Tocqueville, Federalism, and Virtue

(en.wikiquote.org)




According to Tocqueville, America seemed successful at balancing individual self-interest with citizenship and community spirit, at least in part because of the federal structure of the government. It was the vitality of local government that especially impressed him. It was through local government that individuals were drawn into public affairs and a sense of community was instilled that seemed to moderate the natural tendency to pursue one's self-interest. Local institutions placed liberty



within the people's reach. Local liberties which induce a great number of citizens to value the affections of kindred and neighbors, bring men constantly into contact, despite the instincts which separate them and force them to help one another.

The federal system and vital local government, according to Tocqueville, promoted a type of patriotism or civic virtue that "in the end becomes, in a sense, mingled with personal interest." The citizen, he observed, comes to view his nation's prosperity "first as a thing useful to him and then as something he created." It is a civic virtue born of enlightened self-interest and, in Tocqueville's eyes, it was the great virtue of American government.

Tocqueville identified two factors which were critical to the maintenance of this public spirit in America: active local governments in a federal system and a belief on the part of the people that they are free to be the masters of their own fate. An individual's belief in himself seemed to matters as much as his commitment to community.

In a particularly moving and prescient passage in Democracy in America, Tocqueville warned that it would be difficult for America to maintain the balance it had achieved through federalism. Citing a unique sort of despotism that tends to undermine democracies, he warned of the dangers that accompany the centralization and consolidation of government. Seeking to "trace the novel features under which despotism may appear," he wrote that "the first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives." He sees the potential for a nation of strangers-individuals so self-interested and self-involved as to be indifferent to the fate of others or of the state. It is a nation in which the individual "exists but in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country". It is a nation in which individuals are governed by the state as opposed to the state governed by them.

Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. The power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood, but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manges their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, subdivides their inheritances: What remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of learning?



Such a government, argued Tocqueville, "renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent" and "generally robs a man of all the uses of himself." It is a government that promotes individual self-interest because it caters to it; a government that weakens the spirit of individuals and communities, leading to a decline in community and citizenship because the people no longer care. They no longer care because the government is doing what needs to be done. It is a transformation in the minds of men that is brought about by the nature of government. The despotism Tocqueville warns of is a tyranny of men's minds, as citizens no longer practice citizenship while they reside in communities in which there are no neighbors.
( Eugene W. Hickok. Why States? The Challenge of Federalism. Heritage Foundation. pp 88-90)

.

Another Writer on Why History or, I Wish I Wrote That

What can we learn from this knowledge that can actually help us? Actually, quite a lot. Because behind the great themes are great men and women, the leaders of history. History by definition is about human beings, and there is nothing more fascinating, or more immediately applicable to our lives, than the study of human nature. History is a record of mankind's stupidities, pride, vindictiveness, hypocrisies, and ambitions, tempered by moments of heroism, grace, good judgment, and nobility. In the broad brush strokes of great themes these are sometimes hidden or obscured. But it is history's little stories that provide the greatest insight into the nature of man. Some are not pretty, some are powerful, and some are poignant. But the best of them are worth remembering precisely because they have something to teach. (Wick Allison. Condemned to Repeat It. (xv-xvi)

William Tyndale

John A. R. Dick William Tyndale and the Law. (1994)

For those of us who live under constitutional governments, it is difficult and challenging to reconstruct what "the law" would have meant to Tyndale. The normative systems that could affect a person in his circumstances included canon law, English common law, Roman civil law (in the lands of his exile), domestic mores, the bindings and loosings of the Bible, and the joker, Realpolitik- and they were often in conflict. Add to this historical situation an extraordinarily personal sensitivity to norms and you have much of the poetry in Tyndale's tense and impassioned prose. Longing to regulate himself and others, but also to liberate the overregulated, Tyndale was predisposed to feel the force of every contemporary body of law under whose jurisdiction he conceivably came. God's law, based on the two Testaments, seemed as if it could silence this hubbub of warring imperatives, but Tyndale could not get rid of Erasmus's conviction, not purely Bible-based, that human beings deserved to be free, natural, and happy. (ix)(photo:commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:William_Tyndale)

With Apologies to My Wesleyan Friends

Here are a few lines written in the 18th century by one of my ancestors Thomas Chatterton:

(commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thomas_Chatterton)

The Methodist

Says Tom to Jack, 'tis very odd,

These representatives of God,

In color, way of life and evil,

Should be so very like the devil.

Jack, understand was one of those,

Who mould religion like a rose,

A red hot methodist; his face

Was full of puritanic grace,

His loose lank hair, his slow gradation,

Declared a late regeneration;

Among the daughters long renown'd,

For standing upon holy ground;

Never in carnal battle beat,

Tho' sometimes forced to a retreat'

But C___t, hero as he is,

Knight of incomparable phiz,

When pliant Doxy seems to yield,

Courageously forsakes the field.

