[What follows is an oldie but goodie from 2006 that I originally wrote before American Creation existed. Claremont (as far as I know) no longer reproduces Jaffa's response. But you can still read my quoted excerpts of it.]
There are a number of interesting recent posts on Claremont's site where Claes G. Ryn, a (Russell) Kirkian traditionalist, criticizes Claremont's embrace of Man's Reason/and the anti-traditionalism of the Declaration of Independence. Ryn's criticisms have prompted Jaffa to respond:
As a disciple of Leo Strauss, I protest vehemently at being classified with Jacobins. I assure my readers, that no one has had a greater abhorrence of Jacobinism than I -- or Strauss....Of course, there are many ancient customs, like slavery and human sacrifice, that we do not think anyone ought to follow. Willmore Kendall used to say that tarring, feathering, and riding on a rail was as much an American tradition as the free speech guarantee of the first amendment. And he was right. Only the one was a good tradition and the other a bad tradition. Ryn himself says that "we need the best of the human heritage to guide us." But how are we to know the best, and avoid the worst, except by the use of our reason? To incorporate tradition into our political thought we must be able to distinguish the good from the bad.
I largely agree with Jaffa's sentiment; although I obviously disagree with many of Jaffa's conclusions that, using Reason as a guide, he reaches. But, the point of agreement between Jaffa/Claremont on the one hand and more libertarian classical liberal thinkers like yours truly on the other, is that public moral arguments should take place mainly within the domain of Man's Reason. What's written in the Bible, tradition, and history may be useful guides in some respect; but they are to be subservient to Reason.
As far as the French Revolution is concerned, I obviously think that it -- and by that I mean the theoretical case for it (not! how the Revolution, in practice, turned out) -- was a good idea; indeed, support for the theoretical/ideological case made in the Declaration of Independence demands in principle support for the French Revolution given that the ideas in the French's Declaration of the Rights of Man strikingly parallel those of America's Declaration. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence was heralded in France and helped spark their revolution. Jefferson, the Declaration's author, while in France, supported and helped to spur on their Revolution. He even assisted in writing the French's Declaration of the Rights of Man. Thus, there is an irrefutable ideological connection between these events.
In practice, the French Revolution turned out not so well. But in fairness, they had a monarchy to overthrow and a national church to disestablish.
A side note: I'm continually amazed by those who would argue that America's Declaration of Independence is a Biblical document. Gordon Mullings, someone with whom I have had painstaking dealings, stubbornly continues to argue this while being consistently refuted. His case largely relies on the fact that the Dutch, in 1581, then a fairly orthodox Protestant nation, constructed a document which anticipated *some* of the ideas contained in America's Declaration, and otherwise bears a faint resemblance to it. He then, based on this tenuous connection between the two documents deems America's Declaration to be "Biblically" based.
Well, given that there is far more of a resemblance and connection between America's DOI and the French's Declaration of the Rights of Man, if we are going to "credit" the "Bible" for the Declaration of Independence, and hence America's Revolution, we likewise must "blame" the Bible for France's "Biblically based" Declaration of the Rights of Man and hence the French Revolution.
For crying out loud, even Robert Bork, on page 58 of Slouching Towards Gomorrah, has the honesty to write "Jefferson was a man of the Enlightenment, and the Declaration of Independence is an Enlightenment document."
17 comments:
Dr. Ryn is a partisan ideologue, and was far more concerned with George W. Bush and the neo-cons than Leo Strauss. He ended up smearing both.
Nauseating.
For crying out loud, even Robert Bork, on page 58 of Slouching Towards Gomorrah, has the honesty to write "Jefferson was a man of the Enlightenment, and the Declaration of Independence is an Enlightenment document."
Bork is correct on Jefferson; however, the Continental Congress injected a lot more God into the D of I.
Another flaw in the "key" Founders argument. The D of I wasn't Jefferson alone.
Jon, it seems you're on a Sunday data dump. These are worthy points [and have worthy rebuttals], but Claes Ryn on Leo Strauss is nonsense from the start, and therefore, so is the rest that follows.
[Jaffa himself is often nonsense as well, and serves only to complicate matters.]
