The Center for Citizenship & Constitutional Government (CCCG) is pleased to announce the winners of the American Experiement Leadership Seminar Essay Contest.
Alexander Wenk
The “American idea” encompasses a plethora of principles, from states’ rights to separation of powers. Yet at their core, they are all attempts to implement the two fundamental components of the American idea, both laid out in the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence. The first concerns individuals: “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.” The second principle describes the relationship of the ideal American government to the first principle: government’s purpose is to “secure these rights.” However, such a government can only exist legitimately by deriving its “just powers from the consent of the governed.” Essentially, the American idea is a nation of people equal in rights who collectively agree to support a government that protects those rights.
On the face of it, the personal and governmental components of the American idea seem easily reconcilable. After all, if all people have rights and the government protects those rights, then where lies the conflict? The tension between these two components is in the inherent tradeoff of government: in order to protect rights, it must limit people’s liberty to do as they please. It is impossible to have a government that provides complete protection for all rights while also enabling total freedom of action. Therefore, the debate over the role of government, and consequently how the American idea ought to be realized, is not a debate over whether the government ought to protect rights, but a debate over two things: which rights deserve to be recognized and prioritized, and how much the government should limit the right to liberty to protect other rights.
The debate over the prioritization of rights played out in the years leading up to the Civil War, as Americans passionately disagreed over whether the exercise of the majority’s democratic powers could limit the rights of others. The debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas about whether slavery should be allowed in states entering the Union illustrate the tensions between the principles laid out in the Declaration. Douglas was the most famous advocate of the affirmative position, commonly referred to as popular sovereignty. He explained his reasoning as such: “our liberty and independence are based upon the right of the people to form for themselves such a government as they may choose.” At first glance, this appears clearly aligned with the principles of the Declaration, since to be legitimate a government must be based on the consent of the people. If the people are not able to choose the kind of government they want (slave or free), then there can be no consent, and therefore no legitimate government.
However, Lincoln disputes this based upon the other principle enshrined in the declaration: that all people have certain unalienable rights, regardless of the will of others. In fact, he asserts that in allowing people the absolute ability to determine their own government, “the sacred right of self-government is grossly violated.” How is it, then, that the power to choose your government is violated precisely by choosing your own government? Because, as Lincoln states, “when the white man governs himself that is self-government; but when he governs himself, and also governs another man, that is more than self-government—that is despotism.” Lincoln’s argument against absolute self-government can be summarized as follows: when your choice violates the rights of another, you do not have the right to make that choice. Yet by denying individuals the right to choose, the government denies the sacred right of popular sovereignty, which Douglas interpreted as fundamental to the principle of the consent of the governed outlined in the Declaration. Whichever side you agree with, a clear tension within the American idea can be seen in the debates between Lincoln and Douglas: the choice of what rights the government ought to prioritize.
The other tension inherent to the American idea—the extent to which the government should limit individual liberty to protect rights—has fortunately not led to anything so dramatic as a civil war. That does not mean, however, there has not been significant conflict due to this tension. One of the clearest examples of such conflict was the 1943 Supreme Court case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. Barnette overturned the Court’s 1940 Gobitis decision, which mandated that students comply with requirements to salute the American flag, regardless of their religious beliefs. The decision in Gobitis was based on the idea that the promotion of patriotism, even by limiting religious liberty, was necessary to maintain the “free society without which religious toleration itself is unattainable.” Yet in Barnette, the Court decided the opposite, stating that “freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much.” In this case, the Court prioritized religious liberty, even if that meant sacrificing some national unity and thus potentially endangering the power of the government to uphold rights. While in Gobitis, the Court held that the exercise of religious freedom could be limited in pursuit of a society that protected rights for all, in Barnette the Court decided that it could not. Together, Gobitis and Barnette make clear the second overarching conflict seen throughout the history of the American idea: in what ways and to what extent can liberty be limited to protect the rights of all?
Neither of these issues have been settled, historically or in the present day. Americans continue to debate: what right should be prioritized, a baby’s right to life or the right of a woman to make her own reproductive decisions? In pursuit of a safe academic climate, should the government limit students’ ability to protest? We may eventually reach a consensus on some of these topics: for instance, that people do not have the right to choose to enslave others. This discussion, though, reflects the system the Founders designed. The prescient ideas within the Declaration created the principled foundation for a country that could evolve towards the ideal balance of natural rights and self-government. As we continue to debate how to best achieve that balance, we grow closer to fulfilling those fundamental principles of the American idea.
Alexander Wenk is a senior at Cold Spring Harbor High School in New York. He serves as the president of Huntington Youth Court and captains his high school debate team. In his spare time, he enjoys running, reading, and spending time with friends.
