From a theological perspective, we are all bad men. Human nature is fallen -- sinful -- and bent toward evil and selfishness. Power gives opportunity to do great harm. If a powerful man is to be a good man, he must recognize that and take precautions, even of his own heart and motives. That is one of the unique things about the U.S. Founding Fathers. It is what those of us who still acknowledge them, appreciate. They, too, were oppressed by powerful men when they declared independence from them. Our Constitution and form of government was established to guard against the damage possible from corrupt human nature -- everyone.
With checks and balances, there is the promotion and protection of the things that help mankind keep restraints on themselves from within: Morality and religion. The more restraints there are within, the less there needs to be without (freedom from the control of government). Most of the U.S. population have forgotten that. It would require them to remember that we are accountable to God who governs the affairs of men -- all men all over the world including them.
My last paragraph doesn’t make much sense. I mean: The founders of the U.S. set up a government with checks and balances and accountability. They debated and debated and debated until they came up with a plan they thought would protect the nation against the dangers of tyranny, be it from a powerful king, a ruling elite, or a mob majority. I think they did amazingly well. They didn’t know if future generations would understand it enough and be wise enough to keep it. I’d say in many ways we have not been.
Add to that, they saw the need for society to protect and promote religion and morality (not in its specifics but in general) in order to keep the people fit for freedom. That’s not to say religion in its specifics does not matter, only that the danger of tyranny can rise out of religious ideology as much as from anything else. So while religion and morality are essential, they need to be developed separately from government.
There. That is my second try. I am sure others could say it better.
"Power gives opportunity to do great harm. If a powerful man is to be a good man, he must recognize that and take precautions, even of his own heart and motives.
Yes, keyword is 'opportunity'. But it's the application of power too, for good or bad, that makes the difference.
They, too, were oppressed by powerful men when they declared independence from them.
An advantage the U.S. had, compared to say Russia, was that it had the opportunity to start afresh in a new land. Originally with 4 million people in 13 colony states on the east coast of U.S. - That is not to dismiss or overlook other challenges along the way such as the War of Independence against Britain.
The other advantage was that by the time the Constitution was adopted, Americans had considerable expertise in the art of self-government. Long before independence was declared, the colonies were functioning governmental units, controlled by the people (a confederation). Although uniting diverse people and instituting a Federal system of government was a challenge; there were some anti-federalists.
A third advantage, vis a vis Russia as an example, was America had been settled in large part by various Europeans who had left their homelands to escape religious or political oppression, as well as the rigid economic patterns of the Old World that locked individuals into a particular station in life regardless of their skill or energy. These settlers highly prized personal freedom, and they were wary of any power — especially that of government — that might curtail individual liberties. So, there was strong motivation & incentive to have a system that accommodated for these diverse groups.
Our Constitution and form of government was established to guard against the damage possible from corrupt human nature -- everyone.
As far as I know, the U.S. Founding Fathers not only debated over and over again to devise "a plan they thought would protect the nation against the dangers of tyranny,", but were also influenced primarily by European 'philosophers'; people like John Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau and Montesquieu, as well as important English documents such as Magna Carta.
They also studied non-Europeans, like the Persian King Cyrus. A copy of Cyropaedia, Xenophon's book on Cyrus, is on display at the exhibition in Washington DC. The book, a bilingual Greek and Latin version published in Europe in 1767, is one of the two copies of Cyropaedia belonging to Thomas Jefferson that is currently held at the Library of Congress here.
In my view, all the above elements came together and played significant parts in setting the foundation for the U.S. a little over 200 years ago. They still essentially define American values and culture.
"With checks and balances, there is the promotion and protection of the things that help mankind keep restraints on themselves from within: Morality and religion.
I'd add Ethics to it too. Especially when you mention "the need for society to protect and promote religion and morality".
The definition of morals or 'morality' being morality is ultimately a personal compass of right and wrong. Whereas ethics is more external, because society says it's the right thing to do. IOW, "morals are how you treat people you know. Ethics are how you treat people you don’t know."