I recently took in Ken Burns’ documentary Thomas Jefferson and discovered a deeper affinity for the author of our Declaration of Independence. Jefferson’s achievement amidst extensive imperfection was truly inspiring. I was particularly struck by the contradiction between his arguments for liberty, including specific and passionate arguments against slavery, and his lifelong ownership of slaves who he never saw fit to free. This is a man who attempted to pass legislation in Virginia which would have paved the way toward emancipation, yet kept his own slaves. What are we to make of that?

Anti-American radicals have argued that Jefferson’s hypocrisy on the issue of slavery is indicative of a greater hypocrisy in the American character. They imply this somehow invalidates America’s claim to being an exceptional force for good in the world. I find this argument lacking merit. I am in a fair position to judge, having grown up the son of a black father and a white mother in a country where their union may have been improbable just a few years prior. My father’s early experience with this country was very different than my own. There was a time in recent history when some men were not viewed as equal. That is a somber fact. Despite that, despite the dissonance between Thomas Jefferson penning a beautiful expression of libertarian ideals while owning slaves until his dying day, I remain a disciple of those ideals, a student of Jefferson, devoted to the constitutional republic he helped create. How can that be? It is not because I excuse his injustice. It is because I have the ability to separate the person and his conduct from his arguments and ideas. I am less interested in whether a man is perfect than how he struggles with his imperfection and what that struggle achieves.

Besides, one must wonder at the purpose served by attacking the legitimacy of the Declaration and the U.S. Constitution on the basis its authors were hypocrites. “The Constitution of the U.S. is inadequate of (sic) handling the needs of [the black] community,” Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. (D – Illinois) stated in a 2000 interview with the Chicago Defender. “Our basic fundamental rights that should be inalienable are not so inalienable and not so self-evident… the constitution represents unfinished business… Health care ought to be your human right…” Jackson’s sentiment was echoed by Illinois state senator Barack Obama in an interview with Chicago-based NPR in 2001. “The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you. But it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. That hasn’t shifted.” It would seem from these and similar comments that the purpose of denigrating the Constitution is to justify its transformation to a charter of affirmative action, i.e. entitlement. This is the change which President Obama promised during his campaign and has aggressively pursued. Placing disproportionate focus on the sins of our founding fathers provides rhetorical support for that transformation. This raises the question; does Jefferson’s hypocrisy really justify replacing rights with entitlements? Or does it simply highlight an unfortunate aspect of human nature which reinforces the need for our “charter of negative liberties?”

Let us approach the question from another perspective. Much as injustice against black slaves is used to discredit the men who wrote and signed the Declaration and Constitution, hypocrisy is also used to discredit advocates of social conservatism. Whether due to divorce, infidelity, homosexuality, or some other moral violation, guilty politicians, preachers, and commentators are called out for violating the family values they otherwise advocate. Often, the argument against such offenders extends to the principles they support. We are led to believe, because a man gets a divorce or has an affair, he may not credibly argue in defense of marriage. That is an exercise in ad hominem attack, assailing one’s character instead of their argument. Indeed, the value of marriage depends in no way on anyone’s conduct. So it is with the principles evoked by America’s founding fathers. Whether all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights depends in no way on the conduct of the men who found those truths to be self-evident. That anyone fails to live up to the ideals they articulate proves only they are human. The only “unfinished business” of the Constitution is to ensure its principles remain vigilantly guarded, not degraded, undone, or transformed.

There seems to be an unspoken implication in ad hominem attacks against moral advocates that having no principle is somehow superior to advocating a principle you do not live up to. I gather this from the pompous attitude exhibited by those who revel in moral failure as if it discredits morality. Indeed, the opposite is true; an acknowledgment of moral failure affirms the relevant moral principle. Criticizing an advocate of marriage for failing to remain faithful to his wife affirms, not that he should quit advocating for marriage, but that he ought not to have failed.

I believe the intended purpose of piling on people for moral failure is to tempt adoption of a perverted pseudo-morality which asserts the embarrassment of hypocrisy can be avoided by accepting a humanist code satisfied by the presence of a nanny state. Such a standard is how the late Senator Ted Kennedy was regarded by supporters as a paragon of virtue in spite of his personal behavior, because his personal behavior was irrelevant to their perverted moral judgment. Like a Catholic confessing on Sunday for a week of drunken debauchery, American radicals believe their individual moral failings are absolved by advocacy for “social justice.”

This seems the only explanation for comments such as this one from a white liberal on NewsRealBlog:

See the problem is that racism is almost automatic for white folk who weren’t brought up in a multiracial setting, and sometimes even then. It probably does require some “teaching” to make you racist; but sometimes that teaching comes in the form of what you are NOT told.

In other words, white people are naturally racist, and affirmative action must be taken to defeat that condition. White children must be taught to subdue their intrinsic racist tendencies, and white adults must advocate “progressive” public policy as penance for their ever-present prejudice. To the American radical, standing against entitlement is tantamount to a Catholic skipping confession. If you can bring yourself to entertain the mindset, it makes a weird kind of a sense. It is only natural that people who believe individuals are not responsible for taking care of their selves would also think individuals are not responsible for disciplining their prejudice. Take reality, reverse the moral and logical polarity and you have statism.

I prefer Jefferson’s route. I prefer to argue for ideals, even if I do not live up to them. I will take hypocrisy over stupidity any day of the week. Make no mistake; that is the choice, to stupidly mock the moral for failing where we never try, or pursue ideals which will reveal our own failings. Let us not be shamed into stupidity. Ignoring morality will no more absolve shame than ignoring gravity will let you fly.