Wearin' me out, dude. Of course the French Rights of Man resembles the D of I! But they took out all the Christian principles and ended up with a Reign of Terror.
That's precisely the point, per Edmund Burke, who supported the American but opposed the French Revolution. A point proved by history.
And blood.
Just keepin' y'all on your toes.
It's true that the political principles of the American Revolution were more Enlightenment-driven than biblically based.
BUT...
The cultural context of the American Revolution was very much biblically influenced! And that's not a small point, and it's one that is often ignored by those who argue for a religion-neutral perspective in early American history.
Tom said exactly what I was going to say. Jefferson my have been enlightenment. This does not mean the ideas he used were! I you again Jon where did "Laws of Nature and Natures God" come from?
I am not saying the DOI came from the Bible. I am saying the men took principles from the Bible and made them into a political theology that at least part of made it into the DOI. Words mean everything and the secularists keep twisting them and conflating terms. The Dispatches crowd hates when people do this shit to them on the evolution debate why do they do the same thing?
The cultural context of the American Revolution was very much biblically influenced!
Well, Rev. Brian, if Aquinas could get the libertarian atheist Murray Rothbard onboard via natural law, and the Founding embraced it too, I figger people should give it a look.
At the beginning of my study of religion and the Founding, I was content with "culturally" Christian, which is OK. But natural law digs deeper, since Aquinas stood---and answered, c. 1250 AD---at the geographical and historical confluence of Aristotle, Islam [via Averroes/Ibn Rushd], and Judaism [Maimonoides] when they all hit Dark Ages Christendom, which pretty much sucked.
It's a fascinating story. "Cultural" doesn't begin to describe the phenomenon.
The Dispatches crowd hates when people do this shit to them on the evolution debate why do they do the same thing?
For the record, K of I---I'm fine with evolution and find it more esthetically delightful than the creation story.
Ever hear the story of the carbon atom?
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/009607.html
Far more impressive and beautiful.
As for the Dispatches crowd, and to your previous question about the proposed debate---my answer is, never again. Not a one of them had the guts to participate on this blog, not one, including their leader. I would prefer we never mention them or him again on this blog. Mt 7:6.
Please respect this reply, and drop it starting now. They all know where to find me. They prefer not to and I don't blame them. I know where to find them; they're as common as dirt, the dust off my feet.
TVD - Bork is correct on Jefferson; however, the Continental Congress injected a lot more God into the D of I.
The first Jefferson draft had nature and nature's god - god being un-capitalized, which later was changed, of course, but still raises questions as to original intent/understanding of the author/Jefferson while raising interesting questions about the change by the larger commitee.
Three additional deity mentions are made in the final draft, but none specifically Christian. This all seems very Enlightenment to me and generically deferential to a monotheistic understanding at best and is otherwise indicative of a deistic view (if the language of the DOI stands alone) of a "first author", "creator", etc.
Not to denigrate genuine Christian contributions to society/culture at the time but the DOI does not read specifically Christian but can be seen as such if so inclined.
Fine, JRB. Define the Enlightenment as God-given rights, submission of the righteousness of our actions to "the Supreme judge of the World," and to "firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence," and "the laws of nature and nature's God" [OK, I might spot you that one, altho I don't think so].
Go for it. But I'm just not feeling the "Enlightenment" here, unless it's the one that wanted to be 3000 miles and 10 or 20 years away from the French Revolution, which thank God, it was.
I'm also not feeling you're responding to a single argument given above, JRB. Jefferson was subsumed by the congress and then the Signers, who added much more God. Jefferson might have tried to pull an "Enlightenment" fast one on the American people, but they caught him, and corrected his willful omissions. They were on to him. The People are not stupid.
TVD - [OK, I might spot you that one, altho I don't think so]
Dang, I was this close [holds thumb and forefinger apart by a smidge].
But I'm just not feeling the "Enlightenment" here, unless it's the one that wanted to be 3000 miles and 10 or 20 years away from the French Revolution, which thank God, it was.
Tom if you accept that the Jeffersonian portions of the DOI were Enlightenment with some modified Judeo-Christian content, then logically that doesn't make it that distant from the French Revolution. Though it was 13 years and however many geographic miles away, the FR was still the next step in the world revolution. The FR is closer in time and proximity to the AR than the AR is to the Glorious Revolution.
