FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

We, the People

by BEN TRIPP

My fellow bloggers, essayists, and well-meaning idealists on the Left, I regret to be a downer. But this must be said. A certain phrase has started cropping up a great deal in the Left’s vast monologue, and I don’t think we’re being intellectually honest when we use it. Without further preamble (pardon the pun), please, I beg you, stop using the phrase ‘We the People’ like it has ever meant anything tangible in our lifetimes. We have enough fresh disappointments as it is without going back 230 years (has it been that long? Seems like yesterday) to find broken promises this nation has made to itself. How about the old ‘One Man, One Vote’ thing? Women in the USA didn’t get the vote until 1920, gang, and lord help us but in the last decade poor folk and negroes lost most of what votes they had, which was never quite a 1:1 ratio even in the best of times. Who is this We the People you’re all so upset about? Was it all Americans, before George W. Bush seized power and we let him do it? There wasn’t a whole lot of ‘We’ going around at that time, as I recall. All Americans during the Clinton years? Yeah, those were some times of unity, brothers and sisters. Oh, no, wait. Maybe you mean the Reagan years, or the 1960’s, when America was deeply united and everybody in the Heartland was trying to get their daughters married off to a New York Jew.

Knock it off before I have to descend to the level of irony, if I haven’t already. Speaking of tropes (irony is a kind of trope, you unlettered buffoons), by now ‘We the People’ is what they call a ‘synecdoche’, or an expression that swaps the whole and the part. Other examples are ‘The Man’ for the authorities and ‘asshole’ when you really mean the entire vice-president. When the phrase ‘We the People’ was originally minted, it had a specific meaning: we, the people in America that have just declared independence from you, the British empire. Can anybody honestly say there’s been a ‘we’ here since the Civil War? Or before then, seeing as the Civil War was a direct consequence of there not being a cohesive ‘we’ in the first place? These days I’m seeing citizens wrung-handedly referring to themselves as We the People, but I get the feeling they only really mean Me, the Utterly Isolated American.

I only bring this up because an awful lot of us are feeling very, very sorry for ourselves now that our entire experience has become a mountain of festering monkey excrement, and we’re pinning it on our fellow Americans (‘My Fellow Americans’ is another nonsense phrase), probably because it’s easier than admitting the real problem is ourselves. Before George W. Bush came along, did you (I say ‘you’, but I mean ‘me’ of course) do anything (I mean ‘I’, incidentally, not ‘me’, sorry) to promote the freedoms of speech, assembly, or privacy we are now losing? Did you do anything to improve the human rights situation for homosexuals or to ensure persons of color could drive a new automobile through Alabama without intervention by the police? Nor I. I just coasted along on residual Americanism, same as you, same as all of us. Rise up and march every 20 years or so, sign a petition, and vote twice a decade, citizenship accomplished!

I’m not saying ‘We, the People’ doesn’t still have some application in American society or discourse. Sure it does. Why not. If one (meaning ‘me’, or rather, ‘I’) were pressed to define the entity to which ‘We the People’ refers, I (one) would probably say something like “‘We, the People’ refers to the major polities to which elected representatives are answerable and in the hands of which rest the course of affairs, domestic and international, enacted through the representative proxies responding to the collective will of same”. This is why I’m such a hit at social gatherings. In other words, there is a People we call (by way of synecdoche) ‘We’, but it really only includes people that vote, and only those whose candidates subsequently take office. And that’s if we pretend the elected representatives give a flying fuck about what their non-lobbyist constituents think, which they do not. So ‘We the People’ only really means you and me as individuals, because those whose will is being done are most decidedly ‘them’, not ‘we’. It was probably this way by 1800, and it has certainly been this way for the better part of 150 years.

Maybe the way to look at ‘We, the People is as a sort of gnarled tree: at the trunk, in 1776, it’s everybody. By the time the Civil War comes to a boil, it’s split into five or six branches. The South, the North, the Abolitionists, the Slaves, the Beavers (the role of the Beaver in that conflict goes woefully unreported) and so on. The limbs branch off and of and off and now there are almost as many individual twigs as there are Americans, every American a trembling leaf pointing into space in a slightly different direction, each with its own unique perspective on what those lumberjacks are doing down below there. This is particularly true on the Left of the political spectrum, where each of us little leaves is acutely aware of what is happening to all the other little leaves, and deeply sympathetic, but in no position to do anything about it except maybe fall off the twig. And should this occur, We the People don’t give a damn. Knock yourself out if you’re going to go around being all sensitive to the plight of the tree. To put it another way, one (I) is (am) lief to say each leaf left Left, left to leave, has leave to leave at least. But I’ve given up that sort of childish word play and turned over a new page. Anyway, who are the lumberjacks? The Man. Big Money. The White House. Name a synecdoche, it’s probably swinging an axe. Maybe they are ‘We the People’ now. They have a better claim to the first person subjective plural than any of the rest of us gripers, these days.

