Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Following Jefferson: Promoting Intergenerational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

Part I: Introduction

Following Jefferson: Promoting Intergenerational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

An illustration depicting the U.S. Constitution and Government.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

Towards the end of his life, Thomas Jefferson became fatalistic. The prince and poet of the American Revolution brooded—about the future of the country he birthed, to be sure; but also about his health, his finances, his farm, his family, and, perhaps most poignantly, his legacy. “[W]hen all our faculties have left…” he wrote to John Adams in 1822, “[when] every avenue of pleasing sensation is closed, and athumy, debility, and malaise [is] left in their places, when the friends of our youth are all gone, and a generation is risen around us whom we know not, is death an evil?”

The question was rhetorical, of course. But it revealed something about his character. Jefferson was aware that Adams and he—the “North and South poles of the Revolution”—were practically the only survivors of the Revolutionary era, and that a new generation was now in charge of America’s destiny.


That reality confounded him. On the one hand, Jefferson retained ideas about the proper path forward for America (which involved a pastoral utopia and an educated, mostly democratic populace). But on the other hand, he knew that his time had passed and that, by right, his children’s generation should decide the country’s future. One of his most famous political beliefs was that a present generation of citizens still beholden to a prior, or dead, generation is just another form of tyranny. “The earth belongs to the living,” he wrote to James Madison in 1789, “the dead have neither powers nor rights over it.”

For Jefferson, generations represented important markers. And they were distinct. The Revolutionary generation was different from the Federalist generation, which was still different than the Antebellum Generation. They were so dissimilar that Jefferson thought it only just and right that each generation ought to sit down and write its own Constitution. Let each present people shape the national destiny in their own image, he argued.

The sage of Monticello wouldn’t be surprised then to learn that generations today are no more akin. The “Greatest Generation”—those born at the beginning of the 20th century—embodies values, beliefs, opinions, and attitudes that barely resemble those expressed by members of “Gen Z” or the “Alpha Generation.” Their relative worldviews are unrecognizable. The most prominent values offered by the Gen Z community are social justice, authenticity, environmental sustainability, digital literacy, and an entrepreneurial spirit. But what values are offered by the Greatest Generation? Those include duty to one’s country, sacrifice for the common good, and work ethic.

The problem is that these distinctions often lead to misunderstandings. Indeed, torch bearers from one generation rarely appreciate the priorities of torch bearers born in a different time. How often have we heard older Americans say that younger generations are privileged and lazy, that they don’t understand what it takes to maintain this fragile democratic republic? And how often have we heard younger generations accuse older Americans of being “out of touch”? The damage that emerges from generalizations like these contributes to the country’s political rancor. Animosity and distrust are a byproduct of generational misunderstanding.

To combat that, we want to try something unique. Hoping to spark dialogue across differences, we offer readers a series of essays we’re calling, “Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-generational Understanding through Constitution-making.”

The five-part series begins with artificial intelligence. Utilizing ChatGPT, we have generated seven Constitutions, each reflecting the priorities, beliefs, values, positions, and actions of a distinct generation. In short, we’ve become generational constitutional framers (with the help of AI). We asked the chatbot to draft these individual constitutions to include all the design features Americans have come to love: preambles, political branches, distributions of power, individual rights, amendment procedures, ratification processes, and so on. What the generative AI program delivered was seven comprehensive and lengthy constitutional charters, some as many as forty pages long. Our series will compare these fascinating—and deeply revealing—constitutions.

Each month, starting in June, we will contrast a different element or component of the seven constitutions. Beginning with preambles (June), we will subsequently consider political institutions (July), bills of rights (August), amendment procedures (September), and, finally, ratification requirements (October). We will ask the same questions along the way: How do the seven constitutions differ, and how have the articles, clauses, and sections evolved over time? What do they say about the generations that “wrote” them? What do we, as Americans, learn from reading constitutional texts that are written and shaped, influenced and inspired, by individuals who lived through very different historical moments? How can we more effectively—and more civilly—speak to each other across generations? And, ideally, how can we work together, as citizens and sovereigns, to collectively and peacefully realize “a more perfect union?”

