I'm reading the new book of the author interviewed here and below cite various people who blog there [this is an adaption of a comment there]. This entry was edited; perhaps, this can be a "Rev. Joe" entry since it involves "constitutional faith" which is in effect a form of religion.
The book starts with the creation of "the" founding vision (Jefferson won the first battle) and how antebellum times were a period of great change but a full ability to deal with it was harmed because of a connection to the past. A problem being that an honest accounting would show there was no "one" vision -- there was a conflict from the start. But, still one or the other side was sure there was clearly one vision, so much that the other side were in effect traitors to the cause. So, John Quincy Adams tried to think big but was rejected as not loyal to the Jeffersonian vision. Jackson was an innovator of party politics and other things but also could not truly admit to being so given this "constitutional faith" to use a term of Prof. Levinson.
There was an "interregnum" while the Civil War and its aftermath seemed a time too different from the Founding Era for that time to be seen as applicable. Lincoln provided something of a bridge: he spoke (shades of Balkin?) of certain founding principles that only in time would be put in place. So, slavery was a necessary evil, but in time equality would thrive. But, his rhetoric still tarred the opponents as traitors to the Founding Vision (sic), made only clearer once many truly became actual traitors. The return of "The Jefferson Rule" began in the 1920s with Harding using it as a way to further his "return to normalcy" with the Lincoln Memorial as important. It also was used to combat FDR but he in return used it (Gerald M. has written about this including his use of the BOR) to promote the New Deal. I have not read the rest but he later covers Reagan, the Tea Party etc.
The book is decent but as someone who read a decent amount touching upon this ground a lot of it doesn't really add much. And, since he has to cover so much ground, it adds to a feeling of "yeah okay, knew that." So, vignettes here and there are the most interesting. For instance, John Quincy Adams showing his message to Congress to his Cabinet. I, of course, agree with his overall thesis here myself and as a whole it's a useful volume, more so for those somewhat less knowledgeable of the events. Some of them (those more knowledgeable) might feel a desire to skim.
Update: Perhaps since I have read somewhat less on recent history, the sections on FDR and Reagan (1960s and 1970s particularly) were interesting. So, e.g., FDR spoke of "economic royalists," shades of Jefferson tarring his opponents as not just wrong but in effect traitorous. I see this online a lot with being totally wrong not enough; the other side in effect has to be evil. LBJ and Nixon were lightly touched.
The book ends on a fairly expected mostly negative account of the Tea Party's non-reality based path and extremism. It concludes by sensibly suggesting that we should not try to have the Founders guide us -- they were divided and we live in a different era. As they did a long time ago.
The book starts with the creation of "the" founding vision (Jefferson won the first battle) and how antebellum times were a period of great change but a full ability to deal with it was harmed because of a connection to the past. A problem being that an honest accounting would show there was no "one" vision -- there was a conflict from the start. But, still one or the other side was sure there was clearly one vision, so much that the other side were in effect traitors to the cause. So, John Quincy Adams tried to think big but was rejected as not loyal to the Jeffersonian vision. Jackson was an innovator of party politics and other things but also could not truly admit to being so given this "constitutional faith" to use a term of Prof. Levinson.
There was an "interregnum" while the Civil War and its aftermath seemed a time too different from the Founding Era for that time to be seen as applicable. Lincoln provided something of a bridge: he spoke (shades of Balkin?) of certain founding principles that only in time would be put in place. So, slavery was a necessary evil, but in time equality would thrive. But, his rhetoric still tarred the opponents as traitors to the Founding Vision (sic), made only clearer once many truly became actual traitors. The return of "The Jefferson Rule" began in the 1920s with Harding using it as a way to further his "return to normalcy" with the Lincoln Memorial as important. It also was used to combat FDR but he in return used it (Gerald M. has written about this including his use of the BOR) to promote the New Deal. I have not read the rest but he later covers Reagan, the Tea Party etc.
The book is decent but as someone who read a decent amount touching upon this ground a lot of it doesn't really add much. And, since he has to cover so much ground, it adds to a feeling of "yeah okay, knew that." So, vignettes here and there are the most interesting. For instance, John Quincy Adams showing his message to Congress to his Cabinet. I, of course, agree with his overall thesis here myself and as a whole it's a useful volume, more so for those somewhat less knowledgeable of the events. Some of them (those more knowledgeable) might feel a desire to skim.
Update: Perhaps since I have read somewhat less on recent history, the sections on FDR and Reagan (1960s and 1970s particularly) were interesting. So, e.g., FDR spoke of "economic royalists," shades of Jefferson tarring his opponents as not just wrong but in effect traitorous. I see this online a lot with being totally wrong not enough; the other side in effect has to be evil. LBJ and Nixon were lightly touched.
The book ends on a fairly expected mostly negative account of the Tea Party's non-reality based path and extremism. It concludes by sensibly suggesting that we should not try to have the Founders guide us -- they were divided and we live in a different era. As they did a long time ago.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!