Very well said. The spirit of loyalty (to particular principles and people) as well as the spirit of opposition (to other people or to pernicious practices) are well-illustrated in the laudable illustrations here of reconciliation and compromise.
Also well-illustrated is the danger inherent in choosing an established symbol like the expression “loyal opposition.” Sometimes, we have very good and very powerful reasons to strive to overcome negative perceptions of symbols. That is true, e.g., of the Declaration of Independence and the people who handed it down to us. Other times, however, there is no good reason to choose a symbol that seems new to us but which already is burdened with a deeply-entrenched negative history. The expressions “loyal” and “opposition” and “loyal opposition” already are burdened with history that powerfully weighs them down. They already symbolize in the minds of many certain ideas or concepts for which the Renovator doesn’t stand. The Renovator choosing a symbol like “loyal opposition” is like choosing to compete in a race with a drag chute already deployed.
The symbols “renovator” and “renovation” already are much better than any symbol that uses the words “loyal” or “opposition.” Renovation is consistent with and reminiscent of our Declaration of 1776 and our Constitution of 1788.
To the founders, our Declaration was the renovation of the best principles of the (unwritten) British Constitution. Our Constitution was then a renovation of the text and spirit of our Declaration. The foregoing were the most powerful messages of Bernard Bailyn his book “Ideological Origins of the American Revolution.” The latter renovation (our Constitution as a renovation of the spirit of our Declaration) was even more clearly and directly the message of Gordon Wood in his concise, enlightening and powerful book “Power and Liberty: Constitutionalism in the American Revolution.”
Our Constitution’s improvements also are the product of renovation. Their text reveals the revolutions of a planet-like body rotating and revolving around the sun. Our Constitution was “ordained and established” by “the People” to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The idea was that “the People” would secure the blessings of liberty by continuously working toward “a more perfect Union” and continuously striving to better “establish Justice.” The first 10 amendments, the Reconstruction Amendments, the 17th Amendment, the 19th Amendment, the 24th Amendment and the 26th Amendment were moments when we did so. They highlight when we faced the sun. Renovators and renovation already are much better symbols the words “loyal” or “opposition.”
I understand loyal opposition to mean loyal to the country but contesting its government or government policies. My Native American friends, when asked, would say, "We love the country but can't stand the government." Their love is reflected in high military service numbers despite long mistreatment and neglect. I am not a Native American, but with two bronze stars and other awards followed by four years of government civil service, I continue to love the country and demonstrate that love and loyalty by seeking to improve the government and the welfare of all its inhabitants, a necessary and unceasing endeavor.
Like the author's experience, after I spent a couple of decades in federal service dealing with the Congress, not as a liaison but the administration part of reports, hearing questions from Congress, and those sorts of things where I was actually stuck between the two sides, it brings you beyond the ideologies and theories, at least it did me. A "loyal opposition" reminds me of British politics in the 18th century as Danielle confirmed in her talk with Bill Kristol. From US historical perspectives such as partisan attacks on Jefferson for Sally Hemings, and equally brutal ones on Jackson's wife, it seems a foreign concept in the savagery of American politics from the beginning.
But it could serve as a shield for opposition politics under a leader who seeks to make them illegitimate altogether by his periodic rants that it's fake news and unamerican, all the way through accusing Sen. Kelly of Treason and trying to prosecute him--even though as a federal judge pointed out just recently, he also has congressional oversight authority as a member of the Senate besides his First Amendment rights. The American people seemed a little surprised that the Supreme Court has ruled that the government can't tax without congressional approval on tariffs ("no taxation without representation" wouldn't seem such a big deal perhaps except for the "Tea Party"), and essentially that the President therefore can't legislate on his own--separation of powers also seemed a little novel in an ever-expanding realm of executive power. Reestablishing our constitutional right to oppose government actions is probably a pretty useful idea with leadership that seems intent on delegitimizing any statement against their interests, whatever that might entail.