Jack, or to write more gravely, John

Thro' hills of Wesley's works had gone;

Could sing one hundred hymns by rote;

Hymns which would sanctify the throat;

But some indeed composed so oddly,

You'd swear 'twas bawdy songs made godly.

Texas Tidbits

A. C. Greene. Texas Sketches. (1985)

The conversational tone of Texas Sketches perfectly lends itself to utilization in the classroom. It provides many interesting stories that would liven up any Texas History class. A. C. Greene gives the story behind the story in the founding of some of Texas's most noteworthy cities and compelling stories about the early residents. The brevity of each of the sketches lends itself not just to the classroom but conversation. It is enjoyable, light reading.

The Cold War and Postmodern Memory

Robert Conquest. Reflections on a Ravaged Century. (2000) Norton.



This year could be the great anniversary: 150 years since the firing on Fort Sumter, seventy years since Pearl Harbor, twenty years since Gulf War I. Two other anniversaries should be noted, those being the fiftieth of John Kennedy's inauguration and the thirtieth of Ronald Reagan's, whose centennial is also this year. I write this because, as a teacher of history, it is time we recognize that a generation has grown up without any memory of the Cold War. Many of the ideas and attitudes that the Boomer generation were born into and grew up with are no longer standard. The way the Cold War enveloped our lives is foreign to the Ipod generation. In order for the younger generation to understand us we need to realize this. We need to attempt to explain the Cold War and not just take it as given that they understand. We need to explain it in the way our parents explained the Depression and World War II.

Reflections on a Ravaged Century is a good starting point in restoring some of the memories of the Cold War era. Conquest examines some of the rogue ideologies of the twentieth century that sent millions to their deaths and terrorized the rest. "More generally, this book is an overview, an attempt to present in a reasonably coherent way the crucial causes of past disaster, and so of the problems still facing us in our hopes for a reasonably peaceful and consensual world." (297)

When Bad History Happens to Good Catholics

Thomas E. Woods, Jr. How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. (2005) Regnery

This work could be subtitled "A Very Selective History". Of course all history writing is selective, some more so than others. The historian places emphasis on certain facts and downplays others. The good historian cannot overlook the obvious objections to his contention. Thomas Woods does this, repeatedly. When important events and people either are ignored or misrepresented, it is no longer history, it is propaganda.
First, Woods cannot properly define his time frame although he does strive valiantly to concentrate on the era of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics. This leads to his next difficulty: what is his definition of the word "catholic"? Is he talking about simply the Roman Catholic Church or does he mean catholic as in universal? Certainly until at least 1054 there was just "the Church", and in the West this continued until the sixteenth century.
Next, in his discussion of the concept of "natural rights", Woods would have the reader believe that this was handed down to us from the theologians of the 12th century. There is no mention of the Common Law or Magna Charta. (139)
Perhaps the worst offense is how Woods makes certain that the reader remembers that John Calvin and Martin Luther were evil Protestants. (119, 157). Yet he speaks favorably of Murray N. Rothbard with no religious label. Because it would be embarrassing to say that he was an Atheist? Adam Smith, a Scottish Calvinist, is bad, but Jean Buridan, one of the French Roman Catholic founders of Nominalism, is good.
Lastly, we have the(Roman) Catholic church calling for the separation of church and state. I guess Thomas Jefferson was a closet Roman Catholic even though he read that bad Protestant John Locke. Cardinals Wolsey and Richielieu must not have gotten the message.
This belongs to that category of bad history. When the author must rely on name-calling as a response to dissent, the reader knows what to expect.

First Day Spring Semester 2011

Back to School! After a layoff of over a month it was good to get back into the classroom. I am teaching three classes consecutively from 11 in the morning until 3:20 pm. I have 132 students in my live classes out of a possible 134. Add a full online class (49), that means 181 students.
The first day back can be a textbook definition of chaos, at least in the parking lot. I found a space, but it is good that I have been walking Frankie because it was a hike. Once inside though things seemed to be operating as a well-oiled machine. I had no students show up late and nobody in the wrong classroom. Even though today was just introductory material, it went well. It seems that I'll have no problems with discussions in the 11 and 12:30 classes. The 2 o'clock may be a bit more stubborn.

Are We Forgetting the Basics?

Okay, so this is a rant. Often I walk our Champion Heinz 57 Frankie when I haven't had time to go to the gym. Ever since I can remember it has been walk on the left side of the street if there is no sidewalk. Am I the only one who remembers this? It seems like there have been many things that my generation has just taken for granted can be learned by osmosis. Walking is one of them. The raising of a child is another. The list goes on. Some parents expect the schools to teach these sorts of matters and then complain that Johnny can't read. Maybe Johnny can't read because the teacher can't get him to behave without fear of a lawsuit.

James Madison: Proponent of Big Government?

