The Far-Right's Biggest Lie

The tactic of "the big lie" was developed by Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels. Tell a lie large enough, often enough, forcefully enough, and people will come to believe you and think that it is the truth.

Donald Trump and his MAGA followers have practiced the big lie often—think of "fake news" or "we are the party of the people"—and it has worked. It is a manipulative strategy to gain control of people's minds and thus of people themselves.

---

But of their many big lies, perhaps the most pernicious is the lie concerning our founding principles perpetrated by far-right scholars. This deceit is promoted by Matthew Spalding—former Director of the Heritage Foundation's Center for American Studies—in both his widely-read 2009 book, We Still Hold These Truths: Rediscovering Our Principles, and in his video, "We Still Hold These Truths." Because the video is shorter, meant for mass consumption, its lie is starker and more dangerous.

The video starts by quoting from the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident." But then Spalding conveniently fails to note the first and most central of the truths—"that all men are created equal."

To talk about any of the founding principles divorced from the context of equality is to misrepresent, deceitfully, the scope of those principles. Equality means that we all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So, generally, our laws do not allow someone in the exercise of his right to disturb another person's exercise of their right. No right is absolute.

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 someone's rights that results from the pursuit of industry and improvement.

Because of the absence of this context, Spalding and MAGA adherents always talk about their rights; they are absolute, and no one can "unjustly" interfere with those rights. They see no responsibility towards others. This take on our founding principles is contrary to our founding documents.

The first principle he talks about is Private Property and Free Markets. His interpretation of this principle is that one has the right to do whatever one wishes with one's property, in the market, or private contracts, free of government regulation. In other words, government regulation is against this founding principle.

Yet as I've just pointed out, that is not true. To secure/protect the rights of the public, consumers, and neighbors, the government regulates activity—business and otherwise—so that others' rights are not harmed. This includes measures such as prohibiting false advertising, regulating chemical and fertilizer run-off into bodies of water, controlling pollutant release into the air, and ensuring a safe workplace for workers.

As recently as the turn of the 20th century, there were no such regulations; industry indeed did whatever it chose to do. As a result, many suffered, and people's rights were trampled upon because of the avarice and insensitivity of big business. That is why the government—under Republican President Theodore Roosevelt—got into the regulation business; it was necessary.

The other thing to note is that the video argues against government regulation by showing there is no need to regulate the small businessman or farmer; the real estate agent in the video says he didn't cause the housing downturn of 2008. But the downturn was caused by actions that major banking and other institutions were able to take because the regulation that they had been under since the Great Depression—the Glass-Steagall Act—had been repealed by the Republican Congress in 1999. A perfect example of why government regulation to protect the public is necessary.

The next principle the video talks about is Freedom of Religion. The video states that faith is necessary for liberty and that one needs to be able to express one's religious beliefs in public.

First, I would note that although the founders were very religious people, the Constitution makes absolutely no reference to "God." They were very careful to guard the separation of church and state. Next, you can be a person of no faith and still cherish liberty. Lastly, we all have Freedom of Religion, which means that you can't impose your views on someone else, so there are limitations. The Pro-Life movement's effort to overturn Roe v Wade is an example of people trying to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of the population. From a free speech perspective, they were in their rights, but from a freedom of religion perspective, the Court should have denied their request.

The last principle discussed in the video is the Rule of Law. This is truly ironic. Spalding says correctly that the rule of law is the foundation of liberty. He says that rulers are subject to the rule of law.

I find this ironic because no President has ever been so dismissive of the rule of law, acting as if he is the law itself, akin to a king or a dictator. Donald Trump's law is whatever he says it is.

The video closes on the note that we stand at a crossroads, a statement with which I would agree, as I said when I wrote We Still Hold These Truths: An American Manifesto in 2004. But again, we have different views of the crossroad. Spalding says the choice is to continue on the road we are on now and become more bureaucratic, socialized, and weak, or to return to our principles (as he sees them).

My take on the crossroad is that we either continue advancing our historic values and respect the balance between private rights, government, and the public good that America has developed over the years, or return to the 19th century era when the robber barons of industry had free reign, where the public had few protections. The poor and people of color had virtually none.

I agree that we are living in an ongoing experiment and that there are many things about how government functions that should be changed, but not for the reasons Spalding and the MAGA movement state.

While it is late in the day, Democrats must find a way to correct this misinformation so that the people have a correct understanding of our founding principles (see my article, "Where is the Democratic Party's Clarion Voice?"). Because it is in going back to these principles ... which address the right of all people—whether White or people of color; whether rich, middle class, or poor; whether male or female—to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... that our country will be reborn, our democracy will be saved, and America will be made greater than it's ever been.

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