Ideas Vs. Material Conditions: How One Argument Reframed The American Founding

Following is an intense dialogue about whether America’s greatness came from its principles or its conditions:

Jesse:

I will simplify matters for you by just saying that we should stick with the genius of our founding fathers. Only a fool would believe that he could honestly conceive of a system better than what they themselves devised. The American Constitution is not perfect, but the least problematic model of government that we have in a fallen world.

Critic:

Look I’m not saying it’s bad, or that I could do better. My research will be to better understand and perhaps find things that could be implemented into the American system. I do think the American system has not been as good as we might think, especially looking at it now, (hey it did last 250 years which is an accomplishment). I also think it was somewhat reliant on the general lack of poverty in the US (Hannah Arendt makes this point), which generally stunted any potential revolutions, as we as a America being isolated from serious external threats after 1812. My point being, the success of the American system has some to do with the constitution, but plenty to do with external factors. Also the current form of government bears no resemblance to the constitution and hasn’t had for a long time.

Jesse:

The Constitution was not by any means the only factor that helped America later to become a force to be reckoned with, but ideas more than anything else resulted in its uniqueness. The Constitution's ideas still matter. Our system’s success is tied inexorably to them. Countries inevitably evolve, whether for better or worse. More than anything else, the Bill of Rights are what really made America so great. Take that document out of the equation, and we would be much like the rest of the world. Even Europeans often conceive of rights as originating with the government rather than God himself. That distinction is not cosmetic; it’s foundational.

Critic:

It’s not bad but the glorification of it sounds a bit jingoistic. (Jingoism is not necessarily bad). America has never until perhaps recently had to deal with entrenched populations of severely impoverished people like other countries had. It has until recently had land or undeveloped fields for people to rise up economically.

I’m also unsure what exactly is so great about America (greater than other countries) other than its economy, and that is certainly no measure for moral standing. The constant criticism of America has been its individualness and lack of culture. Right now America is more religious than much of Europe, but that is also declining due to the acidic effects of materialism and liberalism. Conservatives are just progressives driving the speed limit.

Don’t get it twisted, America is pretty great, but I don’t think it’s completely because of the irreplaceability of the Constitution (I think rather limited government democracy contributed to growth at periods. We just need to look at the American experiment with a more critical eye.

Jesse:

I have articulated the view that many Americans used to have toward their own country. We are definitely not as patriotic as we used to be, which is not a healthy sign, and is not so for any nation if it really wishes to thrive. The ideas that a nation is built upon are vastly more important than whether every citizen therein is independently wealthy. 

There are literally all sorts of jobs at the local level for able-bodied people to accept. Doing something is more likely than not to get you somewhere better, even if that place is still less than ideal in one own estimation. It has not always been the case that one could in a sense be the decider of his own destiny. That goes to show just how much ideas shaped America into a bastion of freedom. They were certainly not of secondary but primary importance.

Just the fact alone that you can criticize your own country without fear of legal consequences shows that America is much better compared to the rest of the world. People come here in droves every year just to get away from their own countries. It is ridiculous to say that you are not sure what is so great about being American, as you just proved that it is by making a not so complimentary statement about it. People in many other countries may get jailed if they dare say anything critical about where they live. This is only one proof out of many proofs.

Everyone is capable of making criticisms of just about anything under the sun. "Good tastes about culture" is generally a subjective concept. I have long ago learned not to care what others think or to base my views solely off what others say.

Critic:

I was trying to be polite with the term jingoistic. In some cases it’s fine, but in a more intellectual conversation like this, the unqualified glorification comes off as jingoistic, or in more blunt terms, ignorant.

I believe economics has greatly contributed to the success of America, you may not see what it has to do with the discussion at hand, but the lack of impoverished class has greatly aided in the American success, and so the success of the constitution. Put the constitution in any European country with set class distinctions and a truly impoverished and vagrant set of have nots, it wouldn’t have succeeded. It’s much easier to talk about and respect rights when everyone is fairly well to do or has the ability to do so. This leads to your point you made. America generally has had an environment where a working man can succeed. Go to another country where historically, that wasn’t the case. You think a large amount of people whose children get the black lung because they have to work as chimney sweepers would feel that the constitution protects their rights?

Your point of the economic strength and its attraction for other countries adds to my point. Put the constitution in Mexico, it wouldn’t have worked.

Certainly there are other things that America does well at, like freedom, but freedom isn’t a final good. We equally or more so choose freely to use our American freedoms to sin. (Also the freedom to criticize one’s government is not relegated to the United States, and has not always been respected by the United States, sedition laws, United States vs Cruikshank, the Red Scare).

“I have long ago learned not to care what others think or to base my views merely off what others say.” This is a position that leads to ignorance. We should be able to take and ponder others criticisms. I fear this attitude may be leading your responses. A desire to win the argument instead of actually discuss. “The wise man loves chastisement.”

