Should acknowledge slavery’s existence
Republican Bob Benze’s “Founding Fathers didn’t envision wealth distribution” [Opinion, Jan. 12] supplies important history that Americans overlook — at our own peril — respecting the original calculus underlying the U.S. Constitution.
The essay would be immensely more useful, however, if it explicitly acknowledged that central terms of that initial calculus allowed one human being to own another outright and calculating a value for slaves as chattel property at three-fifths of that of an enfranchised voter. This proved unacceptable to a one-term Whig congressman who would become the first Republican president [Abraham Lincoln] in 1861. Freeing and enfranchising slaves in the early 1860s drastically changed the calculus of the Founding Fathers forever.
Railing against the evolution since 1789 of our Constitution— after the Republican Revolution that followed the Declaration of Independence by four score and seven years — is less helpful than integrating at least the Republican Revolution underlying that evolution into a logical argument with intellectual honesty.
— Will Knedlik, Kirkland
Fathers did anticipate need to redistribute wealth
Whether or not the Founding Fathers “envisioned wealth redistribution,” they were intent on forming “a more perfect union to establish justice and promote the general welfare” of this newly formed country. The verbs “establish” and “promote” anticipate a sociopolitical process through which constant improvement is achieved.
It is estimated that, due to insufficient wealth or unwillingness to ascribe to a religious creed, half of all white males were precluded from voting after the Fathers crafted their preamble. Women and people of color were denied this basic right, as were men called upon to fight for their country but were too young to vote. So too, were Catholics, Jews, Quakers and others too far removed from mainstream Protestantism.
Fortunately, America did not remain fossilized after 1776, but became an evolving society, perfecting itself through a process of increasing inclusion and equality. As Paul Krugman notes on the same opinion page [“European social democracy works”], Europe is becoming even more dynamic — and prosperous.
There have been Americans who fought every step toward redistributing power and wealth; some are still among us. I can’t imagine the Founding Fathers supporting only wealth retention since they risked their assets and freedoms to expand ours.
— Bob Selby, Blaine
American versus European dynamism
Your Monday editorial page had an amusing contrast between two adjacent articles. It would be hilarious if the issues weren’t so serious.
In “Founding Fathers didn’t envision wealth distribution,” Bob Benze repeats the usual Republican theory that if the government redistributes the nation’s wealth via taxes and social programs, it will “invariably” inhibit the creation of jobs and industry and the incentive to work. He cites Western Europe — versus Eastern Europe — as an illustration.
But in “European social democracy works,” Paul Krugman demonstrates with facts, not empty theory, that although European taxes are higher than ours, their per-capita GDP, employment and productivity are almost the same as ours, while their social benefits — including universal health care — far surpass ours.
Benze’s article reminds us of the old quip, “Don’t bother me with facts, my mind is made up.”
— Robert and Susan Stanton, Seattle