No Left Turns - The Ashbrook Center Blog

Published in The Founding

Political Philosophy

Leon Kass on the Real War on Poverty

At the AEI annual dinner Dr. Leon Kass explains life--work, love, service, and truth. He concludes with the need for hope:

In this most fundamental sense, hope is not a hope for change, but an affirmation of permanence, of the permanent possibility of a meaningful life in a hospitable world. Hope in this sense is not only a Judeo-Christian virtue. It is not only the most essential--and abundant--American virtue. It is the condition of the possibility of all human endeavor and all human fulfillment. Yes, there is still much spiritual poverty in America. But we go forward with confidence that our spiritual hungers can yet be nurtured in this almost promised land, provided that we have the courage to insist that the well-being of the spirit is central to our notion of national success and personal flourishing. This war on poverty--on our spiritual poverty--will not add a cent to the deficit. It can enrich our lives beyond measure.

Today, poverty, like pollution, needs a deeper understanding.

Religion

A Primer on Middle East Democracy (Update)

Bob Reilly takes on neo-conservative Middle East expert Reuel Marc Gerecht in today's Wall Street Journal. Reilly points out that a presupposition of democracy is solution of the religious issue--that is, freedom of conscience. That is, the American model remains the most reasonable means of establishing democratic self-government.

UPDATE: The Reilly letter in op-ed form.

Categories > Religion

The Founding

Federalism (and Limited Government) Reaffirmed

Many contemporary friends of limited government adopt erroneous theories ("states' rights," secession) that actually increase the possibility of tyrannical government, as American history bears out.

Often the case for secession as a device of limited government resorts to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. But Villanova University professor (and MAHG instructor) Colleen Sheehan argues that James Madison, author of the Virginia Resolutions, had a much profounder view of not only federalism but the nature of popular government than his friend Thomas Jefferson, who authored the Kentucky Resolutions.

Whereas Jefferson sought to implement modes outside of the ordinary processes of law, in the form of constitutional conventions or negations of contractual/compact agreements, Madison sought to establish a political practice in which, whenever possible, the settled decisions of the people would control and direct government. Madison's cure was not to pit the extraordinary authority of the people against the ordinary deliberative processes of majority decision-making, but to hold the government dependent on and answerable to the deliberate, sovereign public.

Her essay appears in a series on the provocative Library of Law and Liberty website of the Liberty Fund.

Categories > The Founding

Conservatism

A Largely Forgotten Man

A hero to many contemporary conservatives and libertarians, William Graham Sumner (who penned the phrase "the forgotten man," which was then misappropriated by FDR), takes a beating from Steve Hayward. Sumner joined the attack on Progressive Darwinists who, along with this Social Darwinist, renounced the Declaration of Independence.

Categories > Conservatism

The Founding

Your Constitutional Authority

The Heritage Foundation has put on-line its Guide to the Constitution, co-edited by David Forte and Matthew Spalding. This is a line-by-line commentary with major essays by significant legal scholars. Heritage does terrific work with its instant digests on contemporary policy issues, but this is something different, yet relevant to policy debates.

Take this analysis of the first line of Article II of the Constitution, on the nature and scope of executive power, "the vesting clause." There's even a teacher's companion guide, besides the essay by UVA law professor Sai Prakash and a brief (and diverse) bibliography of legal scholarship.

Or consider co-editor Forte's thoughts on the commerce clause, now at the heart of the Obamacare case, to be decided by the Court this term. Are you clear on the meaning of "to ... regulate commerce ... among the several states"? And so it goes, line by line, through the whole Constitution.

The achievement deserves favorable comparison with the best encyclopaedias of legal thought, such as the grand project of the late Leonard Levy. And besides Heritage's is on-line, will be constantly updated (not a living Constitution, but a lively commentary) and free.

Categories > The Founding

The Founding

If you shoot at a King...

Dr. King then applied for a gun permit. Ann Coulter on a brief history of blacks and gun control. Gun control remains a good litmus test of liberty--whom do you trust, yourself and your law-abiding friends, or lawless people and an arbitrary law? A WSJ op-ed puts Florida's "stand your ground" law in perspective and finds it moderate, and no license to shoot at will, or even when attacked.
Categories > The Founding

Conservatism

Mourning Tocqueville

Yesterday marked the 153rd anniversary of the death of Alexis de Tocqueville, the extraordinary biographer of America, in all its splendor and its deficiencies. His principal virtue was his insight that liberty-smothering bureaucracy--what he termed "centralized administration"--was at the core of contemporary ills, and it would worsen, as this scandal  (more serious than the GSA) reminds us.

This Tocqueville anniversary coincides with the 100th anniversary of Woodrow Wilson's bold attack on the American founders and his celebration of the administrative state, "What is Progress?" The presidential campaign address also proclaimed the need for Darwinian science to form the basis of our political science. The contrast between Wilson--who equated democracy and socialism--and Tocqueville, who denied such equivalence is most instructive.

Obama's ill-informed attribution of "Darwinism" to Paul Ryan, et al. flies in the face of his own Progressive, Darwinian assumptions, which repudiate constitutional government and justify tyranny.

A few years ago Diana Schaub penned a typically elegant essay on the anniversary of Tocqueville's death.

Categories > Conservatism

Education

Founding Documents Bill Signed into Law

I went down to Columbus on Monday for the Governor's ceremonial signing of Senate Bill 165, the "Founding Documents Bill."  I testified on behalf of this bill a few months ago.  State Senator Larry Obhof (R-Montville Township) led the charge on behalf of the bill that is now law. The state's model curricula will now include the Declaration of Independence; the United States Constitution, with an emphasis on the Bill of Rights; the Northwest Ordinance; and the Ohio Constitution.  The curricula will include reading the primary documents in their historical context.  As Sen. Obhof said, this law will help "ensure that all Ohioans are adequately prepared for their role in democratic self-governance."