If you read from the original Declaration of the Rights of Man, it sounds strikingly like the American DOI, God references and all.
Indeed, it was written by Jefferson (and if I remember correctly) Washington's beloved LaFayette.
Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789
The representatives of the French people, organized as a National Assembly, believing that the ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole cause of public calamities and of the corruption of governments, have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of man, in order that this declaration, being constantly before all the members of the Social body, shall remind them continually of their rights and duties; in order that the acts of the legislative power, as well as those of the executive power, may be compared at any moment with the objects and purposes of all political institutions and may thus be more respected, and, lastly, in order that the grievances of the citizens, based hereafter upon simple and incontestable principles, shall tend to the maintenance of the constitution and redound to the happiness of all. Therefore the National Assembly recognizes and proclaims, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following rights of man and of the citizen:
Articles:
1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.
2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp
Ah yes, Jon, the natural and imprescriptible rights of man.
"Des droits naturels et imprescriptibles de l'homme."
"...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
The difference is palpable, and the consequences were inescapable.
"...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
seems not too far off from
"in a solemn declaration the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of man, in order that this declaration, being constantly before all the members of the Social body, shall remind them continually of their rights and duties;..."
Wow the French actually did something conservative that the DOI doesn't do, talks of "duties" along with "rights."
Interesting comparison I think I will spend my first day off after getting rid of my teaching job reading both documents. I feel free as a bird!!!!! I am finally done with the crap public schools.
It's very far off, Jon, and the mutation seems quite conscious, to eradicate God.
The Rights of Man's invocation of "sacred" and "Supreme Being" must be seen through the eyes of what became Robespierre's Cult of the Supreme Being, and the French milieu's competing Cult of Reason.
http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/cult_of_the_supreme_being/
Read it---you can see the American and French milieus and contexts are completely different.
[Which is why GMorris and Hamilton were appalled at the anti-religious depravity that France had fallen into by the end of the 1790s.]
Keep in mind as contrast, the Continental Congress that revised and approved the D of I was issuing proclamations chockful of "Jesus Christ."
Niggling over a phrase here or a document there can easily become sophistry. Context is everything, if we want the Big Picture. The concept of Supreme Being is very different in the contexts of Revolutionary America or France, although the words appear to be equivalent.
[Which is why calling the very orthodox Harry Jaffa a "Jacobin" is pure nonsense.]
Keep in mind as contrast, the Continental Congress that revised and approved the D of I was issuing proclamations chockful of "Jesus Christ."
I count a whole TWO. Hardly qualifies as a "chockful."
Niggling over a phrase here or a document there can easily become sophistry. Context is everything, if we want the Big Picture. The concept of Supreme Being is very different in the contexts of Revolutionary America or France, although the words appear to be equivalent.
I agree context is important. Americans are lucky that, unlike in France, they didn't have a monarchy to unseat or a national official church (a big ONE that behaved quite illiberally) to disestablish. Did we, and the results probably would have been the same, considering our parallel ideological principles.
[Which is why calling the very orthodox Harry Jaffa a "Jacobin" is pure nonsense.]
Jaffa orthodox? I haven't been able to pin his religion, after reading him very carefully. He may be an atheist for all he has confessed, publicly. Or perhaps you know something about him that I don't.
Sorry, I jumped the gun, based on his Thomism and continuing insistence that Strauss was not an atheist. However, the contrast between Jaffa and the Jacobins is palpable down to first principles. Jaffa is anything but "modern."
You may enjoy David Gordon on Jaffa.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon5.html
As usual, Gordon proves that Jaffa is a bit self-contradictory and not a Thomas or a Strauss.
I agree context is important. Americans are lucky that, unlike in France, they didn't have a monarchy to unseat or a national official church (a big ONE that behaved quite illiberally) to disestablish. Did we, and the results probably would have been the same, considering our parallel ideological principles.
I disagree. The situation you describe is the same situation as 1600s Britain, and the results there were comparable to America's, and in no way comparable to France's.
Post a Comment