The United States is in serious need of a conversation about its past. As Edmund Burke reminds us, society is not a static unit, with each generation bearing no more a relation to the ones before and after it than do flies to one another amid a swarm. Society is, as it ever was, a connection between the dead, the living and the unborn.

In such a spirit, our thinking should capture that link between the current, the past and the future. In probing the past, we discern those lessons only revealed over time and import their wisdom to our current day. In considering the present we take measure of ourselves, our reliance upon the experience of the ages and the legacy we craft for those who come after us. And in looking to the future, we decide how to conserve that which fosters human flourishing, and how to discard that which has forced us to stray from our ordained path.

Our national conversation does not lack in discussion of the present. Sure, at times, the citizenry may focus on the wrong parts of the present; we may even confuse the present with the past or future. Nevertheless, our focus remains heavily on the present – its problems, its contradictions, its potential. Nor does our national conversation lack discussion of the future. Of course, a hopeful view toward the future has been essential to the American character since its conception. But never before have we focused so intensely on what the United States can be over what the United States has been. The age of President Obama has triggered an obsession with the future – an obsession with what can be rather than what is or what has been.

Where our national conversation falters – where our dialogue becomes vacuous – is in its rejection of the past. Of course, from time to time, American history, indeed world history, is called upon, then distorted, to suit some political or social objective. But this intensifies our conversation’s bankruptcy rather than assuaging it. What this country needs is a healthy and vigorous return to discussion of its past. For in the past we find the wisdom of the ages, a murky but bold compass pointing us toward the future. The United States is nothing more than its past, and therefore our steps forward should follow faithfully that beaten path that has brought us to where we now stand. The value of this renewed sense for the past and its wisdom would require more space than afforded here. But the following may be a start:

For one, we must recover our respect for the Constitution – as it was written and as it was intended by our Founding Fathers. The myth of a “living Constitution” is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt at completely disregarding the history and meaning of the Constitution, such that political entrepreneurs may make it into whatever they choose. The Constitution is the clearest embodiment of our rich political tradition, representing as it does the collected reason of generation after generation, even preceding the American founding itself. And we must simply ignore those arguments that render it sterile because it was constructed by “rich, old, white men.” Our founders rank in the annals of history as the most extraordinary group of patriots ever committed to the making of a nation. In respecting the past, we must also respect the product of its most brilliant minds. We must allow the Constitution to dictate to us – rather than us to the Constitution – how government is best ordered and liberties best protected.

Additionally, we must reject the fickle national consensus that demands that globalization is the wave of the future. After all, it is the casual and uncritical acceptance of globalization that has forced us to forget how much we rely on that which is local and that which is personal. It has forced us to stop thinking locally – where our efforts may, in fact, make an imprint – and start thinking globally, where our efforts are at best feckless, at worst dangerous. Turning once again to history, we find great individuals whose efforts on a local level have proven far more meaningful than those who have failed in attempts at global revolution. And we see how dangerous those attempts at global change have been, and how difficult they are once revolutionaries have realized that the world is not as monolithic as the globalization myth holds.

Again, there are far more examples to cover. The salient point, however, is that we must return to an appreciation of and respect for the past. Of course, the counterargument here is obvious. An uncurious mind may take the argument above as an endorsement of stagnation and backwardness. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is with respect for the past, not refusal of its wisdom, that we best judge the present. It is with appreciation of the past, not impertinence toward it, that we best move forward.

When President Lincoln stood on a cold morning at Gettysburg, and solemnly delivered the most consequential speech of the century, he spoke of a future won with the blood of America’s sons. But he shrouded that future in the country’s past; he offered a vision of the future that continued upon the path laid down by our Founding Fathers. And he reminded his countrymen, above all else, that the United States’ potential and possibilities flowed from its history and heritage. We would do well to look back to Lincoln, as he looked back to those before him.

Jeffrey Long is a junior in the College. He can be reached at longthehoya.com. Conscience of a Conservative appears every other Tuesday.

*To send a letter to the editor on a recent campus issue or Hoya story or a viewpoint on any topic, contact [opinionthehoya.com](opinionthehoya.com). Letters should not exceed 300 words, and viewpoints should be between 600 to 800 words.*

“