So don’t please refer to ‘We the People’, whether you’re trying to be ironic, defiant, or just want to remind the rest of us we have let you down personally, unless you can identify a group of people to which you belong that is large enough to have warranted mention in the Declaration of Independence. The original people to which it refers are long dead, of course, as are most of their ideals, so probably you do not belong to any such group. If you must still cling to the far-too-abstract notion that ‘We the People’ refers to all Americans, I honor your commitment to the phantasms dreamed up by Founding Fathers’ publicity department. May Santa Claus shit in your stocking this year. Benjamin Franklin said, “We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” This is of course antanaclasis, which is a kind of trope– and also a sylleptic zeugma. And it’s no longer true. While We, the People have been bitching and moaning about what has happened to us, The Man has figured out how to hang all of us at the same time.

BEN TRIPP, author of Square in the Nuts, is a hack in many mediums. He may be reached at credel@earthlink.net.

Creative commons copyright 2007 by BEN TRIPP

 

 

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

Weekend Edition
August 26, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Paul Buhle
In the Shadow of the CIA: Liberalism’s Big Embarrassing Moment
Andrew Levine
How Donald Trump Can Still be a Hero: Force the Guardians of the Duopoly to Open Up the Debates
Rob Urie
Crisis and Opportunity
Louisa Willcox
The Unbearable Killing of Yellowstone’s Grizzlies: 2015 Shatters Records for Bear Deaths
Charles Pierson
Wedding Crashers Who Kill
Richard Moser
What is the Inside/Outside Strategy?
Dirk Bezemer – Michael Hudson
Finance is Not the Economy
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Bernie’s Used Cars
Margaret Kimberley
Hillary and Colin: the War Criminal Charade
Patrick Cockburn
Turkey’s Foray into Syria: a Gamble in a Very Dangerous Game
Ishmael Reed
Birther Tries to Flim Flam Blacks  
Brian Terrell
What Makes a Hate Group?
Howard Lisnoff
Trouble in Political Paradise
Terry Tempest Williams
Will Our National Parks Survive the Next 100 Years?
Ben Debney
The Swimsuit that Overthrew the State
Ashley Smith
Anti-imperialism and the Syrian Revolution
Andrew Stewart
Did Gore Throw the 2000 Election?
Vincent Navarro
Is the Nation State and Its Welfare State Dead? a Critique of Varoufakis
John Wight
Syria’s Kurds and the Wages of Treachery
Lawrence Davidson
The New Anti-Semitism: the Case of Joy Karega
Mateo Pimentel
The Affordable Care Act: A Litmus Test for American Capitalism?
Roger Annis
In Northern Syria, Turkey Opens New Front in its War Against the Kurds
David Swanson
ABC Shifts Blame from US Wars to Doctors Without Borders
Norman Pollack
American Exceptionalism: A Pernicious Doctrine
Ralph Nader
Readers Think, Thinkers Read
Julia Morris
The Mythologies of the Nauruan Refugee Nation
George Wuerthner
Caving to Ranchers: the Misguided Decision to Kill the Profanity Wolf Pack
Ann Garrison
Unworthy Victims: Houthis and Hutus
Julian Vigo
Britain’s Slavery Legacy
John Stanton
Brzezinski Vision for a Power Sharing World Stymied by Ignorant Americans Leaders, Citizens
Philip Doe
Colorado: 300 Days of Sunshine Annually, Yet There’s No Sunny Side of the Street
Joseph White
Homage to EP Thompson
Dan Bacher
The Big Corporate Money Behind Jerry Brown
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
DNC Playing Dirty Tricks on WikiLeaks
Ron Jacobs
Education for Liberation
Jim Smith
Socialism Revived: In Spite of Bernie, Donald and Hillary
David Macaray
Organized Labor’s Inferiority Complex
David Cortright
Alternatives to Military Intervention in Syria
Binoy Kampmark
The Terrors of Free Speech: Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act
Cesar Chelala
Guantánamo’s Quagmire
Nyla Ali Khan
Hoping Against Hope in Kashmir
William Hughes
From Sam Spade to the Red Scare: Dashiell Hammett’s War Against Rightwing Creeps
Raouf Halaby
Dear Barack Obama, Please Keep it at 3 for 3
Charles R. Larson
Review: Paulina Chiziane’s “The First Wife: a Tale of Polygamy”
David Yearsley
The Widow Bach: Anna Magdalena Rediscovered
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail