Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

What Are American Values?

Opinion

People waving US flags

A deep look at what “American values” truly mean, contrasting liberal, conservative, and MAGA interpretations through the lens of the Declaration and Constitution.

LeoPatrizi/Getty Images

There are fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives—and certainly MAGA adherents—on what are “American values.”

But for both liberal and conservative pundits, the term connotes something larger than us, grounding, permanent—of lasting meaning. Because the values of people change as the times change, as the culture changes, and as the political temperament changes. The results of current polls are the values of the moment, not "American values."


Instead, “American values” refers to the values inherent in the very existence of this country as stated in our founding documents … the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Those values are our grounding, the source of America’s stability and greatness. So far, liberals and conservatives are in agreement.

The Declaration of Independence states: “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 . . .”

The Constitution’s Preamble states, “We the people … in order to Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves” do enact this Constitution.

But reading these words does not answer the question of what America’s values are, for depending on how you approach them—whether you are a conservative or a liberal—you can pretty much find what you want … up to a point.

MAGA-adherents read the Declaration and the Constitution’s Preamble as championing self-interest and the right to do whatever one wishes. Isn’t that what liberty is all about? MAGA adherents always talk about their rights; no one can interfere with those rights. They see no responsibility towards others.

But for liberals, individual rights are tempered by the Declaration's statement that we are all created equal and were all endowed by the Creator with unalienable rights; thus, we cannot, in exercising our right, impede the exercise of another's right. That it is “we the people”—all of us—who seek to secure the blessings of liberty for each and every one of us.

Where does one look for the answer of who is right? Our laws—both civil and criminal—embody how our nation approaches the rights and responsibilities of citizens. And those laws uniformly do not allow someone, in the exercise of his right, to disturb another person’s exercise of their right or the public good.

As Abraham Lincoln put it, “each individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases … so far as he in no wise interferes with any other man’s rights.”

Even Thomas Jefferson, who was focused on preserving rights, said, “a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement …” Lest this quote be misread, "injuring" here does not mean physical injury but injury to rights that results from the pursuit of industry and improvement.

There is thus no question that, in our legal system, no rights are absolute. Even the hallowed right of free speech is not absolute. For example, you cannot slander another person. False advertising is illegal because someone depending on such claims could be harmed.

To talk about any of the founding principles divorced from the context of equality is thus to misrepresent, deceitfully, the scope of those principles. (See my article, “The Far-Right’s Biggest Lie.”)

So, given that “American values” mean the principles that are the essence of our founding documents and given the explanation above of the American legal perspective on rights, what are core American values?

1. Equality: Although the Constitution originally greatly restricted its application, equality was enshrined as the central principle in the Declaration of Independence. (See my article, “What Exactly Does ‘All Men Are Created Equal’ Mean in the Declaration of Independence.”) Although aspirational, the concept was there, and it was that light that guided us towards the ending of slavery, the emancipation of women, the civil rights movement, and same-sex marriage.

Indeed, this central aspiration of equality drives the other key principles of American democracy and provides the context within which they are to be understood. Whether it’s the right of free speech, religious freedom, or the right to bear arms … they are only able to be properly understood within the context of equality. Taken out of that context, they are a prescription for anarchy, not democracy.

2. The Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness: What does this core principle mean? It means simply that each person has the right to try to make of his or her life what they will, to pursue their dreams.

3. Secure These Rights: The other core value to be found in the Declaration, and its implementation in the Constitution, is the role of government. As stated in the Declaration, its role is “to secure these rights,” meaning the right of all to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

What does “to secure these rights” mean? It means that the government must do what is necessary to ensure that all Americans—whether white or people of color; whether rich, middle class, or poor; whether male or female—have a truly equal opportunity to pursue the right to life, liberty, and happiness.

And the government meets that responsibility by enacting policies that promote the education, jobs, and economic stability necessary to allow people to advance themselves and feel secure. Once the government ensures equal opportunity, it is the individual’s responsibility to take advantage of it.

For example, welfare is not charity, but an example of the government providing support so children have an equal opportunity to have a good education. What’s the connection? You can’t do well in school if you’re hungry, if your housing is not secure.

The government foreseen by the Founders was thus not a government that stands on the sidelines, letting nature take its course. But its role was not to directly change people’s status in life—Adams was very clear that material inequality is inherent in nature. The role of government instead is to support people’s exercise of their "moral right to equality"—to improve their situation, to pursue their rights, to make of their life what they will—by ensuring that all have an equal opportunity to do so.

