I wasn't impressed with the document. It seems like something that could have been written by an 10th grader in an American school (who wasn't paying attention in English class), not something intended to be a serious challenge to statesmen. It falls far short of the Declaration of Independence from which it borrows to be the base of its arguments.

After I read it, I was puzzled by Parkes' breathless introduction. He spoke of it like it was the most important document in the history of mankind, vetted and scrutinized by teams of lawyers, a document that would one day be enshrined alongside the great documents we now protect behind glass. I do not think so, and it's not because I'm a bigoted snob who only values the works of highly educated people. It's that the caliber of the writing doesn't match the dignity, originality, and cohesiveness a document like this should have. It wouldn't matter if all its language was folksy and plain.

The Declaration of Independence presents a cohesive argument and reads like one thought. It was original and new in its time. It didn't lift words from the Magna Carta and rewrite them. That type of thing doesn't add gravitas to the argument but actually diminishes it---and, yes, good grammar is important if you want people to consider the argument seriously.

I do think it's significant, however, that many people seem to be writing documents like this. It is evidence that something organic is happening, a generational change with a new sentiment rising from the bottom to erode what has long been imposed from the top, and that is encouraging.