Categories > Education

Politics

The Logic of Birthright

Instapundit point us to this incident, in which a citizen was denied the right to travel because he damaged the chip in his passport: "The claim has been made that breaking the chip in the passport shows that you disrespect the privilege of owning a passport, and that the airport was justified in denying this child from using the passport."

But is holding a passport a "privilege" or a "right"?  Interestingly the dissenters in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (Fuller, joined by Harlan) noted that "birthright" or the notion that soil determines citizenship, was associated with subjecthood--under common law, anyone born on soil belonging to the king could only leave the country with his explicit consent.  That's why that argued that in 1776 the U.S. broke from not just allegiance to the crown, but also from the idea of birthright.  They argued that American citizenship was based upon the principles of 1776--mutual consent between current citizens and any new would-be citizen.  It seems some of our bureaucrats are following the logic of "birthright citizenship" all too well.

Categories > Politics

The Founding

Founders: Historians versus Politicians

This WaPo account of how various Republicans (why only them, one might ask) use/ransack the founding fathers pits the politicians against historians who criticize this alleged naievete.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology history professor Pauline Maier, author of several books about the period from the 1760s to the writing of the Constitution, says: "It is interesting why so many politicians and even judges today want to show that their ideas had firm foundations among the founders. In some ways, I suppose that defines a new phase in the culture wars over 'who is most American.' "

But, she adds, "that can also be very regressive: No founder ever embraced abortion or endorsed affirmative action. Eight­eenth-century Americans did take rights seriously, but their rank list of rights was probably different than those of rights-conscious people today. They lived, after all, over two centuries ago and on the rights front can seem pretty dated."

Like another fine historian of the Declaration, Carl Becker, Maier falls prey to historicism, the notion that one's historical circumstances poses an absolute barrier to finding transcendent truth. Evidently, to judge just from the professors cited in this article (Jack Rakove, among others), it's the scholars versus divisive Republican politicians.

But the contrast shows how much the defense of the Constitution resides in ordinary citizens and the politicians who reflect their concern. As the Progressives predicted and urged they would, intellectuals take the side of progress and history against the people's pride in their country as founded. Of course, not all thinkers agree with those consumed by Progressivism. Here's a shorter piece.

Categories > The Founding

The Founding

An All-Star George Washington Panel

At AEI earlier today. Not only Steve Hayward but also Harvey Mansfield, Diana Schaub, and Rick Brookhiser, with Leon Kass presiding. I thought Steve and Harvey might duel later over what Americans should want in an executive. Diana could have given the eulogy, and Dr. Kass, MD, could be the attending physician. The panel featured elegant brief presentations by Diana and Rick on Washington's Farewell Address and his Presidency.

Another commentary on Washington can be found here, along with the text of the Farewell Address.

Hayward struck the day before with this observation on think-tanks and partisanship a few blocks away at the Hudson Institute. The crucial point: 'A slight paraphrase, but Churchill once wrote that "The distinction between politics and policy diminishes as the point of view is raised; true politics and policy are one." This distinction between politics and policy is one that I think is unsustainable.' Steve reminds us of Plato's wisdom--thinking and acting must somehow be one. 

Categories > The Founding

Courts

A New Book on Clarence Thomas

Ralph Rossum describes Justice Thomas's jurisprudence in a lengthy conversation at the Liberty Fund's LibertyLaw website. The constitutional law scholar details the differences between Thomas's original understanding jurisprudence and that of Justice Scalia.
Categories > Courts

Political Philosophy

Law and Liberty

Let me bring to your attention Liberty Fund's latest effort on behalf of the good cause: The Library of Law and LibertyThis impressive site's focus is on the content, status, and development of law in republican and limited government and the ways that liberty and law and law and liberty mutually reinforce the other. This site brings together serious debate, commentary, essays, book reviews, interviews, and educational material in a commitment to the first principles of law in a free society. Law and Liberty considers a range of foundational and contemporary legal issues, legal and political philosophy, and pedagogy.  There is much here, including a blog, Liberty Law Blog with Michael Greve and Michael Rappaport, et al.  Also note the Liberty Forum
which is a platform for debate, and you will note that some thoughtful folks are already involved in a good conversation--Hamburger, Stoner, Watson--and more will follow.  This is altogether good stuff and there is more. Do check it out.

The Founding

Hungarian Revolution for us

We need our Hungarian (Constitutional) Revolution here. In the last moments of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution the rebel radio broadcast the Gettysburg Address in seven languages, before the Soviets extinguished the freedom movement. Now a free Hungary is giving America some inspiration.
Categories > The Founding

Politics

The Power of the Declaration

Don't forget or underestimate the appeal of the Declaration of Independence.  Romney wins over Ms. Poe, an evangelical minister fearful of his Mormonism.  See the last two paragraphs:

"This is an election not just about replacing President Obama, it's an election about the soul of America," Romney said, as Poe gingerly climbed a chair to get a better view. As Romney cited the Declaration of Independence, Poe nodded in agreement. "They said that we had been endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. And as you know, those rights came not from the state, not from the government, but from our creator."

"He did great," Poe said as Romney walked around the room shaking hands. "If he were the chosen candidate, I could support him, yes."

Categories > Politics

Courts

Judging Newt Judging

Gingrich went overboard on his attacks on overboard judges. Here's a far more sober account of what can be (and ought to be) done, by Ralph Rossum. Curt Levey and Carrie Severino add some thoughts on reining in a wacky judiciary without undermining judicial independence--both are essential for the rule of law.  Judicial independence is not a license for judiciary supremacy. 

