Archive for the ‘ Early American ’ Category

The Beliefs That Rule America

I got these ideas from Morris Berman, in his latest book A Question of Values. He, in turn got them from many other people. Morris is an interesting guy, and he now lives in Mexico, which is more compatible with his way of life. He self-published this book, courtesy of Amazon – perhaps because he could make more money this way. He now has a name and doesn’t need a publisher.

Americans pride themselves on being practical people, not given to fancy theories. But this is only a self-created illusion. They are really ruled by a basic set of ideas – like any other society. Berman lists these.

1. The belief in a ruling elite.

America’s attitude towards these guys is extremely interesting: they both hate them and love them. They hate the bad guys who take advantage of them, but love the good guys who make them more powerful, and protect them from their enemies. In reality, these are the same guys – but they absolutely refuse to see this. And they absolutely refuse to see that this is an Marxist idea (the Capitalists vs the Workers – or the idea of class conflict). American conservatives have boldly taken the ideas of Antonio Gramsci, a Marxist theorist, and made them their own – without giving him any credit, of course.

The basic idea is simple: a small group of nefarious people rule America, and they must be overthrown. The favorite whipping-boys now are the banks, who have been demonized throughout American history – beginning with Thomas Jefferson. Alexander Hamilton, on the other hand, realistically observed that a national bank would absolutely necessary to finance internal development. Americans in general believe both – but refuse to see this.

2. American Exceptionalism.

This has been a core American belief, ever since the Pilgrims thought of themselves as a City on a Hill, or God’s Chosen People. Many social groups improved on this belief, and thought of themselves as the elect of the elect – such as the Mormons – the church of my family. Recently, this position has become untenable, since Americans now insist on complete conformity – and will not tolerate any special American groups – such as the Hispanic-Americans.

This is related to another part of American culture: Americanism as a civil religion. This goes back to the American Transcendentalists, including Emerson and Thoreau. Being an American was not just important – it was everything.

3. The Unlimited Frontier.

Here again, this goes back to the founding of America – and another Founding Father, James Madison. Like the other fathers of our country, he was worried about the impact of individual greed on the stability of the Republic. The solution was obvious: a continually expanding frontier, that Americans could always take over – and exploit. The Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican War accomplished this admirably.

The occupation of the Philippines later continued this trend. And even in Iraq, one of America’s objectives was to make Iraq safe for American business. What happened instead was colonialism, which America has never been good at.

Instead we have shifted our attention to the technological frontier – which we can expand without limit – we believe. In reality, we have to compete with the rest of the world to develop this frontier – which we have not done too well.

4. Extreme individualism.

This is so common we can hardly notice it. But every political candidate, from right to left, endorses it with fervor – and Americans buy into it automatically. The only people to not buy this – lock, stock and barrel – are the liberals – who are so weak they can be disregarded.

The Party System Has Been the Curse of Democracy

I am tempted to make that statement even stronger: the party system has destroyed democracy. It is a parasite on democracy and diverts precious social resources from it. Instead of concentrating on finding the right people for the job, enormous energy is used by the parties in their own interests. They take power away from the nation and make it weaker.

Of course everyone asks “How else can democracy work?” For people in the age of the Internet to ask that question only shows how helpless and ignorant they have become. The only answer can be that “Democracy, in most societies, simply doesn’t work very well – and America, the slave of a two-party system, is proof of that.”

That fact that Americans think they have a democracy – and their democracy is the right one for other countries, such as Iraq and Afghanistan – only shows how little they know – of their own country and of other countries.

America did not begin with a party system. The Founding Fathers referred to them derisively as factions – and thought it in poor taste for a man to campaign for public office. The proper man, such as George Washington, would be obvious to the electorate, and he would accept the office out of a sense of public duty – not in order to increase his personal power.

Thomas Jefferson, a very complex person, could not resist this temptation however, and formed the first political party in order to become president – to the complete disgust of John Adams. All the rest has been downhill.

Andrew Jackson

This is the fifth follow-up to my posting Locke, Rousseau, Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, where I promised to go into each man further. You can see the one about Locke hereRousseau here, Adams here, and Jefferson here.

Andrew was, to put it bluntly, a disreputable character – just like many of his fellow-Americans. He was a frontiersman, to use polite language, and a rough fellow – eager to fight anything, especially the Indians. The American treatment of its indigenous people has always been a disgrace, from the Puritans onward, but under Jackson it reached a climax we should all be ashamed of. We inherited a wilderness without equal, and proceeded to destroy it, and its inhabitants, in the name of progress.

Jackson was an anti-intellectual, in the best American tradition. And American history from 1820 to the Civil War is nothing we can be proud of. One of his proudest achievements was the destruction of the Bank of America. Like Jefferson, he hated banks and considered them nothing but thieves.

The US did not become an industrialized nation until after the Civil War, when Andrew had been long forgotten.

One part of his history, of which I am well aware, was the rise of Mormonism. It’s leader, Joseph Smith, was nothing but a religious charlatan, but people flocked to join him – and his movement is still flourishing today.

Thomas Jefferson

This is the fourth follow-up to my posting Locke, Rousseau, Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, where I promised to go into each man further. You can see the one about Locke hereRousseau here, and Adams here.

I could easily entitle this The Jefferson Nobody Knows – or even the Jefferson Nobody Wants to Know – we actually know so little about our most famous Founding Father.  The reasons for this are clear, as you will soon see: he was a man who knew his own mind – unusual in any age. In contrast to Washington or Lincoln, who have been lionized to death, he remains an enigmatic figure. We don’t quite know what to make of him; he fits into no convenient slot.

As usual, my source is The Making of the Modern Mind, page 356. I quote:

Those who labor on the earth are the chosen people of God, if there were ever a chosen people. whose breasts he has made his peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue. It is the focus in which he keeps alive that sacred fire, which otherwise might escape from the face of the earth. Corruption of morals in the mass of the cultivators a phenomenon of which no age or nations has furnished us with an example. Dependability begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares the fit tools of ambition…When the Americans get piled into each other in large cities, as in Europe, they will become as corrupt as Europe.

Can you hear Rousseau speaking here? I can – and speaking as one raised close to the soil, I can testify that the children of the soil are not so innocent. We must remember that Jefferson fathered a number of children by one of his slaves – a half-sister of his departed wife – a situation not uncommon for his time and place. But let me go on.

He emphasized the sovereignty of the people, and claimed that the active consent of the governed is essential. He went to far as to welcome insurrections, such as Shay’s Rebellion, and feared lest Americans should lose the habit of rising against their government. “God forbid,” he said, “That we should be twenty years without such a rebellion.”

Jeffersonian Democracy simply meant the agrarian masses led by an aristocracy of slave-holding planters, and the theoretical repudiation of the right to use the government to use the government for the benefit of any capitalistic group, fiscal, banking, or manufacturing.

The contrast with now could not be more complete!

John Adams

This is the third follow-up to my posting Locke, Rousseau, Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, where I promised to go into each man further. You can see the one about Locke here, and Rousseau here.

Before going on with Adams, I should make it clear that I greatly respect the man. He was a great American patriot, and spent much of his life working for America; it wouldn’t have happened without him. But like all of us, he was very much a man of his time, and reflected its limitations.

From pages 348, 349 of The Making of the Modern Mind:

Hamilton, Madison, and John Adams stand out as the spokesmen for the rights of the commercial and propertied classes, and it was such men who wrote and secured the adoption of the Constitution. Here are Adam’s feelings about the people.