The “completely” vs “foundationally” is pretty semantic to me. I could say the economic situation of America was foundational to its success, but it couldn’t have done it all without the guidance of the constitution or vice versa. The point being, the constitution wouldn’t have succeeded without the fertile American soil. And Frankly the government is nothing like its framers intended it to be partly because of economic turmoil. Simply look at any crisis and the vast expanse of power. Perhaps the constitution has been successful because of its ability to be ignored slightly or “reinterpreted” gradually which I think would defeat the point.

Jesse:

I never said that America was a perfect nation. That is logically impossible, since every nation on this planet is composed of imperfect human beings. Consequently, any charge of jingoism on my part is simply and patiently false.

Your argument relies on sweeping historical assumptions presented as if they were established fact. The claim that the Constitution only succeeded because early America lacked an impoverished class is simply untrue. The early Republic had indentured laborers, enslaved people, and a working poor who lived in conditions far harsher than anything you describe in Europe. Yet the constitutional framework still endured. That alone undermines your premise.

Theoretically speaking, a nation can have all the resources at its disposal to become a superpower or be located at a most convenient spot that benefits it immensely in many ways, yet still be an utterly miserable place to live or be one with routine violations of fundamental human rights.

Your insistence that the Constitution would have failed in Europe or Mexico is speculation, not analysis. You state these hypotheticals with absolute confidence, but confidence is not evidence. One cannot go on to demonstrate things that never happened in the first place.

The distinction between “foundational” and “complete” is not semantic. Necessary conditions are not the same as sufficient ones, and collapsing that difference obscures more than it clarifies.

Finally, calling me ignorant or uninterested in criticism contributes nothing to the argument. It is rhetorical padding, not analysis, and it distracts from the substantive points under discussion.

Critic:

Look if you want to have more in depth arguments, you can read books like On Revolution by Hannah Arendt or other historical books on America.

Indentured servants were promised a pretty good life after servitude, and slaves literally didn’t have rights and could actually be argued to be another factor in America’s success. Those without right were subjugated and used to help the people with actual power. The difference between an impoverished European class is they were still supposedly “French men” or “Englishmen,” and made up a huge percentage of the population. Slaves were not citizens and did not make up even a quarter of the population. So no neither of these undermine and one actually probably supports it.

We can’t be certain of hypotheticals but we can see the chaos of Europe and the current poverty of the Latin Americas and trace back reasons. We can’t see that France, has had 5 republics and so much turmoil due to its lower classes. Sure I can’t be certain, but I can be fairly confident and more confident in this than the contrary.

Jesse:

You called my position “ignorant,” you diagnosed my motives instead of addressing what I actually said, and you shifted your claims once they were challenged. That is not serious discussion, but condescension wrapped in confidence.

You began by insisting early America lacked an impoverished class. When that was shown false, you changed the criteria to “they don’t count because they weren’t citizens.” That is moving the goalposts, not strengthening an argument. And your hypotheticals about Europe and Latin America remain speculation, no matter how certain you feel about them.

Critic:

Dude I said one of your statements came off as ignorant in an intellectual conversation (unqualifed praise for the constitution), which it is. The constitution isn’t Scripture. I want us to be a bit more critical. Like unqualified praise is something I would hear Ben Shapiro or some Republican normie say, I think you’re smarter than that.

I wasn’t moving the goalposts I was actually fitting in potentially contrary evidence to the view. It was my fault for not explaining away the slaves before you could try to point them out, because when I mentioned an impoverished class, I did think about slaves, but they are fundamentally different than what existed in Europe and don’t help your argument, as I explained. Calling it moving the goal posts doesn’t defeat the argument, that should be why we have a conversation. We have evidence, if we are given counter evidence we explain it or give up the position, or at least relax the point. That’s what I did.

“And your hypotheticals about Europe and Latin America remain speculation no matter how certain you feel about them.”

I suppose this will be a point we will need to agree to disagree with. I find socio economic history and the history of revolution quite convincing. You find saying it is speculation enough to wave it away. Agree to disagree.

Jesse:

You did not describe something as “coming off” a certain way. You flatly called my position ignorant and then tried to soften it afterward. That is not intellectual critique, but condescension.

Your argument also changed as soon as the original claim did not hold. You began by saying early America lacked an impoverished class. When that was shown to be untrue, you shifted to redefining who counts. That is moving the goalposts, whether you intended it or not. And your confidence in your hypotheticals does not turn them into evidence.

Critic:

I first tried to use the word jingoistic, but it wasn’t clear enough. My whole point in that ongoing exchange was to say you were being uncritical of the constitution. And dude you need to take the log out of your own eye before you start calling people condescending. Youre probably going then call me condescending in this criticism. I’m not trying to be, I’m merely trying to point out the double standard.
I’m just pointing out how you converse. The way you are reacting right now somewhat vidicates it. It doesn’t need to be a huge argument.