An even better lesson can be found in early American political documents that list the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers among the fundamental rights of a free people.  Consider for example the Massachusetts Constitution and the Essex Result,

Categories > Courts

Foreign Affairs

Havel RIP, the Declaration Lives

Following Justin's entry below, recall Vaclav  Havel's message to Congress: 

"Consciousness precedes being, and not the other way around, as the Marxists claim....

 "[Y]ou Americans should understand this way of thinking.  Wasn't it the best minds of your country, ... who wrote your famous Declaration of Independence...and who, above all, took upon themselves practical responsibility for putting them into practice?" 

A text of the speech can be found here; the links are unhelpful, though.

Categories > Foreign Affairs

Presidency

In Lieu of a Constitutionalist

David Brooks tries to make the case against Gingrich and winds up moderating him in many ways.   Moreover, he raises salient issues in the contest between him and Romney:  Gingrich probably does see a continuity between himself, TR, and Hamilton.  But is there a constitutionalist in the house?  If not, is a right-wing Progressive better than a competent manager?  Which would bring us back to founding principles?

TR rejected natural rights in favor of a new, collective nationalism, while Hamilton was clear in basing the emerging new republic on natural rights.  I haven't seen this concern in Gingrich but rather more a kind of Newt nationalism.  How that bears on the Declaration and the Constitution is the issue conservatives face.

E.J. Dionne plays his role exquisitely, showing the link between TR and Obama, though he gets FDR wrong in the process:  FDR had laid out his revolutionary strategy in his 1932 campaign, in his speech on Progressive Liberalism

Categories > Presidency

The Founding

Thanksgiving, Churchill 1944

A friend sent along these few words from Churchill.  It's good as is, and a wonder to hear the great man speak of our day of gratitude.  Just another reminder that all we behold is full of blessings.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Categories > The Founding

The Founding

Giving Thanks--Reading the Federalist (and C.S. Lewis)!

That appears to be George Washington's prayer in his Thanksgiving Proclamation "for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge...."  That "rational manner" was led by the Federalist Papers.

We remember C.S. Lewis, who died 48 years ago today, November 22, 1963.  Not to be confused with a children's story writer of the same name.

Categories > The Founding

The Founding

Obama's Bureaucracy Taxes Christmas UPDATE

The Department of Agriculture is instituting a $.15 tax on Christmas trees--which are actually called that and not some PC holiday shrub or greenery. 

In the Federal Register of November 8, 2011, Acting Administrator of Agricultural Marketing David R. Shipman announced that the Secretary of Agriculture will appoint a Christmas Tree Promotion Board....And the program of "information" is to include efforts to "enhance the image of Christmas trees and the Christmas tree industry in the United States" (7 CFR 1214.10).

To pay for the new Federal Christmas tree image improvement and marketing program, the Department of Agriculture imposed a 15-cent fee on all sales of fresh Christmas trees by sellers of more than 500 trees per year (7 CFR 1214.52).  

May a government board promote Christmas?  Are we on our way to a state religion?  Or does the taxing of Christmas trees foretell the taxing of churches?  For a look at the founders' view of such matters (here noting the civil piety of Thanksgiving), see this additional commentary by Jefferson and this one by Washington.

UPDATE:  Rush reports that the board's fee (not a tax) has been withdrawn.  The fee is gathered from sellers so the board can come up with ways to help sellers market their product.

Categories > The Founding

The Founding

Dilbert on iPhone Government

Almost everything Dilbert creator Scott Adams says here is wrong--it's supersized Progressivism--but he makes a host of wise and witty comments along the way.  Examples of what I mean: 

If James Madison came back, he'd be peeved that he was the primary author of the Constitution and we honor his memory by not caring when his birthday is. When he stopped whining about that, and noticed that the system he designed has turned into a congealed ball of lard that eats money and excretes red tape, he'd probably be more humble about his contribution.

I'm fairly certain Ben Franklin wouldn't be impressed by our pace of innovation. He invented the post office and showed us electricity, and it still took us 200 years to come up with email. We're not good at connecting the dots.

RTWT.  For a closer look at Madison principles see these newly published brief essays, especially this long one by Tony Peacock and this short one

Categories > The Founding

The Founding

A Momentous Day, Yesterday

Yes, that would be October 27--and it's not just about the Cardinals' comeback in game six of the World Series.  It is also the 224th anniversary of the first Federalist Paper (1787), and the 47th (1964) of Ronald Reagan's "Time for Choosing."  David Azerrad notes the coincidence and the real connection between these two statements of the choices Americans have had to make over the years to obtain and sustain their liberty.  The question that confronted the founding generation (is mankind "really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice"), also faced Reagan and us today too.  But an additional problem arose for Reagan.  He sought a counterrevolution against the Progressive faith in the rule of experts and the rise of the administrative state.  To restore the Founders' vision of republican self-government, Progressivism must be rejected.
Categories > The Founding

Politics

Washington's Convictions and Ours Today

From Robert Middlekauff's The Glorious Cause, vol. II of the Oxford History of the United States:  Facing a "cruel test," Washington was sustained through the Revolution by

at least two profound convictions.  The first was that he was the instrument of Providence in the struggle....  The other belief approached passion--a love of what Washington called the "glorious cause," the defense of the liberties of Americans.  (p. 296)

Of course not everyone who claims divine inspiration may be discerning or even truthful, but convictions about God's will have been honorable motives for public service from our origins as a nation.  Should such a self-examination be less essential today?  Or must sociological circumstances or mere personal self-aggrandizement determine our political leadership? 