Very well said. The spirit of loyalty (to particular principles and people) as well as the spirit of opposition (to other people or to pernicious practices) are well-illustrated in the laudable illustrations here of reconciliation and compromise.
Also well-illustrated is the danger inherent in choosing an established symbol like the expression “loyal opposition.” Sometimes, we have very good and very powerful reasons to strive to overcome negative perceptions of symbols. That is true, e.g., of the Declaration of Independence and the people who handed it down to us. Other times, however, there is no good reason to choose a symbol that seems new to us but which already is burdened with a deeply-entrenched negative history. The expressions “loyal” and “opposition” and “loyal opposition” already are burdened with history that powerfully weighs them down. They already symbolize in the minds of many certain ideas or concepts for which the Renovator doesn’t stand. The Renovator choosing a symbol like “loyal opposition” is like choosing to compete in a race with a drag chute already deployed.
The symbols “renovator” and “renovation” already are much better than any symbol that uses the words “loyal” or “opposition.” Renovation is consistent with and reminiscent of our Declaration of 1776 and our Constitution of 1788.
To the founders, our Declaration was the renovation of the best principles of the (unwritten) British Constitution. Our Constitution was then a renovation of the text and spirit of our Declaration. The foregoing were the most powerful messages of Bernard Bailyn his book “Ideological Origins of the American Revolution.” The latter renovation (our Constitution as a renovation of the spirit of our Declaration) was even more clearly and directly the message of Gordon Wood in his concise, enlightening and powerful book “Power and Liberty: Constitutionalism in the American Revolution.”
Our Constitution’s improvements also are the product of renovation. Their text reveals the revolutions of a planet-like body rotating and revolving around the sun. Our Constitution was “ordained and established” by “the People” to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The idea was that “the People” would secure the blessings of liberty by continuously working toward “a more perfect Union” and continuously striving to better “establish Justice.” The first 10 amendments, the Reconstruction Amendments, the 17th Amendment, the 19th Amendment, the 24th Amendment and the 26th Amendment were moments when we did so. They highlight when we faced the sun. Renovators and renovation already are much better symbols the words “loyal” or “opposition.”
I understand loyal opposition to mean loyal to the country but contesting its government or government policies. My Native American friends, when asked, would say, "We love the country but can't stand the government." Their love is reflected in high military service numbers despite long mistreatment and neglect. I am not a Native American, but with two bronze stars and other awards followed by four years of government civil service, I continue to love the country and demonstrate that love and loyalty by seeking to improve the government and the welfare of all its inhabitants, a necessary and unceasing endeavor.
Like the author's experience, after I spent a couple of decades in federal service dealing with the Congress, not as a liaison but the administration part of reports, hearing questions from Congress, and those sorts of things where I was actually stuck between the two sides, it brings you beyond the ideologies and theories, at least it did me. A "loyal opposition" reminds me of British politics in the 18th century as Danielle confirmed in her talk with Bill Kristol. From US historical perspectives such as partisan attacks on Jefferson for Sally Hemings, and equally brutal ones on Jackson's wife, it seems a foreign concept in the savagery of American politics from the beginning.
But it could serve as a shield for opposition politics under a leader who seeks to make them illegitimate altogether by his periodic rants that it's fake news and unamerican, all the way through accusing Sen. Kelly of Treason and trying to prosecute him--even though as a federal judge pointed out just recently, he also has congressional oversight authority as a member of the Senate besides his First Amendment rights. The American people seemed a little surprised that the Supreme Court has ruled that the government can't tax without congressional approval on tariffs ("no taxation without representation" wouldn't seem such a big deal perhaps except for the "Tea Party"), and essentially that the President therefore can't legislate on his own--separation of powers also seemed a little novel in an ever-expanding realm of executive power. Reestablishing our constitutional right to oppose government actions is probably a pretty useful idea with leadership that seems intent on delegitimizing any statement against their interests, whatever that might entail.