Founders Critiques Revisited
My old reliable debater, Catastrophile (have to ask him some day on why the name choice), raised some issues regarding the Founders article I reviewed and I thought it worth elaboration in the general forum. Sometimes points don’t come to me as I’m writing that others will bring up later, as I’m sure happens with just about every writer and I appreciate the chance to explore them, so on to some of the comments he had regarding my and the Kurlansky’s editorial. First he notes that he feels I was a bit overstated.
Hrm. I don't know if this really qualifies as a "hit piece" . . . a bit hyperbolic, perhaps, but he seems to be arguing the same basic point you are.
I don’t think I was exaggerating too much when I called it a hit piece. I mean, what do you call this line?
…we keep worrying about the vision of a bunch of sexist, slave-owning 18th century white men in wigs and breeches
Emphasis added. I don’t know what Cat’s definition of a hit piece is, but being called a sexist slave owner, and well let’s not forget we have to note they were all white and wore wigs, yeah, that doesn’t shout reasoned analysis to me.
You say: "The Founders were men, just men. They were products of their times and did the best they could to establish an enlightened and new form of government that would be better than them, even transcend them."
He says: "But the founding fathers, unlike the Americans of today, understood their own shortcomings. Thomas Jefferson warned against a slavish worship of their work, which he referred to as 'sanctimonious reverence' for the Constitution."
This sounds less like an attack on the Founders than on the current state of things.
Well, my concern here is that you isolate one small portion of what he said without considering his whole text. His whole text is ridiculously inflammatory, as noted above. Jefferson also said "Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction." You see, Kurlansky was arguing more that by deconstructing the “myth” of the Founders, you can more easily deconstruct the Constitution. Jefferson certainly didn’t want us to “worship” a document over all else, but he didn’t want demagogues to be able to warp it to their whims either and advised that in its words were our strength to accomplish that; the very thing Kurlansky and those like him advocate.
Blind nationalism is a problem. Mythologizing the Founders gets us nowhere. And the kind of argument that rebukes any and all criticism of the US as antiAmerican is flat-out dangerous, but unfortunately seems to be everywhere these days.
Casting nationalism aside is equally a problem. Kurlansky’s piece was not advocating nationalism in the traditional sense. He was advocating a social justice America and not an America of opportunity for all. His idea of an America as “good as it was supposed to be” is one of a universal health care and social welfare net (which, arguably, we have some of). He seems to dislike “men of property” and prefer “anti-establishment” thinking. These are all pretty clearly issues of the far Left. I find that hard to debate.
Mythologizing the Founders doesn’t help us much, no, but neither does deconstructing their legacy. By deconstructing them, which I have read many an essay dedicated to just that task, allows them to be delegitimized and by thus whatever they create can be shown to be as equally flawed and demanding of replacement. My statement here is not some far flung conspiracy theory or stretch of fancy. Go to the majority of public elementary and high schools. You’ll see it in action.
And I have never considered criticism of the U.S. as anti-American. I can give you a laundry list of U.S. policies I think were ridiculous. I’ll start with the Missouri Compromise and the Civil War and carry through to the New Deal, Marshall Plan, Great Society, Department of Education, Federal Income Tax, FICA…the list goes on and on. I’ll critique those and many other positions of government from Clinton’s failed foreign adventures to Bush’s horrible immigration policy. I won’t criticize America for being America, though and to do so is not very beneficial to solving our problems. You must deal with a degree of perspective when comparing the United States to the rest of the world. In many cases, there is no comparison, and we can debate slavery or whatever other issue you want.
There is a reason the United States is the last world superpower and it’s not just our weapons. People that argue from that standpoint, that it’s our country and our history that’s the root of the world’s problems, not taking into account individual policies or more importantly the objectives of other nations and organizations, I have no respect for and, I think, are the ones who are truly blind and to use your own word dangerous in their ideas. Education and debate are my preferred weapons to combat them, but if they don’t want to listen, then well, I suppose there can be no reasoned debate.
And he quotes Robespierre of all things, who bad mouthed our Revolution compared to the French Revolution. I hope he’s not suggesting that the murderous anarchy followed by murderous tyranny was a better example of democratic revolution than what was seen in America. Frankly, things like that say a lot about where his argument is based and again it translates to me as a “hit piece”.
Lastly…In fact, what this piece seems to be arguing is the idea that we need iconoclasts to get anywhere, that abject worship of the establishment is dangerous. I have to agree. That argument doesn't speak to me of hidden socialist agendas or rejection of American principles . . . only of a healthy skepticism about deifying any bunch of "just men" -- be they the Founders or any others.