In the 20th century, women gained the right to vote, workers gained rights in their employment, overt forms of discrimination—like restrictive covenants—became illegal, and minority groups benefited from laws that guaranteed equal protection in public accommodations and other areas of commerce. The movement is always moving towards more equality, more unity.

All of these governmental actions support people’s right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” by ensuring more equal opportunity in their effort to make the most of their lives. This is the Democrats' perspective and goal.

Greed, lack of concern for others, may be values of our contemporary culture—the Trump/MAGA perspective—but they are not the values that our Founding Fathers gave America at its birth.


Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com


Read More

Voter receives a pen from poll worker at polling station.

A civic petition calling for constitutional restraint, civil discourse, bipartisan cooperation, and equal justice to strengthen American democracy and national unity.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

A Contemporary Olive Branch Petition

To the President of the United States, the Leaders of the Congress, and Our Fellow Americans Entrusted with the Powers of Government:

When, in the ordinary course of a free republic, disagreements arise among citizens concerning the proper exercise of power, it is neither unusual nor dishonorable that earnest convictions should differ. Such diversity has long been the strength of our nation, for liberty has never depended upon unanimity of opinion, but upon mutual respect under a common Constitution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close-up shot of a Black woman's hands receiving a mail-in ballot to vote in a USA Presidential, Senatorial, Congressional, or local election

Federal investigators spent eight months reviewing the Allied Pilots Association election, examining ballot secrecy, observer rights, election records and transparency before allowing the results to stand.

Jeremy Poland/Getty Images

What a Federal Investigation of a Union Election Can Teach Us About Democratic Trust

For eight months, federal investigators examined allegations involving ballot secrecy, observer rights, election records and reporting procedures in a contested union election before allowing the result to stand.

Following a disputed election within the Allied Pilots Association (APA), complaints led to a formal review by the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Labor-Management Standards. Investigators spent months going through election records, audit logs, witness testimony and technical documentation before reaching their conclusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
50501 Movement – Thomas Paine’s Political Philosophy in the 21st Century

circa 1770: The English-born American revolutionary philosopher Thomas Paine, (1737 - 1809), who wrote and published 'The Rights of Man', (1791 - 1792), in England. In it he expressed his support for the French Revolution and called for the overthrow of the British monarchy.

(Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

50501 Movement – Thomas Paine’s Political Philosophy in the 21st Century

The 50501 Movement can be viewed as a 21st-century manifestation of the anti-authoritarian, pro-egalitarian framework that Thomas Paine championed in Common Sense. Both movements share a core belief in challenging entrenched power and mobilizing the collective voice of everyday people to defend democracy. By utilizing decentralized, nationwide grassroots mobilization to challenge executive overreach and billionaire consolidation, the 50501 movement directly echoes Paine’s anti-authoritarianism, his belief in collective civic power, and his demand that power remains in the hands of the people.

The 50501 Movement mirrors the spirit of Paine’s Common Sense through three primary parallels:

Keep ReadingShow less
  Creative Images & Video Creative Images & Video Images Creative Editorial Video Creative Editorial  Search by image or video I Voted Today paper sticker on mans finger on rustic wooden table

How class, identity, and political recognition shaped the Democratic Party's relationship with rural white working-class voters over two decades.

BackyardProduction/Getty Images

The Thousand Injuries: The Not-Qwhite Voter and the Politics of Recognition

In the fall of 2003, Howard Dean said he wanted to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in the back windows of their pickup trucks. It was clumsy but not dishonest. He meant that his party had written off a whole category of American voter and wanted to change that. He was attacked at once, mostly by his own side, and walked it back within forty-eight hours. The lesson his party drew was not that the outreach had been badly phrased; It was that the outreach itself was impermissible, that to pursue the rural white working class voter was to be complicit with everything he was presumed to represent. Dean was the last major Democrat to try, and the consequences have accumulated in the shape of the electoral map.

Edgar Allan Poe understood something the party still does not. "The Cask of Amontillado" opens with a line that ought to hang in every campaign office: the thousand injuries of Fortunato the narrator had borne as best he could, but when Fortunato ventured upon insult, he vowed revenge. Injuries can be borne as long as the injured man believes his tormentors still regard his suffering as real. The insult is different. It reframes the injuries as deserved, telling the sufferer he is the kind of person who deserves to suffer. Poe's narrator does not recalculate his interests; he takes his revenge at great cost to himself. That is not irrational but human, and it is the most precise framework we have for what has happened to rural white working-class voters over the last twenty years.

Keep ReadingShow less