DAVIS: Jefferson’s Declaration: Good spin plus high principles

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

But it would be interesting and provocative to analyze the Declaration of Independence from the perspective of a political communications strategist.

The communications challenge that Jefferson faced was daunting. Put simply, he had to persuade the American public and, especially, the leaders of European nations (besides, of course, Great Britain) that, under some circumstances, it was OK to commit treason. That is, after all, just what Jefferson and other prospective signers of the Declaration were about to do.

The two strategies Jefferson used to shape public opinion - “out of a decent respect to the opinions of mankind” - are quite familiar to today’s campaign consultants. First, mount negative attacks demonizing the opposition, picking the easiest target as the scapegoat. Second, obscure the worst negative issue - the so-called big elephant in the room - with a positive and inspirational message that diverts attention.

As to going negative, Jefferson’s obvious choice was to attack King George III personally. Not exactly surprising. The king was a pompous, arrogant and stubborn man. He became a hated symbol of all that angered American colonists in the 1760s and early 1770s. In the Declaration, Jefferson referred to King George not by name but as a king who was an “absolute despot” exercising “absolute tyranny.”

But wait, something is missing.

How could King George have “absolute power” if he could not wage war against the colonies without parliament funding it? And who was responsible for all the offensive legislation and taxes, specifically itemized in 10 of the 28 offenses listed in the Declaration to justify independence?

Who, ultimately, was responsible for what became the most important and galvanizing battle cry of the Revolution - “no taxation without representation”?

The answer, of course, is the parliament. Yet that word does not appear anywhere in the Declaration of Independence.

Ever since the Magna Carta in the year 1215, the principle of a sovereign whose absolute powers were checked by, first, a council of elders, and then a legislative body called parliament had emerged in England over the centuries. By the 17th and 18th centuries, the elected lower House of Commons had the exclusive power to tax and raise money. Jefferson and the rest of the Founders knew that and, thus, knew that describing the power of King George as “absolute” and, thus, blaming him personally for the right to revolution was nonsense.

So what is going on here?

Of course we know the answer. This was pure political spin. Scapegoat the king, obviously an easier target to demonize than the collective gentlemen of the House of Commons. There was also undoubtedly an intellectual and cultural affinity and similarities between Jefferson and the co-signers of the Declaration and the men of parliament. Both groups were men of property representing men of property, and with similar professional backgrounds (most were lawyers).

The second strategy was to obscure the “big negative” with soaring inspirational messages.

Jefferson began the Declaration by claiming that rebellion against government could be justified when government violated the “laws of nature and of God.” And then, like all great writers, he penned the memorable soaring closing punch line:

Story Continues →