The American Founders sought independence from England because they held that King George III had unreasonably infringed on their liberties.  As Jefferson wrote in the Declaration, the objective of rebellion against the king was recognition of the unalienable natural Rights of citizens, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  The last of these rights, pursuit of happiness, is most beneficially worded.  Not only is the pursuit of happiness different from the attainment of it, but the happiness of a truly free people must be defined by the individual, not by the state.

The Founders' vision for the new nation and society was based on such a definition of liberty.  Compare this original vision to that of the progressive movement.  In the progressive vision of Wilson and beyond, government (the state) is intended to help the people make inexorable progress toward the perfect society.  Progressives imagine that the design of this society is knowable through examination of historical rhythms and patterns, following historicist theory.  The key problem with this vision is that the state of happiness is defined by the state, not the individual.

From philosopher Karl Popper,[1] we learn:

Of all the political ideals, that of making the people happy is perhaps the most dangerous one.  It leads invariably to the attempt to impose our scale of "higher" values upon others, in order to make them realize what seems to us of greatest importance for their happiness; in order, as it were, to save their souls.  It leads to Utopianism and Romanticism.  We all feel certain that everybody would be happy in the beautiful, the perfect community of our dreams.

We might interject here the question of who sets "our" scale of higher values and whose dreams of the perfect community does Popper speak. More important, have the social theorists and idealists accounted in any way for the natural diversity in values and dreams among the populace.  Is diversity not a good thing?

Popper continues:

But the attempt to make heaven on earth invariably produces hell.  It leads to intolerance. ... And it is, I believe, based on a complete misunderstanding of our moral duties.  It is our duty to help those who need our help; but it cannot be our duty to make others happy, since this does not depend on us, and since it would only too often mean intruding on the privacy of those towards whom we have such amiable intentions.

There are other reasons to support the Founders' design for America and to reject progressive ambitions.  But individual pursuit of happiness is, I think, the overarching reason we should continue to venerate the Declaration, the Constitution, and wise men who gave us our birthright.  Other theories be damned.