A Debate as Old as Our Country

by: Mike Lux

Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 17:30


A couple of days back, right-wing radio nut Dennis Prager had this to say at a Republican rally to help Michele Bachmann, Erik Paulsen, and Norm Coleman:

Equality, which is the primary value of the left, is a European value, not an American value.

Some folks I was talking to were saying "wow, that's really crazy, what an extremist." And they are right, of course, in one way. But the fact is that this kind of philosophy, while rarely these days stated quite so bluntly, is actually very much in keeping with traditional American conservatism, dating back to country's founding.

More on the flip.

Mike Lux :: A Debate as Old as Our Country
I have a book coming out in January, entitled The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be, that is about the historic debate in America between progressives and conservatives and how that debate relates directly to today's political battles. The fight over equality, along with those over trickle-down vs. bottom-up economic policy and elites running things, vs. a government of by and for the people, have been big battles ever since the country was founded.

When Thomas Jefferson convinced his fellow delegates to add to the rather long list of complaints about Great Britain that made up the Declaration of Independence an opening with that rhetorical flourish about all men being created equal, he started the debate that has continued on every since. The conservatives who opposed the Revolution hated the whole equality idea- one of them wrote that he would rather be "enslaved... by a king at least, and not by a parcel of upstart lawless Committeemen." A little later on, a leader of the conservative delegates to the Constitutional Convention, Gouveneur Morris, said:

There never was, and never will be, a civilized society without an aristocracy.

In the 1820s, a leading conservative Senator from Virginia, John Randolph, made frontal attacks on Jefferson's idea of equality:

Sir, my only objection is that these principles, pushed to their extreme consequences- that all men are born free and equal- I can never assent to, for the best of all reasons, because it is not true.

And the leader of the Southern states' rights' movement, John C. Calhoun, took things a step further:

... the will of the majority is the will of a rabble. Progressive democracy is incompatible with liberty.

A generation later, in the midst of the American Civil War, conservatives attacked Lincoln's promotion of equality as central to the American idea. The Chicago Times stated in response to the Gettysburg Address that the Constitution said nothing of equality:

How dare he, then, standing on their graves, mistake the cause for which they died..?

But it wasn't just 18th and 19th century conservatives who attacked equality. The founder of modern-day conservativsm's intellectual wing, Russell Kirk, in his highly influential book The Conservative Mind, attacked Jefferson's notion of equality, and highly praised Randolph and Calhoun. And National Review writer Wilmore Kendall wrote such nuggets as "Abraham Lincoln attempted a new act of founding, involving concretely a startling new interpretation of the Founders which declared that 'all men are created equal'" and "We should not allow [Lincoln]... to steal the game, that is to accept his interpretation of the Declaration, its place in history, and its meaning as 'true', 'correct', or 'binding'. Kendall's boss, William Buckley, wrote many columns where he was dismissive of equality as anything important.

Conservatives have never liked equality, or democracy, or giving economic or political power to regular people rather than elites. When John McCain rails against progressive taxation or universal health care as socialism, and warns against the plague of ACORN registering people of color to vote, his rhetoric is as old as the rhetoric of conservatives from the beginning of American history. And when Obama embraces equality of opportunity and investing in the middle class and progressive taxation and health care for all, he is harking back to progressive thinkers and activists throughout that same historical period.

It is a great thing to see this debate engaged so openly in this election.


Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Good post. I look forward to (4.00 / 3)
your book.  The history of America is the history of the expansion of democracy and of equality.  

Not sure (0.00 / 0)
Regarding Prager, it's my interpretation that he (falsely) believes that conservatives want equality of opportunity while liberals want equality of outcome. That's factually wrong, but since I think that's what Prager believes, I can understand what he's saying.

Good Post, But (4.00 / 1)
I think you're leaving out a few thousand years of human history.  We have recorded evidence of this same debate going back at least to ancient Greece.  See The Liberal Temper in Greek Politics by Eric Alfred Havelock.

Of course, Prager adds a particular level of idiocy on his own, since it was America that promoted equality as an ideal when Europe was still firmly dominanted by an ultra-conservative landed aristocracy.  And it was the very inspiraiton of America, combined with the iron-fisted resistence of European conservatives, that propelled the growth of European socialism in the 19th Century.

So if Europe is less divided over the ideal of equality today, it's only because of America's historical leadership on this point.  And, of course, the fact that the anti-egalitarian Europeans were so thoroughly defeated in WWII--again, thanks to us Yanks.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


With you right up until the end (0.00 / 0)
I was going to give this a four, but if I don't disparage the American performance in the world wars I'm liable to lose my right to call myself a Briton. Sorry about that.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Historical Quibbles (0.00 / 0)
So I take it that the French Revolution was not inspired by the American Revolution, at least not in any significant way.

What is true is that both revolutions were inspired by a common set of ideas, but it is not as though the French intelligentsia learned of those ideas from the Americans.  Quite the opposite in fact, in that some of the ideas appealed to by the Founding Fathers were either ideas of Frenchman, or ideas of those heavily influenced by continental political thought (Locke, for example, did most of his philosophical writing while in exile in the low countries).  Locke was being heavily discussed in French circles, mainly through the cheerleading efforts of Voltaire and Diderot, decades before the American Revolution.  Montesquieu and Rousseau were of course well known and discussed in France.