Jefferson was no different than others, then and now, in assuming that only the wise elders of the polity could craft a constitution. But he and his revolutionary co-conspirators could never envision an America made up of seven generations simultaneously. Our task in understanding each other, therefore, is exponentially more difficult. So, as we try to bridge our differences—across all intersectional identities—let us give each generation its own constitutional voice, and then see if we can’t find common ground and common purpose. Jefferson would admire that.


Beau Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair in Government at Skidmore College.

Prairie Gunnels just successfully, and with honors, completed her first year at Skidmore.

Read More

"They want us divided sign" that represents partisanship among democrats and republicans.

In recent philosophical and political discourse, the concept of “deep disagreement” has gained traction as a diagnostic for the dysfunction of contemporary public debate.

Getty Images, Jena Ardell

Manufacturing Dissent: How ‘Deep Disagreement’ Serves the Anti-Democratic Elite

In recent philosophical and political discourse, the concept of “deep disagreement” has gained traction as a diagnostic for the dysfunction of contemporary public debate. The premise is simple yet highly seductive: Some disagreements we are told are so fundamental, so rooted in incompatible worldviews or paradigmatically incommensurable epistemologies, that no meaningful argumentation is possible between the disagreeing parties. The implication is stark: Reason and Dialogue cannot bridge the gulf. But this diagnosis, while sounding sobering and serious, is in fact a dangerous illusion. It is an intellectual sleight of hand that masks both the manufactured nature of such disagreements and the vested interests that thrive on perpetuating them.

Indeed, contrary to its glossy surface neutrality, the notion of “deep disagreement” is not merely a philosophical tool but has become a performative trope, perfectly suited for an age of outrage, polarization, and algorithmic amplification. It helps rationalize the breakdown of dialogue, casting it not as a product of bad faith, deliberate miscommunication, or elite manipulation, but as a tragic inevitability of divergent rationalities. In doing so, it gives cover to a much darker political agenda: The delegitimation of democracy itself.

Keep ReadingShow less
Bipartisan Bonding on the Ballfield: Women in Congress Find Unity Through Softball
a yellow baseball sitting on top of a table
Photo by Patti Black on Unsplash

Bipartisan Bonding on the Ballfield: Women in Congress Find Unity Through Softball

On a recent hot and steamy July evening in Washington, D.C., the players for a unique sporting event were warming up. Audi Field, home of the DC United and Washington Spirit soccer teams, had been converted into a baseball diamond. And the athletes were not some group of high-paid professionals – they were amateurs at softball, but not at politics.

This was the annual Women’s Congressional Softball Game, now in its 17th year. The game was founded by Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Florida) and former Representative Jo Ann Emerson (R-Missouri) as a vehicle to raise money for the Young Survival Coalition (YSC), a nonprofit that helps young women affected by breast cancer by providing resources and support. Wasserman Schultz was a breast cancer survivor at the age of 41 and explained in an interview before the game why she founded the event. “I knew when I came out on the other side, I wanted to use my platform to be able to help fill a void in the fight against breast cancer,” she said.

Keep ReadingShow less
Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz: Connecting With Community

Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz was sworn in for a second term as a Democratic member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for the 129th district, January 8, 2025

Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz: Connecting With Community

Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz is an American businesswoman and politician who is a Democratic member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for the 129th district.

Cepeda-Freytiz was elected on November 8, 2022, and returned to Harrisburg for a second term after being re-elected in 2024. The 129th district includes parts of Reading and Spring Township as well as Sinking Spring, West Reading, and Wyomissing.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stitching & Sustainability: Refugee Artisan Initiative

ruler, measuring tape, working hands

Stitching & Sustainability: Refugee Artisan Initiative

Since Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, there has been an increase in anxiety around citizenship for immigrants and refugees in the United States.

By the end of his first day, Trump signed 10 executive orders relating to immigration. This included an order to halt refugee admissions, including tens of thousands of refugees who had already been cleared to come to the U.S. by the Biden administration. The order, “REALIGNING THE United States REFUGEE ADMISSIONS PROGRAM,” largely targets the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.

Keep ReadingShow less