Some time ago, a reader contacted me directly, offering a critique of my blog. “The ‘neoclassical republicanism’ of your blog,” he wrote, “is so hopelessly out-of-touch with the realities of contemporary society that I cannot believe you are attempting to resurrect the use of it.” I pointed out that on my “Why?” page I held no delusions about republicanism (see my question-answer about being too idealistic), that yes, it was idealistic but ideals are what help us see new ways of viewing old, intransigent problems. Now – more than ever – we need new approaches.
In turn, this critic invited me to read the prologue in Joseph J. Ellis’ book, American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson. “This will give a brief orientation of the problems surrounding your wish to use republicanism.”
So I read it.
And my first mental response was, “This blog isn’t about Jefferson.” And I moved on.
Then, as I pondered the prologue, I decided that, yes, perhaps it was about Jefferson; at least, it was about Jefferson in terms of his views on republicanism, since I lean towards “Jeffersonian republicanism.” If Jefferson carries a certain amount of baggage in the opinions of some, then unfortunately my blog will chase some away. This is clearly not the blog’s intent. What I did intend for this blog was to invite all voices from the political spectrum to critique, criticize, ask questions, demand answers, spout opinion, and generally create an atmosphere of epic verbal altercations.
I learned another source of confusion from those who have said to the effect, “Your political views are all over the board. I can’t make anything of this.” Clearly, this is an advance state of “presentism,” as Ellis calls it in his prologue. “Presentism” is a condition where we try to overlay our contemporary views on history. It’s attempting to rip something out of context, the proverbial round peg-square hole problem.
I am simply endeavoring to pull neoclassical republicanism out of the past and use it as a lens by which we can examine contemporary issues in a new light. It’s impossible to be objective about such things but, to the best of my abilities to understand 17th and 18th century writings on republicanism,1 I want to view our world by standing in the collective positions of Founding-Era republicanism (as opposed to standing in the shoes of any one of our Founders, which would be a most presumptuous act) and try to imagine how this political philosophy would respond to today’s issues.
I’m willing to “get it wrong.” We can stage a public forum over that. But to question the relevancy of the blog itself, well, I felt it was time I needed to provide more than a passing answer to the question “Isn’t this too idealistic?”
In his prologue, Ellis takes a swing at the most famous of Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence. We know them as:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Of course, as Ellis points out, these words emanated from the Continental Congress’ committee charged with the writing of the Declaration. The members of the committee included Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Roger Sherman and Robert Livingston. Jefferson took the lead in writing the document. His original, unedited version was this:
“We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & unalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness.”
Regardless of the wording, Ellis goes on to write:
“The explicit claim is that the individual is the sovereign unit in society; his natural state is freedom from and equality with all other individuals; this is the natural order of things. The implicit claim is that all restrictions on this natural order are immoral transgressions, violations of what God intended; individuals liberated from such restrictions will interact with their fellows in a harmonious scheme requiring no external discipline and producing maximum human happiness.”
“The genius of his (Jefferson’s – ed.) rhetoric,” Ellis continues in the next paragraph, “is to articulate irreconcilable human urges at a sufficiently abstract level to mask their mutual exclusiveness.”
I’m unclear as to how Ellis justifies this reading of the Declaration, but it seems to be a mix of misconceived reading of classical liberalism with a critical shot at Jefferson’s sometimes admittedly optimistic read on humanity. My readings of republicanism do not reveal “irreconcilable human urges” that Ellis seems to find: Repeatedly, 17th and 18th century authors (Locke, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, etc.) balance individual liberties with the responsibility to preserve those liberties with social, political and economic engagement, which attempts to keep everyone honest. How else can personal liberties survive? This engagement is part of the discipline required to preserve a republic. To pull liberty away from responsibility is to commit the sin that Ellis claims elsewhere in his prologue others commit but that he himself is guilty of here.
Next: Pulling together liberty and responsibility, and a pragmatic example of how this could work in health care.
1I’ll publicly admit here that I was far from convinced this era had anything to offer. In fact, at the beginning I knew little about republicanism beyond it was some murky, fluid political philosophy that drove the direction upon which our country followed in its early formative years. Yet, as I read the writings from the period, I started to realize that the contemporary voices attempting to “channel” Founding-Era republicanism were only providing select pieces of the bigger picture; an editing job, I’m sure, that supported their worldviews. Gaining breadth and depth by reading the original writings on neoclassical republicanism, I found my own worldviews severely challenged. Even now, I’m not completely convinced republicanism can be useful with all of today’s issues, but I will do my best to render what I see as the most realistic responses from this exercise.
No comments:
Post a Comment