Comments on: Now Hold On For Just A Dang Minute! http://larison.org/2006/10/02/now-hold-on-for-just-a-dang-minute/ n. the principle of good order "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Wed, 17 Mar 2010 21:34:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Daniel Larison http://larison.org/2006/10/02/now-hold-on-for-just-a-dang-minute/#comment-4724 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:11:43 +0000 http://larison.org/2006/10/02/now-hold-on-for-just-a-dang-minute/#comment-4724 Thanks for your comments and thanks for visiting. You're quite right that the tradition isn't uniform, and I should make a point of talking a bit more about Trenchard and Gordon another time. They are much more representative of the "radical" Whig response and so are bound to look more favourably on Locke and who will be likely to think of government as artificial and the product of a covenant or agreement into which individuals enter. I agree that liberal/conservative labeling can obscure the relevant issues, especially when we are talking about a period where those labels were not really current and represent our use of later categories to make sense of the different kinds of Whigs and Tories (or, in Bolingbroke's view, the constitutionalists/country and anti-constitutionalists/court). I suppose I was pushing the Bolingbroke side of the Country tradition in part because I am much more partial to the constitutionalist view for justifying the War for Independence and I have been looking for a way to affirm the patriots' position that does not cause me to endorse Locke. I also think this constitutionalist view was by far the more common one--I am relying on Bradford when I say this--and this shows an affinity for Bolingbroke's mentality even if, as I should have noted, Trenchard and Gordon were probably more widely popular than he was in the colonies. Separately, I think Bolingbroke was adopted by the Tories later not simply because he represented the interests of aristocracy and gentry, but because they recognised themselves in him more than in any other thinker of the period. Thanks for your comments and thanks for visiting. You’re quite right that the tradition isn’t uniform, and I should make a point of talking a bit more about Trenchard and Gordon another time. They are much more representative of the “radical” Whig response and so are bound to look more favourably on Locke and who will be likely to think of government as artificial and the product of a covenant or agreement into which individuals enter. I agree that liberal/conservative labeling can obscure the relevant issues, especially when we are talking about a period where those labels were not really current and represent our use of later categories to make sense of the different kinds of Whigs and Tories (or, in Bolingbroke’s view, the constitutionalists/country and anti-constitutionalists/court). I suppose I was pushing the Bolingbroke side of the Country tradition in part because I am much more partial to the constitutionalist view for justifying the War for Independence and I have been looking for a way to affirm the patriots’ position that does not cause me to endorse Locke. I also think this constitutionalist view was by far the more common one–I am relying on Bradford when I say this–and this shows an affinity for Bolingbroke’s mentality even if, as I should have noted, Trenchard and Gordon were probably more widely popular than he was in the colonies.

Separately, I think Bolingbroke was adopted by the Tories later not simply because he represented the interests of aristocracy and gentry, but because they recognised themselves in him more than in any other thinker of the period.

]]> by: Rick M http://larison.org/2006/10/02/now-hold-on-for-just-a-dang-minute/#comment-4722 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:06:53 +0000 http://larison.org/2006/10/02/now-hold-on-for-just-a-dang-minute/#comment-4722 The Country tradition is itself not uniform. Ronald Hamowy has shown, quite convincingly, that Trenchard and Gordon, were heavily influenced by Lockean thought. It seems to me that the central question that divides republican theorists in the late 18th century and early 19th century is whether or not the state/government is a natural or artificial institution. American theorists can be found on both sides of the question. (Just as you can find those Revolutionaries who argued for Independence from Great Britain from the tradition of British constitutionalism and others who argued from the vantage points of natural rights.) It seems that thinkers like Bolingbroke (and Aristotle) assume that the state is a natural institution springing from human nature. There is no founding -- government is always there. More libertarian/liberal thinkers argue that government is necessary only because human nature is flawed. There is no natural or God-given mandate that demands government be a certain way. Thus government is created by human actions. The consequences of such positions seem to be significant in the ways one views the role of government in society. We can throw around labels such as liberalism or conservatism, but they often obscure the complex play of ideas in history. I like this blog, by the way. It is my first time here. The Country tradition is itself not uniform. Ronald Hamowy has shown, quite convincingly, that Trenchard and Gordon, were heavily influenced by Lockean thought. It seems to me that the central question that divides republican theorists in the late 18th century and early 19th century is whether or not the state/government is a natural or artificial institution. American theorists can be found on both sides of the question. (Just as you can find those Revolutionaries who argued for Independence from Great Britain from the tradition of British constitutionalism and others who argued from the vantage points of natural rights.) It seems that thinkers like Bolingbroke (and Aristotle) assume that the state is a natural institution springing from human nature. There is no founding — government is always there. More libertarian/liberal thinkers argue that government is necessary only because human nature is flawed. There is no natural or God-given mandate that demands government be a certain way. Thus government is created by human actions. The consequences of such positions seem to be significant in the ways one views the role of government in society. We can throw around labels such as liberalism or conservatism, but they often obscure the complex play of ideas in history. I like this blog, by the way. It is my first time here.

]]> by: Chris M http://larison.org/2006/10/02/now-hold-on-for-just-a-dang-minute/#comment-4711 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:59:15 +0000 http://larison.org/2006/10/02/now-hold-on-for-just-a-dang-minute/#comment-4711 I'm not that familiar with Viereck's writings, but I can't figure out what things he would disagree about with an Old Liberal like Arthur Schlesinger Jr. I’m not that familiar with Viereck’s writings, but I can’t figure out what things he would disagree about with an Old Liberal like Arthur Schlesinger Jr.

]]> by: Chris M http://larison.org/2006/10/02/now-hold-on-for-just-a-dang-minute/#comment-4710 Mon, 02 Oct 2006 22:40:10 +0000 http://larison.org/2006/10/02/now-hold-on-for-just-a-dang-minute/#comment-4710 At the end of Part I, Viereck writes: "In other words, in a free democracy the only justified aristocracy is that of the lonely creative bitterness, the artistically creative scars of the fight for the inner imagination against outer mechanization - the fight for the private life." I don't know of any conservative that would agree with that sentiment. It sounds like some kind of romantic bohemian liberalism. At the end of Part I, Viereck writes:

“In other words, in a free democracy the only justified aristocracy is that of the lonely creative bitterness, the artistically creative scars of the fight for the inner imagination against outer mechanization - the fight for the private life.”

I don’t know of any conservative that would agree with that sentiment. It sounds like some kind of romantic bohemian liberalism.

]]>