The objective test of course is whether a candidate's views comport with those of the Declaration of Independence.  Private revelations are quite subordinate to that overriding consideration.  Might candidates who court the Tea Party actually use the wisdom of our founding period in contemporary debates?

Categories > Politics

Courts

OWS and a Hill to Die On

In 1984 George Orwell's O'Brien declared, "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face--forever."  That's the way I felt when I heard the participants in the Anita Hill lovefest, "Sex, Power, and Speaking Truth."    His narrow confirmation to the Court allowed him to revive American constitutionalism.  We must ever keep in mind this victory in our cultural wars.

Meanwhile, further south in Manhattan, the OWS mobs continue to flourish.  Comparing them to the Tea Party misses the heart of these true descendants of the American Founding:  They stand for the restraints, protections, and procedures of constitutional government. 

Categories > Courts

Courts

Thomas Marks Twenty Years on the Court

One of the first "jobs" assigned to me as a young undergraduate attempting to earn my keep around the Ashbrook Center was to do some research for one of my professors about a man named Clarence Thomas.  Thomas was then being considered for an appointment to DC Court of Appeals and my professor, a former clerk at the Supreme Court, was asked to write a letter in support of the appointment.  So when, only a year and some change later, Thomas was nominated to serve on the Supreme Court, I could not have been more delighted.  Having read a good deal of his writing and learned about the way his mind worked, I knew that Thomas would not have an equal on the Court.  I knew he would be one of the great Justices of all time.  Then came the hearings.  And when first they could not make case that Thomas was unqualified, they took the other--now infamous--route.  It was a great lesson about the way that the Left in America works.  They knew that they had much to fear from this man--that he could undo a great deal of the twisting and turning of Constitutional jurisprudence it had taken them generations to execute and pass off as authentic interpretation. 

Ken Masugi, who worked for Thomas during the time that he was Chairman of the EEOC, writes a thoughtful and thought provoking tribute to Justice Thomas as this October marks the twentieth anniversary of his appointment to the Court.  In it, Masugi notes the ways in which even Thomas' greatest critics must now concede his massive import and influence on the Court.  May it continue for many, many years to come.    
Categories > Courts

Politics

9/11 Lessons

Two Claremonsters, Bill Voegeli and Tom West, reflect on the meaning of 9/11.  Our NLT colleague Bill recalls the evacuations he and his fellow New Yorkers stoically endured.  Tom West always fights for the wisdom of the founders: 

My first reaction to the attack was anger -- certainly against the terrorists, but also against our government. The FAA disarmed pilots in 1987. Passengers and crew were ordered to submit quietly to hijackers' demands. In the name of safety, government banned the very thing that could have prevented the murder of thousands: the Founders' agenda of self-help, self-defense, and gun rights.

Their brief observations can be found at the end of this link on NRO.

Categories > Politics

The Founding

Jefferson-Sally Hemings Revisited

A new book, out today, questions the now conventional wisdom that Thomas Jefferson fathered illegitimate children through his slave Sally Hemings.  The board responsible for its publication includes such notables as Harvey Mansfield, Charles Kesler, James Ceaser, Paul Rahe, and Forrest McDonald and is chaired by UVA law professor Robert Turner.  Here's the amazon link.  The accusation should not have moderated devotion to Jefferson for his extraordinary achievements, though it could not have had any but that effect.  This book should help us readjust our vision of the man.  Jefferson celebrated enlightenment; let us follow in his footsteps on this accusation as well.

Categories > The Founding

Race

The Martin Luther King Memorial Opens

This Sunday the Martin Luther King memorial officially opens, though beginning yesterday the grounds were open to the public.  I am skeptical--it seems too grandiose--but I withhold judgment on the 30-foot sculpture until I get a chance to view it:

The design gave form to a line from Dr. King's "Dream" speech -- "With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope," said Mr. Jackson. In the memorial, he noted, Dr. King is seen emerging from the stone of hope. The two towering mounds set slightly behind him, forming a sort of passageway to the statue, are mountains of despair.

Some visitors said they did not like the fact that Dr. King was facing the Jefferson Memorial, not the Lincoln Memorial, but Mr. McNeil said he did not mind.

That Dr. King looks at Jefferson raises a few questions:  Is he acknowledging Jefferson's good start?  Is he reproaching him for the incompleteness of his achievement?  Is he recognizing the thralldom of blacks to FDR's memorial and the Democratic party? 

There is another angle on Dr. King that demands reflection:

A bizarre paradox in the new secular order is the celebration of Dr. King's birthday, a national holiday acclaimed as the heartbeat of articulated idealism in race relations, conscientiously observed in our schools, with, however, scant thought given to Dr. King's own faith.

This is Willliam F. Buckley, Jr., from his speech in response to an Oct. 20, 1999 tribute by the Heritage Foundation.  H/t Lucas Morel. 

