Conservatives would have us believe that they hold a monopoly on common sense. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and many other right-wing rabble-rousers regularly portray themselves as defenders of the good, old-fashioned common sense of average Americans against an out-of-touch liberal elite. A growing cadre of ambitious politicians likewise aims to lead a crusade in the name of “commonsense conservatism.” Glenn Beck has even gone so far as to publish a runaway bestseller that explicitly piggybacks on Thomas Paine’s Common Sense to argue against the danger of “out-of-control government” and the forces of organized foolishness that would foist it on the American people.
The unanimity is impressive. But it is also ridiculous. The fact is that the right’s appeal to common sense is nonsense. Unfortunately, though, it is a form of nonsense with deep roots in the American past and a very long history of political potency. Whether it continues to prove effective in the future will depend in no small measure on how cogently the rest of America responds.
The United States is a nation founded on an egalitarian creed—on the supposedly self-evident (commonsensical?) truths that all men are created equal and that all legitimate government is based on the consent of the governed. In such a nation, public appeals to authority would be much less persuasive than they had been throughout most of human history. Tradition, the divine right of kings, the will of God as interpreted by his designated clerical representatives—in America none of these authorities would benefit from the deference they have typically enjoyed in other times and places. Add in the ever-increasing social pluralism of modern life, and it becomes perfectly understandable why political actors and commentators in the United States would seek to win public disputes by appeal to the only authority still available—the authority of the people and their common sense. Whether such appeals are coherent is another matter.
In Common Sense, Thomas Paine famously inaugurated the American tradition of attempting to win contentious public arguments by praising the good judgment of average citizens. When Paine’s incendiary pamphlet first appeared, in January 1776, the colonies were divided about whether to declare their independence, with many colonists still loyal to the crown. Those on both sides of the issue recognized that taking up arms against the King of England demanded justification. Those who favored revolution did so for complicated reasons flowing from the ineptness of George III’s rule, which was increasingly viewed as arbitrary, dictatorial, and contrary to the economic interests of the colonies. A few, including Thomas Jefferson and Paine himself, went further, to supplement their case with abstract philosophical arguments about natural rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. But regardless of the rationale, it was almost universally acknowledged that proposing insurrection against British rule was a profoundly radical act—one involving a dramatic break from precedent and tradition. And yet Paine chose to portray the case for rebellion as transparently obvious—based, in fact, on nothing more than “simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense.” Today Paine’s tract is thought to have done more than any other piece of writing to foment the American Revolution.
Not everyone was convinced by its argument, however. Later that same year, loyalist Lt. Col. James Chalmers penned a scathing polemic against Common Sense titled Plain Truth. In his own pamphlet, Chalmers ridiculed Paine’s presumptuousness in professing to speak for commonly held views in the colonies or good judgment in general. In Chalmers’s view, Paine’s position was a particularly irresponsible example of “quackery,” not an accurate reflection of common sense, which clearly pointed in the opposite direction—toward reconciliation with the English throne. The Revolutionary War thus began with dual acts of excommunication from the ranks of common sense, showing with vivid clarity that the concept was originally devoid of content, merely expressing the desire of one party in a dispute to claim as much popular support as possible for his side.
The Paine-Chalmers debate was the first in a seemingly endless series of rancorous clashes in the early republic over contradictory appeals to common sense. By the mid-nineteenth century, these clashes increasingly focused on the issue of slavery and Southern Secession from the Union. Readers of the Northern press during the 1860s were regularly informed that their opposition to the expansion of slavery was commonsensical, that Abraham Lincoln was a font of “homespun common sense,” and that Southerners were “as deaf as madmen” to common sense. Yet the view from the Southern states was, quite naturally, the reverse. In late 1860, for instance, the Charleston Mercury newspaper spoke for many in the South when it editorialized that “no man of common sense” could doubt that “the time for action” against the North had arrived.
While politicians and editorialists throughout the rest of the nineteenth century continued to employ the empty rhetoric of common sense, a group of Protestant theologians worked to provide the concept with some content. Drawing on the Scottish tradition of Common Sense philosophy—which asserted that commonly held opinions are our most trustworthy guide to truth—writers connected to the Princeton Theological Seminary naively suggested that spontaneous universal concord on every matter of moral, scientific, and spiritual significance should be possible. Men and women need only open their eyes to apprehend directly the timeless, objective, self-evident truth about all things: God, nature, right and wrong.
For these theologians, the very idea of a genuine (as opposed to a spurious) conflict between reason and faith, science and religion—let alone between opposing political views—began to seem inconceivable. They thus tended to trace disagreements to defects in the mind or morals of whomever dissented from prevailing religious, scientific, social, cultural, or political opinion. Maybe the dissenter had succumbed to the sin of pride, which led him astray. Or perhaps he made an innocent error of reasoning, or got caught up in futile metaphysical speculation. And then there was the most ominous possibility—that he was seduced by unbelief or false religion. Whatever the case, the disagreement was assumed to flow not from the intrinsic complexity of either the world or the nature of the mind but rather from an accidental failing rooted in a particular individual or group—a defect that could potentially be removed, thus restoring the inevitability of universal agreement based on self-evident common sense.
And yet by the turn of the century, whatever cultural, moral, and religious consensus prevailed in the United States seemed to be collapsing on multiple fronts. The nation’s cities were filled with impoverished immigrants, many of them from non-Protestant (and in the case of Jews, non-Christian) cultures. At the same time, industrialization was transforming American life in unpredictable ways, disrupting small-town life, driving the young to seek their fortunes in those same cities, exposing them to unimaginable moral temptations and objectionable ideas. Meanwhile, the nations schools were beginning to introduce Christian children to disturbing new unbiblical theories about the origins of the human race. For many, the suggestion that human beings evolved from apes sounded both morally monstrous and fundamentally unscientific—a form of demonic speculation wholly divorced from a properly commonsensical study of the natural facts. And then there was the rise of theological liberalism—or “modernism”—in some of the nation’s leading churches, which showed that not even the nation’s Protestant clergy could maintain agreement on the fundamentals of the faith.
