The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence remain as canonical as ever, though Washington’s Farewell Address seems to have fallen by the wayside. Modern times offer more such texts, however, at the cost the public’s devotion to each one, and given the long term effects of canonical texts, this might be a good thing.
Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech qualifies, and several of JFK’s speeches like his inaugural address and the speech he delivered at Rice concerning the space program are canonical civil texts, though to a lesser degree than something like the Farewell Address. There are plenty more “iconic” texts from the past century, like FDR’s speech on fear, but these speeches do not influence American culture to anywhere near the degree that the texts of yore seemed to. They provide a few pithy quotes, a stir of patriotism, and a reminder of what a solid team of speechwriters can do. Civil texts still remain from past eras, such as the Gettysburg Address and the lyrics to the national anthem, but these too hold much less sway than documents from the late eighteenth century.
Most of my readings in school would not qualify as “popularizing texts.” History classes were the exception, since most curriculums are almost designed around popularizing the old civil texts. But I did not learn to read with Declaration of Independence or practice memorizing Martin Luther King’s speech. In fact, I do not think I have ever read the entire text of JFK’s “ask not what your country can do for you” speech, much less seen it republished in newspapers or distributed in pamphlets. Perhaps it stems from the timing of my generation. Other stresses and distractions keep people from paying too much attention to civics, and the past few presidents have offered little material that could be immortalized as the defining patriotic sentiment of the era. As such, much of the lessons in the classroom refer to the “good old days” when everyone apparently knew what they were doing.
In regards to that, Furstenberg delivered one of the most interesting points of the book in the epilogue, where he questions whether civic texts, though massively beneficial for a fractured country, are holding America back in the present day. The quotes from Jefferson about modifying the Constitution were new to me. Previously, I was in the camp that supported the Constitution as almost untouchable, created by visionaries in a time when politics were much clearer and cleaner than they are today. The author dismisses these notions however, as he points out the costs of deifying our forefathers with such civil texts; they unify the nation but tether it to outdated figures and ideologies. The admonition is that a country that is set against change will not survive in the world for long.
With that in mind, I feel conflicted about the lack of landmark civic texts in the my time. Without anything to replace the old documents, the country’s identity still seems to be based around exuberant nationalism. While this was necessary back in the first 50 years of the nation’s founding, it makes less sense in the increasingly globalized world of today. However, this same dearth of current civic texts means that generations from now, people will not be hooked on the ideas of the late 20th century. If the respect for the Founding Fathers returns to rational levels, they might even be free to innovate without feeling like they are betraying the country’s roots. As such, I am glad the popularizing texts have opted not to blow any speeches or documents out of proportion.