The basic argument didn’t speak to me of socialism, but his wording and examples did. Sometimes it’s a bit buried, but everyone has a motivation and not all of it is “I think we need to be more practical”. Usually, if what you’re arguing isn’t very defensible or popular, you can wrap it in “practical” and “reasonable” criticisms and jab your points in amongst the growth. Don’t tell me you don’t see much of that in debate. Skepticism is fine, but I don’t believe that was his only agenda and I think you have to stretch to think otherwise. If you want to critique the Founders, try it. They were just men, as I said, and products of their time, but they constructed something magnificent and had the words and ideas to give that concept iron and allow it to survive the test of time. Critiquing them in any productive way along that line (that their notions of individual freedom, liberty and limited government are antiquated) is difficult to impossible with any degree of legitimacy and I don’t think Kurlansky pulled it off, but I definitely think that’s what he tried.
My old reliable debater, Catastrophile (have to ask him some day on why the name choice), raised some issues regarding the Founders article I reviewed and I thought it worth elaboration in the general forum. Sometimes points don’t come to me as I’m writing that others will bring up later, as I’m sure happens with just about every writer and I appreciate the chance to explore them, so on to some of the comments he had regarding my and the Kurlansky’s editorial. First he notes that he feels I was a bit overstated.
Hrm. I don't know if this really qualifies as a "hit piece" . . . a bit hyperbolic, perhaps, but he seems to be arguing the same basic point you are.
I don’t think I was exaggerating too much when I called it a hit piece. I mean, what do you call this line?
…we keep worrying about the vision of a bunch of sexist, slave-owning 18th century white men in wigs and breeches
Emphasis added. I don’t know what Cat’s definition of a hit piece is, but being called a sexist slave owner, and well let’s not forget we have to note they were all white and wore wigs, yeah, that doesn’t shout reasoned analysis to me.
You say: "The Founders were men, just men. They were products of their times and did the best they could to establish an enlightened and new form of government that would be better than them, even transcend them."
He says: "But the founding fathers, unlike the Americans of today, understood their own shortcomings. Thomas Jefferson warned against a slavish worship of their work, which he referred to as 'sanctimonious reverence' for the Constitution."
This sounds less like an attack on the Founders than on the current state of things.
Well, my concern here is that you isolate one small portion of what he said without considering his whole text. His whole text is ridiculously inflammatory, as noted above. Jefferson also said "Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction." You see, Kurlansky was arguing more that by deconstructing the “myth” of the Founders, you can more easily deconstruct the Constitution. Jefferson certainly didn’t want us to “worship” a document over all else, but he didn’t want demagogues to be able to warp it to their whims either and advised that in its words were our strength to accomplish that; the very thing Kurlansky and those like him advocate.
Blind nationalism is a problem. Mythologizing the Founders gets us nowhere. And the kind of argument that rebukes any and all criticism of the US as antiAmerican is flat-out dangerous, but unfortunately seems to be everywhere these days.
Casting nationalism aside is equally a problem. Kurlansky’s piece was not advocating nationalism in the traditional sense. He was advocating a social justice America and not an America of opportunity for all. His idea of an America as “good as it was supposed to be” is one of a universal health care and social welfare net (which, arguably, we have some of). He seems to dislike “men of property” and prefer “anti-establishment” thinking. These are all pretty clearly issues of the far Left. I find that hard to debate.
Mythologizing the Founders doesn’t help us much, no, but neither does deconstructing their legacy. By deconstructing them, which I have read many an essay dedicated to just that task, allows them to be delegitimized and by thus whatever they create can be shown to be as equally flawed and demanding of replacement. My statement here is not some far flung conspiracy theory or stretch of fancy. Go to the majority of public elementary and high schools. You’ll see it in action.
And I have never considered criticism of the U.S. as anti-American. I can give you a laundry list of U.S. policies I think were ridiculous. I’ll start with the Missouri Compromise and the Civil War and carry through to the New Deal, Marshall Plan, Great Society, Department of Education, Federal Income Tax, FICA…the list goes on and on. I’ll critique those and many other positions of government from Clinton’s failed foreign adventures to Bush’s horrible immigration policy. I won’t criticize America for being America, though and to do so is not very beneficial to solving our problems. You must deal with a degree of perspective when comparing the United States to the rest of the world. In many cases, there is no comparison, and we can debate slavery or whatever other issue you want.
There is a reason the United States is the last world superpower and it’s not just our weapons. People that argue from that standpoint, that it’s our country and our history that’s the root of the world’s problems, not taking into account individual policies or more importantly the objectives of other nations and organizations, I have no respect for and, I think, are the ones who are truly blind and to use your own word dangerous in their ideas. Education and debate are my preferred weapons to combat them, but if they don’t want to listen, then well, I suppose there can be no reasoned debate.
And he quotes Robespierre of all things, who bad mouthed our Revolution compared to the French Revolution. I hope he’s not suggesting that the murderous anarchy followed by murderous tyranny was a better example of democratic revolution than what was seen in America. Frankly, things like that say a lot about where his argument is based and again it translates to me as a “hit piece”.