The political and cultural history of the American twentieth century was shaped in countless ways by two movements that arose in direct reaction to these destabilizing trends: populism in politics and fundamentalism in religion. “Common sense” now became a term of flattery, offering praise for the religious and cultural outlook of Americans who continued to uphold the naïve views defended by the Princeton theologians. These were the views of those who lived in small, homogeneous agricultural communities and who believed their way of life to be under assault by the decadence and corruption of urban economic and political elites. Populist leader William Jennings Bryan used the term “common sense” in this way during the 1890s, and he revived it at the end of his life when, in the Scopes Trial of 1925, he passionately defended the right of fundamentalist Protestants in Tennessee to insulate their children’s commonsense (i.e., literalistic) reading of the Bible from corruption at the hands of overly educated biology teachers, who wished to expose their students to the theory of Darwinian evolution. Though the verdict in favor of creationism was overturned on appeal, Bryan’s effort to defend the simple common sense of average citizens against the godless pretensions of educated elites was a populist time-bomb that would eventually explode in the American public square.
.jpg)
Print
COMMENTS (33)
Hmm, I don't think research results are going to sway one side in the "common sense" debate!
That nit aside, I enjoyed this article. But as the world becomes more complex, every individual finds more and more things they don't really understand (TNR posters excepted, it seems). Simple explanations of complex things that one doesn't understand may become more popular and comforting, not less so, so Linker may even be underestimating the power of this appeal to "common sense".
Hmm, I don't think research results are going to sway one side in the "common sense" debate!
That nit aside, I enjoyed this article. But as the world becomes more complex, every individual finds more and more things they don't really understand (TNR posters excepted, it seems). Simple explanations of complex things that one doesn't understand may become more popular and comforting, not less so, so Linker may even be underestimating the power of this appeal to "common sense".
jeff, right you are. basic commonsense tells us that supersymmetric string theory should hold sway. The Higgs Boson particle just doesn't make any common sense unless the Bosons and fermions are symetrical. I mean d'uh. How easy is that. Stupid liberals.
jeff, right you are. basic commonsense tells us that supersymmetric string theory should hold sway. The Higgs Boson particle just doesn't make any common sense unless the Bosons and fermions are symetrical. I mean d'uh. How easy is that. Stupid liberals.
Very interesting article. As a fervent anti-anti-intellectual, there's a lot here that's up my alley. But I'm not sure that the notion of "common sense" itself is as useless or pernicious as suggested. There are certainly senses in which it is. Supposed common sense is no substitute for rational thought and should never be permitted to trump the verifiable fact of the matter. So, those who would deny scientific or historical fact or adhere to a belief about reality based on illogic or magical thinking should not be able to find comfort in the fact that the error is a widespread one. Such errors are not best seen as common sense but simply as common mistakes, like the belief that the ca ... view full comment
Very interesting article. As a fervent anti-anti-intellectual, there's a lot here that's up my alley. But I'm not sure that the notion of "common sense" itself is as useless or pernicious as suggested. There are certainly senses in which it is. Supposed common sense is no substitute for rational thought and should never be permitted to trump the verifiable fact of the matter. So, those who would deny scientific or historical fact or adhere to a belief about reality based on illogic or magical thinking should not be able to find comfort in the fact that the error is a widespread one. Such errors are not best seen as common sense but simply as common mistakes, like the belief that the capital of Kentucky is Louisville. Any effort to recast irrational or false opinions about reality as "common sense" must be strongly resisted -- and can be by reference to common sense itself.
Another use, or misuse, of "common sense" that I agree is troublesome is the view that the right answer to any question -- factual, moral, prospective, historical -- is to be found by polling the masses. It is obvious -- common sense, even -- that many people can be wrong. If "common sense" means simply "the view of the most people," then it is pernicious and unjustifiably forecloses the common occurrence of common error and poor judgment. "Common sense" is a positive-sounding description and used to validate whatever it is you're talking about. But mere commonality doesn't validate anything except the proposition that the view is common.
But there are some ways in which the notion of "common sense" can be useful. How do we argue? We try to find *some* common ground. When we disagree on the specific issue, we pull back a bit and refer to that broader reservoir of common attitudes, feelings, and opinions that we may share. We attempt to ground our contention in those common attitudes, and try to put our contention in terms that can be broadly understood and appreciated. We try to minimize the extent to which the contention is radical or counterintuitive or otherwise troubling. Instead, we try to make our contention seem like "common sense," and we might justifiably worry if we can't do that.
Consider the relatively uncommon view -- in the U.S. anyway -- of religious skepeticism. A defender of religious faith has an easy if not particularly potent "common sense" argument to make: That is, look how many people believe! But that does not strike us a substantive argument. That's just a poll. Meanwhile, the religious skeptic has many arguments to make grounded in shared premises that, if they work, serve to show that the specific belief is inconsistent with the other things that people generally believe as matters of common sense.
If the phrase "common sense" is merely used to validate b.s. when talking among those who already agree with you or yelling at those who don't, it's abused. If it is used to bridge divides, to make a contention less alien and more accessible, it is used well. If you are a politician or journalist or anyone trying to persuade a general audience, asking yourself whether your argument seems commonsensical or not is probably a good test of your rhetoric and perhaps even of the substantive merit of your position.
Very interesting article. As a fervent anti-anti-intellectual, there's a lot here that's up my alley. But I'm not sure that the notion of "common sense" itself is as useless or pernicious as suggested. There are certainly senses in which it is. Supposed common sense is no substitute for rational thought and should never be permitted to trump the verifiable fact of the matter. So, those who would deny scientific or historical fact or adhere to a belief about reality based on illogic or magical thinking should not be able to find comfort in the fact that the error is a widespread one. Such errors are not best seen as common sense but simply as common mistakes, like the belief that the ca ... view full comment
Very interesting article. As a fervent anti-anti-intellectual, there's a lot here that's up my alley. But I'm not sure that the notion of "common sense" itself is as useless or pernicious as suggested. There are certainly senses in which it is. Supposed common sense is no substitute for rational thought and should never be permitted to trump the verifiable fact of the matter. So, those who would deny scientific or historical fact or adhere to a belief about reality based on illogic or magical thinking should not be able to find comfort in the fact that the error is a widespread one. Such errors are not best seen as common sense but simply as common mistakes, like the belief that the capital of Kentucky is Louisville. Any effort to recast irrational or false opinions about reality as "common sense" must be strongly resisted -- and can be by reference to common sense itself.
Another use, or misuse, of "common sense" that I agree is troublesome is the view that the right answer to any question -- factual, moral, prospective, historical -- is to be found by polling the masses. It is obvious -- common sense, even -- that many people can be wrong. If "common sense" means simply "the view of the most people," then it is pernicious and unjustifiably forecloses the common occurrence of common error and poor judgment. "Common sense" is a positive-sounding description and used to validate whatever it is you're talking about. But mere commonality doesn't validate anything except the proposition that the view is common.
