by Jon Burnett
It�s really amazing actually, in every single case the same basic pattern was followed: the property was acquired, the historical original was consulted, the problems were noted, and then changes were made to restore the building to the distinction that existed in the buildings� original state, its true majesty. I wonder if there aren�t a few correlations here that run deeper though than merely restoring an old house. I feel it safe to say that most of us see that the above noted steps seem obvious to bring old establishments back to life, so to speak.
Unfortunately when we get to politics, our rules change. We seem most often to treat ideas different than property, more abstract rather than absolute, and therefore we stress tolerance, since being right then is subjected to the higher ideal of not being offensive.* None of us would say this world is perfect, but how many of us would ever look to history to answer these problems? Very few. Which is why we have such a widening gap in our nation. Not because we don�t often agree what�s wrong, but because we often disagree about how to make it right.
This problem is rooted in our use of varying standards. In politics some look to our founding documents such as the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence for their authority. Others look to Supreme Court rulings, statutory law, and even contemporary science, public opinion, and philosophy. The recognition of different things as the authoritative voice for decision-making is the single most divisive issue in our country. Talk about starting off on the wrong foot, we can�t even decide what the right foot is!
Some say there is no standard. Now few people would tell a doctor to operate without any training. Or tell a contractor he really didn�t need the measuring tape or blue print. But we seem to tell these things to our government and expect them to run with it successfully. Do we not see the need for some master plan, some blue print or how-to book that we can go to and learn how to do it? Most would agree we need one, but don�t admit we have one.
The fact of the matter is that there is a standard, and it is not today�s society. Consider this: do you have something you want to change in the world today? Most would say yes. Do we ask contemporary society how to solve this problem? Well we could, but we�d only be asking the problem how to solve itself. You see, the problem cannot be part of the solution, talk about a biased opinion! And the future is too unpredictable for any of us to base any sound reform on, so our solutions therefore can be found only in the past. This is not to say that we merely repeat history to get the best results. But on the other hand, we cannot learn from the mistakes we have not yet made. We can though look into history to learn from its accomplishments and also see how we can avoid its mistakes.
To do this, we have to start at the very beginning. Common sense tells us that a tree cannot grow without roots, and yet we often treat our government as if it has no history or heritage that really matters. We all understand that a five-story building relies on its bottom floor for support and the stability to build upon. The third story can�t tell the first story to take a hike or else the building would collapse! So can government merely neglect its roots and consult the latest craze to bring in some fresh ideas? Of course not! Now I admit, this is not as clear as I make it out to be, but can we disagree with logic? Just remember that solutions are usually simple, though not often easy to accept or execute. Our government has problems, surely, but the problems we need to address are those that have withdrawn from our nation�s foundation, not that seek to preserve it. ...