printFrom today’s WND.COM column, “The Founding Fathers deconstructed”:
“The idea that the founders were flawed, sinful men like you and me is current among a hefty majority of Americans, conservative too. It is wrong. Quite the reverse. The founders were nothing like us. Not even close. I say this not as an idealist but as a realist.
” … Judging from their works and their written words, the American Founding Fathers were immeasurably better than just about anyone on earth today. That goes for that gnarled, somewhat stupid sadist Mother Teresa, whom Christopher Hitchens nailed in The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice. And it applies to the moral role models selected for us annually, courtesy of CNN’s Anderson Cooper.
The founders are matchless today both morally and intellectually – their actions bespeak a willingness to forsake fortunes and risk lives for liberty, a concept and cause alien to contemporary Americans, who are, mostly, bereft of both the mental and moral gravitas necessary to grasp it. … ”
The complete column is: “The Founding Fathers deconstructed.”
The Second Edition of Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society (the print edition can be purchased here) is now also available on Kindle.
UPDATE (Dec. 3): MT, SAINT OF SADIST? Just as I thought I had written an uncontroversial column, Rod writes to write me off as a writer, a human being, etc.:
He quotes my column: Judging from their works and their written words, the American Founding Fathers were immeasurably better than just about anyone on earth today. That goes for that gnarled, somewhat stupid sadist Mother Teresa, whom Christopher Hitchens nailed in ‘The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice.'”
First sentence quite good – second one horribly bad. Are you an atheist like Hitchens? Why would you appeal to such a God-hater as any kind of authority on the likes of Mother Teresa. And I wouldn’t think you should need reminding, but Mother Teresa is now outside the scope of your “… immeasurably better than just about anyone on earth today” – since she died 3 years ago. I can’t argue you observation of “gnarled”, or even “somewhat stupid” – but “sadist”; do you get that from Hitchens, or is this you own “somewhat stupid” idea. You had my rapt attention, and your article was making great sense – until you brought in Mother Teresa, out of the blue, I mean the “wild blue, way up yonder” out of the blue. …
I’ve been reading you for years on WND, and must say you are an excellent writer, and appear to have a brilliant mind. But you really lost it with this one. Hitchens book title is bad enough, then you pile on further insult with your “Hitchens nailed [her]” comment – are you trying to be more vulgar and disgusting that the somewhat stupid atheist, or are you just being stupid yourself.
One last thing – beauty is (truly) only skin deep. Yet you include your picture in the article – I suppose so we can all see how ‘beautiful’ you are on the outside. But in God’s economy, I daresay Mother Teresa is far more beautiful – one of the most beautiful in my lifetime. Her beauty radiates from within, just as your ugly heart is coming to the light through your vulgar words.
I guess you’ve concluded by now that you’ve lost a long-time fan.
Mother Teresa is held up as a universal paragon of goodness in it purest form. Hence the reference to her in the column. As someone who prefers facts to blind faith, indeed I do think Hitchesn—who hung out in Calcutta with Mother, and did his homework well—nailed this sister’s act (as in “detect and expose”).
More later (the parrots are demanding birdie bread with calls of “mommy, mommy”).
Later: If I am supposed to discard the facts because they were dredged up by an atheist (CH), I suggest that my reader question his adulation for a woman (MT) worshiped by former White House communications director Anita Dunn.
“My favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Theresa,” said the lizard-tongued Dunn.
I am absolutely sure that I share no heroes with Dunn. Picture a Venn diagram. There is no overlap between my mental/intellectual universe and Dunn’s.
The facts, as illustrated by Hitchen, show that MT preferred “providence to planning” in her facilities and was far from humane to the poor she took in. Hitchen quotes, among others, a doctor, the editor of the acclaimed “Lancet,” who was alarmed at the intentional neglect of proper diagnosis and pain management at a MT operation. On Mother’s orders, lavish, well-appointed homes that were donated to her cause were stripped bare of decent mattresses or creature comforts. The heat turned off. Volunteers got TB.
As a matter of theology, MT insisted that the poor be left to suffer horrible pain (while she was always airlifted to receive medical care in the best western facilities). Salvation through suffering for the poor, but not for Mother. Hypocrite?
MT, moreover, had a sizable fortune, enough money to outfit many clinics in Bengal (or wherever she operated). But she pursued “suffering and subjection” for her charges and for those working for her. If a dying man got an aspirin from her, he was lucky. Her palliative philosophy was in direct opposition to that of the Hospice movement.
Unforgivable. “Hell’s Angel.”
Myron, Mother T. had close ties to a lot of very corrupt governments, so she was hardly the epitome of private charity. Her motto seemed to have been: “money has no smell.”
Of course they were sinful men; all mankind is sinful and slavery is wrong, nor do I care for the practice of treating all tribal people as children. But our founders were amazing men, brave visionaries and leaders with iron spines and strong, fearless minds. Nothing the currently weakened, liberal-minded agenda says or doesn’t say will change that. The condition of our current government, with illegal immigrant pandering and legally approved sexual harassment would be a source of shame and shock to our founders, as it should be to us.
