James Srodes reviews Gordon Wood’s book Empire of Liberty, saying it covers an important part of early American history which is often glossed over. As is usually the case, the truth isn’t pretty. Srodes writes: “The hard truth that emerges from Mr. Wood’s narrative is that many of our most marbleized Founding heroes were frightful snobs who were inept at the mechanics of government, ignoramuses about economic realities and fatally estranged from the very people they sought to lead. None of our first three presidents comes out of the story very well.”
Phil, that sounds a lot like every president. (Not to mention prime minister.) How many were any better?
– I think it’s easy to make the mistake of confusing the depravity of individuals with the depravity of human nature. (Because power tends to corrupt, I support limited government. I’m convinced that the bigger the State, the more evil it and its leaders become.)
– Along these lines I’m reading Peter Leithart’s commentary on the Divine Comedy [avaiable free at Google books], and he reminds us that the very bottom of Hell is reserved for people who betray family and country. (As so many of our politicians do.)
Inept at the mechanics of government? Maybe, but if so their ability to write a constitution that survived to this day is even more surprising.
Ignoramuses about economic realities? Definitely. Which means the US would have failed miserably had they controlled the economy. But luckily, they did not.
Fatally estranged from the very people they sought to lead? Given the lack of a violent revolution until they had all died and been replaced, I don’t believe so.
They were incompetent to manage the US with the rapid growth it experienced. But I don’t think they ever imagined themselves competent. They purposely passed a constitution that made the US unmanagable.
Really???? Or is this deconstruction revisionism run amok? I’d like to see who this author considers a competent founder. Lenin? Mussolini?
In Gordon Wood’s defense, the constitution is in many ways an anti-democratic framework. That is, it limits the power of “the people”, by making government slow and inefficient.
Given the track record of democracy gone wild, that is a very good idea. A few years later, the framers of the constitution got to see what a great idea it was by seeing what happened in France, when the people was sovereign and any transient majority allowed to terrorize everybody else.
To quote Kipling:
Whether the State can loose and bind
In Heaven as well as on Earth:
If it be wiser to kill mankind
Before or after the birth–
These are matters of high concern
Where State-kept schoolmen are;
But Holy State (we have lived to learn)
Endeth in Holy War.
Whether The People be led by The Lord,
Or lured by the loudest throat:
If it be quicker to die by the sword
Or cheaper to die by vote–
These are things we have dealt with once,
(And they will not rise from their grave)
For Holy People, however it runs,
Endeth in wholly Slave.
Whatsoever, for any cause,
Seeketh to take or give
Power above or beyond the Laws,
Suffer it not to live!
Holy State or Holy King–
Or Holy People’s Will–
Have no truck with the senseless thing.
Order the guns and kill!
Saying –after–me:–
Once there was The People–Terror gave it birth;
Once there was The People and it made a Hell of Earth
Earth arose and crushed it. Listen, 0 ye slain!
Once there was The People–it shall never be again!
That’s some poem. On the point of poor managers, I wonder if it’s a point of perspective. Strong visionaries may not have the skills to delegate or manage the organization, and if the record shows certain indecision then Wood may conclude (or maybe Srodes concludes) they were poor managers.
A limited government is inexplicable to voters these days. I wish we could elect a hundred men who strive reduce the grasp of the federal gov’n.