But there are some ways in which the notion of "common sense" can be useful. How do we argue? We try to find *some* common ground. When we disagree on the specific issue, we pull back a bit and refer to that broader reservoir of common attitudes, feelings, and opinions that we may share. We attempt to ground our contention in those common attitudes, and try to put our contention in terms that can be broadly understood and appreciated. We try to minimize the extent to which the contention is radical or counterintuitive or otherwise troubling. Instead, we try to make our contention seem like "common sense," and we might justifiably worry if we can't do that.
Consider the relatively uncommon view -- in the U.S. anyway -- of religious skepeticism. A defender of religious faith has an easy if not particularly potent "common sense" argument to make: That is, look how many people believe! But that does not strike us a substantive argument. That's just a poll. Meanwhile, the religious skeptic has many arguments to make grounded in shared premises that, if they work, serve to show that the specific belief is inconsistent with the other things that people generally believe as matters of common sense.
If the phrase "common sense" is merely used to validate b.s. when talking among those who already agree with you or yelling at those who don't, it's abused. If it is used to bridge divides, to make a contention less alien and more accessible, it is used well. If you are a politician or journalist or anyone trying to persuade a general audience, asking yourself whether your argument seems commonsensical or not is probably a good test of your rhetoric and perhaps even of the substantive merit of your position.
jhildner, I just think common sense should be defined for what it is, basic knowledge that people use in everyday life to survive, ie. look both ways before you cross the street, cook your meat properly, etc.
come to think of it, we don't imbue the term "common knowledge" with anykind of the same power.
jhildner, I just think common sense should be defined for what it is, basic knowledge that people use in everyday life to survive, ie. look both ways before you cross the street, cook your meat properly, etc.
come to think of it, we don't imbue the term "common knowledge" with anykind of the same power.
In my view the "perversion" of which Linker writes and the rise to dominance of streaming electronic broadcast media are not unrelated.
Television and film bombard us with a constant stream of ideas, in one direction, thus negating our ability to digest, contemplate, and respond to them. I can take a copy of one of Paine's documents and discuss it with a friend; this is virtually impossible to do with TV or movies. (Look how much more debate among commenters ensues from one of these static posts than from "TNR TV.")
Electronic media fuck with our minds; their message are, by necessity, the antitheses of reasoned rhetoric. Because their primary purpose is to sell things, the simpler messages, t ... view full comment
In my view the "perversion" of which Linker writes and the rise to dominance of streaming electronic broadcast media are not unrelated.
Television and film bombard us with a constant stream of ideas, in one direction, thus negating our ability to digest, contemplate, and respond to them. I can take a copy of one of Paine's documents and discuss it with a friend; this is virtually impossible to do with TV or movies. (Look how much more debate among commenters ensues from one of these static posts than from "TNR TV.")
Electronic media fuck with our minds; their message are, by necessity, the antitheses of reasoned rhetoric. Because their primary purpose is to sell things, the simpler messages, the better. Hence, the modern "common sense," which stands without debate, or so it sez.
Had cable been available in the eighteenth century, Paine either would have mastered it or been a nobody. Had he mastered it he would have sounded far more like Glenn Beck and far less like Thomas Paine.
Tom Paine-era media dominate academia and much of the upper echelons of business. You don't see students learning more than a smidgen from videos, or corporation executives using video instead of PowerPoint, other than live web conferencing. You can't debate the efficacy of an anti-angiogenic agent using something that moves; you have to have something that doesn't move, that allows the idea to stop, float, be scrutinized in detail far beyond what is on the slide or page. Likewise, Thomas Paine's messages worked because his audience was able to scrutinize them far beyond their pages, to debate the implication of each idea, each sentence.
It won't get better. Streaming media is the fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse, in my view.
Follow-up: ever read a screenplay or a transcript to a TV news program? Pretty banal, isn't it? Yet we're emotionally, physically moved by what we have seen on the screen.
Words mean little, in these big pictures. Electronic media are pre-literate, primal media. They work by moving us emotionally, not by satisfying us intellectually.
And here's the really bad part: we think we know what's happening to us. The media are gang-sodomizing our minds, and we think we're in control.
Every time I see a photo of Rush or Beck or any other talking head on TNR I realize that the hooks have sunk in just a bit deeper.
Follow-up: ever read a screenplay or a transcript to a TV news program? Pretty banal, isn't it? Yet we're emotionally, physically moved by what we have seen on the screen.
Words mean little, in these big pictures. Electronic media are pre-literate, primal media. They work by moving us emotionally, not by satisfying us intellectually.
And here's the really bad part: we think we know what's happening to us. The media are gang-sodomizing our minds, and we think we're in control.
Every time I see a photo of Rush or Beck or any other talking head on TNR I realize that the hooks have sunk in just a bit deeper.
great post luis. Totalitarian movements always want to round up all the educated people and those with (and I quote Palin) "big fat resumes."
great post luis. Totalitarian movements always want to round up all the educated people and those with (and I quote Palin) "big fat resumes."
I couldn't disagree more, luis. The Nazis placed great value on "gesundes Volksempfinden" (roughly, "heathy popular attitudes"), a Teutonic version of conservative common sense.
The ordinary German citizen "knew" that Jews had stabbed Germany in the back at the end of WW1, to take one ominous example, and any actual evidence to the contrary had no real status when set against the common sense opinion held by the populus.
I couldn't disagree more, luis. The Nazis placed great value on "gesundes Volksempfinden" (roughly, "heathy popular attitudes"), a Teutonic version of conservative common sense.
The ordinary German citizen "knew" that Jews had stabbed Germany in the back at the end of WW1, to take one ominous example, and any actual evidence to the contrary had no real status when set against the common sense opinion held by the populus.
Right you are, yard. The moving images trick our brains into feeling that we have experienced something, not just watched a canned version of it.
I think luis's comment does apply to Marxist/Communist totalitarian movements, which have all seemed to try to redefine reality in the service of class struggle. Irony's comment about the Nazis reflects a difference between their denial of reality in the service of ideology, and the "we have always been at war with Eastasia" totalitarianism that Orwell modeled on Communist movements.
Right you are, yard. The moving images trick our brains into feeling that we have experienced something, not just watched a canned version of it.
I think luis's comment does apply to Marxist/Communist totalitarian movements, which have all seemed to try to redefine reality in the service of class struggle. Irony's comment about the Nazis reflects a difference between their denial of reality in the service of ideology, and the "we have always been at war with Eastasia" totalitarianism that Orwell modeled on Communist movements.
That's a reasonable point, luis, but I think I'd want to underline that -- as I see it, at least -- the spurious racial 'science' in the tradition of Streicher and HS Chamberlain was a way of putting an respectable gloss on the racial paranoia and ethnic resentments of the lower-class Germans and Austrians. It was "Rassenwissenschaft" for the educated middle class, and "gesundes Volksemfinden" for the masses.
To that extent, they are both arms of the same political tool -- except the folksy variant has deeper psychological roots and is therefore something that can be appealed to on the emotional level.
I agree of course that that is not what Paine meant by common sense -- he meant a kind of q ... view full comment
That's a reasonable point, luis, but I think I'd want to underline that -- as I see it, at least -- the spurious racial 'science' in the tradition of Streicher and HS Chamberlain was a way of putting an respectable gloss on the racial paranoia and ethnic resentments of the lower-class Germans and Austrians. It was "Rassenwissenschaft" for the educated middle class, and "gesundes Volksemfinden" for the masses.
To that extent, they are both arms of the same political tool -- except the folksy variant has deeper psychological roots and is therefore something that can be appealed to on the emotional level.
I agree of course that that is not what Paine meant by common sense -- he meant a kind of quick ethical grasp of the relationship of justice and power, something that human beings have (?) or can learn by experience. Paine assumed that any reasonable person would understand that the power of the Crown had to be rolled back for any kind of justice to happen. To be fair, however, Edmund Burke was not shooting far from the target when he noted that societies can become legitimately attached to symbols that don't necessarily hinder progress -- that is, you don't need regicide for the future to be different.
It's worth thinking about the fact that several of the most socially free and advanced nations in Europe -- e.g. the Netherlands and Sweden -- are monarchies. Constitutional monarchies, but still. I think the Spanish monarchy has been -- so far, at least -- a guarantor of constitutional stability and accountability.
"It's worth thinking about the fact that several of the most socially free and advanced nations in Europe -- e.g. the Netherlands and Sweden -- are monarchies. Constitutional monarchies, but still. I think the Spanish monarchy has been -- so far, at least -- a guarantor of constitutional stability and accountability."
From a political point of view ( and I don't intend on debating the common sense issue, here) the above is correct.
I believe that it was Montesquieu: Spirit of the Laws who said that the best government was a moderate one irrespective of the regime ( he meant democracy, monarchy or mixed).
"It's worth thinking about the fact that several of the most socially free and advanced nations in Europe -- e.g. the Netherlands and Sweden -- are monarchies. Constitutional monarchies, but still. I think the Spanish monarchy has been -- so far, at least -- a guarantor of constitutional stability and accountability."
From a political point of view ( and I don't intend on debating the common sense issue, here) the above is correct.
I believe that it was Montesquieu: Spirit of the Laws who said that the best government was a moderate one irrespective of the regime ( he meant democracy, monarchy or mixed).
and btw, how can anyone defend "common sense" in an Einsteinian universe?
And Irony is right that "The Nazis placed great value on "gesundes Volksempfinden" (roughly, "heathy popular attitudes"), a Teutonic version of conservative common sense."
This wasn't just true of the Nazis but of every fascist ideologue including communist ones.
(It seems that Marxist dialectic didn't penetrate very far in the thinking of proletariat.)
As for Tom Paine he was a potential demagogue as John Adams clearly saw who had minimal influence on Constitutional thinking, if he had any.
and btw, how can anyone defend "common sense" in an Einsteinian universe?
And Irony is right that "The Nazis placed great value on "gesundes Volksempfinden" (roughly, "heathy popular attitudes"), a Teutonic version of conservative common sense."
This wasn't just true of the Nazis but of every fascist ideologue including communist ones.
(It seems that Marxist dialectic didn't penetrate very far in the thinking of proletariat.)
As for Tom Paine he was a potential demagogue as John Adams clearly saw who had minimal influence on Constitutional thinking, if he had any.
What a long response by Luis and it's besides the point. Talking about the lack of common sense.
luispc "Perhaps the vision of Tom Paine as a mere populist is reductionist. As reductionist as Burke's understanding of him was."
Who cares about Burke in this context.
The anme of Tom Paine's pamphlet was given by a friend of his. It is a politicla pamphlet and not about "common sense." As a political pamphlet it contributed very little to the revolutionary cause.
Luis has told himself a fairy tale about the American Revolution which he uses to attack the supposed "short comings" of America today.
What a long response by Luis and it's besides the point. Talking about the lack of common sense.
luispc "Perhaps the vision of Tom Paine as a mere populist is reductionist. As reductionist as Burke's understanding of him was."
Who cares about Burke in this context.
The anme of Tom Paine's pamphlet was given by a friend of his. It is a politicla pamphlet and not about "common sense." As a political pamphlet it contributed very little to the revolutionary cause.
Luis has told himself a fairy tale about the American Revolution which he uses to attack the supposed "short comings" of America today.
"Did Luís told himself that tale? Perhaps. Anyway I believe that that's the "tale" the men of 1776 told themselves and that they believed in it, at least Jefferson and Paine, followed by Lincoln and Roosevelt."
They didn't believe in Tom Paine tale nor did they all believe the same tale.
You assume a unity of point of view which isn't there.
Jefferson and Lincoln, for example, had very different view of the aims of government not to mention on slavery. Jefferson idealized the yeoman farmer; Lincoln who knew about farming first hand, did not.
I won't even get into the views of 20th and 21st century Presidents.
Reagan and Bush also believed that they were following in Jefferson's footsteps. T ... view full comment
"Did Luís told himself that tale? Perhaps. Anyway I believe that that's the "tale" the men of 1776 told themselves and that they believed in it, at least Jefferson and Paine, followed by Lincoln and Roosevelt."
They didn't believe in Tom Paine tale nor did they all believe the same tale.
You assume a unity of point of view which isn't there.
Jefferson and Lincoln, for example, had very different view of the aims of government not to mention on slavery. Jefferson idealized the yeoman farmer; Lincoln who knew about farming first hand, did not.
I won't even get into the views of 20th and 21st century Presidents.
Reagan and Bush also believed that they were following in Jefferson's footsteps. That they shared and share a similar view of American principles.
luispc
"The basic unity of Jefferson and Lincoln can be found in the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence."
Well, they also both spoke English and they were both Americans.
It was the defense of the constitution as well as unity of the Nation that animated Lincoln. In the debates with Douglass he spoke eloquently against slavery but not in favor of equality which is it these debates make such painful reading for many Black students.
luispc
"The basic unity of Jefferson and Lincoln can be found in the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence."
Well, they also both spoke English and they were both Americans.
It was the defense of the constitution as well as unity of the Nation that animated Lincoln. In the debates with Douglass he spoke eloquently against slavery but not in favor of equality which is it these debates make such painful reading for many Black students.
A difference Burke doesn't grasp (the first European that would understand such a difference would be Tocqueville) [is] between the violent, resentful spirit of the French Revolution and the innocent foundational spirit of the American Revolution.
To be blunt, luis, I think that statement is pure nonsense. I would be very interested in any quotation from Burke that you believe supports such an assertion.
In particular, I'm wondering how you square that proposition with Burke's 'Speech on Moving His Resolutions for Conciliation with the Colonies, March 22, 1775.'
A difference Burke doesn't grasp (the first European that would understand such a difference would be Tocqueville) [is] between the violent, resentful spirit of the French Revolution and the innocent foundational spirit of the American Revolution.
To be blunt, luis, I think that statement is pure nonsense. I would be very interested in any quotation from Burke that you believe supports such an assertion.
In particular, I'm wondering how you square that proposition with Burke's 'Speech on Moving His Resolutions for Conciliation with the Colonies, March 22, 1775.'
Gladly, luis. But first, some back-up for your contention that Burke saw the American Revolution the way he saw the French Revolution, please. Before moving on to Tocqueville, it seems more pertinent to compare how Burke saw the two events, don't you think?
So, where do you see evidence that Burke regarded the American Revolution as manifesting the same "violent, resentful spirit" with which he later characterized the French Revolution?
Because I don't see it in the "Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies."
Gladly, luis. But first, some back-up for your contention that Burke saw the American Revolution the way he saw the French Revolution, please. Before moving on to Tocqueville, it seems more pertinent to compare how Burke saw the two events, don't you think?
So, where do you see evidence that Burke regarded the American Revolution as manifesting the same "violent, resentful spirit" with which he later characterized the French Revolution?
Because I don't see it in the "Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies."
Luispc “It's strange, Jackson that you look at Jefferson and Lincoln exactly with the eyes that a marxist inspired culture critic looks.”
Which cultural critic do you have in mind, Luis?
Marxism comes in many flavors, do they are all off the mark on most issues. My view of Jefferson and Lincoln are far from being “Marxist.”
“Desconstruction of domination and all that...”
This is not what I said, and you creating a straw man to criticize.
“Does that grasp America's political culture, its common sense and the animating nature of the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence? I doubt.”
American political culture is not based on “common sense,” or on “self evident ... view full comment
Luispc “It's strange, Jackson that you look at Jefferson and Lincoln exactly with the eyes that a marxist inspired culture critic looks.”
Which cultural critic do you have in mind, Luis?
Marxism comes in many flavors, do they are all off the mark on most issues. My view of Jefferson and Lincoln are far from being “Marxist.”
“Desconstruction of domination and all that...”
This is not what I said, and you creating a straw man to criticize.
“Does that grasp America's political culture, its common sense and the animating nature of the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence? I doubt.”
American political culture is not based on “common sense,” or on “self evident truths.” This is far too simplistic a view of the American Republic.
Selections from Burke's speech:
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/burke10.txt
"Mr. Speaker, I cannot prevail on myself to hurry over this great consideration.
[Footnote: 15] IT IS GOOD FOR US TO BE HERE. [Footnote: 16] We stand where we
have an immense view of what is, and what is past. Clouds, indeed, and darkness,
rest upon the future. Let us, however, before we descend from this noble
eminence, reflect that this growth of our national prosperity has happened
within the short period of the life of man. It has happened within sixty-eight
y ... view full comment
Selections from Burke's speech:
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/burke10.txt
"Mr. Speaker, I cannot prevail on myself to hurry over this great consideration.
[Footnote: 15] IT IS GOOD FOR US TO BE HERE. [Footnote: 16] We stand where we
have an immense view of what is, and what is past. Clouds, indeed, and darkness,
rest upon the future. Let us, however, before we descend from this noble
eminence, reflect that this growth of our national prosperity has happened
within the short period of the life of man. It has happened within sixty-eight
years. There are those alive whose memory might touch the two extremities. For
instance, my Lord Bathurst might remember all the stages of the progress. He was
in 1704 of an age at least to be made to comprehend such things. He was then old
enough acta parentum jam legere, et quae sit potuit cognoscere virtus.
[Footnote: 17] Suppose, Sir, that the angel of this auspicious youth, foreseeing
the many virtues which made him one of the most amiable, as he is one of the
most fortunate, men of his age, had opened to him in vision that when in the
fourth generation the third Prince of the House of Brunswick had sat twelve
years on the throne of that nation which, by the happy issue of moderate and
healing counsels, was to be made Great Britain, he should see his son, Lord
Chancellor of England, turn back the current of hereditary dignity to its
fountain, and raise him to a higher rank of peerage, whilst he enriched the
family with a new one--if, amidst these bright and happy scenes of domestic
honor and prosperity, that angel should have drawn up the curtain, and unfolded
the rising glories of his country, and, whilst he was gazing with admiration on
the then commercial grandeur of England, the genius should point out to him a
little speck, scarcely visible in the mass of the national interest, a small
seminal principle, rather than a formed body, and should tell him: "Young man,
there is America--which at this day serves for little more than to amuse you
with stories of savage men, and uncouth manners; yet shall, before you taste of
death, [Footnote: 18] show itself equal to the whole of that commerce which now
attracts the envy of the world. Whatever England has been growing to by a
progressive increase of improvement, brought in by varieties of people, by
succession of civilizing conquests and civilizing settlements in a series of
seventeen hundred years, you shall see as much added to her by America in the
course of a single life!" If this state of his country had been foretold to him,
would it not require all the sanguine credulity of youth, and all the fervid
glow of enthusiasm, to make him believe it? Fortunate man, he has lived to see
it! Fortunate, indeed, if he lives to see nothing that shall vary the prospect,
and cloud the setting of his day!
Excuse me, Sir, if turning from such thoughts I resume this comparative view
once more. You have seen it on a large scale; look at it on a small one. I will
point out to your attention a particular instance of it in the single province
of Pennsylvania. In the year 1704 that province called for L11,459 in value of
your commodities, native and foreign. This was the whole. What did it demand in
1772? Why, nearly fifty times as much; for in that year the export to
Pennsylvania was L507,909, nearly equal to the export to all the Colonies
together in the first period.
