Martin Eden Mercury
VIP Member
- Nov 2, 2015
- 897
- 107
- 80
In July of 2012, during the heat of the general election cycle, James P. Lucier, a long time aide to former Senator Jesse Helms (NC), wrote an interesting article on some of the 'myths' surrounding the founding of this nation of ours. He wrote "The Declaration of Independence is not an Enlightenment screed about the Rights of Man, and it is not part of the U.S. legal structure." Back then, Mr. Lucier got my attention with that statement, and I wholeheartedly agreed as I do now. If this were his major premise, I'd have to say Mr. Lucier and I were simpatico. But we were not, and are not. Not in the least.
Mr. Lucier's article was published on the 4th of July, while celebrations were going on across America. Not pretending to be able to read minds, I can only guess at what his motives were here. Leaving the guess work aside, and employing a close scrutiny of the entire article, we can logically assume, and objectively observe, the presence of faulty premise(s).
In his piece, Mr. Lucier inferred that when he hears the phrase "all men are created equal" being used by people he ideologically disagrees with, he equates what he hears with unfounded, and unattributed assertions, that all men should be "reduced in station and achievement to a common level." I say unfounded, because I have no recollection of ever hearing anybody assert we all have to brought down to a level were we are all equal in station or achievement. And what exactly does Mr. Lucier mean by station? It is safe to assume the definition he uses is an archaic one. One which refers to an individual's standing in law or custom. Class my friends, class. Class warfare cloaked in the platitudes of individuality, and antiquated, colonial claims of British rights. Welcome to ultra-conservatism in 21st century America (USA). Back to the future.
It is obvious Mr. Lucier utilizes a debunking of some common myths to mask his own agenda, which ironically is a revisionist screed against what he sees as the evils of revisionist history. Finally, and most amusing of all is how Mr. Lucier also wrapped himself in the authority of Thomas Jefferson. It's amazing he was able to do all this, without any sense of awareness or shame that he was lecturing people with distorted facts and twistifications. Mr. Lucier appears to be well versed in propping up straw men, only to inevitably, and self-righteously knock them down. Bravo!
I believe Mr. Lucier and I are in much agreement on what the Declaration of Independence says and does not say. And since he mentions the US Constitution in his article, I'd have to say I bet he favors a stricter constructionist reading of the US Constitution than I do. Now if that were all that separates us, who could argue that this isn't a healthy disagreement to have in a democratic republic like ours? But there is more that separates us than unites us. Mr Lucier is representative of ultra-conservatism in our nation. I abhor extremism in all it's forms. His vision of America is anathema to all I hold dear, and I am sure he feels that very same way about me and my vision of America. A vision I will state as this series of op-eds unfolds.
Mr. Lucier's article was published on the 4th of July, while celebrations were going on across America. Not pretending to be able to read minds, I can only guess at what his motives were here. Leaving the guess work aside, and employing a close scrutiny of the entire article, we can logically assume, and objectively observe, the presence of faulty premise(s).
In his piece, Mr. Lucier inferred that when he hears the phrase "all men are created equal" being used by people he ideologically disagrees with, he equates what he hears with unfounded, and unattributed assertions, that all men should be "reduced in station and achievement to a common level." I say unfounded, because I have no recollection of ever hearing anybody assert we all have to brought down to a level were we are all equal in station or achievement. And what exactly does Mr. Lucier mean by station? It is safe to assume the definition he uses is an archaic one. One which refers to an individual's standing in law or custom. Class my friends, class. Class warfare cloaked in the platitudes of individuality, and antiquated, colonial claims of British rights. Welcome to ultra-conservatism in 21st century America (USA). Back to the future.
It is obvious Mr. Lucier utilizes a debunking of some common myths to mask his own agenda, which ironically is a revisionist screed against what he sees as the evils of revisionist history. Finally, and most amusing of all is how Mr. Lucier also wrapped himself in the authority of Thomas Jefferson. It's amazing he was able to do all this, without any sense of awareness or shame that he was lecturing people with distorted facts and twistifications. Mr. Lucier appears to be well versed in propping up straw men, only to inevitably, and self-righteously knock them down. Bravo!
I believe Mr. Lucier and I are in much agreement on what the Declaration of Independence says and does not say. And since he mentions the US Constitution in his article, I'd have to say I bet he favors a stricter constructionist reading of the US Constitution than I do. Now if that were all that separates us, who could argue that this isn't a healthy disagreement to have in a democratic republic like ours? But there is more that separates us than unites us. Mr Lucier is representative of ultra-conservatism in our nation. I abhor extremism in all it's forms. His vision of America is anathema to all I hold dear, and I am sure he feels that very same way about me and my vision of America. A vision I will state as this series of op-eds unfolds.
Last edited:
