Woods directly asks us to consider American exceptionalism and the inchoate ideal of
. . . the American's enlightened dream of a new world order based upon commerce . . .(192)
This is a driving tendency in American history and the behavior of both the vernacular and genteel seem to be guided by this idealized new world order and consciously or unconsciously striving for this dream informs so much activity. Perhaps Sowell would argue that the conflict of visions is best understood by examining actions either emergent or directed toward this vision of the world, a vision made in the image of a nascent America at the time and a "mature" America today.
The chapters that review the French Revolution and Adam's administration are particularly significant in their relevance to issues today of the role of the state, assumptions of human behavior and the intersection of institutional evolution and change. I was constantly reminded of the work of North and Hayek as Woods illustrated the pace of institutional change in the face of rapid changes in society - this lag between the change in institutions, particularly formal ones, and the emergence of alternative norms and conventions, motivated Washington in his Farewell address to stress:
. . .the importance of religion, morality, a general diffusion of knowledge, and public credit, . . .(208)
This list begins and ends with two formal institutions sandwiched between a process and, what Adam Smith and other enlightenment thinkers viewed as a or perhaps the central informal institution. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments Smith used the metaphor of an impartial spectator to explore the role and important of sympathy to the well being of the individual and society. It is this relationship between the well being of the individual and society that I see as organizing the themes of these three chapters if not the entire book.
Woods observes:
. . . many members of the elite had become increasingly anxious about the growth of popular power in America . . . (176)
Woods captures an important point here - the distinction between power and liberty. The elite were concerned (perhaps rightly) that the masses would have no system of cosmology for dealing with liberty. That they would, instead, turn to power - the power of the mob, the tyranny of the majority, the demogagory of the press . . .
To me, this seems not only a reasonable anxiety, but a concern that our history confirms as having very nasty consequences - as we know examples ranging from the Know Nothing Party to the Comstock Laws represent points on the continuum of this history - the first the "power" of the commoners to engage in their own fears and intolerance, the second, a response by those in power (by this time would they be elites or merely a faction of the common?) to activity perceived as wrong.
So the question becomes - what is power? Where is the locus of power?
Clearly this is important, in fact perhaps critical as North et al argue in Violence and the Social Orders as without a mechanism to maintain the equilibrium between power and liberty both will be threatened.
Chapter 5 - The French Revolution in America
Hamilton articulates the organizing theme in a political context: "The United Sates are a young nation"
Woods makes this very important paranthetical comment following the above comment: (Note the use of the plural verb, which remained common usage until after the Civil War) (184).
Woods directs us to think of the evolution in attitude of federalism and the impact that this changing conception had on the locus of power and decision making and the impact of this change on liberty and freedom.
Woods writes of the Federalists struggle to govern in the face of "accelerated powerful underlying demographic and economic forces . . .(178) Well ok, but isn't this true of today and actually, as I think about it over all time? This period is significant for the revolutionary nature of the reaction as leadership reacted to these forces - the republican response and eventual success was a break from the traditon of the past on par with the Glorious Revolution.
A key issue that is relevant today was the free trade, free sea, free ship stance adopted by the nascent republic in a time of global conflict, and the reaction of the hegemonic powers of the day. The "stenuous promotion of liberal principles concerning commerce on the high seas in wartime (and at all times) namely that free ships made free goods . . (189) was an exemplary example of the mixture of pragmatism and principle. Today the US reflects an ambivalence to this ideal - we defend this ideal off the coast of Somalia and oppose this ideal off the coast of Cuba.
The ancillary idea from this free trade philosophy is the role of conflict and the relationship between free trade and peace . . . or war. (190).
Woods does a nice job of capturing the opposing perspectives on page 195 and in thinking of Boyes' preliminary evalution of Hamilton, it seems that the Jeffersonians are the fools (or just real naive) and Hamilton is the realist - "The seeds of war are sown thickly in the human breast."(195).
Chapter 6 - John Adams and the Few and the Many
The title and contents of chapter 6 consciously echo the classical notion of "the good" and the "few". (214).
In previous posts we have examined the notion of public v private character, Woods does a nice job of reminding us in the previous chapter:
The Federalists assumed in traditional eightenth-century fashion-and it was an assumption that they never lost-that no free government could long exist without the people's confidence in the private character and respectability of the governing officials; indeed, they believed that without their personal creditility the weak national government might not be able to sustain itself.(203)
Woods ends this chapter (first full paragraph on page 238) be indicating the change in a this 18th century view of leadership and the election of 1800 illustrates this change and tension with Burr as the symbol of the "new" self interested man scurrying between Hamilton and Jefferson. Woods as an outstanding podcast on Burr over on Gilder Lehrman that amplifies this key point in American history. While Burr was truly a traitor to his class - he was a member of the elite by birthright, Woods is exploring the emergent vernacular in society and the demand of these middling sorts for participation and ultimately control of the political process. Telling, Franklin labels these "Molatto Gentlemen" (226) and we are asked to reflect in this intensifying Hamiltonian/Jeffersonian debate - what are the consequences of a participatory, yeoman democracy. Is it possible that the Hamiltonians had a basis to fear the mob?
This powerful notion from the enlightenment is so alien today - due to the immense scope and breadth of the government we have come to accept and tolerate leadership that at best reflects the moral condition of everyman and most often reflects the worst in terms of the awful virtues that Adam Smith argues come from self command.