I choose, Sir, to enter into these minute and particular details, because
generalities, which in all other cases are apt to heighten and raise the
subject, have here a tendency to sink it. When we speak of the commerce with our
Colonies, fiction lags after truth, invention is unfruitful, and imagination
cold and barren.
So far, Sir, as to the importance of the object, in view of its commerce, as
concerned in the exports from England. If I were to detail the imports, I could
show how many enjoyments they procure which deceive the burthen of life; how
many materials which invigorate the springs of national industry, and extend and
animate every part of our foreign and domestic commerce. This would be a curious
subject indeed; but I must prescribe bounds to myself in a matter so vast and
various.
I pass, therefore, to the Colonies in another point of view, their agriculture.
This they have prosecuted with such a spirit, that, besides feeding plentifully
their own growing multitude, their annual export of grain, comprehending rice,
has some years ago exceeded a million in value. Of their last harvest I am
persuaded they will export much more. At the beginning of the century some of
these Colonies imported corn from the Mother Country. For some time past the Old
World has been fed from the New. The scarcity which you have felt would have
been a desolating famine, if this child of your old age, with a true filial
piety, with a Roman charity, [Footnote: 19] had not put the full breast of its
youthful exuberance to the mouth of its exhausted parent.
Where is the resentment?
"In this character of the Americans, a love of freedom is the predominating
feature which marks and distinguishes the whole; and as an ardent is always a
jealous affection, your Colonies become suspicious, restive, and untractable
whenever they see the least attempt to wrest from them by force, or shuffle from
them by chicane, what they think the only advantage worth living for. This
fierce spirit of liberty is stronger in the English Colonies probably than in
any other people of the earth, and this from a great variety of powerful causes;
which, to understand the true temper of their minds and the direction which this
spirit ta ... view full comment
Where is the resentment?
"In this character of the Americans, a love of freedom is the predominating
feature which marks and distinguishes the whole; and as an ardent is always a
jealous affection, your Colonies become suspicious, restive, and untractable
whenever they see the least attempt to wrest from them by force, or shuffle from
them by chicane, what they think the only advantage worth living for. This
fierce spirit of liberty is stronger in the English Colonies probably than in
any other people of the earth, and this from a great variety of powerful causes;
which, to understand the true temper of their minds and the direction which this
spirit takes, it will not be amiss to lay open somewhat more largely.
First, the people of the Colonies are descendants of Englishmen. England, Sir,
is a nation which still, I hope, respects, and formerly adored, her freedom. The
Colonists emigrated from you when this part of your character was most
predominant; and they took this bias and direction the moment they parted from
your hands. They are therefore not only devoted to liberty, but to liberty
according to English ideas, and on English principles. Abstract liberty, like
other mere abstractions, is not to be found. Liberty inheres in some sensible
object; and every nation has formed to itself some favorite point, which by way
of eminence becomes the criterion of their happiness. It happened, you know,
Sir, that the great contests [Footnote: 24] for freedom in this country were
from the earliest times chiefly upon the question of taxing. Most of the
contests in the ancient commonwealths turned primarily on the right of election
of magistrates; or on the balance among the several orders of the state. The
question of money was not with them so immediate. But in England it was
otherwise. On this point of taxes the ablest pens, and most eloquent tongues,
have been exercised; the greatest spirits have acted and suffered. In order to
give the fullest satisfaction concerning the importance of this point, it was
not only necessary for those who in argument defended the excellence of the
English Constitution to insist on this privilege of granting money as a dry
point of fact, and to prove that the right had been acknowledged in ancient
parchments and blind usages to reside in a certain body called a House of
Commons. They went much farther; they attempted to prove, and they succeeded,
that in theory it ought to be so, from the particular nature of a House of
Commons as an immediate representative of the people, whether the old records
had delivered this oracle or not. They took infinite pains to inculcate, as a
fundamental principle, that in all monarchies the people must in effect
themselves, mediately or immediately, possess the power of granting their own
money, or no shadow of liberty can subsist. The Colonies draw from you, as with
their life-blood, these ideas and principles. Their love of liberty, as with
you, fixed and attached on this specific point of taxing. Liberty might be safe,
or might be endangered, in twenty other particulars, without their being much
pleased or alarmed. Here they felt its pulse; and as they found that beat, they
thought themselves sick or sound. I do not say whether they were right or wrong
in applying your general arguments to their own case. It is not easy, indeed, to
make a monopoly of theorems and corollaries. The fact is, that they did thus
apply those general arguments; and your mode of governing them, whether through
lenity or indolence, through wisdom or mistake, confirmed them in the
imagination that they, as well as you, had an interest in these common
principles."
There is more....
Again:
"If anything were wanting to this necessary operation of the form of government,
religion would have given it a complete effect. Religion, always a principle of
energy, in this new people is no way worn out or impaired; and their mode of
professing it is also one main cause of this free spirit. The people are
Protestants; and of that kind which is the most adverse to all implicit
submission of mind and opinion. This is a persuasion not only favorable to
liberty, but built upon it. I do not think, Sir, that the reason of this
averseness in the dissenting churches from all that looks like absolute
government is so much to be sought in their religio ... view full comment
Again:
"If anything were wanting to this necessary operation of the form of government,
religion would have given it a complete effect. Religion, always a principle of
energy, in this new people is no way worn out or impaired; and their mode of
professing it is also one main cause of this free spirit. The people are
Protestants; and of that kind which is the most adverse to all implicit
submission of mind and opinion. This is a persuasion not only favorable to
liberty, but built upon it. I do not think, Sir, that the reason of this
averseness in the dissenting churches from all that looks like absolute
government is so much to be sought in their religious tenets, as in their
history. Every one knows that the Roman Catholic religion is at least co-eval
with most of the governments where it prevails; that it has generally gone hand
in hand with them, and received great favor and every kind of support from
authority. The Church of England too was formed from her cradle under the
nursing care of regular government. But the dissenting interests have sprung up
in direct opposition to all the ordinary powers of the world, and could justify
that opposition only on a strong claim to natural liberty. Their very existence
depended on the powerful and unremitted assertion of that claim. All
Protestantism, even the most cold and passive, is a sort of dissent. But the
religion most prevalent in our Northern Colonies is a refinement on the
principle of resistance; it is the dissidence of dissent, and the protestantism
of the Protestant religion. This religion, under a variety of denominations
agreeing in nothing but in the communion of the spirit of liberty, is
predominant in most of the Northern Provinces, where the Church of England,
notwithstanding its legal rights, is in reality no more than a sort of private
sect, not composing most probably the tenth of the people. The Colonists left
England when this spirit was high, and in the emigrants was the highest of all;
and even that stream of foreigners which has been constantly flowing into these
Colonies has, for the greatest part, been composed of dissenters from the
establishments of their several countries, who have brought with them a temper
and character far from alien to that of the people with whom they mixed...."