We may appeal to every page of history we have hitherto turned over, for proofs irrefragable, that the people, when they have been unchecked, have been unjust, tyrannical, brutal, barbarous and cruel as any king or senate possessed of uncontrollable power. The majority has without one exception usurped over the rights of the minority…All projects of government, formed on the supposition of continual vigilance, sagacity, virtue, and firmness of the people, when possessed of the supreme power, are cheats and delusions.

Adams abhors the idea of human equality; every society contains such an aristocracy of well- born gentlemen, sharply set off from the mass of “simple men, the laborers, husbandmen, mechanics, and merchants in general, who pursue their occupations and industry without any knowledge in liberal arts or sciences, or anything but their own trades for pursuits.” The distinguishing marks of this aristocracy are that it is “educated, well-born, and wealthy.”

You can’t get much plainer than that!

But this is probably the reason for downfall of their Federalist Party by the party of Jefferson, who was more partial to the people – the subject of my next posting on this subject.

Rousseau

This is the second follow-up to my posting Locke, Rousseau, Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, where I promised to go into each man further. You can see the one about Locke here.

I listened to a course from the Teaching Company Birth of the Modern Mind, The Intellectual History of the 17th and 18th Centuries, professor Alan Charles Kors really did the job right. I copied the following from the course outline:

Rousseau shared much of Enlightenment thought – above all its Lockeanism, deism, and commitment to religious tolerance – but his critique of progress in arts and sciences, and his celebration of the primitive in original nature constituted a major dissent from prevailing Enlightenment beliefs and major legacy to future Western thought.

For Rousseau, cultural progress has invariably led to moral decadence, creating artificial needs and artificial inequalities. Society has made us selfish, vicious, arrogant, and unnatural.

The problem then is to recognize the depredations of artificial social life and redeem them to the greatest extent possible. This can be done by returning to the religion of nature (deism), by educating the young in the most natural means possible (so they can learn from nature alone), by locating legitimate political sovereignty only in the general will that seeks the good of all over the particular good.

The legacy of these themes is influential and profound, extending to the counter-culture, Kant’s Categorical Imperative in moral theory, and various benign and not-so-benign attempts to ground political sovereignty in virtue, rather than in numerical majorities.

In other words, Rousseau is the god-father of every crackpot scheme promoting natural products and natural living in existence. Madison Avenue should erect a large statue to him.

Likewise, our current Tea Party enthusiasts.

John Locke

This is a follow-up to my posting Locke, Rousseau, Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, where I promised to go into each man further. Locke is probably the one least familiar to American minds – although by Jefferson’s time his ideas were familiar to educated minds everywhere. When he wrote the Declaration of Independence, he was simply quoting Locke when he spoke of the Rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – although Locke would have been upset, because for him the Right of Property was foremost.

Locke, in turn was indebted to Newton’s world of Laws, governed by God. Locke was a firm believer in a Monarch – but one who would administer the laws wisely and without favoritism.

He was the first to speak of the social contract – an idea Rousseau would develop more fully. Men naturally banded together for their defense from enemies – and also for their defense from something much worse: their own despots. This was what the laws were for: to protect their natural rights of the ruled.

Montesquieu feared a tyrannical despot – but also the mob, something also feared by the American Founding Fathers – who believed in a rule by a natural aristocracy.

Next, Rousseau – a truly strange character, who had a strange effect on history.

Locke, Rousseau, Adams, Jefferson, Jackson

I am still reading The Making of the Modern Mind, and America is finally making an appearance there – in the chapter on The Science of Government. I am also listening to The Constitutional Convention, and they complement each other nicely. Finally, at the age of 73, I am becoming educated about early American political history – while living in remote Costa Rica.

Educated aristocratic Americans, such as Adams and Jefferson, assimilated the political ideas them being circulated in England and France (Locke and Rousseau), and applied them to the American situation. These were then absorbed by uneducated, hard-drinking, frontier Americans, such as Jackson, and democratized to a degree would have shocked the Founding Fathers.

This is the first in a series about this subject. Stay tuned for more.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 364 other followers