Alison LaCroix. The Ideological Origins of American Federalism. (2010)

Federalism is regarded as one of the signal American contributions to modern politics. Its origins are typically traced to the drafting of the Constitution, but the story began decades before the delegates met in Philadelphia. LaCroix traces the history of American federal thought from its colonial beginnings in scattered provincial responses to British assertions of authority to its emergence in the late eighteenth century as a normative theory of multi-layered government. The core of this new federal ideology was a belief that multiple independent levels of government could legitimately exist within a single polity, and that such an arrangement was not a defect but a virtue. This belief became a foundational principle and aspiration of the American political enterprise. LaCroix challenges the traditional account of republican ideology as the single dominant framework for eighteenth-century American political thought. Understanding the emerging federal ideology returns constitutional thought to the central place that it occupied for the founders. Federalism was not a necessary adaptation to make an already designed system work: it was the system.

What is old is new again. LaCroix has pointed us, once again as historians did a century ago, in the direction of structures and institutions. She is out to slay giants, in this case Bernard Bailyn and Gordon Wood. Unfortunately, her selectivity in the evidence presented is obvious. The founders relied upon are Hamilton, Madison (pre-1793), James Wilson, and John Marshall. No Mason, Henry, or John Adams. Her implied conclusion that these men would support the reach of the national government today is flimsy. The debate regarding structure did not happen in a vacuum, although one can not know that from this work.

Middle Age

• My arms seem to have gotten shorter
• 74 mph is as fast as I'll go
• I grunt when getting up from a chair
• The president is younger than me
• Pop music lost me about 20 years ago
• Video games lost me after "Missile Command"
• The head coach of the Dallas Cowboys is younger than me
• Have not been carded in fifteen years, but on the bright side, they don't ask if I want the senior discount
• Friends are becoming grandparents
• I wrote letters

British Intrigue and the Texas Revolution

Stuart Reid. The Secret War for Texas. 2007. Texas A&M University Press.
"Could the British have stopped Manifest Destiny in its tracks in 1836? A Scottish doctor named James Grant was the agent who tried to make it happen and Texas was the stage on which the secret battle was fought." (Dustjacket)
James Grant is one of those figures in history who make an appearance, seemingly out of nowhere, and who disappear almost as quickly, a cipher if you will. Was he an agent of the British Foreign Office? Did his scheme of a Northern Mexico Federal Republic have a realistic chance? Or was it a method concocted by Grant to advance some land claims that he had? Most historians of this period believe it was all about the land claims and thus Dr. Grant does not rate very high in the estimation of Texans. He was a distraction. Unfortunately for the reputation of Dr. Grant, this monograph of Stuart Reid does little to change that estimation to this historian's eyes. There exists in this work too much "what if" and "only if", especially in regards to the attack on Matamoras, which never happened. The author sees the eventual annexation of Texas by the United States as inevitable once the Northern Federation fell apart. Inevitability is hindsight not history.

God in a Box

Placher, William C., The Domestication of Transcendence. 1996. Westminster John Knox Press.

Placher looks at "classical" Christian theology (Aquinas, Calvin, Luther) and contrast it with the Christian discourse about God that evolved in the seventeenth century (Descartes, Suarez). In particular, he deals with the notion of transcendence that gained prominence in this era and its impact on modern theology and modern thinking today. He persuasively argues that useful lessons can be drawn from premodern thinking about God, especially when viewed within the context of contemporary objections to it. In a word, moderns misread Aquinas, Calvin, Luther.

Many contemporary theologians protest against a transcendent God, that distant being who dwells on high, our stern judge, the culmination of the cosmic order. They are right to protest, but wrong simply to blame "the Christian tradition" or "classical Christian theism " for the faults they identify. The principal object of their complaint came to dominate the Christian understanding of divine transcendence only in the seventeenth century. Before that, theologians spoke more forcefully of a Triune God utterly beyond our understanding and full of unexpected grace....We cannot simply return to that earlier theology, and would not want to if we could. But in its radical view of divine transcendence, it may still have lessons to teach us. (215)

Rangers Hot Stove Action

Okay, so we didn't win the Cliff Lee sweepstakes. That's not so bad since the Yankees lost out as well, and the payroll did not explode. Not being able to pull off a trade for Zach Greinke hurt but he has issues. The deal for Brandon Webb from the Diamondbacks is intriguing, if his arm has healed (one Rich Harden is enough). I'm not sure what to make of the near imminent signing of Adrian Beltre. Sure he is solid, but Michael Young as a "super-utility" infielder/designated hitter? I guess that means so long to Vlad Guerrero, we hardly knew ye.

Bowl Season

The Bowl Season is finally winding down. All that is left are the Sugar Bowl, the Cotton Bowl, and the BCS. It has been a decent bowl season so far. Both Maryland and Alabama won their bowl games by wide margins but SMU lost in a squeaker to Army. TCU beat Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl, the Black Saturday for the Big Ten when they went 0 for 5.