This is relevant because there is a clear connection between the growth of liberalism, and later socialism, in Europe and Napoleonic conquests and political reorganization.  There was certainly a tendency to look towards America as a working example of democratic social structures and governance (although I think we were looked to much less as an example of a democratic government than we were a democratic society.  de Tocqueville for instance focuses much more on social relations than he does the American political system in describing the virtues of American democracy), but in the same way, I think, that contemporary socialists will point towards Israeli kibbutz' as working examples of socialist organization.  It is not the case that those socialists were inspired to become socialists because of the Israeli kibbutz system.  They are inspired by Marx.

The sense I have always had from reading political theorists in Europe in the 19th century was that they were profoundly dissapointed in American government.  Starting from the Constitutional convention and its centralization of political power, I do not think we were looked to as the shining city on a hill.  Certainly Marx (who was somewhat responsible for the growth of socialism in Europe, at least in the later half of the 19th century) did not look to America as inspiration, but as a warning about how powerful and sophisticated the bourgeoisie could become.


[ Parent ]
Please, please, please (4.00 / 1)
let there be socialism everywhere

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

Nothing is "self-evident" to a wingnut... (4.00 / 2)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

Morons...

"Don't take much, does it, elected Democrats, to get your balls tucked up." Cf.


Great Post (0.00 / 0)
I had not thought a lot about the basic concept of equality previously and when I did think about it I assumed that almost everyone (except some whack jobs) believed in the fundamental concept of equality.    Now I accepted that some people's understanding of equality may be limited.    Some may think that all white people are created equal or all Christians are created equal etc..    

It never occurred to me that some may totally dismiss the concept of equality as not being an American concept.   This explains a lot.        


Not as much as you might think (0.00 / 0)
I think what is going on is genuine misunderstanding that stems from ambiguity in the term 'equality' and then some intentional obsfucation and equivocation preying on that misunderstanding.

Basically 'equality' as a one word slogan is pretty content free.  People use it to express very substantive political ideals, and some people use it to express some quite minimal, formal political ideas.  

So what I take all but racists and other bigots to accept is that all people have equal moral standing, and because of that equal moral standing that they should have equal political standing.

When conservatives deny that all people are equal, I don't think they mean to be denying that they have equal moral standing.  At least the non racist ones do not (I don't know what percentage that would be).  The not very bright one's seem to me to be denying that all people are equally skilled, or equally deserving of success.  I think these people might genuinely just not understand what is being talked about when we talk about equality, since no one thinks that everyone is just as skilled or just as deserving of success as everyone else.  But here the ambiguity of the term can be blamed.  You can't just cry 'equality'.  You need to say 'equality of' something.  And when that something is not filled out it is left to others to fill it out in the way that they think makes most sense.  And the dimwitted think that people are talking about equality of talent.

But moral equality is not a very robust political commitment.  By itself it doesn't get you much.  After all principled libertarians like Hayek and Nozick accept moral equality.  But they think that all that is demanded, to give people political equality to match their moral equality, is for the government to treat them the same.  And equal treatment by the government is clearly not sufficient to acheive things like equality of opportunity, or equality in primary goods and important resources.  And it is these kinds of equality that liberals and progressives are interested.  Equality of opportunity and equality of primary goods and resources are robust political commitments, and one can deny that this kind of equality is a good idea, without denying the importance of equality sans phrase.


[ Parent ]
Equality - loaded and simultaneously content-less (0.00 / 0)
I believe you have hit the nail on the head in your post, PTM.  Unless one specifies exactly what one is talking about, equality is just another buzz word which gets people to listen.  Debates on equality are legitimate because there are many facets of the term.

[ Parent ]
It seems to me that this is all about Capitalism vs. Democracy (0.00 / 0)
but since it's inconceivable to oppose Capitalism in American politics, the debate ends up twisting itself into a pretzel.

Has anyone written about the ideological replacement for self-consciously racist Manifest Destiny after the U.S. filled out the West?  Seems to me that Capitalism has become the new ideological basis for American metastasis.


The Hobbesian definition (0.00 / 0)
Nature hath made men so equal, in the faculties of body and mind, as that though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body, or of quicker mind than another; yet when all is reckoned together, the difference between man and man is not so considerable, as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit, to which another may not pretend, as well as he. For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others that are in the same danger with himself . . .

From this equality of ability, ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our Ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies, and in the way to their End, . . . endeavor to destroy, or subdue one another . . . If one plant, sow, build, or possess a convenient Seat, others may probably be expected to come prepared with forces united, to dispossess, and deprive him, not only of the fruit of his labor, but also of his life, or liberty . ..


When men are equal (0.00 / 0)
the natural style of government is democratic; when men are not equal, democracy cannot last.

The Bell Curve of humanity narrows and widens from age to age.

If the juggernaut of genetics, AI, and cybernetics increase human inequality, democracy will die.

Men are at best roughly (not truly) equal now , as Hobbes argues. Soon we may not be "self-evidently" equal, we may be clearly be unequal. If you recoil from that, you need to man up and face reality and forthrightly oppose that future. Because without active intervention, the Fifth Age (a.k.a. Trans-Human) will crash up against the Fourth Age (a.k.a. Information).

As each age has its own values, its own concept of what is right and wrong which clash inevitably with the moral norms with the previous age. E.g. Some may say that tampering with an embryo's genome would be a grave sin. In 20 years, it will be a grave sin NOT TO!

With out a road map to the future the "Progressive" movement will founder on the rocks; entropy is a cruel master.


[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search