Modern Interpretations of Equality: A Philosophical Divide Traced from America's Founding to Contemporary Debates

Christian Heiens, a prominent conservative commentator, has ignited a robust discussion regarding the evolving interpretation of equality in American political thought, suggesting that the Founders' philosophical underpinnings may have inadvertently set a "time-bomb" that has fueled progressive ideologies since the 1960s. His recent tweet challenges the contemporary application of the Declaration of Independence's assertion that "all men are created equal," arguing that its universalist implications have been stretched far beyond the original intent.

The Declaration of Independence, a foundational document of the United States, famously declares that "all men are created equal." Historically, this phrase was understood by the American Founders primarily as a collective right to self-governance, asserting the colonies' equal standing among nations. It was a statement of political independence, not necessarily a blueprint for comprehensive individual equality across all societal dimensions. However, over time, this interpretation expanded significantly.

Movements such as the abolitionist cause and the Civil Rights Movement notably leveraged the Declaration's language to advocate for individual human rights and broader social equality. Abraham Lincoln, for instance, championed the Declaration as a moral standard for the nation, believing it contemplated "the progressive improvement in the condition of all men everywhere." This shift laid the groundwork for modern interpretations that extend the concept of equality to various social and economic spheres.

Heiens contends that this evolving understanding has led to what he terms "Leftist stuff," including policies related to "open borders" and "men in women’s bathrooms." He states, > "You can argue all day long that they never intended for their conception of equality to justify any of the Leftist stuff that has unfolded since the 60s. And I would agree with you. But the concept of moral equality and accountability before God existed LONG before either the Enlightenment or Liberalism." He further suggests that classical liberals lack a coherent response to this perceived trajectory, arguing that "Progressivism is the antithesis of Classical Liberalism rather than its fulfillment."

The distinction between classical liberalism and modern liberalism is central to this debate. Classical liberalism, rooted in Enlightenment thought, emphasizes individual liberty, limited government, and free-market economics. In contrast, modern liberalism, which gained prominence in the 20th century, advocates for a more active government role in ensuring civil rights, social justice, and economic equality. This divergence often leads to differing views on the scope of government intervention and individual versus collective rights.

Heiens's commentary highlights a philosophical tension where the broad, aspirational language of the Founders' era is seen by some as having been reinterpreted to justify policies far removed from the original context. This perspective resonates with concerns among some conservatives that the pursuit of certain forms of equality has inadvertently led to societal fragmentation and a departure from traditional American values. The ongoing discourse underscores the deep ideological divides shaping contemporary American political thought.