It is not chance that rules the world. Ask the Romans, who had a continuous sequence of successes when they were guided by a certain plan, and an uninterrupted sequence of reverses when they followed another. There are general causes, moral and physical, which act in every monarchy, elevating it, maintaining it, or hurling it to the ground. All accidents are controlled by these causes. And if the chance of one battle—that is, a particular cause—has brought a state to ruin, some general cause made it necessary for that state to perish from a single battle. In a word, the main trend draws with it all particular accidents.
-Montesquieu
In 1439 Johannes Gutenberg introduced his printing press, and the world was never to be the same. The explosion of knowledge and communication that followed would ignite a Renaissance and Age of Enlightenment.
In 1532 Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) would publish his most famous work, The Prince. It is one of the first works of modern philosophy and many believe Machiavelli to be the father of modern political science. Machiavelli writes of the education of a young prince, in much the same way as Xenophon (430-354 BC) wrote his Education of Cyrus, about the education of Cyrus the Great (600-530 BC), the great King of Persia who advocated basic human rights.
Machiavelli introduced political realism, in that he described what a ruler or politician must do to consolidate his power and deal with factions and groups seeking favor and their own power. He did not label actions as good or evil but simply necessary. For this reason the term Machiavellian has taken on a negative connotation.
Prior to Gutenberg the list of notable names in history is pretty dark for over a thousand years. But the contemporaries of Machiavelli include Columbus, Da Vinci, Copernicus, and Martin Luther, to name a few. Things were beginning to change. Great ideas were being born, not just in science but in philosophy and religion.
In Part 1, we discussed the current frustrating state of events in the world, and our seeming inability to prevent the natural flow of history. We discussed the historical dominance of “Attila and the witch doctor” in shaping societies. And we discussed our failure to secure limited government, even though the founders did a brilliant job of taking the best ideas available to them and using them to launch the “Great Experiment” that is the United States
The explosion of thought in the 17th and 18th centuries had a profound effect on the men who founded our country. We discussed Locke and Montesquieu and Smith and Bacon and Hobbes and Descartes. Thanks to Mr. Gutenberg they were able to read all of these thoughts and use the best of them in forming our republic. Thomas Jefferson was reportedly a big fan of Cyrus the Great, and John Adams among others was influenced by Machiavelli.
Unfortunately, the nature of man being what it is, even the founders of our nation did not agree on the basic principles of government that they set out to establish. One of the cornerstones of our republic is the idea that all men are created equal. And yet, slavery was a part of their society and would not be eliminated for another 80 years. Women and Native Americans likewise were not allowed a vote.
Despite his protests to the contrary, John Adams believed in social hierarchy and a hereditary aristocracy. Our bicameral system of a House and Senate is loosely based on the ancient idea of a common class and a noble class, each having a say in the ruling of the country, with the executive branch being a replacement for Monarchy.
Another pillar of our founding was the idea that government derives its power from theconsent of the governed. We the People set up a republic of the people, by the people, and for the people. It is the idea of self-determinism, and based on social contract theory. And yet not everyone consented to the government they were given. In addition to the aforementioned slaves and women, it should be noted that not everyone voted in favor of the constitution. Democracy results in the consent of the majority, not the consent of each citizen.
We clearly stated our belief in theinalienable rights of man, specifically to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (property) in our Declaration of Independence, and yet there was vigorous debate about the wisdom of the constitution and in order to get it passed the federalists such as Alexander Hamilton had to agree somewhat grudgingly to include a Bill of Rights.
The American Revolution was simplified considerably by having a King who was an ocean away. The French were not so lucky. The French Revolution (1789-1799) was something of a debacle. Having watched the Americans win their freedom and set up a government of free citizens the French revolted and demanded their freedom. The short version is that the people beheaded the king and his lovely wife Marie, and then they set up a Committee of Public Safety headed by Robespierre, which embarked on a Reign of Terror, resulting in Robespierre losing his head, and ending in Napoleon Bonaparte taking over as Emperor.