  

Categories > Race

Presidency

Obama's Jefferson

The letter Obama quoted from is instructive for its understanding of what compromise means.  Obama quoted from Jefferson's letter to John Dickinson, July 23, 1801, "Every man cannot have his way in all things -- without this mutual disposition, we are disjointed individuals, but not a society."  But note Jefferson's denunciation of his rival Federalists later on in the letter:

The greatest good we can do our country is to heal it's party divisions & make them one people. I do not speak of their leaders who are incurable, but of the honest and well-intentioned body of the people. I consider the pure federalist as a republican who would prefer a somewhat stronger executive; and the republican as one more willing to trust the legislature as a broader representation of the people, and a safer deposit of power for many reasons. But both sects are republican, entitled to the confidence of their fellow citizens. Not so their quondam leaders, covering under the mask of federalism hearts devoted to monarchy. The Hamiltonians, the Essex-men, the revolutionary tories &c. They have a right to tolerance, but neither to confidence nor power. It is very important that the pure federalist and republican should see in the opinion of each other but a shade of his own, which by a union of action will be lessened by one-half: that they should see & fear the monarchist as their common enemy, on whom they should keep their eyes, but keep off their hands. (emphasis added) 

Categories > Presidency

The Founding

The Blessings of Liberty

From an apartment balcony this Independence Day I watched for an hour or so fireworks exploding all up and down the Potomac, and then had my eyes drawn across the skyline to the colorful explosions taking place beside the Washington Monument, the tallest building in the area named for that great father of our country. I entered into conversation with someone on these exhibits of patriotism and the praise of our Founders for what they built-- which she, in turn, described as exhibits of nationalism and the worship of a bunch of dead white men. This is not unlike I conversation I recently entered into with a letter in the Los Angeles Daily News taking issue with the claim that our Founders are the benefactors of hindsight bias, receiving unworthy praise for the accident that was the success of our experiment in human liberty.

It is true that those men who pledged to each other their lives, their property, and their sacred honor in 1776 had differing views on the most suitable form of government. It is true that they who gathered to frame our Constitution years later engaged in some of the most difficult and testy political debate ever seen in the world until that time (and arguably after). You had those who sought to protect the interests of themselves and their neighbors, and others who let their heated debate lead to the destruction of existing relationships and tensions among peers. However, one thing that our Founding Fathers did all find agreement on was the need to secure the blessings of liberty by trusting in the ability of individual human beings to govern themselves.

There were indeed disagreements over how to secure those blessings, and of course there was the great problem of chattel slavery looming over the entire endeavor like the mark of Cain. But these men who fought against the greatest empire in the world at that time, and who bled for the cause of liberty, understood that in order to secure what so many had fought and died for, hard compromises would need to be made-- but not at the expense of sinking the entire endeavor. They knew whatever they tried to establish would not be perfect, especially with slavery still looming large over them, but through study of history and an understanding of liberty they sought to do the best that could be asked of them and establish a more perfect union. Its basis was the idea that government service or administration is not itself an end of politics, but that self-government is. The American people were to be a people who had the right to pursue happiness in however way they saw fit. For many people that was and continues to be just living their lives how they want to, happiness perhaps being as adventurous as rock climbing or a simple as sitting along the river with a fishing pole in hand. For others it is the realm of public life where they find happiness and satisfaction.

The Founding Fathers did understand this, and so sought to establish a government that would best secure the blessings of liberty by allowing the human spirit to thrive freely. So long as the government is doing what it is intended to do and not bothering the people too much, most go about their lives in their pursuit of happiness. They may care about politics come election time, but many are happy to, even if they lose, just shrug it off until the next election. The Founders did envision, and did plan, a society where people would not need to have their happiness tied to the whims of political life. "I must study politics and war so that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy...in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music," wrote John Adams. They wanted to secure these blessings of liberty for all Americans for all time, and by writing that Declaration and crafting that Constitution set upon the task of doing so.

Our Founders were not perfect and did make mistakes. There were problems they could not solve. They were not gods; they were mortal men with all the ailments and vanities that afflict mortal men. But this only makes what they accomplished so much more impressive and important. Our nation was not the result of accident and force, but a clear and conscious decision by mortal men to create a tool for the advancement of human liberty. For 235 years what they created has overcome tremendous obstacles and, though with legions of problems facing it still and threats to freedom always looming, continues to generally provide the best security for the blessings of liberty than any other nation, past or present. For this we should be proud, and for this our Founders merit praise and understanding. It is right to continue to cheer Mr. Jefferson's document and the cause of our Revolution on the day of the nation's birth, and to look with proud eyes upon the colorful glows reflecting onto the monuments we have constructed to remind us of what we mortal men are capable of. May we continue to enjoy the blessings of liberty, and may the Declaration of Independence forever continue to be an expression of the American mind.
Categories > The Founding

The Founding

Happy 4th!

Here is The Ohio Farmer's letter for the 4th, Novus Ordo Seclorum, trying to think the thoughts which the Founders thought and then  Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, on Lincoln and the Declaration.  And here is Steve Hayward (at Powerline) reminding us of the cause of conservative thinking, the force of merit.  Happy Birthday to us, God's almost chosen people.
Categories > The Founding

The Founding

An Adams Monument

In the Washington Post, Alexander Heffner suggests that John Adams should be honored with a monument on the Mall.

What's the case for Adams? Before the revolution, he was the nation's first attendant to the American legal tradition of due process, defending British soldiers who fired on colonists during the Boston Massacre. One of Massachusetts's representatives to the First and Second Continental Congresses, Adams was a champion of separation from England and the fiercest advocate of Jefferson's declaration. Without his persuasive speeches in the Philadelphia chamber, the document wouldn't have been signed. While Jefferson was silent during what he considered the convention's editorial debasement of his work, Adams defended every clause, including an excised call for the abolition of slavery. Jefferson called Adams "a colossus on the floor" of the Congress. . . .

Heffner goes on to note Adams' services in the American diplomatic corps during the revolution and his Presidency (noting the lamentable Sedition Act as a rare mistake).  I'm not sure I'd put it quite that way.  I would, however, stress Adams' constitutionalism.

