The opening sentence may feel resonant for current readers:
"At a time when the whole world is in a turmoil and thousands of people are homeless and hungry, it behooves all of us to reconsider our political and religious beliefs in an effort to clarify in our minds the standards by which we live."
The historical section dealing with the approaches of the founders of the various colonies was occasionally eye opening. For example, Quaker William Penn wanted to do away with inheritance entirely. And people think some of the Democratic candidates for the 2020 Presidential race are radical! There isn't one of them who goes to that extreme.
On the other hand, William Penn's idea that prisons should be workhouses is unfortunately being replicated in our current prison system. Involuntary labor is slavery. I am reminded of Slavery and the Meetinghouse, a book which I reviewed at the hyperlink I provided. It shows that there were hypocritical Quaker slaveholders who were reluctant to abolish slavery and excoriated Quakers who were strong advocates for abolitionism. I believe that any society that allows slavery in any form isn't truly democratic.
Eleanor Roosevelt credits Benjamin Franklin with a view that may be terrifyingly prescient. In this book, she has Franklin state that the American Constitution would last until our society becomes so corrupt that it would be incapable of being anything but a dictatorship.
Roosevelt also tells us that Thomas Jefferson believed that the right to property was about everyone having the opportunity to own property. She says that it isn't about concentrating all property in a few hands, and giving those few people unlimited rights. That obviously isn't democratic. Roosevelt believed that Americans had been led away from democracy by "the gods of Mammon".
I also agree with Roosevelt's emphasis on the importance of widespread citizen participation in democracy. Today we see the emergence of networks to facilitate participation in an effort to salvage American democracy which is under threat.
Many readers will find Eleanor Roosevelt's style old fashioned and even offensive in terms of current political attitudes. I did think that in advocating for Christianity as most consistent with American democratic values, she was ignoring the fact that there are two Christian approaches whose values are so fundamentally different that they lead their adherents in opposing directions. Some Christians believe that wealth and success are a sign of favor from God, and that poverty is a sign of God's disfavor. Therefore nothing should be done to help the poor. Other Christian sects believe that God considers all human beings His children who are equal in His sight, and that they therefore should do everything they can to equalize opportunity for all. These two approaches have divided America throughout its history and continue to do so today.
Eleanor Roosevelt's perspective has its limitations, but I do think that she nevertheless has insights to offer us. So we should be inspired by the nuggets of wisdom that can be found in The Moral Basis of Democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment