans. Today, we are faced with schools in which language and the free exchange of ideas are being censored and in which rigid approaches to learning are mandated at the expense of experimentation and innovation. Pupils, spineless and mindless through no fault of their own, are “triggered” at the mere mention of words or ideas, are being denied the opportunity to, as was inscribed in the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, “know thyself.” So-called free-speech zones are anything but. Without testing our beliefs against opposing or different beliefs, how can we be firm in our certainty or be assured in our ability to grow intellectually? Is it from such a cognitive nursery that we expect to develop tomorrow’s great citizens? Again, government policy perpetuates these evils and bedevils any hope for a vibrant society in the days and years to come. It defies all sensibility that we should look to government to right the wrongs for which it is the very culprit in creating.
“Politics need not be a raging fire destroying everything in its path. Every disagreement doesn’t have to be a cause for total war.”
TRUE and FALSE
· It is TRUE that politics need not be destructive. Politics is the science of government, or as U.S. Representative from Massachusetts Fisher Ames wrote in the November 1806 edition of the Boston Repertory, “Politicks is the science of good sense, applied to public affairs.” By definition, politics is neither good nor bad. It is merely the study of the mechanisms by which we endeavor to effect our social contract.
· Once bastardized, however, it is FALSE to suspect that politics do not have to be adversarial and destructive. President Washington warned of this in his farewell address. He said that the influence of political parties in the administration of our system of government would have “baneful effects.” He could not have been more correct. He rightly foresaw the pitting of one ideological group against the other and the inevitable way parties tend to consolidate power in the hands of a few zealots, who falsely claim to represent the many. Such is the case of Democrats and Republicans today.
“And, we must reject a culture in which facts themselves are manipulated and even manufactured.”
&
“And each of us has a duty and responsibility, as citizens, as Americans, and especially as leaders — leaders who have pledged to honor our Constitution and protect our nation — to defend the truth and to defeat the lies.”
TRUE and FALSE
· It is TRUE that manufactured and manipulated “facts,” which we may call lies, should be identified and called out for what they are. It is also true that a free press should present facts that are accurate.
· It is FALSE that truth and lies should be determined for you or me by others with peculiar motivations, particularly when the others are government and those in close association or collusion with government. It is neither proper nor ethical for the government, especially the federal government, to assume the role of adjudicating the veracity of facts, apart from libel and slander as codified in law and tried in impartial courts. Those in power (or proverbially in bed with power) have deeply vested political interests in whether truths or lies are laid before the people — and it’s important to recognize that politicians’ interests are not always best served by the truth, as truth is a strong antidote to the diseased lust for power, which afflicts a great many in the political class. Additionally, the free press — or media to be consistent with the times — should have a self-interest in presenting the truth to its consumers. In a free market of ideas, those who serve up lies would quickly lose customers and go out of business. This, however, is not the case in today’s world. Because of the political polarization of the citizenry, it benefits the media to cater to one group or another by representing so-called facts in obscured or twisted ways. (Again, we see that Washington’s admonition against party-based politics was correct.) To be sure, the search for and the discernment of what is true can be challenging. It is preferable, though, that all “facts” be submitted candidly and transparently to the people, so that they can search and discern, rather than having partisan politicians and their political bedfellows make the calls on our behalf.
“The right to dissent peaceably, within the guardrails of our Republic, is perhaps our nation’s greatest strength. Yet hear me clearly: Disagreement must not lead to disunion.”
PARTLY TRUE
· It is TRUE, as codified in The Bill of Rights, that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This right is among those rights in the First Amendment, and it is essential to understand that the order in which the Amendments are presented in the Bill of Rights is not by accident or coincidence but by deliberate design. Free speech is among the first, because it is among the most important.
· However, the belief that disagreement must not lead to disunion is to reject the most basic tenent of self-government, of a social contract in which sovereignty is in and of the people. As Jefferson put it in The Declaration of Independence, “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” He continues, “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes.” Not only is disunion a right, it is a duty — but it is one that must not be entered into lightly, such as for mere disagreements. Those tend to pass quickly. The brilliance of our form of government, as is the case with San Marino, is that our politicians must be elected periodically. This allows for the renewal of government without a complete overhaul or replacement of it.
“What are the common objects we love that define us as Americans? I think I know. Opportunity. Security. Liberty. Dignity. Respect. Honor. And, yes, the truth.”
PARTLY TRUE
· It is TRUE that the American people, in theory, share a set of principles or values, which may be described, as President Biden did in using poetic license, as common objects of love. Some of those listed by Mr. Biden align with those American principles or values. Others have a more tenuous connection. American principles or values may be found, I contend, in The Declaration of Independence and in the Preamble of The Constitution of the United States of America. Thomas Jefferson wrote in The Declaration, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed;” and from the Preamble of The Constitution, “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.” President Biden chose to include what has become the politically charged term “opportunity,” which represents a whole host of policies, growing in quantity and complexity since the 1960s, many of which having horrendous unintended (and perhaps intended) effects. “Honor” is another term added by Mr. Biden, which sounds good on the surface. However, when honor is bound to affiliation with one party or the other over a duty-bound commitment to country, it quickly becomes anything but honorable.
“There are some days when we need a hand. There are other days when we’re called on to lend one. That is how we must be with one another.”
PARTLY FALSE
· One cannot deny that somedays we are able to help another member of the human family and that somedays we are the one in need. In our modern, complex society, this is unavoidable. It was unavoidable even in primitive, simple societies that existed ages ago. We need one another for survival. What is FALSE is the requirement by government that we lend a hand to others or accept the hands of others. Such requirements are predicated on the threat of force, should we choose not to help or be helped. It is sufficient and naturally productive that people recognize their own self-interest in cooperation with others. Third party interference by government is not only unwarranted, it is harmful, as the record of history demonstrates time and again. The liberal agenda, which over the past 60 years or so has also become more and more a part of the conservative agenda, is to require so-called helpfulness through the confiscation and redistribution of wealth (working under the false notion that wealth is a fixed commodity, which in order for one to get more another must get less) and the forced participation in government programs, like the Affordable Care Act, aka “Obamacare,” now “Bidencare.” The times of greatest eleemosynary activity have been the times during which economic and social commerce have been the least restrained by government restrictions and interference. The adage, “I am my brother’s keeper,” is a beautiful notion indeed. It acknowledges our commitment to one another, which is the heart of a properly functioning social contract, and it calls forth the “better angels” of our nature. The adage does not contemplate, nor should it, third-party coercion by the government in my relationship with my brother. When so coerced, the intent of helping and being helped is robbed of its purity and its dignity. It is government that rots and withers the helping hand.
As President Biden closed his speech, he said, “We will lead not merely by the example of our power but by the power of our example.” I assert that such leadership is an impossibility and has been so for a long time. To quote Polonius from Hamlet, “To thine own self be true.” As a nation, particularly in terms of our government and political environment, we are not true to our national self, which is to say our principles, our values, and our legal framework (i.e., The Constitution). Until we return to a respect for individual rights, states being the great laboratories of democracy, and a federal government that is properly constrained, we cannot lead by example with any measure of fidelity to our own self.