Lastly…In fact, what this piece seems to be arguing is the idea that we need iconoclasts to get anywhere, that abject worship of the establishment is dangerous. I have to agree. That argument doesn't speak to me of hidden socialist agendas or rejection of American principles . . . only of a healthy skepticism about deifying any bunch of "just men" -- be they the Founders or any others.
The basic argument didn’t speak to me of socialism, but his wording and examples did. Sometimes it’s a bit buried, but everyone has a motivation and not all of it is “I think we need to be more practical”. Usually, if what you’re arguing isn’t very defensible or popular, you can wrap it in “practical” and “reasonable” criticisms and jab your points in amongst the growth. Don’t tell me you don’t see much of that in debate. Skepticism is fine, but I don’t believe that was his only agenda and I think you have to stretch to think otherwise. If you want to critique the Founders, try it. They were just men, as I said, and products of their time, but they constructed something magnificent and had the words and ideas to give that concept iron and allow it to survive the test of time. Critiquing them in any productive way along that line (that their notions of individual freedom, liberty and limited government are antiquated) is difficult to impossible with any degree of legitimacy and I don’t think Kurlansky pulled it off, but I definitely think that’s what he tried.
posted by Rob Beck | 6:41 AM
1 Comments:
Just to clarify, when I said "hyperbolic" I was referring to the original piece, not your response to it. Lines like the sexist slaveowners bit you cited are exactly what I mean, but that's a classic rhetorical device to hook your audience.
His laundry list of examples certainly do represent the classic litany of the left on domestic policy . . . but that's just what it is, a classic litany, grabbed for convenience.
"And I have never considered criticism of the U.S. as anti-American."
I believe you . . . but the "conservative" side of the popular debate seems to fixate on that very notion, and it's only to be expected that that will factor into the opposition's response.
As for the "men of property" and "anti-establishment" line . . . It's a point that doesn't get much play, certainly, but our Revolutionary War was more of a coup than a Revolution. The basic structure of government was preserved . . . ultimate control was simply moved from the landed aristocracy of distant Britain to more local landed aristocracies. Even the monarch was kept on, except that we choose ours every four years. Traditional parliaments choose a PM from amongst their own, but we chose a system in which the President was a totally distinct entity, a temporary sovereign of sorts.
Lots of the systems that were established were intended to preserve the power structure against radical change -- explicitly so. This is not necessarily bad, but it's also not much of a revolution per se.
If Kurlansky argues that something more revolutionary is needed, that we shouldn't be so beholden to every idea of the Founders that we're prevented from moving forward, he'd hardly be the first to say so. Reeps in the 1990s talked a great deal about revolution, about radically changing the system, attacking the Dem establishment. One could argue that that revolution is still underway, though folks like Newt often hint that it's been seriously sidetracked.
Perhaps his argument tends toward the polemic, but I don't think it's really about attacking the Founders. I read him as pining for a time when we were leaders, respected by the world, not all backwater and vulgar. In other words, he's attacking the Bush administration, and others who (in his estimation) would rather rest on our laurels than move forward.
On reading his article I found very little to support this premise, but my first take was that he was probably calling out the "originalist" strain of judicial thought, espoused by folkses like Antonin Scalia. That might be part of his assumption in the piece. Or maybe not. (I had this on my mind because I recently revisited an item I posted last year on that very subject.)
I mention this only to explain why I'm less-inclined to reject Kurlansky outright . . . there's a movement out there which does exactly this, idealizes the founders and uses every aspect of their worldview to defend a modern agenda, when on many points that worldview is no longer relevant. Listing those points in the way he did might be a bit abrasive, but it does get the point across. Sort of. Or maybe only to people predisposed to hear him out, which would make it a pretty bad op-ed, I suppose.
"People that argue from that standpoint, that it’s our country and our history that’s the root of the world’s problems"
Well, anybody who thinks you can blame one entity for all the world's problems has a serious deficiency of critical thinking ability. On the other hand, the US is not only the richest and most powerful nation . . . it's our nation, and one that we have some degree of influence over, and therefore we try to exercise it. I think it's far too common that people mistake that for "blaming America for everything."
I bring up our support for Saddam way too often, for example, but not because I think America is evil (which I get told by a good many people) . . . I want to know how we're going to make sure we don't make that mistake again. Problem is, nobody seems to have an answer for that one. If Rummy and the gang can rationalize backing Saddam as part of the Cold War, what are they willing to let slide in the War on Terror?
That's off-topic, I realize, just offered for the sake of exposition. Some degree of opposition to the establishment is always in order, no matter what the establishment is. That's another principle the Founders seemed to embrace.
Post a Comment
<< Home