Will Blake
“That government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Abraham Lincoln’s words at Gettysburg, spoken during the most dire crisis in our nation’s history, articulate both the foundation on which America was built and the standard by which it must continue to be measured. The more familiar principles of natural rights, separation of powers, and limited government remain paramount to the nation’s success, but it is a narrower set of civic standards that have served as the bridge between those principles and their fulfillment. Lincoln’s words implore the ideals of exceptionalism, defiance, and selflessness which have been essential to the foundation and continuation of “a more perfect Union.”
From the beginning, the Founding Fathers recognized the “American Experiment” as a model for all other nations of the world. The belief that Americans stood as trailblazers of a freer, better-governed society has shaped the nation’s decisions from its founding through the present, often with an intention of setting precedent for other nations that might follow. On the Declaration’s fiftieth birthday, Thomas Jefferson wrote that he hoped it would be to the world “the signal of arousing men to burst the chains” under which they had lived. Within Jefferson’s reflection, he reveals his lifelong ambition for the Declaration to serve as a cornerstone for the revolution of other countries and nations.
Manifest destiny is where this ingredient of the American experience becomes hardest to miss: few nations have had a literal frontier to expand into, or a founding self-image that treated expansion as destiny rather than conquest. The idea that Americans were destined to settle the land from the Atlantic to the Pacific was born of that same self-concept, and it functioned accordingly. The subsequent acquisition of lands secured prosperous areas rich with natural resources which would become a primary component of economic growth. But manifest destiny also shows what happens when exceptionalism is treated as entitlement rather than responsibility. The belief consistently overrode the land ownership of Natives, and seizure of lands through conquest and coerced treaties became far more common than fair negotiation. Exceptionalism remains a virtue of the American Experiment only when it is paired with empathy for those affected by our campaigns. As leader of the “Free World,” we must use both just means and ends to secure national unity and reduce the risk of conflict both internally and externally.
If exceptionalism gave America its sense of purpose, defiance gave it the will to act on that purpose. Defiance is how our country was founded. Defiance is how we continue to evolve towards a better world than yesterday. The Founding Fathers chose to be defiant in their rejection of imperial authority from England. A century and a half later, the Civil Rights Movement drew from the same well. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. proclaimed it simply by saying in his “I Have a Dream” speech: “No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream.” Dr. King reminded his listeners that partial progress against Jim Crow was not an end point, but a reason to press further toward the equality the Declaration had promised and never fully delivered.
Dr. King also reveals the cost of defiance. His murder was a stark reminder that freedom won through defiance is rarely cheap. Yet the price he and other Civil Rights leaders paid left the nation, and especially the communities they served, undeniably better off. Their example provides the clearest blueprint to show why defiance in the face of injustice is so essential to the American Experiment.
Finally, Americans have repeatedly placed the preservation of the Union above themselves. Selflessness has been paramount in not only founding the country, but also in allowing its survival. From Washington’s decision to not run for a third term to American soldiers crawling on the bloody shores of Normandy, selfless commitments have been necessary to achieving 250 years. The Founders wrote this ideal directly into the Declaration’s final line: “we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” Beyond the philosophical element of the text, the signing of the Declaration was also a literal pledge to each other. Each Founding Father knew that they would die if the revolutionary cause was defeated, but they made the selfless, defiant decision anyway.
In our modern age, the importance of selflessness continues to resurface. When hijacked planes struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, firefighters ran into buildings from where others were fleeing. Hospital workers pulled double shifts. In the days that followed, strangers consoled one another, and in the ensuing months, thousands enlisted, their only connection to the victims, for many of them, was a shared flag. The American Experiment endured that moment because of the selflessness of its citizens to choose nation over self.
Selflessness will always come into tension with personal interest and liberty, but it is most necessary to be selfless when tensions are the highest. Today’s citizens may be preoccupied with their own concerns, as every generation has been. But history suggests that each generation is eventually called to a mission larger than itself, and the Union’s continuity has depended, and will go on depending, on how it answers that call.
The United States has been tested in every generation, by warfare, economic upheaval, and social struggle. On our semiquincentennial, a great debt is owed to the Founders who conceived the Experiment. A greater one, however, is owed to the 250 years of Americans who preserved it. Those who hold to a “city upon a hill” vision of the nation’s purpose, who remain defiant in the face of injustice, and who act selflessly when called upon, will be the ones who carry the American Experiment into its next 250 years.
Will Blake is a senior at St. Charles Preparatory School in Columbus, Ohio. He hopes to pursue a future legal career.
To learn more about the American Experiment Leadership Seminar and explore upcoming opportunities for high school students, visit our program page.
Stay up to date with all of the CCCG’s offerings this coming year by subscribing to our email list.