Turley’s latest book, Rage and the Republic, is a highly readable and compelling presentation of the fundamental issues that created the American Republic as we may know it.
I begin by noting that on the west side of Morristown, NJ, on the way to the wintering grounds of Washington’s troops during the Revolutionary War, is a small park, a pond and a wonderful statue. Fortunately it was not torn down during the rage on past people, it remains but a lonesome edifice to the past. It is a statue of Thomas Paine, with his writings held in his hands. I suspect that few visitors have any clue who this person was. I have sat in the shade many times in warm weather looking up at old Tom and wondering is he remains a well known character anymore. Then along comes Turley and enlivens Tom as a key player and essential writer to the Revolution’s cause. Paine flows in and out of Turley’s work and one must understand him to get to understand the theme of Turley’s book. Turley provides such an understanding in a brilliant and readable manner.
Turley presents many of the issues in readily understandable terms. For the many who have little if any knowledge of the “ideas” that led to the American Revolution and in turn to the French Revolution, Turley’s presents them in understandable terms.
One his earlier discussions if the use of natural law and natural rights. In my opinion, natural rights precede natural law. Natural rights is a concept that has a long standing existence. In simple terms natural rights are those things that people believe that have or should have. Such as the right to speak freely, the right town and control property, the right to a fail trial, the right to believe in one’s own religion. By the time of Paine and Rousseau, the American view and the French, these rights were somewhat commonly held. Natural law then is the law that provides the legal basis for ensuring these rights. Turley depicts the Founders as true believers in these rights and the basis in law for their protection.
Turley points out as US Senator who questions natural rights and in turn natural law. I have seen this Senator in action and clearly in my opinion his comments are baseless at the very least and reflect perhaps a gross ignorance of both history and facts. But alas it is politics, where ignorance is oftentimes a virtue, it allows one to purport statements that satisfy a political position independent of the facts.
In addition to the first two above, Turley depicts the Founders and their actions as supporters of the individual, and in turn individualism. The Bill of Rights, based upon Natural Rights, are rights for the individual, not the collective. Freedom of speech is freedom for the individual, as is freedom of religion, and of the press. The rights are furthermore equal for all individuals. In the American Revolution, people became citizens nor subjects. One should not in England to this day people are subjects, subjects of the Crown. Whereas in America, citizens hold equal and inalienable rights. Turley does an excellent job in presenting these concepts.
Let me consider several points that Turley makes throughout the book.
On p 34 he speaks of Mayhew and Paul’s epistle to the Romans. Paul stated: Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.
Now one must question this on its face. After all one could hardly say that following Herod or Nero were established by God! Indeed Mayhew and Paine broke from this well established idea of divine selection. However it should be noted that Marsilius of Padua and William of Ockham in the 14th century predated Mayhew and Paine in denying this divine assignment of rulers. In fact they espoused the rights of individuals, rights that superseded the divine or royal. Unfortunately the plague of 1348 quieted this movement for some 400 years.
On p 62 is the discussion of Paine and unicameralism. Namely only one house for legislation. I felt that the failure to cover Montesquieu in this place was a fault. For it was Montesquieu who had developed a government with a balance of powers, a form inherent in the Constitution. How much of this Paine accepted in uncertain.
On p 167 the author begins with de Tocqueville and his understanding of the Americans. Now I believe it is useful to see Tocqueville in the context of three of his works; that on America, the French Revolution and Ireland. Most of the attention is on America. But Tocqueville saw the French Revolution as a revolt against the centralization of all governmental power in Paris and lack outside. It is a somewhat different view but worth consideration. In his work on Ireland he commented upon the near slave like existence of the Irish under English rule. Brutality, death, starvation and the total depletion of any claim to a right.
From p 173 forward the author considers contemporary responses and indeed contemporary rage. Most of what he writes here is a reiteration of current acts by people and politicians. For example on p 176 he discusses the assassinations of Kirk and Thompson. He contends that these acts were done by American Jacobins. In the context of the French Revolution the Jacobins were the “Jacques”, the common man. Similar acts were common with earlier “Jacques” call Jacquerie, a 14th century band of “common men” who roamed France slaughtering those whom the believed were infringing on their “rights”. The question that needs answering is what drives these people? What makes an otherwise normal human being become an assassin? This is not a new set of events, it is common, albeit it ebbs and flows with the time and place.
On pp 184-185 the author discusses the fumbling and bumbling U.S. Senator and his denial of the existence of natural rights. Now there are centuries of writings on natural rights and at the time the Founders wrote the Constitution there were well of many centuries of thought of these issues. But to have a Senator from Virginia of all places to espouse such grossly inaccurate remarks makes one wonder. The author uses this well placed discussion to make a point.
On pp 187-196 the author discusses Professors. I was at MIT in the 60s, as a junior faculty member so I managed to see both worlds, student and faculty. The “age” then was against the Vietnam War. The SDS was a well organized Marxist group whose action were often poorly targeted but damaging. My office were threated by fire bombs, my exam rooms got bomb threats, and smoke from Harvard square worked its way down Mass Ave. But the protests were focused on the war. I was even an adherent to Chomsky’s views, albeit a bit of a fringe personality. But now the Chomskyites are pervasive, often Marxists through and through. But what I found later was that Chomsky was a sophist par excellance. He wrote brilliantly but managed to twist facts to his desired conclusions.
On p 233 the author discusses property rights, on of the natural rights. If one labors and the fruits of that labor are the creation of legal acquisition of property one has an inalienable right to that property.
On 260 to 264 the author discusses AI. Here as with many other authors I ask how does one define AI. One looks about and everything is now AI supported, even one mobile phone. In reality there are multiple niches wherein the use of computers, the collection of massive amounts of information, the tools to enter queries and obtain responses via complex processing of the query and the databases is called AI. But in reality AI is in the eye of the beholder, it as the Supreme Court noted in pornography, you know it when you see it. Thus it use and ultimately its regulation is clouded in uncertainty.
Overall this is a superb book. It lacks the excitement and fire of Paine but it balances facts, history, and politics in a superb manner. It is a book written by an academic, providing facts and interpretation but accessible to every reader. I would highly recommend a read of this book, not just once, but several times.
Posts
