And please, people, observe proper flag etiquette

This Independence Day holiday finds your Gleaner's thoughts turning to the opinion held by many founders that a republic's success depended on a virtuous citizenry and that a virtuous citizenry, in turn, could only flourish and survive under a particular stage of economic and social development.

Nutshell: Once a society advances, as it inevitably will, beyond an agriculture-based economy to an economy dominated by commerce, your republic is screwed.

More than two centuries later, America and most of the rest of the world is pretty much dedicated to the proposition that a republic, and the democratic components thereof, can and must survive and thrive in a post-agrarian economy.

That doesn't necessarily mean that the likes of Franklin and Jefferson were wrong. It just underscores a point that is stupidly obvious but that also is too often conveniently ignored or glossed over: they were products of the eighteenth century.

Newt Gingrich, William Bennett, Rush Limbaugh and other conservative "thinkers" often natter on about how shocked the founders would be by modern America, usually in the context of big government. Maybe so. The list of things that would shock eighteenth century people, even eighteenth century people of uncommon brilliance and imagination, is a long one that includes but certainly is not limited to: the cut and paste feature on the new iPhone, frozen veggie burgers, grass lawns, the flat screen TV, learning that the black man speaking on the flat screen TV is the president of the Untied States, etc...

But if the size and scope of government would surprise the declaration's signers, they would be equally surprised -- and arguably even more dismayed -- by the power and influence wielded over society by big business.

*   *   *

Meantime in other revolution news, please enjoy this video of Franklin and Adams coming to the realization that this Jefferson slacker really and truly can throw the high cheese.

 

Finally, remember everyone, no flag code violations.

Comments

[Greg Brown]

Its understandable, but regrettable, that progressive bloggers don't always keep up fully on scholarly interpretations of eighteenth-century republican theory. Clearly keeping up with the manifold sexual misadventures and policy failures of Nevada politicians doesn't leave enough time to read Andreas Kalyvas.

Once a society advances, as it inevitably will, beyond an agriculture-based economy to an economy dominated by commerce, your republic is screwed.

Jefferson certainly seems in much of his writing to stick to the view that only an agricultural republic could thrive, but Madison was much more characteristic of mainstream eighteenth-century republican theory which viewed commerce as not only compatible with but necessary for a virtuous citizenry.

The problem, for this view, was not commerce itself but commerce in which a part of the population could control, and thus manipulate, property -- and thereby manipulate the collective exercise of political power. (Madison was similarly concerned about a large number of propertyless people manipulating their potential political power to gain greater control of resources.)

Commerce (like education) therefore was considered by many eighteenth century republicans as a necessary means of distributing wealth and power throughout the society -- so long as the exchange of goods, or information, could not be controlled by any one individual, party or faction.

Above all, luxury was the problem which could lead to tyranny -- the pursuit and enjoyment of goods (or power) untempered by a culture of virtuous morality, which put a heavy emphasis on self-development (especially through education) and self-restraint (especially of consumption) for the collective good.

In a nutshell, once the temptation to use public life to get rich is too powerful, you're screwed.

There will be a fuller discussion of eighteenth-century liberal republicanism in HIST 728 this fall. Progressive bloggers are especially encouraged to enroll.