Look if you want to get stuck on “changing goalposts” to not approach my argument go ahead. America didn’t have an underlying impoverished class LIKE the rest of the world. Fine, it did have an impoverished class, slaves. Point conceded. Anyway let’s move on. Because it didn’t have an underclass like in Europe or else where and frankly the majority of people were fairly well off, it didn’t need to worry about social upheaval coming from the majority at the bottom that had every reason to think they should have rights too. It only had to worry about a minority that were not given rights per the constitution that were never sizeable enough to pose a threat in and of themselves. We can talk about the civil war which put the strain on the Constitution and can be more explained by the person of Abraham Lincoln then the constitution he did much in his power to shirk, but that would extend this argument. Generally all were well off compared to European counterparts who were overturning their constitutions. If I can adjust my point you may call that “changing goalposts” or whatever, I call that reasoning in light of new evidence.

“ And your confidence in your hypotheticals doesn’t turn them into evidence. Calling it “agree to disagree” doesn’t resolve that gap.”

It will have to be agree to disagree because no matter how I show you the failures of other systems of enlightened countries like France or England or Germany or non European countries, you can just say it’s a hypothetical. Let me ask you, do you think the American constitution would have worked in France in 1787 right before the Revolution? I don’t think so and I think it would be partly to do with economics. Saying this is just a hypothetical is unintellectual.

Jesse:

That is not acceptable. You insist that you were making an “intellectual” point, but you did not simply say something sounded uncritical. You assigned me a position that I never took and then lectured me about it. I never offered unqualified praise for the Constitution, yet you made that claim so you can correct it. That is not clarity, but misrepresentation.

You are also continuing to revise your original argument. You did not say that America lacked an impoverished class like Europe’s. You said that it did not have one at all. When that did not hold, you redefined the terms. Calling that “reasoning in light of new evidence” does not change that it is moving the goalposts. And labeling disagreement with your counterfactuals as “unintellectual” does not turn speculation into evidence. You do not get to reframe your own shifts as if they are my misunderstanding and position yourself as the arbiter of what counts as critical or intellectual.

The failure to construct a formal European Constitution was largely due to the lack of a shared European demos, which is a unified populace with a shared culture and history. And if we are talking about individual European nations, many of them did develop stable constitutional orders despite rigid class systems (e.g. the UK, the Netherlands, Sweden). Mexico actually modeled its Constitution of 1824 heavily on the U.S. framework, establishing a federal republic.

Critic:

Yes you’re right, I revised my original argument. Now you can engage in it or just keep complaining about goal posts. I should have explained the slaves right away to preempt you now avoiding the argument.

Jesse:

As for your new argument: you are now saying that the Constitution only worked because America lacked a European‑style underclass, and that slaves “don’t count” because they were not the same kind of impoverished group. But that is not a coherent distinction. It is a way of excluding the most obvious counterexample so the thesis can survive. If your claim requires redefining who counts as impoverished until the evidence fits, that is not analysis. It is insulation. And the idea that the Constitution’s durability can be reduced to a single economic variable while dismissing the largest oppressed population in the country is not a serious causal explanation, but a a selective one.

And again: you did not originally say that America lacked an impoverished class like Europe’s. You said it did not have one at all. When that did not hold, you rewrote the premise and now call that “engaging with evidence.” That is exactly what moving the goalposts looks like. Claiming I am “avoiding the argument” because I will not accept your revised version does not make the revision more accurate.

Critic:

Black American Slavery is not a European style underclass. That is literally a factual distinction. I didn’t mention this originally because I recognized the difference, although I regret it since you are trying to leverage this point to force some sort of rhetorical victory instead of moving past it to look at the substance and underlying point of the economic situation of America that allowed it to succeed.

Anyway it’s not just about only an underclass per se. America hasn’t had to deal with the amounts of poverty that other places had to deal with. It doesn’t have vast swathes of citizens who are procuring black lung and starving to death. It didn’t have a type of underclass like elsewhere because it had vast expanses of territory and developing industry and many types of industries for people to leverage. As you pointed out, people can generally seize opportunities.

It had slaves, if I have to explain the difference, allow me. Slaves weren’t seen as people, but property. They didn’t have rights, so the constitution didn’t actually need to deal with their plight. They weren’t a majority. They weren’t living in the urban environments of Europe that harbored so many revolutions and discontent.

Jesse:

Slavery in the United States was not some separate category outside a class system. It was the bottom of that system, enforced through law rather than economics. Calling enslaved people “property” does not change the functional reality that they formed a permanently subordinated labor group. And the idea that America avoided the harsh conditions seen in Europe overlooks the fact that its most severe exploitation happened in rural plantations rather than crowded industrial cities. The country’s later economic flexibility, land availability, rapid expansion, and industrial growth, was built on the wealth and stability that slavery and territorial acquisition created. So the distinction between slavery and an underclass is technical, not structural. Slavery was simply a more rigid and coercive version of the same economic role.

Here is something even more devastating to your claim: Even most of the free colonists were dirt poor themselves. As John Putnam Demos shows in A Little Commonwealth, Plymouth households typically owned only a handful of basic tools, many of them worn‑out, improvised, or barely functional. Living conditions were cramped, resources were scarce, and most families operated at a subsistence level. This directly contradicts the idea that early America lacked a struggling lower stratum. The colonies were built on layers of hardship, with poor free settlers just above an even more constrained enslaved labor caste.