Ellis: The US was founded to foster arguments, not to settle them

[Pangloss]

Joseph Ellis wrote the fabulous 2002 book "Founding Brothers", which took the unusual approach of pairing off famous figures from the American revolutionary period and showing their differences. It was interesting in the way it challenged the standard, high-school-history-class belief that the founding fathers were perfect people with perfect goals and perfect arguments.

 

His new book is called "American Creation", and it just came out a couple of weeks ago. I haven't read it yet (darned holiday -- I have to actually wait to see if someone buys it for me! What a nuissance!), but the "buzz" on it is really interesting. Take this New York Times review, for example, written by the editor of Newsweek:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/books/review/Meacham-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

 

Modern political campaigns talk of revolution when in fact the founding gave us a nation that prefers evolution. Despite the hurly-burly of presidential bids, with their evocations of hope (Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, John Kennedy’s New Frontier, Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, Ronald Reagan’s Morning in America, Bill Clinton’s Bridge to the 21st Century), no single election will lead us through the wilderness to the Promised Land. Short of what William Faulkner called “the last red and dying evening,” nothing will ever be finally, fully finished. The poor shall be with us always, and the world will defy our best and most conscientious efforts to eliminate evil, or even to master it for very long.

 

How to live in a tragic milieu and yet strive toward triumph — for while perfection may not be possible, progress is — was a consuming concern for the founders, who, led by James Madison, made a virtue of creating competing centers of power within the constitutional structure.

 

Fascinating stuff, as is this direct quote from Ellis himself:

 

In my judgment the calculated decision to make the American Revolution happen in slow motion was a creative act of statesmanship that allowed the United States to avoid the bloody and chaotic fate of subsequent revolutionary movements in France, Russia and China.

 

It's an interesting point of view, and very different, I think, from the conventional wisdom. One of the things that makes our country great is the way we foster and support dissention and disagreement. But I think sometimes people miss the point of that fostering. It's not so that we can rip ourselves apart in madness and despair, and it's not even so that we can ensure that wisdom and intelligence win out over foolishness and phobia. The point is simply to give everyone a chance to participate in the process in the most realistic manner possible that still allows for some kind of forward motion.

 

One thought that occurs to me upon pondering this is that it seems to render moot the old point about whether the founding fathers would be disappointed in us or approve or our actions. This seems to suggest that they wouldn't care, or that they would generally approve of, say, the 2000 election! At least they're still hashing out their disputes, they might say. I wonder.

[iNow]

One of the things that makes our country great is the way we foster and support dissention and disagreement. But I think sometimes people miss the point of that fostering. It's not so that we can rip ourselves apart in madness and despair, and it's not even so that we can ensure that wisdom and intelligence win out over foolishness and phobia. The point is simply to give everyone a chance to participate in the process in the most realistic manner possible that still allows for some kind of forward motion.

Pangloss, overall, this was a very good post, and you raise many valid points. I'm also interested in reading more on the books you've referenced, so thank you for that.

 

To comment on the quoted portion above, I think you have added your own interpretation to the framers intent. Me, I believe without a shadow of a doubt that the framers tried to setup a system where wisdom and intelligence won out over foolishness and phobia. Their writings clearly indiciate that they sought a better society, one that would contiunually advance and grow and prosper... and they wanted the same for the people who compose that society, and the freedoms guarenteed them by it.

 

While I agree that they did not want us ripping ourselves apart in disagreement and despair, I think that they did want wisdom and intellect to have more success than ignorance in the political battles which do occur. I also agree with you that there were many individual differences and agendas among the original framers, and they were not perfect beings by any means. However, my belief is that a suggestion that they did not want wisdom and intelligence to win out over ignorance and phobia is an inaccurate spin of their documents and speeches regarding constitutional mechanisms for protecting minority opinion... opinion which may be counter to that held by the masses.

 

As I said, though, overall this was a fantastic post, and I agree that we fight many tough battles in the name of a few tiny inches of progress. Hopefully, the wise will start winning more battles than the ignorant, and the outcome of those battles are worth the resources used to engage in them. Cheers.

[ecoli]

looks good...I'll make a suggestion to my library that they buy it.

[Pangloss]

As I said, though, overall this was a fantastic post, and I agree that we fight many tough battles in the name of a few tiny inches of progress. Hopefully, the wise will start winning more battles than the ignorant, and the outcome of those battles are worth the resources used to engage in them. Cheers.

 

Thanks.

 

I wasn't trying to suggest that they didn't want intelligence and wisdom to win out over fear and ignorance, just that they wanted fear and ignorance to be presented and heard and rationally discussed (and thereby exposed and understood as wrong), as opposed to being, say, ridiculed and ostracized and driven underground. One way represents a path to societal progress; the other does not, it only seems to. I think we basically agree on this.

 

By the way, this suggests that one aspect of our society the founding fathers might wholeheartedly approve of is modern skepticism and scientific popularism, vis-a-vis James Randi, Carl Sagan, etc.

 

And of course one can't help but wonder how all this would be reconciled with their overwhelming support for (and participation in) Christianity. I would feel wrong accusing them of hypocrisy -- these were men of integrity whose word meant something to them and to others, and they said they believed -- but how much of their faith was a product of their environment and their society? Alas, as we can't ask them, this may just be one of those things we never fully get to know.

[Reaper]

And of course one can't help but wonder how all this would be reconciled with their overwhelming support for (and participation in) Christianity. I would feel wrong accusing them of hypocrisy -- these were men of integrity whose word meant something to them and to others, and they said they believed -- but how much of their faith was a product of their environment and their society? Alas, as we can't ask them, this may just be one of those things we never fully get to know.

 

Officially they were deists. They believed that God was nothing more than somewhat of a "celestial watchmaker", so to speak, meaning that they believed that God did create the universe, and then afterwards just left.

[Pangloss]

That's certainly a point of view that's frequently put out there.