As the principal author of the Massachusetts Constitution, and in other writings, Adams, more than any other single figure, is responsibe for the U.S. having a constitution featuring an executive with a qualified veto, a bicameral legislature, and separations among the legsilative, executive, and judicial branches (separations which were not full and complete, so that each branch had to defend its turf against the others).  By paying tribuite to the author of the Massachusetts Constitution, we also, by implication, pay tribute to the people of Massachustts who are responsible for the idea that constitutions should be created by special conventions and ratified by the people.  Not coincidentally, the Massachusetts Constitution has the best concise explanation of the reasoning behind that process of any document of the era:

The end of the institution, maintenance and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body-politic; to protect it; and to furnish the individuals who compose it, with the power of enjoying, in safety and tranquility, their natural rights, and the blessings of life: And whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness.

The body-politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: It is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing a Constitution of Government, to provide for an equitable mode of making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation, and a faithful execution of them; that every man may, at all times, find his security in them. 

I am not sure, however, that a neo-pagan temple in Washington would be the bests tribute to Adams.  John Adams is more than a founder of the American republic, he is also the patriarch of one of the most extraordinary families in American politics and letters. Adams also dwelled upon the importance of education.  He put a strange clause in the Massachusetts constitution on the subject:

Wisdom, and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of legislators and magistrates, in all future periods of this Commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them; especially the university at Cambridge, public schools, and grammar schools in the towns; to encourage private societies and public institutions, rewards and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and a natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings; sincerity, good humour, and all social affections, and generous sentiments among the people.

That being Adams' view, I would say that the most fitting tribute to Adams would be to create an Adams library of American letters, dedicated to the study of American politics, with politics and literature both understood in the classic fashion.  Such an institution, which I am not the first to recommend, would be a proper legacy for John Adams and his extraordinary family. What better tribute, and what better form of civic worship, than study.  As Adams put it in the Massachusetts Constitution:

A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the constitution, and a constant adherence to those of piety, justice, moderation, temperance, industry, and frugality, are absolutely necessary to preserve the advantages of liberty, and to maintain a free government: The people ought, consequently, to have a particular attention to all those principles, in the choice of their officers and representatives: And they have a right to require of their law-givers and magistrates, an exact and constant observance of them, in the formation and execution of the laws necessary for the good administration of the Commonwealth.

A library, dedicated to the study of those principles, and their continuing relevance to our politics, would be the best way to honor this founding father.

Categories > The Founding

History

The Dustbin of History

1776Dustbin.jpg

Categories > History

The Founding

Coolidge and the 4th of July

Leon Kass reflects on Coolidge and the 4th, and so does Steve Hayward at Powerline.  Read the whole thing, of course, but here is the pregnant paragraph from Silent Cal's 150th anniversary of the Declaration speech, in case someone you know isn't clear on the connection between natural rights and natural right:

"About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful.  It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning cannot be applied to this great charter.  If all men are created equal, that is final.  If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final.  If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.  No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions.  If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people.  Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress.  They are reactionary.  Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers."
Categories > The Founding

The Civil War & Lincoln

Lincoln on Dred Scott and Self-government

Abraham Lincoln delivered one of his greatest speeches 154 years ago today, on the Dred Scott decision.  The speech explains the meaning of the Declaration of Independence but also the place of the Supreme Court in a democratic, self-governing society.  The principles of equality and self-government demand the elimination of slavery and the containment of the Supreme Court.  Lincoln's speech clearly indicates that Justice Holmes, not Chief Justice Taney, would be the worst justice the Court has ever known.

Politics

Revising the Constitution

After learning of the fact that tiny Iceland is rewriting its constitution, Fareed Zakaria makes the suggestion that our own United States Constitution needs some revisions as well. While it does seem like he would be open to another constitutional convention in order to just rewrite the whole thing if need be, he stops short of calling for that with a clear understanding of American views on the rightfully-respected document. While he rightfully points to the unintended power that the courts have acquired as a flaw within the document that could use some correcting, he then goes on to lament that the Senate and the Electoral College are not democratic enough, exhibiting a lack of understanding of the document. Yes, those two bodies are absolutely intended to limit democratic tendencies and permit some sort of local governments to exist via the states. Like many anti-EC types, he wrongfully points to the disputed 2000 election as a great failure of the system. The 2000 Election was a failure in electoral management by the state of Florida and an arguably bad decision by the Supreme Court to support Florida's decision not to count some votes; had Florida not had the problems it did, and had Bush still won the state, I believe that the arguments against the system would not be nearly as loud despite Bush winning the college's vote and Gore the popular vote.

However, the discussion on new amendments to the Constitution is perhaps a good one to have, and he asks people to mention three amendments that they would like to see. Personally, I think amendments that give a supermajority of the states the power to veto federal legislation, repeal the 17th amendment, and figure out some way to address the mess that the courts are would all be good ones to consider. What amendments would you propose?
Categories > Politics

Race

Overturning Plessy v. Ferguson

The descendants of the litigants in the great civil rights case of 1896 form a foundation.  Sweet idea, and I'm wondering whether serious tea party-style activists might follow suit by forming similar foundations devoted to ending irrational discrimination.  They might find inspiration in Jennifer Roback Morse's libertarian scholarship, which notes the City of New Orleans overriding the railway's preference for integrated seating.  (Clint Bolick has also performed great service along these lines.)  Here is another way to put natural rights-thinking to practical use.  Reading Charles Lofgren's classic work on Plessy is essential background.  The Claremont historian shows the direct ties between Plessy's arguments and the Declaration of Independence.

The Tea Party's most appealing argument is for the restoration of the principles of the Declaration of Independence in everyday life.  The fight for color-blind justice is an essential part of that argument.  Thanks to Mike in the comments.

Treppenwitz:  Here is one version of Edward Erler's argument on Plessy's persistence in our jurisprudence.

