The founders?

By: Luis Beltrán Guerra G. - 07/04/2025

The United States was, is, and will continue to be viewed with admiration and respect. To this day, the revolution launched in the 18th century continues to justify the continued domination of its "colonies" by the "Vast British Empire," which controlled a quarter of the world's territory and a similar percentage of the planet's population. It is rightly described as "the longest-lived empire to this day."

The feat is praised for having achieved the goal of "The Founders" and for having been a single "revolution" and not one every month, as, for example, in Latin America, where people yearn for it not to continue, but rather to end. Venezuelan Ángel Bernardo Viso makes this point seriously in his book "Las Revoluciones Terribles." And not only the distinguished law professor, but other analysts also affirm this.

The Founding Fathers—Abigail Adams, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington—must dwell proud of the significant task they accomplished. From afar, they look back at their work and joyfully declare, "We did it." Of course, there, amid the uncertainty to which death leads us, they never tire of praying that the United States will not decay. And they have been doing so for a little less than 249 years. The American people, to date, number 346,814,368 inhabitants, those counted by the "ius sanguinis" as the sun. In the face of the ratio of "the founders" and "the heroic task," the world has never ceased to admire the feat, inquiring about the reasons. For most, as it is written, they would go through “the insurmountable differences between Great Britain and the 13 colonies, Virginia, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Georgia, identified by then as English “settlements.”

It should be noted that not so simultaneously, but within the historical context, quite close to each other, the French were also enthusiastic about a revolution considered "the sociopolitical event that marked the beginning of the contemporary era in Europe." It is pertinent to ask whether the conditions were similar to those of "the American Revolution," since the former is a consequence of the lack of individual freedoms, extreme poverty, and inequality during the reign of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. But the clergy and aristocracy also ruled despotically and without limits. The King made arbitrary decisions, created new taxes, disposed of his subjects' property, and had the power to declare war and sign peace. It was an event that shocked the entire world, and its postulates would spread to every corner of the planet, likely sparking imitations. It's worth remembering that the monarch was guillotined on January 21, 1793, and the Queen nine months later, both in the Place de la Révolution, an emblematic place for an "efficient decapitation" in the style of the time, but which was somewhat mitigated when the traditional axe was replaced by a "blade." Cutting the throat was faster and caused less bloodshed. Incidentally, death by torch led Deputy Joseph Guillotin, of the "Revolutionary Constituent Assembly," to propose "the guillotine method" (to cut, section, behead). The justification? "to avoid fruitless suffering for the condemned." The word "guillotine" was derived from the surname Guillotin. The Deputy, therefore, resorting to irony, was awarded the prize.

This essay, in light of the considerations presented above, cannot ignore the contrast between the two revolutions, decisive for the United States and France, and those that occurred in different parts of the world, including Latin America. The considerations regarding Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Uruguay, and Paraguay reveal results that are not entirely satisfactory. On the contrary, they are problematic and reveal chaos, despite the fact that we have adopted methodologies formally similar to those countries. The history of the latter is permeated by "protest movements," a challenge to what people believe they deserve. The analyses in a few numbers, including, as an example, "Democratic governance, effective governance and inequality in Latin America," which states that "for more than two decades of democratic governments in the region, inequalities persist in most countries. The urgency for public policies that generate positive changes for people has led to a growing loss of confidence in democracy, which, combined with progressive polarization, is driving a tendency toward authoritarian governments. 54% of citizens would tolerate an authoritarian regime if it resolved their emergencies. This context has led to the following questions: 1. How much inequality can a democracy tolerate? And 2. Will the latter be in its final phase of being outlawed? Both questions are, without a doubt, logical.

