I’ve just read a remarkable review, by Michael Anton, of a new book by Thomas G. West, who is a professor at Hillsdale College. (You may know Michael Anton as ‘Publius Decius Mus’, the author of the celebrated essay “The Flight 93 Election” that argued for the necessity of electing Donald Trump in 2016.)
Professor West’s book is called “The Political Theory of the American Founding: Natural Rights, Public Policy, and the Moral Conditions of Freedom”, and Mr. Anton describes it as “the most important political book published in my lifetime, a distinction I expect it will hold even if I live another half century.”
That is high praise indeed. Mr. Anton’s review itself was so extraordinarily detailed and compelling that I ordered a copy of the book as soon as I’d finished it. Read it yourself, here.
- American Fundamentals
- On The Founding: Questions From The Right Of The Right, Part 1
- Questions About The Founding, Part 2: A Reply From Michael Anton
- Questions About The Founding, Part 3: Jacques Replies to Michael Anton
- Questions About The Founding, Part 4
- Questions About The Founding, Part 5
- Bronze Age Pervert: Response To Michael Anton
- Does Belief in Natural Law Require Belief In God?
5 Comments
In a previous volume, Vindicating the Founders, [West] took on and demolished the dominant left-wing calumnies that the founding, and hence the country, are inherently and irredeemably racist, sexist, oligarchic, and much else.
That doesn’t sound promising. I looked up what he’s written about the 1790 Naturalization Act, and his analysis was predictably lame. The social pressure on academics to conform must be unbearable. They just can’t help flinching and cringing.
Anton’s dismissal of critics to his right is disappointing, too. He showed some willingness to engage after Social Matter critiqued “Flight 93 Election.” I’d like to see that discussion continue.
Unfortunately there is the same old unthinking assertion of “equality”. We’re told that everyone is “naturally” equally “free and independent”. Well, if those concepts have any real content it’s just not true. The highly intelligent, for example, are naturally more free and independent in many key respects than people who are borderline retarded. And if it’s not about any ordinary notions of freedom and independence, it’s not clear what it means. Probably nothing but it sounds nice.
As evidence, I guess, we’re told that nature has not “delineated” some humans as “natural rulers” and others as “natural workers or slaves”. Really? It sure seems that way if you allow yourself to admit what you actually observe. I’d say Trump or Hitler or Napoleon seem far more naturally suited to ruling and leading than some other people I’ve met. Men generally seem to be natural leaders, and women seem to be generally naturally inclined to follow men. He then says we can confirm this by noting that “no man ever consents to slavery”. But, first, it seems that often men have consented to it; second, slavery is not the only kind of “work” or subordination to another person. (If this point is meant to rebut the idea that there is a natural hierarchy, it’s a straw man or equivocation.) Lots of people seem quite happy to fall in line and obey some charismatic guru or boss or dictator or priest or psychiatrist or… These arguments are paper-thin.
The upshot is supposed to be that “No man may therefore justly rule any other without that other’s consent”. But what does that even mean? How can I consent to be ruled by you? Once consent is given, and you’re in charge, presumably at that point I don’t get to be in charge anymore. If the consent has to be ongoing, that would seem to require that you’re not really ruling over me–I always have a veto. But if it doesn’t have to be ongoing, what does it matter whether way back when it was initially given? If it’s legitimate for you to _now_ decide for me, even if I don’t agree or don’t like it, why couldn’t it have been legitimate for you to just take charge without my initial consent? It’s all just a big mess.
What do you think Malcolm? Doesn’t it seem like, on these key points, the reviewer and author are just re-asserting some very dubious liberal-modern claims? It really does seem like the usual empty “propositionalism” despite their disavowals.
Yes, Jacques (and chedolf), you’ve raised the persistent questions here.
My interest in this book is part of a larger attempt to have a clear understanding of the Founding and the philosophical context in which each of the men involved approached it. I’ve tried to do this as much as possible based on primary sources and correspondence — I am very keenly aware of the pitfalls of what Butterfield called “the Whig interpretation of history” — but it seemed to me nevertheless that this book might be a good resource.
As for the particular problems and questions you raise, Jacques, on the nature of sovereignty, the meaning of consent, the existence of natural hierarchies, etc., they are of course very difficult, and there is, I think it should be pretty clear by now, no perfect solution to them. There is no question whatsoever that the Founders were keenly aware of this. They also knew, though, that the best is the enemy of the good, and they had to do something.
I’m in Kansas City on business this morning, and flying back later today. I will take up these questions in anew post when I get a chance.
Nowhere does the founding of America or the Constitution call people actually equal or make any such assumption or statement. What it, and the Holy Bible for that matter, are very specific about is equality under the law. It’s a willful lie and simpleton’s explanation that leads one to conclude that all are equal in any way shape form or fashion, and it’s also a ignorant assertion to fall for it and parrot the Left’s insistence based upon a falsehood. Equality under the law is nothing more than equal access to courts of law for the purposes of adjudication in crime and civil matters, biblically, historically as a foundation of Western Civilization, and under the charters of the United States. For all of it’s flaws, and short comings of those men, the founding and those men were not SJWs. Ugh.
Meanwhile 3000 invaders, some armed have just crossed your southern borders.So tell me, when they come to your neck of the woods, are you gonna throw books at them?