Categories > Race

Congress

The Senate, the Court, and the Filibuster

It looks like Senate Republicans are going to filibuster Goodwin Liu to keep him off the Bench.  Turnabout is fair play, certainly.  And precedents matter.  But I wonder whether the filibuster is proper for nominees.

The key question is when the Senate is doing its "avise and consent" role, rather than working with the other branche(s) of the Legislature to make law, is it acting in Article I or Article II.  If giving its advice and consent is not a legislative task, and if the filibuster is a legislative action, then the answer is no.

Given the precedents that exist already, it's probably too late to do anything, but I thought the question worth raising, perhaps as a matter of historical interest.

One could argue that way back at the start of Washington's first term, when the Senate kicked the President and Secretary of War out of their chamber, rather than discussing instructions for negotiations with the Creeks that set the precedent for most of what followed in that area.

Categories > Congress

The Founding

Washington on the Debt

Peers and I went to Mount Vernon for a retreat of sorts to revisit our Founding Father and draw some wisdom from his example again. As always, a trip to the Virginia estate is rewarding; it is truly a remarkable piece of land along the Potomac. While there I took the chance to skim through his Farewell Address once more, and came across an interesting note on the debt that I think provides much-needed clarity on the responsibilities of the government and its finances (emphasis added is my own):

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible: avoiding occasions of expence by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expence, but by vigorous exertions in time of Peace to discharge the Debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your Representatives; but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty it is essential that you should practically bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue; that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment inseperable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties) ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the Conduct of the Government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining Revenue which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

General Washington recognized the necessity of using public funds for providing for the common defense in the general welfare of the nation, and he insisted that people realize that taxes are a necessary sacrifice and a solemn duty for these needed expenses. He also recognizes clearly the immorality and injustice of one generation racketing up the national debt only to enslave a future generation to it-- the great crime which the Baby Boomers have now threatened their posterity with. Many are of the belief that the Millennial Generation will be the first in American history to be worse-off than their predecessors. As Vice President Biden's Debt Commission prepares to meet, they should keep that fact and Washington's warnings in mind. It is necessary to capturing that vision of America that he and countless others since have reached for. From Washington's final message to Congress:

A reinforcement of the existing provisions for discharging our public Debt, was mentioned in my Address at the opening of the last Session. Some preliminary steps were taken towards it, the maturing of which will, no doubt, engage your zealous attention during the present. I will only add, that it will afford me, heart felt satisfaction, to concur in such further measures, as will ascertain to our Country the prospect of a speedy extinguishment of the Debt. Posterity may have cause to regret, if, from any motive, intervals of tranquillity are left unimproved for accelerating this valuable end.

The situation in which I now stand, for the last time, in the midst of the Representatives of the People of the United States, naturally recalls the period when the Administration of the present form of Government commenced; and I cannot omit the occasion, to congratulate you and my Country, on the success of the experiment; nor to repeat my fervent supplications to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and Sovereign Arbiter of Nations, that his Providential care may still be extended to the United States; that the virtue and happiness of the People, may be preserved; and that the Government, which they have instituted, for the protection of their liberties, maybe perpetual.

If there was ever a time to channel President Washington, it is now as we look at our debt, mark the anniversary of the Civil War and examine its causes, debate our Constitution, and discuss America's vision and the purpose of government. 
Categories > The Founding

Refine & Enlarge

On Demagoguery: A Preceptorial

The President's budget speech reminded me of the Federalist on demagogues:  the word appears twice, once in Federalist 1 and once in #85, the last paper (both by Hamilton).  The precarious realm of reason and choice is surrounded by demagogues, who always beset democratic republics. 
Categories > Refine & Enlarge

The Founding

Happy Birthday, Mr. Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson was born 268 years ago today. The author of our Declaration of Independence, one of the greatest forces behind religious liberty in America, our first Secretary of State, and our third President, the red-haired wonder from Virginia continues to be a useful source of wisdom for us today as we muddle through our present calamities and disagreements-- even if his genius was difficult to interpret. There is much to learn from the fact that he, most wary of executive power among the Founders, ordered the bombing of Tripoli in order to dispel the threat of the Barbary Pirates; that it was he, who pressed most for a strict interpretation of the Constitution, that purchased the Louisiana Territory from France (probably in violation of the Constitution); and that he, our most eloquent spokesman for liberty, could not figure out how to end slavery-- a practice that he, although a slave owner, deemed to be cruel war against human nature itself.

"This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular or previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion." (Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1825)

Though Congress put on a poorly-executed show earlier this year with a reading of the Constitution, it would have done well if they had also read from Mr. Jefferson's eloquent words on Liberty and the American mind in order to place our Constitution, and government in general, within its appropriate context. They are the words that define who we are, and history will long remember our constant struggle to live up to our own principles as enshrined within the Declaration. With such grounding in the first principles of our country, those immortal words of the Founding Father can help us along in our quest to become partisans of the Constitution once more. Happy Birthday, Mr. Jefferson.
Categories > The Founding

The Founding

Your Reaction to PBS Hamilton?

I'm of two minds on last night's Hamilton documentary.  What did you think, those of you who watched it?
Categories > The Founding

The Founding

TV Guide: Hamilton Monday PBS

Rediscovering Alexander Hamilton via Richard Brookhiser and assorted others, Monday night PBS.  Michael Knox Beran reviews.
Categories > The Founding

Religion

Religious Liberty in Europe

In a curious case, at least for Europe, the European Court of Human Rights has declared that public institutions, including public schools, have the right to display crucifixes if they wish to. Years ago, the same court banned crucifixes in Italian schools after an atheist parent complained that her children were being subjected to beliefs that they did not subscribe to. At the unyielding urging of the Vatican, the Italian government motioned for an appeal-- which has just been granted. The court has concluded that the mother "had retained in full her right as a parent to enlighten and advise her children and to guide them on a path in line with her own philosophical convictions" and that crucifixes were not a form of indoctrination but a symbol of cultural and national identity. In Europe, seen more and more as a bulwark of radical secularism (France not only having banned crucifixes but burkas as well), it is now legal to publicly acknowledge the role that faith plays in culture, society, and history. One of the supporters of the case mentioned that if the secular tide in Europe continued along its former path, even "God Save the Queen" would be endangered soon and removed as Britain's national anthem.