The founders were flawed WASP men who understood and recognized their own flaws, even if they never achieved perfection. How much better were Washington, Adams, and Jefferson than their feckless successors like Clinton, Bush, and Blagojevich! These were MEN (sexist alert!) who created wealth instead of merely directing coerced stolen goods and who fought for liberty at a time when most whites, blacks, yellows, and browns were slaves and serfs. How many Europeans or Asians were freed based upon the inspiration of African philosophical writings???
They were renaissance men who read the great classics from the Bible, the Greeks, and Shakespeare and were also students of the science, architecture, and engineering of their times. How much different they were from modern day “serious” candidates like Mike Huckabee and John Edwards. Compare Madison with “constitutional scholar” Obama – it is laughable!
And the Founders were highly literate MALES – not feckless media cows like Meghan McCain and Sarah Palin or the nasty Ann Coulter (whose brilliant commentary on Wikileaks was to focus on Manning’s homosexuality). There are two (intellectually) “hot women” in modern commentary – Ilana Mercer and Diana West (whose insights in Wikileaks depart from the usual inanity – see links below):
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=235585
http://www.dianawest.net/Default.aspx
The writing of the founding fathers is to me the closest thing to sacred writ ever produced. Even its flaws reveal this. For example, they were obliged to make allowances for the institution of slavery, otherwise the Constitution could never have been ratified. It was a compromise measure. Even so, by inserting the mechanism that allowed for constitutional amendments, they deftly managed to sound the death-knell for that abominable institution.
It’s good to see that some people still revere them and their work with no apologies or even any crumbs thrown to the politically correct jackals of our day.
And also, their life reveals the true value of a classical education, minus the leftist ideological claptrap that permeates and poisons our educational system today.
What could one expect when history is not taught in schools today. Nor anything connected to the Constitution as it was written.(Only Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, Michigan relate to a strict constructionist line of reason) Also in the original thoughts of Jefferson for the Bill of Rights where he had actually stated an end to slavery but that was written out in the final analysis.
When anyone listens to the likes of Spitzer and Parker, (Hamilton was an illegal immigrant) you realize the extent of their historical education.
I might make a book suggestion–Robert Middlekauff- The Glorious Cause-published, 1982
*shrugs* I love Ann Coulter. She and Ilana are my only primary political writers.
This article was very well written and substantive! The Founding Fathers were giants, compared to us, mere pygmies…
Love your style!
For an article about our Founding Fathers, their brilliant writings and moral leadership, as well as the ongoing character assasination attempts by the illiterate left, I’m appalled at your insult against Mother Teresa.
You wrote, “That goes for that gnarled, somewhat stupid sadist Mother Teresa, whom Christopher Hitchens nailed in “The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice.”
Of the three persons you named in that paragraph, you only assailed two of them: Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, whose reputation was worldwide and whom many regard a Saint, and Anderson Cooper, an openly homosexual man whose “journalism” is bent to the far left and who is increasingly hostile to Christianity. From my perspective, the only thing that Christopher Hitchens “nailed” in his book is to prove, ad-nauseum, that he’s a foaming at the mouth, anti-Catholic bigot. For those intersted in knowing what drivel is actually contained in Hitchen’s screed, without having to soil themselves intellectually, can go to the following link: http://www.catholicleague.org/rer.php?topic=Book+Reviews&id=27
Shame on you!
Yes the founders were flawed MEN but in the end they had much stronger moral compasses than those who govern today. The founders recognized the fallen condition of man. This recognition and understanding of man’s flawed condition led them to design a government of checks and balances.
They were also well educated. The accomplishments of Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin across several professional fields are quite remarkable in their own right. These three men are mentioned here as examples. The founders were all remarkable men in different ways.
The fact that the founders understood the nature of man and understood that liberty and freedom would work best for imperfect man is remarkable in and of itself. Freedom and liberty do not require perfection of men or women. However, it does require a commitment to the social contract and a “moral populace”.
“Perfection” of socialism in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Vietnam, and Cambodia required the murder of millions and millions of their citizens all in the name of the perfecting the communist man or woman, in theory. In truth it had nothing to do with perfecting anything but maintaining political power.
I honestly believe that one of the keys to the founders success was the fact they understood the nature of man. In the end competition in a free market with minimal rules and regulations results in better products and better companies. If a company is corrupt and underhanded the truth will eventually come to the forefront and the market will punish these deeds.
Clearly the founders understood governance, economics, and the intrinsic value of liberty and freedom.
A few years ago, my wife and I visited family in Nashville, and Franklin Tennessee. In Franklin, we toured the farm where there was a large Union/Confederate battle. Our tour guide described the battle. The “Rebels” knew that they could not win the fight, but their general (who Lee had tried to fire) ordered the attack anyway. One brave ‘just off the boat’ Irish officer turned to his neighbor and commented. “Well, this is a good day to die.” Led his troops against the Union line and did. No glory, no honor, only needless death. No one in the tour group discussed slavery or righteous cause. I left that scene with a stronger respect for my fellow man. If people only focus on imperfection, they will get what they seek and lose the inspiration to become better. The Black family that only saw the ‘slave quarters’ missed the fact that because of what the founders did, freedom eventually came where in their forefathers land, it rarely has. That will leave the son, like the father, without real ambition, a pitiful legacy.
