When we misunderstand what someone else understands

Do you know what I mean, when I say, "y'know what I mean"? I mean, do you really understand? When I recently read the American Constitution and the recollection of events during the time that the Constitution was signed, along with the Bill of Rights that would come later, I realize that there is much left up to interpretation in our founding documents when it comes to what the framers of American government were thinking. From the fifties and sixties, and then since the mid-nineties to now, the country seems to be in an inflection point that's been driven by rapid technological advancement. The world is not the same, yet history never changes.

Often times, I hear that Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and the other fathers of America understood things about the future of the unified states, and thus made sure to write either boundaries or explicit freedoms into the founding documents. But, another way of viewing things is that they really had no idea of what would come later down the road. The fathers wrote with an understanding of what they had been through back home in Europe and what was important to get away from in the New World. This was the inspiration for freedom of speech, the restriction against interfering with religion, and the many other rights such as freedom to assemble and of the press.

When people argue about what direction this country should go in, people with more progressive views argue that the framers knew that the country would evolve much over time, so they therefore left the founding documents very generalized to be open to interpretation and changes overtime. I think this is true. But what these progressive folks fail to acknowledge is that the framers did not expect to act on things not based on some empirical evidence, or in other words, the facts of history as the world knew it. Today, there are many things that are being done in spirit of innovation and creative trailblazing. Ever since Wilsonian ideology (which was based on history) and FDR's New Deal, it is expected that a revolutionary idea is the only true form of leadership left. This is based on the thought that leaders can see into the future--from the time of the original founders of America, to today's uber social liberalism.

But what if it is not? Leaders today are afraid of going in a direction that is contrary to popular opinion, unless it is a newfound road. Wide socialism seems to be doing well in the Scandinavian countries, so let's just try it here, right? It just isn't an easy play when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of such a direction. On the other hand, we've been stuck with very liberal monetary policy, very liberal (and diplomatic) foreign affairs, as well as many other overarching gregarious policies. There are just too many voices at this point, leading to some chaos. What I've noticed is that there are people out there that see the opposite side, the side that is not so progressive and greenfield. These people (I won't give credit to them) believe that there was a time where America was firing on all cylinders through rational pragmatism.

I do not think that there is a one size fits all solution to the current problems, though, I do think that we can work together. When the prevailing voices always seem to be the most progressive ones because of cultural influences, then at that point what is being left behind? So far as recent, we have been trying to greenfield everything, but what seems to be the only thing clearly visible is the fact that it has not worked well to ramp up things for everyone to get back to normalcy. That has to change. If our leaders aren't including each other in their actions to legislate and administer, we shouldn't expect them to think about including the rest of us either.