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