I agree with you completely about our Founding Father’s role in slavery and that they where men of great insight and honor. I know from studing history that many of them deplored slavery but were such moral men that they could not break the laws forbidding them from freeing their slaves. These men found a way to rid themselves of this burden by throwing off the shackles of tryanny, pledging not only their lives and fortunes, but also their sacred honor.
Our Foundinf Fathers were honorable men first and foremost.
How many of our current staff in Congress could even understand what that would be?
Jim Dunlap
Sovereign Citizen of State of Nevada
Dear Mrs. Mercer:
I wholly concur with your assessment that the founders were infinitely more virtuous than the vast majority of today’s Americans. But this cantankerous, seventy-one year old retired USN CPO submits: had the founders insisted that the bedrock principle contained in the Declaration (“…all men are created equal”) be constitutionally codified and slavery absolutely prohibited, chances are deconstruction of the founders’ greatness would never pass muster.
I very much appreciate your contributions in the fight for liberty. God’s infinite blessings to you and yours . . .
Vince Wallgren
La Mesa, California
I (an atheist) would far prefer the Salvation Armies and Catholic Charities minister to the poor than the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I would be quite happy if direct cash/check aid to those charity elements that spend > 70% of their money on emergency food/shelter/medical assistance to the poor was given a tax break such as: give $ 3 to Mother Teresa and save $ 2 off your taxes. CUT WELFARE and let the generosity of a $ 16 trillion free nation take care of the truly destitute.
In that sense, I disagree with the Objectivists who fail to distinguish between altruism of the heart (tzedakah) and compulsory altruism where person A steals the money from person B to give a small portion of the booty to person C.
But having put in my 2 cents of praise for the Mother Teresa’s, I will also state that a freedom fighter like Andrei Sakharov can to more for the poor by establishing liberty than a Teresa. And inventor/entrepreneurs such as Thomas Edison, Steven Jobs, and Jonas Salk do vastly even more for the poor by the natural creation of wealth (via human ingenuity) than the propagation of faith.
“Are you an atheist like Hitchens?”
“Yet you include your picture in the article – I suppose so we can all see how ‘beautiful’ you are on the outside.”
It’s refreshing to see we are able to discuss the column based on its merits, or lack thereof, instead of deferring to ad hominem attacks.
To say that the use of the term sadist was disgusting or vulgar is simply histrionics-to say the least. (In fact, the tearing of cloth comes to mind.) Did I dwell on its use when I noticed it was used describing Mother Teresa? Yes. Did I consider that it was used in the wrong context? Yes. But, perhaps the word’s acerbic connotation was the writer’s wish when describing well-documented concerns about the austere practices of Missionaries of Charity. It seems unlikely that the writer believes that Mother Teresa suffered from a psychological disorder that caused her some sort of gratification at the suffering of others.
The more likely alternative would be to impugn the religious and progressive beatification-canonization of Mother Teresa, amongst others. The sixth chapter of the Book of Matthew aptly warns against what became, well-documented, concerns that Mother Teresa began to epitomize the cause celebre:
“Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others.”
“And when you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. ”
That these verses could be used to more affably scrutinize Mother Teresa would draw the apparent satirical intent of the writer into lessons in sensitivity
instea
d of carping about the de-construction of historical figures under the imprimatur of political correctness.
In other words, calm yourself. Not every word that comes forth from a writer’s mouth is an attack on Rome.
I don’t know if the point I was trying to make in my piece above about the founders really came through or not. The point is simply yes they were flawed but much better than most of the populace today and furthermore they really understood the true nature of man which allowed them to design a constitutional republic of limited government with that nature in mind.
Washington lead the Continental Army to victory and then resigned leaving the civilians in charge. Later when the nation needed him to become President, he did so but for only two terms. I imagine you could count on one hand how many revolutionary, military or political leaders in history have demonstrated such self-restraint when absolute power was there for the taking. Whatever else Washington did, such as owning slaves, is immaterial to me. Those two acts above put him in a class with Cincinnatus. You can’t even begin to say the same for Mao, Castro and the heroes of the Left.
The Founders were remarkable men who were inspired by the idea of individual freedom, and more fundamentally, by their conviction that man’s greatest glory is to understand the world. These were ambitious and confident offspring of the Enlightenment, devoted to the proposition that reason is the Oracle of Man. Contrast Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams with today’s pseudo-intellectaul skeptics and thugs who command the levers of power, and sneer at truth and knowlege.
I haven’t bothered to read about the alleged shortcomings of Mother Teresa, beyond those described by Ilana. None of this shocks or surprises me. Mother Teresa devoted her life to trying to live up to an utterly false ideal, namely that sacrifice is the ultimate virtue and that suffering can make one noble. People devoted to false ideals tend to live as hypocrites, because their ideals kill them.