It is an axiom among social scientists and humanists that all facts reside within an interpretation. No statement can communicate a meaning without an accompanying context. Even a seemingly straightforward fact, such as George Washington was born on Feb. 22, 1732, only makes sense within the context of a culture in which the Gregorian calendar organizes the passage of time. Change the context to the Julian calendar or the Hebrew or Chinese calendars, and the birth date changes.

The reigning assumption in Susanne Gray-Wychules’ Jan. 30 letter to the editor about “ObamaNation” is that a principle has some abstract, context-free and static meaning. She speaks as if the ideals formulated in the minds of men and women actually exist. Such a notion impels Gray-Wychules to exhort America to turn away from Obamian “socialism” and return “to our founding principles.”

Gray-Wychules’ exhortation to return, then, begs the question: What sort of life would 21st-century Americans enjoy if we returned to the principles and values as lived in 1791?

The period between the Declaration of Independence and the ratification of the Constitution was a period of intense questioning about what form the U.S. of A. should take and on which principles to base it. When Gray-Wychules references her idyllic set of founding principles, I’m going to presume she means the set of laws and guarantees embraced by many Americans upon adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791. One could reasonably claim that the final decade of the 18th century represents phase one of this nation’s history.

The brief prologue to the Constitution names some important early principles and values: justice, tranquility, common defense, general welfare and liberty. The Bill of Rights enumerates principles contained within liberty: free speech and religion, secure property and a jury trial. And though freedom isn’t much discussed in the Constitution, it is central to the claims expressed in the Declaration of Independence, as are life, equality and the pursuit of happiness.

The first observation to make is that the more revelatory question is what liberties currently enjoyed by Americans would be rescinded if we returned to 1791 principles?

One contemporary value highly revered by Americans, but which was rejected by the Founders, is direct electoral participation. Under the ruling ideology of 18th-century American Republicanism, however, only white, propertied males, 21 or older, were eligible to vote. Universal (male) suffrage did not exist. The Founders were distrustful of our contemporary form of popular election because the great masses of dependent Americans were believed to lack the discipline, intelligence and virtue necessary to a properly functioning democracy.

One hundred thirty-one million Americans voted in the general election this past November. Returning to 18th-century principles of Republicanism would disenfranchise about 90 million of those voters — including Barack and Michelle Obama.

Of course, not only would Barack and Michelle be forbidden from voting, they’d probably be considered non-citizens. The principle of equality of all men wouldn’t be extended to Barack Obama because in 1791 he would likely have been enslaved — maybe owned by founder George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. And Michelle, being both black and female, would have been enslaved and owned, and in constant fear for her personal safety, as well as that of her children.

As for the principle of free speech, in 1798, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts criminalizing speech that criticized the government and elected officials. Today, under the legal doctrine of constraining speech only if it generates “imminent lawlessness,” words John Adams deemed dangerous and criminal are perfectly legal. In addition, under the legal doctrine of incorporation, the states must uphold the First Amendment protection of free speech.

The point of these examples is simple enough: The meanings of founding principles such as democracy, citizenship, speech and equality are changeable, malleable. Their meaning depends entirely upon the era and circumstances under which they are expressed and applied. It just doesn’t make any sense to talk about abstract principles as though they are context-free. Freedom in 1791 is not freedom in 2009.

Lastly, the liability of throwing abstract epithets at people is revealed when Gray-Wychules calls Obama a socialist. By socialist, I can only assume she means someone who believes in the right to work, gender equality, community values, compensation based on productivity not gender, sexual freedom, laws ending child labor, and health and retirement insurance. Such were the positions espoused by late 18th- and early 19th-century socialists.

While Gray-Wychules may feel comfortable living under a 1791 American regime, I suspect the vast majority of Americans, including me, would not. I would find such a regime patriarchal, oppressive, repressive and plutocratic. Considering the values and demands of 19th century socialists, I believe I’d choose socialism over principled America of 1791.