Foundation for Debate?

An interesting side-effect of the Tea Party's rise to prominence is that people seem to be talking a lot more about America's "founding fathers" lately. What's troubling about it, though, is the way these great men are being used not to elevate our political discussion but rather as a blunt ideological weapon. This came into focus for me when I saw someone rattle off a bunch of quotes from Thomas Jefferson, all of them with the apparent message that we'd all be better off if we'd just live by his words.

Whatever Jefferson's personal failings, I think he was a truly exceptional and brilliant individual. However, that doesn't mean that his words (or that the words that are attributed to him) are intrinsically applicable to any situation. For example, the value of the following quote is very much in vogue in conservative circles, generally in relation to perceived mismanagement of taxpayer money.

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

There is, however, one slight problem. Jefferson didn't actually say it. The actual quote is as follows.

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

When reading the actual quote, which was a very brief excerpt from the 1786 Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, the application to any current debate on government fiscal policy is far more ambiguous. It also highlights the main issue with quoting figures like Jefferson, even when the quotes are accurate.

While there's a lot of wisdom to be found in the words and deeds of the founding fathers, too often they're invoked to stifle debate by implying that if the founding fathers were against something it can't possibly merit serious consideration. Realistically, though, the opposite is true. For their words to have ongoing relevance, there should be serious discussion and sensible understanding of the context that animated those words and deeds. Otherwise, they become empty slogans twisted to suit the propaganda needs of political zealots.

It's easy (and generally justifiable) to slam Jefferson for his hypocrisy on a number of fronts. It's equally simple (and simplistic) to treat his every word as gospel. As usual, the truth is somewhere in between and our country would be better off if we spent more of our time there rather than teetering on the extremes.