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

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Close-up of sign reading 'Immigrants Make America Great' at a Baltimore rally.

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Donald Trump’s second administration has fully clarified Latinos’ racial position in America: our ethnic group’s labor, culture, and aspirations are too much for his supporters to stomach. The Latino presence in America triggers too many uneasy questions (are they White?), too many doubts (are they really American?), and too much resentment (why are they doing better than me?).

Trump’s targeted deportations of undocumented Latinos, unwarranted arrests of Latino citizens, and heightened ICE presence in Latino neighborhoods address these worries by lumping Latinos with Black people. Simply put, we have become yet another visible population that America socially stigmatizes, economically exploits, and politically terrorizes because aggrieved White adults want to preserve their rank as our nation’s premier racial group. The cumulative impacts are serious: just yesterday, an international panel of investigators on human rights and racism, backed by the U.N., found that such actions have resulted in “grave human rights violations.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People waving US flags

People waving US flags

LeoPatrizi/Getty Images

Democracy Fellowship Spotlight: Joel Gurin on Trustworthy Data

Earlier this year, the Bridge Alliance and the National Academy of Public Administration launched the Fellows for Democracy and Public Service Initiative to strengthen the country's civic foundations. This fellowship unites the Academy’s distinguished experts with the Bridge Alliance’s cross‑sector ecosystem to elevate distributed leadership throughout the democracy reform landscape. Instead of relying on traditional, top‑down models, the program builds leadership ecosystems: spaces where people share expertise, prioritize collaboration, and use public‑facing storytelling to renew trust in democratic institutions. Each fellow grounds their work in one of six core sectors essential to a thriving democratic republic.

Recently, I interviewed Joel Gurin, who founded and now leads the Center for Open Data Enterprise (CODE) and wrote Open Data Now. Before launching CODE in 2015, he chaired the White House Task Force on Smart Disclosure, which studied how open government data can improve consumer markets. He also led as Chief of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at the Federal Communications Commission and spent over a decade at Consumer Reports.

Keep ReadingShow less
Kristi Noem facing away with her hand up to be sworn in as she testifies.

U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem is sworn in as she testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on March 03, 2026 in Washington, DC. The Department of Homeland Security has faced criticism over it's handling of immigration enforcement leaving the department unfunded.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Kristi Noem is a Criminal. They Fired Her Because She’s a Woman

Kristi Noem deserved to get axed. After ignoring thousands of stories of officers detaining American citizens in violent, indiscriminate, unconstitutional roundups, posing for a gleeful photo-op at a hellacious El Salvadoran prison, labeling American protesters as domestic terrorists, and lying under oath multiple times, Democrats and even many Republicans lauded her exodus. Still, in what was a brief, volatile tenure as Secretary of Homeland Security, Noem transformed the agency charged with the protection of the American people into a theater for performative cruelty. Now, as the door hits Noem on the way out, it is important to note that her ouster was not a triumph of ethics or the law or even a sudden recollection of what competence looks like. Despite no lack of legitimate grounds for dismissal, most sources say the final straw was a $220 million ad blitz, possibly complicated by an alleged affair with her adviser. But who among Trump’s inner circle doesn’t come with a laundry list of wasteful spending and personal embarrassments? The rest of the Cabinet is chock full of unqualified Trump-loyalists demonstrating incompetence so regularly that in any other era they would have all resigned or been canned long ago. Given the purported reasons Noem was ultimately fired, and where the conversation has lingered since, to the untrained eye, it seems like Noem may have been the first to get the boot, at least in part because she’s not a man.

There’s nothing Noem did that another member of the cabinet or Trump himself couldn’t top. Consider the shameful tenure of our Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick, who engaged in intimate business deals with Epstein years after Epstein’s first conviction, and even planned family vacations to his private island. While Noem is fired for a $220 million ad buy, Lutnick remains the face of American business, despite once being in business with a convicted sex trafficker and lying about it. And our wannabe-fraternity-pledgemaster Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is, if possible, an even greater liability. Hegseth breached security protocol in his second month on the job and oversaw a record $93 billion of spending in a single month, $9 million going to king crab and lobster tails, and $15 million to ribeye steaks. More gravely, in his zeal to project “lethality," Hegseth gutted civilian harm mitigation programs by 90 percent; shortly thereafter, on his watch, in what is the most devastating single military error in modern history, the U.S. fired a Tomahawk missile into a school full of children, killing at least 168 children and 14 teachers. Noem may have turned federal agents against American civilians (which is not why she was fired), but Hegseth is committing war crimes around the globe.

Keep ReadingShow less
A balance.

A retired New York judge criticizes President Trump’s actions on tariffs, judicial defiance, alleged corruption, and executive overreach, warning of threats to constitutional order and the rule of law in the United States.

Getty Images

A Pay‑to‑Play Presidency Testing the Limits of Our Institutions

Another day, another outrage, and another attack on the Constitution that this President has twice taken a vow to uphold. Instead of accepting the Supreme Court decision striking down his imposition of tariffs, the President is now imposing them by executive order and excoriating the Justices who ruled against him. His disrespect for the Constitution and the judiciary is boundless.

To this retired New York State judge, all hell seems to have broken loose in our federal government. Congress lies dormant when it is not enabling the chief executive’s misuse and personal acquisition of federal funds, and, notwithstanding its recent tariffs ruling, a majority of the Supreme Court generally rubber-stamps the administration’s actions through opaque “shadow docket” rulings. In doing so, SCOTUS abdicates its role as an independent check.

Keep ReadingShow less