It is interesting to note that, in addition to the Holy See and Italy, the other countries pushing most fervently to allow crucifixes in classrooms were Poland, Russia, Ukraine, and Bulgaria-- four nations that spent decades under the atheist dominion of Communism, and who subsequently viewed the ban of religious images in public spaces as a form of religious persecution.

In light of this, and as James Madison's birthday was this past week, it is a good time to reflect on Mr. Madison's views on religious liberty. A fervent supporter (and indeed architect) of the "separation between church and state" in our government, it ought to be remembered that the goal of the Founders in that separation was to protect religion from corruption and misuse by government. He adamantly believed that religion was necessary "to the happiness of man" and that a culture that was hostile to religion would soon find itself without protection. The first settlers came to the New World as pilgrims seeking a place where they could worship freely and openly without fear of persecution. From those first pilgrims and the many after to the waves of Catholics and Jews to the arrival of the Eastern religions, America has long been a beacon for those who wish to worship--or, not worship--freely.

Our government, of course, should not get in the business of making laws about religion or favoring with taxes certain sects over others. But is it wrong to recognize the place it plays in our history and our culture? By no means should religion be forced upon people, but neither should it be smothered by their sensitivities. Should people be forced to take religion classes or read the Bible or say prayer in public schools? Of course not. Should they be allowed to express what they believe or to acknowledge the leading role that religion had in the conception of our nation and its traditions? Yes. It is a part of who we are and, at some fundamental level, necessary to truly understand liberty and the responsibilities of liberty. It is an interesting and perhaps troubling time when the Old World now holds more room for religious expression than the New.
Categories > Religion

The Founding

Happy Birthday, Mr. Jemmy

James Madison's 260th!  Short people power!

A selection from my favorite Federalist paper, #14:

Hearken not to the unnatural voice which tells you that the people of America, knit together as they are by so many cords of affection, can no longer live together as members of the same family; can no longer continue the mutual guardians of their mutual happiness; can no longer be fellow-citizens of one great, respectable, and flourishing empire.

Categories > The Founding

Progressivism

Who Will Regulate the Regulators?

Cass Sunstein's After the Rights Revolution:  Reconceiving the Regulatory State is one of the most horrifying books I've ever read.  Now Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OMB), Sunstein has a hand in Obama's expansion and affirmation of the Administrative or Regulatory State.  He gives off the appearance of even-handedness but clearly stacks the deck in favor of willful bureaucracy and against "private rights" (that is, natural rights), for FDR and the Second Bill of Rights against the Founders' Constitution.  He advises how the bureaucracy can collude with the courts to block off protests of pesky congressmen.  Laws after all are not that specific, so the bureaucracy needs to be able to reinterpret such laws to keep up legislative intent with the times.The 1990 book is one of the greatest assaults on the rule of law in our time.

For some examples of such bureaucratic abuses, including abolition of legal rights by bureaucratic fiat, note Columbia law prof Philip Hamburger's essays on Obamacare waivers. His most recent essay is here.

See also Eric Claeys' congressional testimony (subtly pointed at Sunstein) on how regulators might be reined in, in Steve Hayward's post below.

And finally this, also from Steve, on the crony politics of the Administrative State.

 

Categories > Progressivism

The Founding

James Madison v. Carl Schmitt

Harvey Mansfield defends Madisonian republicanism against an ill-conceived (albeit well-intended) critique of the administrative state and its abandonment of the separation of powers.  The founders, Mansfield points out, are far more thoughtful than Carl Schmitt, a political theorist who came to support Hitler.
Categories > The Founding

Refine & Enlarge

Wisconsin Teacher Unions Schooled in Federalist 10

Julia Shaw, from the Heritage Foundation, initiates a compelling discussion of the ways in which the public worker unions in Wisconsin resemble nothing so much as the kind of faction James Madison discusses in Federalist 10.   While their members sport t-shirts emblazoned with the slogan "This is What Democracy Looks Like"--as if to suggest that they are the embodiment of a free and open society--they are, in fact, a singular danger to popular government. 

Shaw suggests that James Madison would disapprove of those wearing the union t-shirts and, of course, he would.  But in point of fact, I think Madison might actually have offered to pay for some of their screen-printing costs.  That slogan is perfect.  Of course, Shaw is correct to point out the differences between Madison's understanding of popular government and that of today's public worker unions.  But pure democracy actually does look a lot like what we've seen in Wisconsin.  That's why Madison and the other authors of the Federalist were so determined that we should not have one!  Instead, we instituted a form of government that would protect the rights of the minority by garnering the consent of the people through "reflection and choice."  Ours is not a government--or, at least, it was not established to be a government--where the rule of the stronger interest always carries the day and grinding forces of power politics shape our mores.  We were designed to be better than that.  Madison points the way.
Categories > Refine & Enlarge

The Civil War & Lincoln

Now for a Real Debate

Lincoln scholar and political philosopher Harry Jaffa versus scholar of things Southern Mel Bradford, at the Philadelphiia Society 32 years ago.  Seems like less than 10 years ago.  What is America?  They go to the heart of the matter.