Outside of France, there was considerable debate about this course of events. Thomas Paine, whose Common Sense played a significant role in the American Revolution, was a proponent of freedom and democracy in France, and wrote Rights of Man in defense of the French Revolution. Edmund Burke, (regarded as the father of modern conservatism) opposed Paine and his ideas. Burke believed strongly that a social structure based on a property-based hierarchy maintained stability and control. He favored a constitutional monarchy.
The 18th and 19th centuries saw the genesis of a number of competing schools of thought that persist today. Classical liberals such as Thomas Jefferson believed in limited government to protect the inalienable rights of men. Socialist ideas were formed by people such as Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) and Robert Owen (1771-1858) and Pierre Proudhon (1809-1865). These would form the basis for the communist thought of people like Karl Marx (1818-1883). Anarchists such as William Godwin (1756-1836) and Josiah Warren (1798-1874) would form the basis of anarchist and libertarian thought.
These ideas are not mutually exclusive. Thomas Paine is known for his advocacy of Democracy and human rights but he also advocated for agrarian justice. The basic concept is that land and other natural resources belong to everyone, and those controlling the land should be taxed, with the money distributed to everyone. This idea would be echoed by a number of people, including Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862), who was something of an anarchist but shared Paine’s idea of a land tax.
Anarchy has gotten a bad name, and for good reason. In its purest form, anarchy is the idea that no man has the right to rule over another. Modern anarchists point to even limited government as a violation of the non-aggression principle, which says no man should initiate the use of force against another man. They point to this as the reason for the failure of limited government.
When classical liberals claim that the only legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of individuals to their life, liberty, and property, anarchists respond that if they do not consent to be governed, then even that is an intrusion on their rights as free men.
One might assume that anarchists would all be individualists, but in reality most are either anarcho-socialists or anarcho-communists, with a few being anarcho-capitalists. The first two groups do not believe in the rights of men to own property, especially the right to own the means of production, including land. The latter group believes in property rights and voluntary associations.
Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804)and the Federalists believed in a strong central government and social hierarchy much like Edmund Burke and his Conservatism which favored traditionalism and stability. Hamilton was bitterly opposed by Jefferson and his Democratic Republicans who were classical liberals and believed in limited government. The Constitution was opposed by the Anti-Federalists such as George Mason (1725-1792) and Patrick Henry (1736-1799) who were in favor of states’ rights and more limited federal power, and who might have favored a step above anarchy.
In the end, our constitution was a compromise between these competing ideologies. We are a constitutional republic using representative democracy and utilizing separation of powers to try and keep government limited and protect the rights of individuals. As I mentioned in Part 1, we are failing to do either.
The constitution was intended to give the federal government responsibility for foreign affairs, while leaving the governance of citizens to the states. George Washington believed in a non-interventionist foreign policy and warned against foreign entanglements. Machiavelli’s ideas formed the basis of the Realism school of International Relations. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) in Perpetual Peace described the basis of Idealism in International Relations, an idea put into practice by Woodrow Wilson with somewhat unfavorable results.
The neoconservative approach to foreign policy of George W. Bush is currently bearing little fruit in terms of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. The goal of bringing freedom and democracy to the world is a noble one, but overcoming the realities of human nature and the entrenched interests of both Attila and the witch doctor are proving to be more than we can overcome.
We are faced with difficult challenges, both foreign and domestic. Internationally we see tyrants and warlords and witch doctors under the guise of religions such as Islam trying to reassert their influence, using age-old methods to claim territory and power and stifle dissent. Domestically we see the rise of factions and centralized power and the rule by a relative few (oligarchy). Our society appears to be going through the seemingly inevitable decline described by people such as Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) in Democracy in America.
I don’t believe our decline is inevitable. I do not buy into the pessimism. I think we need a renewal, but not a revolution. And I think it is entirely doable. In Part 3 (as promised) I will make the case for optimism and lay out a plan for putting our society back on track.
No comments:
Post a Comment