Finally, for now:
"Sir, I can perceive by their manner that some gentlemen object to the latitude
of this description, because in the Southern Colonies the Church of England
forms a large body, and has a regular establishment. It is certainly true. There
is, however, a circumstance attending these Colonies which, in my opinion, fully
counterbalances this difference, and makes the spirit of liberty still more high
and haughty than in those to the northward. It is that in Virginia and the
Carolinas they have a vast multitude of slaves. Where this is the case in any
part of the world, those who are free are by far the most proud and jealous of
their freedo ... view full comment
Finally, for now:
"Sir, I can perceive by their manner that some gentlemen object to the latitude
of this description, because in the Southern Colonies the Church of England
forms a large body, and has a regular establishment. It is certainly true. There
is, however, a circumstance attending these Colonies which, in my opinion, fully
counterbalances this difference, and makes the spirit of liberty still more high
and haughty than in those to the northward. It is that in Virginia and the
Carolinas they have a vast multitude of slaves. Where this is the case in any
part of the world, those who are free are by far the most proud and jealous of
their freedom. Freedom is to them [Footnote: 25] not only an enjoyment, but a
kind of rank and privilege. Not seeing there, that freedom, as in countries
where it is a common blessing and as broad and general as the air, may be united
with much abject toil, with great misery, with all the exterior of servitude;
liberty looks, amongst them, like something that is more noble and liberal. I do
not mean, Sir, to commend the superior morality of this sentiment, which has at
least as much pride as virtue in it; but I cannot alter the nature of man. The
fact is so; and these people of the Southern Colonies are much more strongly,
and with an higher and more stubborn spirit, attached to liberty than those to
the northward. Such were all the ancient commonwealths; such were our Gothic
ancestors; such in our days were the Poles; and such will be all masters of
slaves, who are not slaves themselves. In such a people the haughtiness of
domination combines with the spirit of freedom, fortifies it, and renders it
invincible.
Permit me, Sir, to add another circumstance in our Colonies which contributes no
mean part towards the growth and effect of this untractable spirit. I mean their
education. In no country perhaps in the world is the law so general a study. The
profession itself is numerous and powerful; and in most provinces it takes the
lead. The greater number of the deputies sent to the Congress were lawyers. But
all who read, and most do read, endeavor to obtain some smattering in that
science. I have been told by an eminent bookseller, that in no branch of his
business, after tracts of popular devotion, were so many books as those on the
law exported to the Plantations. The Colonists have now fallen into the way of
printing them for their own use. I hear that they have sold nearly as many of
Blackstone's Commentaries in America as in England. General Gage marks out this
disposition very particularly in a letter on your table. He states that all the
people in his government are lawyers, or smatterers in law; and that in Boston
they have been enabled, by successful chicane, wholly to evade many parts of one
of your capital penal constitutions. The smartness of debate will say that this
knowledge ought to teach them more clearly the rights of legislature, their
obligations to obedience, and the penalties of rebellion. All this is mighty
well. But my honorable and learned friend on the floor, who condescends to mark
what I say for animadversion, will disdain that ground. He has heard, as well as
I, that when great honors and great emoluments do not win over this knowledge to
the service of the state, it is a formidable adversary to government. If the
spirit be not tamed and broken by these happy methods, it is stubborn and
litigious. Abeunt studia in mores. [Footnote: 26] This study readers men acute,
inquisitive, dexterous, prompt in attack, ready in defence, full of resources.
In other countries, the people, more simple, and of a less mercurial cast, judge
of an ill principle in government only by an actual grievance; here they
anticipate the evil, and judge of the pressure of the grievance by the badness
of the principle. They augur misgovernment at a distance, and snuff the approach
of tyranny in every tainted breeze....."
"No matter what Burke may have said on that speech, I suppose he did not grasp this. Or he would deny his entire thought."
Luis, Burke and Tocqueville were writing sixty years apart from very different perspectives, so it isn't surprising even at the most basic level that they had some different views. However, the question is not whether Burke and Tocqueville had different attitudes toward political democracy -- they did. The question is whether Burke regarded the American revolutionaries as manifesting the same "violent, resentful spirit" that he saw later in the French Revolution. You suggest he did. I suggest he did not, and I advance the text of the Speech on Conciliation with the Co ... view full comment
"No matter what Burke may have said on that speech, I suppose he did not grasp this. Or he would deny his entire thought."
Luis, Burke and Tocqueville were writing sixty years apart from very different perspectives, so it isn't surprising even at the most basic level that they had some different views. However, the question is not whether Burke and Tocqueville had different attitudes toward political democracy -- they did. The question is whether Burke regarded the American revolutionaries as manifesting the same "violent, resentful spirit" that he saw later in the French Revolution. You suggest he did. I suggest he did not, and I advance the text of the Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies to support that. I have yet to see any evidence to back up your assertion.
JD picked out some of the exact quotes I was going to paste, in fact,
Burke's ideas, Irony, are similar to those of Montesquieu and Locke in as much as the all believed that manufacturing, commerce, and trade made the world of the moderns very different from that of the ancients. It also acted as a natural leveler. John Adams belonged to their company and Jefferson of the 1770’s did not, though later on under the influence of Adams he began to moderate his views.
Before that Jefferson’s thought with its emphasis on self sufficiency and reliance on the land held values closer to those of the ancients.
Burke's ideas, Irony, are similar to those of Montesquieu and Locke in as much as the all believed that manufacturing, commerce, and trade made the world of the moderns very different from that of the ancients. It also acted as a natural leveler. John Adams belonged to their company and Jefferson of the 1770’s did not, though later on under the influence of Adams he began to moderate his views.
Before that Jefferson’s thought with its emphasis on self sufficiency and reliance on the land held values closer to those of the ancients.
" But how can one understand Burke's political ideas as similar to Locke's when Burke finds equality to be contra-natura and Locke bases its political system on equality, equating it with justice?"
John Locke, Luis, held stock in a company that traded in slaves: "The Royal Africa Company."
You need to stop relying on secondary sources and do a little more research into primary ones.
" But how can one understand Burke's political ideas as similar to Locke's when Burke finds equality to be contra-natura and Locke bases its political system on equality, equating it with justice?"
John Locke, Luis, held stock in a company that traded in slaves: "The Royal Africa Company."
You need to stop relying on secondary sources and do a little more research into primary ones.
