Political Party? II

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Candide:


The fact that Madison and Jefferson's dream was not reached until somewhat recently doesn't mean their dream fits the model of the oppressors.

You think what we have now is what they envisioned?

Good grief Charlie Brown. Neither of those guys would have ever conceived (much less approve of) that the gov't. they helped establish would ever absorb about 1/6 of the nations wealth and hold over 30% of its land.

 

[Candide]

Jefferson actually was the chief architect of the public education system in Virginia. His creation was completely secular.

In regards to your second point, namely that Madison and Jefferson would not support the big government we have today, I'll agree to a certain extent. Jefferson most certainly would oppose. I think if you look at Madison's private writings though, he was motivated by a desire for a strong national government. I think Madison would support our government as it is.

But the fact remains, even if both would be thoroughly opposed, their America is impossible. Their desires for the separation of church and state are just as legitimate and just as necessary now. But their desires for the small, decentralized government (if we assume those desires existed, for many they did, for Madison and Hamilton among others they didn't) is not achievable today nor is it particularly desirable. We've seen the disasters of a deregulated market and a society without progressive social policy.

 

[fromtheright]

Candide,

I think Madison would support our government as it is.

I disagree with your statement above and I think one of the strongest arguments against it is Madison's February 2, 1791 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives against the National Bank (as published in Languages of Power: A Sourcebook of Early American Constitutional History) in which he argued for a strict construction of the Constitution. It is further reinforced by his strict interpretation of the general welfare clause, among others, in Federalist 41.

To reinforce your point against Barton, I would point readers to this post from Wallbuilders as to the problems with the quotations found in The Myth of Separation: Unconfirmed Quotations. For Barton to use such "quotations" in The Myth of Separation and use the excuse that "this is common practice" is poor scholarship and a worse excuse. He should know that the best and most reliable history studies are those which footnote direct sources. I'm a layman but I read a good bit of early American history, both writings of the Founders and contemporary histories. The best histories, as any student of history will tell you, are those who go back to original sources. It is for the same reason that, though I think it a valuable book, Michael Novak's On Two Wings should not be viewed as a historical trove without looking carefully at his own second hand quotations. For Barton to set himself up as a historical and constitutional authority and to use such poor historical method is inexcusable and he has proven to me that he is not to be trusted. Though I do remain on the same side as Barton in the Church-State Separation debate, we must look to more reliable authorities and do more of our own research. Are there those on the other side who do the same thing? Absolutely, and atheist websites are replete with quotations out of context but that is no excuse for using the same or worse methods.

BTW, I would like to recommend a book I am now reading, Philip Hamburger's Separation of Church and State, recently published by Harvard Press. From the dustcover:

Philip Hamburger...has laid to rest the historical credentials of the Jeffersonian myth of the "wall of separation" and shown how the notion of separation gained wide acceptance in the nineteenth century primarily due to the pervasiveness of American anti-Catholicism. He has also destroyed the notion that separation is the only alternative to the union of church and state, and demonstrated that acceptance of separation has in fact undermined the vitality of our original anti-establishment notions of religious freedom.

[ October 16, 2002, 01:12 AM: Message edited by: fromtheright ]

 

[AdoptedDaughter]

Thought I'd identify myself as a Republican...Worked on W.'s campaign this past election, and I've never felt more patriotic than I did when I was helping to promote a cause I believed in!

~Teresa~

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Candide:
Jefferson actually was the chief architect of the public education system in Virginia. His creation was completely secular.

I was aware that Jefferson established the university of Virginia but I have never seen any of his writings that supported anything like the public school system that we have now. If you have such citations, I would be interested in them.

I think if you look at Madison's private writings though, he was motivated by a desire for a strong national government.

Strong and big are not necessarily the same thing. Our government could be authoritative in regard to things like the environment without the massive re-distribution of wealth programs that absorb the majority of the Federal Budget. Even if your supposition were true, that view would have obviously been a minority view. Until the implementation of the income tax in the 1910's, the peacetime Federal budget never exceeded 7% of the GNP.

Their desires for the separation of church and state are just as legitimate and just as necessary now.

If properly defined, yes. But as they are currently defined, no. The issue is not now, nor was it ever, whether schools would make a religious statement but instead what religious statement will be made. Today secular humanism with particular attachment to evolution and liberal social views is the "State" religion. It is impossible to educate anyone on any subject without laying at least a basic moral foundation. To do so without God is just as religious as to do so with God.

But their desires for the small, decentralized government (if we assume those desires existed, for many they did, for Madison and Hamilton among others they didn't) is not achievable today nor is it particularly desirable.