The readings present alternatives, helping us to ask ourselves why we dwell in this uncertainty. We read that at the very essence of "politics" lies the struggle to master force, control it, draw its limits, moderate confrontations, and reduce violence to its minimum expression, since it belongs to the very essence of war (Aníbal Romero, Simón Bolívar, Caracas, 1999). It seems, therefore, legitimate to ask whether in Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia, the "scholar" Venezuelan left "war" planted in our minds as the decisive option for peace and progress. The answer is offered by the aforementioned scholar: 1. The liberator explicitly differentiated the nature of war from politics; 2. He analyzed the peculiarities of the latter as a political phenomenon, without discarding its instrumental potential; and 3. He perceived the special circumstances of the early emancipation, as well as the destructive tendencies in the material and political spheres, striving to control and regulate them. Bolívar maintained an appropriate coherence in his purpose of channeling the inevitable war violence within the context of a political project, in accordance with his vision of the mission of a statesman. Did the Liberator leave us with the anarchy that typifies us? A pertinent question. For the professor, "the War of Emancipation should not be a prelude to anarchy, but rather become a vehicle for expressing the nationalist aspirations of the various sectors that comprised society, their desire to live together, united, within a free nation." We consider it laudable that the war waged by Bolívar to free us from a monarchy would be fully justified, but not the internal one that could be described as a determining factor in our misfortunes. In principle, we believe that the professor, when referring to "politics" in Bolívar's strategy, was considering the "art and science of governing" that he would advance in "the postwar period," in which, unfortunately, we have been victims of our own "failures." Asking why this happened is still a subject of analysis and disturbance regarding the establishment of efficient democratic regimes. A serious analysis of the problems and unknowns is made by Manuel Caballero, Full Member of the National Academy of History: "On the basis of the combat For history and against the attempt to abolish it by a “patriotic catechism”, the author has gathered some of his most significant reflections on the subject, almost all of which remained unpublished or dispersed (“Against the abolition of history”, Editorial Alfa, Caracas, 2008).

Anxiety about the "why" has led, in the search for alleged causes, to appraisals concerning everything from "genetic makeup" (Bolivar of Flesh and Bone, a psychiatric analysis of the Liberator, by the Venezuelan Francisco Herrera Luque), to "conquering Spain" (Travelers of the Indies, by the same psychiatrist), and even the indigenous inhabitants of the colonial era. For more than one, this is a consequence of "the state of mind in which hope has vanished" of building prosperous countries, which leads to the threat that more than one, exhausted by the wait, might not care if democracy collapses. A continent of "a proliferation of constitutional texts," which are not observed, but continue to be sold as panaceas, so their number and page count sound like imaginary prayers. Everything has been proposed, among them the so-called "minimal state," a title that is nothing if not presumptuous. Daniel Innerarity, a professor at the Sorbonne, expresses his complaint: “The current political landscape has been filled with a widespread disappointment that no longer refers to something concrete but to a general situation. And we already know that when discontent becomes diffuse, it provokes perplexity. We are irritated by a state of affairs that cannot command our approval, but even more so by not knowing how to identify this discontent, whom to blame for it, and who to entrust with changing the situation” (Politics for the Perplexed, 2018). If this is the state of humanity, it would seem that the expectations of “developing continents” are at the mercy of “divinity.”

This essayist-in-training, who is nonetheless partly disillusioned, in the process of writing this article came across the now-old book “The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success” by Deepak Chopra, believing that in the face of so much speculation it might not be a bad idea to review the aforementioned 7 laws: 1. Law of Pure Potential, 2. Law of Generosity, 3. Law of Karma, 4. Law of Minimal Effort, 5. Law of Intention and Desire, 6. Law of Detachment, and 7. Law of “Dharma” or purpose in life. We would add that the author is quite helpful, as he explains the methodology for applying the 7 precepts (He mentions: “Applying the Law of Karma or Cause and Effect”).

This attitude is much more favorable than that of Juan Rivas, the main character in our book "El Repitiente" (Cyngular, Caracas, 2015), who, faced with the acute pessimism he experiences in the face of "the disaster," chooses not to celebrate any more years. Instead, he remains static in 1992, convinced that the following years will be the same or perhaps worse. Martinez also decided not to waste time looking for "Founders" in the designated territories, because he was convinced "there are none."

The reader has the floor.

Comments welcome.

LuisBGuerra

Ideas at the end

Until characters | protagonists of written texts end up frustrated, which leads them to seek a better future in development. Migrants in the US and Europe… Juan Rivas the repeater also Politics for the Perplexed, Deepak Chopra. The Seven, The Tragedy of Generalism, Bolivar of Flesh and Bone

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».