"With all the differences I see between Paine and Burke and between Tocqueville and Burke, I never said (you can read my passage again) that Burke was resentful or that he saw the Americans as resentful."
I apologize for misreading you, luis, if you didn't mean that, but still I'd say that the basic gist of your original comments was clear: Burke's attitude to the American Revolution in the mid-late 1770s maps onto his reading of the French Revolution in 1789, and that puts him the other side of a line from Tocqueville and Paine. I don't believe that to be the case, and I'd suggest a comparative reading of "Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies" and "Reflections of the Rev. in France" wo ... view full comment
"With all the differences I see between Paine and Burke and between Tocqueville and Burke, I never said (you can read my passage again) that Burke was resentful or that he saw the Americans as resentful."
I apologize for misreading you, luis, if you didn't mean that, but still I'd say that the basic gist of your original comments was clear: Burke's attitude to the American Revolution in the mid-late 1770s maps onto his reading of the French Revolution in 1789, and that puts him the other side of a line from Tocqueville and Paine. I don't believe that to be the case, and I'd suggest a comparative reading of "Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies" and "Reflections of the Rev. in France" would bring the important distinctions to light.
Furthermore, although I don't disagree when you write
"He can only see something good in the American political world after understanding it as a mere continuation of the aristocratic "freedoms of the Englishmen" world. That is, Burke can only see the American political world in a good light after suppressing its most important originality and its most distinguishing feature" --
I don't believe that was what was at issue. We weren't discussing why Burke might have seen the American events with a different eye than the one he turned on the French crisis a decade-plus later (as assessment which I'm now pleased to see you concurring in); we were discussing whether Burke saw both revolutions as involving the same combination of class rancor, ideological challenge, and violent resentment.
luis, I said "the other side of the line," not "the same side of the line."
luis, I said "the other side of the line," not "the same side of the line."
Luis is the perfect casuist. He always changes the terms of a debate to suit his preconceived notions.
He makes it seem above as if Tom Paine were the equal in importance of Jefferson which he wasn’t.
Luis is the perfect casuist. He always changes the terms of a debate to suit his preconceived notions.
He makes it seem above as if Tom Paine were the equal in importance of Jefferson which he wasn’t.
Luis, when discussing the US Constitution that document is a primary source. All others are secondary sources, including Locke.
The same when we are discussing Burke's views of the American revolution. His texts and letters are primary sources, those of de Tocqueville are secondary sources.
Now, when discussing Locke's or Jeffersons' views of liberty their own conduct in relation to the liberty of others is also a primary source of understandign. Hence the fact that Locke invested in the slave trade or that Jefferson owned slave is a point worth discussing.
Did common sense tell them that in a slave holding society owning slaves was permissable no matter one's own private views on the matte ... view full comment
Luis, when discussing the US Constitution that document is a primary source. All others are secondary sources, including Locke.
The same when we are discussing Burke's views of the American revolution. His texts and letters are primary sources, those of de Tocqueville are secondary sources.
Now, when discussing Locke's or Jeffersons' views of liberty their own conduct in relation to the liberty of others is also a primary source of understandign. Hence the fact that Locke invested in the slave trade or that Jefferson owned slave is a point worth discussing.
Did common sense tell them that in a slave holding society owning slaves was permissable no matter one's own private views on the matter?
As to the terms of the debate as Irony said pointed out in his post (12/06/2009 - 6:09pm EDT | ironyroad) how you changed the terms the debate about Burke's view of the American Revolution.
A very interesting discussion, guys, which caused me to go take that anthology of Burke's writings down from my shelf and actually read some of that fascinating "Conciliation with the Colonies" speech.
I'll be out of the loop for a couple of weeks.
A very interesting discussion, guys, which caused me to go take that anthology of Burke's writings down from my shelf and actually read some of that fascinating "Conciliation with the Colonies" speech.
I'll be out of the loop for a couple of weeks.
"Arendt said, when reacting against what she named "the Historian's trap", that when looking upon the past, if foundational moments are at stake, we should not look upon the rotten bits of the ones involved (rotten bits they inevitably have as men of their age who were not monks departed from the world...). We should look upon their prospective meaning as triggered by the same and experienced by future generations."
Oh, and I am sure that if Arendt said it it must be true. Provided of course you can tell us what "the rotten bits of the ones involved" are in our (oops, excuse me, in my) posts (since your posts are immaculate examples or prospective thought.
Arendt by the way is also a secondar ... view full comment
"Arendt said, when reacting against what she named "the Historian's trap", that when looking upon the past, if foundational moments are at stake, we should not look upon the rotten bits of the ones involved (rotten bits they inevitably have as men of their age who were not monks departed from the world...). We should look upon their prospective meaning as triggered by the same and experienced by future generations."
Oh, and I am sure that if Arendt said it it must be true. Provided of course you can tell us what "the rotten bits of the ones involved" are in our (oops, excuse me, in my) posts (since your posts are immaculate examples or prospective thought.
Arendt by the way is also a secondary source when it comes to constitutional issues.
luispc “I don't understand what you mean, Jackson. Arendt was making a point on the irrelevance of exploring those "rotten bits" of the founders (such as slave ownership) if one wants to understand the meaning of the Revolution.”
These were not just “rotten bits.” In any case, you were making a point, citing Arendt, for the necessity of reading history prospectively.
This is at best debatable. Just because and historical event led to social betterment doesn’t make that event moral or just. WW2 led to a more peaceful Europe. Ought we to see the war as a desirable event because it helped future generations live in peace?
The significance of the event cannot then be seen solely in “ ... view full comment
luispc “I don't understand what you mean, Jackson. Arendt was making a point on the irrelevance of exploring those "rotten bits" of the founders (such as slave ownership) if one wants to understand the meaning of the Revolution.”
These were not just “rotten bits.” In any case, you were making a point, citing Arendt, for the necessity of reading history prospectively.
This is at best debatable. Just because and historical event led to social betterment doesn’t make that event moral or just. WW2 led to a more peaceful Europe. Ought we to see the war as a desirable event because it helped future generations live in peace?
The significance of the event cannot then be seen solely in “a prospective meaning desirably inhabited by future generations.”
And please stop bringing up red herrings like Marxists readings of history or Schimmittian readings of politics.
I have no interest in either of these two thinkers.
Marxists aren’t the only ones who believe in factoring in slavery as an failing of the American independence movement. A number of important American thinkers at the time, such as Emerson, also thought so.
Finally, Arendt is not an “original source.” This is just plain nonsense.