That is an opinion, not a demonstrated fact. I would agree that due to the change from an agrarian to industrial society we cannot achieve the same limits they envisioned. At the same time, I would argue that a much more limited Federal government is both achievable and desirable.

We've seen the disasters of a deregulated market and a society without progressive social policy.

...and how does that compare to the disasters created by "progressive social policy"? The European economy took a nose dive long before ours and will probably take much longer to recover due to taxation and regulation. The great progressive society of the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of the failure of its own idealism. What seemed ideal never helped its people. Our social programs have done pretty much the same for our poor. They are still poor and just as hopeless.

Deregulated market? Yes, and I would include enviromental protections under this very broad topic.

Progressive social policy? No, these well intentioned programs have been wasteful, have contributed to moral degradation, have enabled people to deny basic personal responsibilites that accompany freedom, have displaced churches as the source of charity (competed with God for the soul's of the poor), have institutionalized the poor as a class, have created an "industry" that depends on the perpetuation of poverty for its jobs, have become self-perpetuating based on fears cultivated within the recipients, and have enabled politicians to rule the country by trading the promise of someone else's wealth for votes.

 

[Candide]

I disagree with your statement above and I think one of the strongest arguments against it is Madison's February 2, 1791 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives against the National Bank (as published in Languages of Power: A Sourcebook of Early American Constitutional History) in which he argued for a strict construction of the Constitution. It is further reinforced by his strict interpretation of the general welfare clause, among others, in Federalist 41.

Keep in mind, the public and private Madison are two very different people. The Federalist papers are wonderfully executed pieces of propaganda, amazing documents considering the authors. Madison and Hamilton imparticular didn't believe very much of what they were writing in the Federalist papers, but the system they outlined was the best they could get while ensuring the State Legislatures would approve. I used to agree with you (not in your view of how government should be but rather how Madison viewed government). But then I read Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention. It's clear that many of the men in that room, including Madison, were hardly Federalists or anti-Federalists. They supported a strong National government with a less significant state government. But they also knew that could never be approved by the State legislature. John P. Roche wrote a great little essay on the topic entitled "The Founding Fathers: A Reform Caucus in Action". I'm looking for an online source of the document. I'll get back on this.

Though I do remain on the same side as Barton in the Church-State Separation debate, we must look to more reliable authorities and do more of our own research. Are there those on the other side who do the same thing? Absolutely, and atheist websites are replete with quotations out of context but that is no excuse for using the same or worse methods.

Many atheist sites have entirely made up quotes too. As do many sites like Wallbuilders. I trust no quote unless I can find the entire document in which it is found.

 

[Candide]

I was aware that Jefferson established the university of Virginia but I have never seen any of his writings that supported anything like the public school system that we have now. If you have such citations, I would be interested in them.

You're right. My mistake... to a point. It was the University of Virginia I was referring to. But it was also a university that was partially funded by the state. Jefferson wrote in forming it:

”34. I n the sd University shall be taught History and Geography antient and modern, natural philosophy, agriculture, chemistry & the theories of medecine; Anatomy, Zoology, Botany, Mineralogy and Geology; Mathematics pure and mixed, military and naval scien ce; Ideology, Ethics, the Law of nature and nations, Law municipal & foreign, the science of civil government and Political economy; Languages, Rhetoric Belles lettres, and the fine arts generally: which branches of science shall be so distributed, a nd under so many professorships, not exceeding ten, as the Visitors shall think most proper.”

Not exactly a theocratic school. I can find the source for the above if you want me to, I'm taking this information from a paper I wrote a while ago.

I'll respond to rest later. Doing too many things at once.

 

[rsr]

Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government

[edited to name link]

[ October 17, 2002, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

[Candide]

Originally posted by rsr:
Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government[/QUOTE ]

And I thought I was going insane. Thank you.

[edited to name link]

[ October 17, 2002, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

[fromtheright]

Candide,

Keep in mind, the public and private Madison are two very different people.

I would agree with you to some extent but the public Madison is quite important when looking at the debates on various issues, such as the National Bank, and if such debates are going to set the framework for interpretation in that period, it almost makes the private Madison irrelevant; in other words, if he is arguing for votes on a particular public policy, which is based on framework for viewing the Constitution and government's role in general, why "listen to" the private Madison at all. Yes, it is true that he signed to extend the National Bank as President, as I recall, but his justification, not unreasonable, was the longstanding precedent IIRC.

[ October 17, 2002, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: fromtheright ]