Like history itself, American democracy is a process. There is no definite beginning and certainly no definite end. Since its inception, the details of its implementation have changed by leaps and bounds from those originally envisioned by the “founding fathers,” and will continue to do so well into the foreseeable future. While time and circumstance have brought modifications to the relative importance of each, the central principles of American democracy have remained the same. Though Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that these principles were “self-evident,” an examination of their religious and secular origins will demonstrate that nothing could be further from the truth.
Despite the supposedly “divine” right of kings to rule, Jefferson considered government to be formed out of a social contract with the people, which meant that it would only be valid if it retained the consent of the governed. The idea that the people (with the influence of any higher power) could create and control a government has its roots in both religious and secular thought. Representing the religious contribution, the English Congregationalists were perhaps the first to argue that any group of believers could be a church if they simply say that they are a church. In an era dominated largely by religious institutions and not secular governments, to create a government was nothing when compared to the ability to create a church.
Secular thinkers accepted that the people could create a government and emphasized that they should in fact do so for a variety of reasons. Hooker, Harrington, and Locke argued that people need other people for psychological and economic reasons, and that government is the best device to settle any resulting disputes. Hobbes, on the other hand, believed that people come together into government as a last resort to avoid the terror of the “state of nature.” According to this somewhat pessimistic view, government was our only hope. All agreed, however, on the idea that people could in fact choose to come together in order to form a government and thus engage in a social contract with it.
The principle of a government’s legitimacy deriving from the “consent of the governed” was built upon the practical contributions of religious thinkers and the more theoretical contributions of secular-minded individuals. The Mayflower Compact serves as an example of one practical religious contribution. Due to the necessity of “spelling out” the rules, written constitutions are an important foundation of any government that hopes to maintain the consent of the governed. Likewise, the imposition of restraints on government action can make or break a democratic society. John Cotton, an influential religious thinker, felt strongly that the people must give the government no greater power than they want it to use, since it would most certainly use any powers it was granted.
The secular thinkers specifically defined the limitations of consent itself and disagreed upon how far a government could wander without becoming an illegitimate body. Hooker, for instance, felt that consent had to be necessary and continuous, while Locke felt that the social contract would only become void if the government deprived the people of life, liberty, or property. Hobbes, in keeping with his theory of government as society’s only hope, felt that consent was necessary at the time of the government’s formation, and only at that time. According to Hobbes, unless the government decayed to the same conditions as the state of nature by threatening the very lives of the people, the social contract would remain in full effect.
While the question of whether or not to overthrow the government of the United States is not a hotly debated subject in modern politics, Jefferson made a point of including the right to revolution as a central principle of American democracy. Secular thinkers provided the possible justifications for revolt. As previously mentioned, Hobbes felt that the social contract formed between the people and government would become void if the government were to threaten the lives of the people. Therefore, the people would have a right to revolt in that situation. Locke expanded the list of “revoltable” offenses to include threats to liberty and property, as well as life.
The right to revolution, however justified, would have been meaningless without the possibility of success. Religious thinkers provided this crucial ingredient at a time when secular thinkers could not. Despite the general expectations, neither god nor the pope struck down Martin Luther, who revolted against the Church. Again, at a time ruled by religion, god was much more frightening than any government. A justified revolt against an earthly government, therefore, would indeed have some possibility of success.
Though the definition of “individual” has certainly changed since Revolutionary times, the importance of individual rights to American democracy has remained as strong as the day Jefferson wrote the words now recited by schoolchildren everywhere: “… life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Religious thinkers, who doubted the value of individual rights when compared to “god’s will,” did not greatly contribute either practically or theoretically to this principal. Freedom of speech is not greatly valued to religious thinkers when it tends towards blasphemy. However, some religious thinkers such as Roger Williams did promote the idea of freedom of religion for the simple reason that god would punish nonbelievers, so government should not bother.
Secular thinkers contributed greatly to the idea of individual rights, especially concerning freedom of expression and property. While Hobbes maintained that the only right guaranteed to any citizen was that the government would not take his or her life, Milton and Locke pushed the philosophical envelope. According to Milton, the government should never suppress an idea because the best ideas will always win. This simple argument in favor of freedom of expression seems obvious, but faced great resistance in the past and continues to face opposition today. Locke’s argument in favor of freedom of property was equally simple. In essence, he felt that since an object or a piece of land is only valuable once someone modifies or creates it through their own efforts, it should be theirs without question. Additionally, Locke was willing to extend religious freedom to Catholics, but not to atheists. He figured that unless an individual feared what would happen to him or her in the afterlife, he or she would have no reason to live according to society’s rules while alive. Clearly, individual rights were not originally intended to apply to everyone, but have gradually grown to encompass more and more of the American population.
Of the main principles described by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, equality was the first to be mentioned and was without doubt the most contested. Certainly, it was not meant to include women, slaves, the poor, or the ill in the definition of “equality,” but it was enough to make those who were “already equal” quite nervous. Equality, according to Martin Luther and the Priesthood of All Believers, was a natural human trait, symbolized by the equal potential of every human being to establish a relationship with god. Of course, the question posed by the religious thinkers was “if people are equal in the eyes of god, why aren’t they equal in the secular world?”
Though they disagreed about the source of equality, secular thinkers were united in their respect for it. Hobbes felt that everyone starts equal when they choose government over the state of nature to escape death, and ends equal when they void the social contract to escape death. Locke, on the other hand, pointed towards the ability of humans to reason as the source of their equality. Harrington summarized the reality of the world best when he argued that everyone should be equal before the law, allowing for the inherent inequalities of society that prevent true equal treatment.
For more than 200 years, America has been building on the ideas compiled by Thomas Jefferson in 1776. The story of American political thought, however, does not begin with Jefferson. His was but one voice out of many, symbolic of an emerging consensus that had developed from a wide body of secular and religious thought throughout the ages. Without the foundation provided by generations of secular and religious thinkers, Jefferson’s “self-evident” truths would have been nothing more than words on paper.