Two take aways from this chapter - the first is the conception of checks and balances held by the founders. This was previously mentioned but a close reading of 215 shows that these checks and balances between the three loci of power in the national govenrment did not include the courts. The President was to mediate between the House and the Senate. In an earlier post I referenced a podcast by Larry Kramer over on Gilder Lehrman that made this very point, which was new information to me.
Finally, given the misconception today that our political process is violently and perhaps irrationally partisan - the story of republican Matt Lyons spitting into the face of Federalist Griswold on the floor of Congress and Griswold's predicatable reaction reminded me that anti-intellectualism and anti-authoritarian behavior have commonly manifest themselves in our public life in a vernacular rather than genteel manner.
For those with tons of time I recommend Richard Slotkin's excellent trilogy on violence in America. The emergent principle described by Slotkin - no duty to retreat - did not start in Texas, nor with Matthew Lyons, but seems to have emerged from those early colonial days.
Chapter 7 - The Crisis of 1798-1799
This has been the most important chapter in thinking about the historical roots of contemporary debate over the role of the state, private v public sphere and liberty v freedom.
I view this chapter as a clear and present warning to concerned citizens about the real cost of war - loss, perhaps permanently, of liberty. This period exemplifies the process that Bob Higgs writes about and fears - the ratchett effect and the result of "crisis" in the evolution of the state and, more importantly, the shaping of norms, conventions, opinions and morality to accept and support the welfare and warfare state.
Higgs shares Monroe's concern that:
. . . military measures were designed to create a military establishment that . . . [was] a far greater danger to public liberty than [fill in the blank - really anything else - war with Britain at the time - terrorism today].(196)
All contemporary attacks on liberty and freedom by the government are seen in the Alien and Sedition Acts. The Quasi War allowed aqnd juistified efforts to limit and regulate immigration, deport critics of the government, and shackle a free press.
On the issue of immigration - "these masses of new immigrants with their disorderly and Jacobinical ideas were the grand cause of our present difficulties"(249) could easily be the words of Russell Pierce, Patrick Buchanan, Lou Dobbs, democratic union bosses and hacks, or any of a number of current representatives of special interest who have refined the blame game to nuanced use of racism, victimization, zenophobia and religious intolerance.
We do not expect this Father Coglin demogagory from Abigal Adams
"in times like the present, a more careful and attentive watch ought to be kept on foreigners"(249). The second first lady sounds like a lackey for Wilson's secret policy, or Bush's internal security agency.
The efforts to muzzle the press anticipate the actions of all administrations of all ilk in the days of the republic.
The rational was
. . . the press itself was changing. it began shedding its traditional neutral role . . . instead they became political advocates and party activists. (251)
Woods argues the actions fo the Federalists to muzzle opposition press through oppression and suppression of the 1st amendment was the prime force destroying the party.
The common law view of the state relationship to the press was no prior restraint or censorship. (258). The effort of Adam's Sedition Act, like that of future war presidents was to stifle dissent.
To date, this chapter would be the one I would recommend as required reading - if indeed contemporary society is to reexamine the underlying set of norms and conventions that seem to support an intrusive state and favor security over liberty, this material may well provide the basis to reconsider that tacit support for totalitarianism and a culture of oppression.
The survey referenced by the articles below can be viewed here
http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/8112.pdf
Oct. 10. 2010 - Washington Post
Poll: Despite anti-government sentiment, people still want what government offers
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2013128444_poll11.html
Poll: Despite anti-government sentiment, people still want what government offers
If there is an overarching theme of election 2010, it is the question of how big the government should be and how far it should reach into people's lives
By Jon Cohen and Dan Balz
The Washington Post
WASHINGTON — If there is an overarching theme of election 2010, it is the question of how big the government should be and how far it should reach into people's lives.
Americans have a more negative view of government today than they did a decade ago, or even a few years ago. Most say it focuses on the wrong things and lack confidence it can solve big domestic problems; this general anti-Washington sentiment is helping to fuel a potential Republican takeover of Congress next month.
But ask people what they expect the government to do for them, and a more complicated picture emerges.
A new study by The Washington Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University shows most Americans who say they want more limited government also call Social Security and Medicare "very important." They want Washington to be involved in schools and help reduce poverty. Nearly half want the government to maintain a role in regulating health care.
USA Today Oct. 11, 2010
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-10-11-1Abiggovernment11_CV_N.htm
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Americans are having a crisis of confidence in their government.
A majority in a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll disapprove of the jobs President Obama and Congress are doing and have unfavorable views of both major political parties. Only half express even a fair amount of trust and confidence in the people who hold or are running for public office. Just one in four are satisfied with the way the nation is being governed.
Meanwhile, six in 10 Americans say the government has too much power, and nearly half agree with this alarming statement: "The federal government poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedom of ordinary citizens."
So what size and scope of government do Americans want?
That issue has fueled the Tea Party movement and defined this year's elections. Anti-government feeling — ignited by angst over the cost of government bailouts and the reach of the sweeping health care law — is the biggest force behind projected Democratic losses on Nov. 2 that are expected to reshape the capital's politics and could deliver control of Congress to the Republicans.
Three weeks before Election Day, USA TODAY and Gallup are trying to understand the underlying attitudes driving this debate with a national survey and an analysis that charts five distinct groups of public opinion. They range from the 22% of Americans at one end who want government out of their lives — among them many Tea Party supporters — to the 20% at the other end who endorse an expansive government that protects its citizens from life's travails.
No political issue is more fundamental, and no other question divides the electorate more sharply along partisan lines.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment