Celebrating America’s 250th Anniversary
As we near the 250th anniversary of our nation’s founding, it’s expected that Americans will celebrate it with great enthusiasm. This moment isn’t just about marking our independence; it’s also an occasion to reflect on the political principles that guided the original struggle for freedom. Naturally, the Declaration of Independence will take center stage in these discussions.
However, it’s possible that some may find praise for the Declaration’s universal ideas—like the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—somewhat lacking in passion. Interestingly, this view has been particularly noted among some younger conservatives who grew up during the Trump era.
The discontent from the New Right with the Declaration’s universalism stems from a reaction—albeit misguided—to the way America’s founding principles have been used in the political arena in recent years.
There’s, I believe, a clear relationship between the Declaration’s core ideas and the New Right’s America First philosophy.
Older conservatives, often fans of Ronald Reagan, have historically celebrated America as a beacon of universal truths. Yet, the New Right contends that this approach hasn’t really helped the conservative agenda or the country.
The messages from the Reagan era, which were hugely impactful in the latter part of the 20th century, have struggled to secure national victories in the current century. Because of this, control over political power has shifted to Democrats, and the left has increasingly pursued profound social changes.
The traditional conservatives found it difficult to compete against the Obama coalition. Their excessive emphasis on universal moral principles seemingly ended up harming the interests of many Americans, particularly among the working class, in areas like immigration and trade.
In the wake of this, the New Right emerged with a familiar narrative of American nationalism after Trump’s victory in 2016. They adopted an “America First” approach that prioritizes the well-being of American citizens.
This stands in marked contrast to the old conservatism, which linked immigration and trade policies closely to the nation’s universal moral commitments outlined in the Declaration.
What’s interesting is that the New Right found this recalibration to be politically successful, especially noted in Trump’s wins in both 2016 and 2020. Yet, this has led to considerable backlash, with criticism from both the left and traditional conservatives, accusing this new form of nationalism of betraying the very principles of the Declaration. This critique has certainly intensified skepticism around the New Right’s position.
So, where does that leave us?
It seems justified for the New Right to push back against a shallow and politically unhelpful interpretation of the Declaration. They are correct to reject the notion that America is just an abstract idea devoid of concrete interests. Moreover, they’re right to argue that the principles in the Declaration don’t obligate us to adopt immigration and trade policies that could harm our citizens.
Still, it would be unwise for the New Right to completely dismiss the Declaration itself.
Such a rejection feels unnecessary. Contrary to what some might think, there’s no inherent contradiction between the universal principles of the Declaration and the America First stance. The Declaration doesn’t necessitate the type of open-border moralism proposed by certain globalists.
It clearly states that all people have equal natural rights, but it never claims that anyone has a natural right to join any political community simply because they wish to.
Historically, the Founders, along with later generations, regulated immigration based on the nation’s needs, not as a response to some moral imperative to allow anyone entry.
Additionally, this Declaration doesn’t rule out a national trade policy focused on American interests. Its foundations are rooted in John Locke’s assertions about the rights to “life, liberty, and property.” However, none of these rights include the automatic right to cross borders for trade.
Locke’s Second Treatise emphasizes that a government formed with the consent of its citizens has the authority to regulate foreign trade for national benefit. The Constitution reflects this principle by empowering Congress to manage trade with other nations.
Furthermore, the Declaration doesn’t advocate for U.S. intervention to promote democracy or combat tyranny abroad.
It does state that people can overthrow a tyrannical government, but this must be a careful consideration for those living under oppression—not for citizens of other nations.
There’s nothing in the Declaration to imply that America—or any nation for that matter—has a duty to liberate others from tyranny or to bear the costs of uncertain revolutions.
The Declaration indicates that American foreign policy must be guided by rational and just interests, much like how earlier statesmen, including Washington and Hamilton, conducted affairs.
In fact, the text supports a sense of nationalism. The Declaration implies that people and nations exist not merely as constructs but have rights recognized by “the laws of nature.”
This gives them an “independent and equal status” alongside other global powers. So, citizens are entitled to steer their political futures. When viewed holistically, the Declaration champions both state sovereignty and individual rights.
Therefore, there’s no compelling reason for supporters of America First to dismiss the universal principles established in the Declaration. Ignoring these tenets would be a grave error. Regardless of their misuse or misunderstanding, these principles remain crucial to America’s political identity.
Reforming national identity isn’t the responsibility of right-leaning political movements; rather, it calls for a sense of moderation, caution, and a genuine appreciation of our heritage.
An America that turns its back on the universal values within the Declaration is no longer the nation we were privileged to inherit—and it’s a responsibility we have to uphold.
