I've been watching John Adams, the HBO series that Chris sent to me (thank you Chris). I'm always interested on anything Adams I can get my hands on! I think for the most part, HBO did a good job with it.
One of my favorite scenes came when Adams was in France with Thomas Jefferson and they learned of the constitutional convention, Jefferson told Adams that "I'm increasingly persuaded that the earth belongs exclusively to the living and that one generation has no more right to bind another to its laws and judgments than one independent nation has the right to command another." To which John Adams replies, "but surely the constitution, as it did with the ones that we wrote for our own states, is meant to establish the stability and the long term legality essential to the continuation of civilized society."
John Adams calls Jefferson a walking contradiction (which certainly we all are) and Adams continued, "what is government ultimately, but the putting into effect the lessons which we have learned in dealing with the contradictions in our own characters."
Jefferson told Adams "you have a disconcerting lack of faith in your fellow man, Mr. A. and in yourself". To which Adams teased Jefferson back "yes and you display a dangerous faith in your fellow man, Mr. Jefferson."
To anyone who is a lover of the Glenn Beck show as well as Glenn Beck himself, and all those who have read the 5000 Year Leap, should get excited by this line of argument. They should recognize the founders predicament as they sought to keep power resting squarely in people's law instead of with tyranny on the extreme left or anarchy on the extreme right, which were equally frightening (though most today would not make the same associations of left and right as we have changed the meaning as the founders understood). On the far left what a great government it would make if you could ensure a benevolent and wise ruler, but they understood how capricious men are, especially when given power. If they went too far towards anarchy or too much democracy (basically the same thing), the mob sometimes chose a course that might be beneficial to the majority and yet trample the rights of the minority. This has been effictively demonstrated in history, also in a political science class I once took when the professor asked, "how many of you would vote for every right-handed person to get an automatic 'A' in the class?" Of course 80% or so of the hands in the room shot up. My wife told me very nobly just a minute ago, she would not have voted in the affirmative despite the fact that she is right-handed, but unfortunately most are not as idealistic or moral as she.
This is why Adams, "quite taken out of himself", by the spirit, declared to the 2nd continental congress that he required a nation, a free nation, a NATION OF LAWS AND NOT OF MEN! A point that resonated with men who were tired of a monarchical tyranny.
Later in life, when John Adams was President of the United States there was a fervor in the USA. Many people wanted to go to war with Britain and even more with France. This stirred up paranoia and concerns about french intrigue and sabotage in the US. John Adams was pressured by the people and by his cabinet to sign the Alien and Sedition act, which curtailed the people's right to criticise the administration in print or otherwise.
The series shows Jefferson and Adams having this exchange as a result of the Alien and Sedition Act.
Jefferson "You're trampling on the constitution. The states will have no alternative but to resist these measures, which are an assault on the liberty of their people."
Adams "The peoples representatives demanded these acts. Would you have me deaf to the voice of the people?"
Jefferson had no response, because he could see that the roles were now reversed and he was siding with the constitution and a nation of laws, while Adams was being blown by the shifting winds of democracy, which can be equally tyrannical as a single ruler if the sensibilities of the people are corrupted by fear, covetous and loathing.
Later in letters to one another Jefferson told Adams that there is nothing that they could add to their discussions on government which hasn't already been said or will be said in the future. How true this is, today we are brought to believe that somehow our leaders have achieved a greater enlightenment and understanding of these things, hense we should defer to them since we can't really grasp the complexity of government.
As I was thinking about these things, I heard Janeane Garafalo's comment that "the reason a person is a conservative republican is because something is wrong with them. Again, that's science - that's neuroscience." When you hear one comment like this, you can dismiss it as isolated ignorance, but when you hear it as a constant strain of thought in your music, movies, and on TV, people like Bill Maher saying that religious people have a neurological disorder, then I like Adams and Jefferson am forced to run and cling to the constitution as the anchor of sanity on a sea of imbecility.
It truly gives me pause when I think of many of my history professors, who thought that the constitution was out of date and constantly defamed the founders as racists and sexists who were not worthy of our day. Yet, who are in my opinion vastly superior to modern 'intellectuals' and immensely superior to modern politicians in their morals, understanding of governments and their understanding of human nature. When I hear politicians like Barack say the constitution was a good guideline for getting us here, but it is too restrictive on what it allows the government to take from us (speaking of property rights and redistribution), it makes me think that the space roar NASA picked up was the sound of our founders spinning in their graves or raving from the heavens!
The problem with America is that we are not having the dialogue Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Adams had back then. Instead we are having this kind of dialogue.
"Well I think its about time we have a president who has a certain skin color or a certain organ."
"I think he or she looks really good. They seem like they are smart and I'd like to have a beer with them." Heard that one before? I think you have. "Oh I think they have a nice family." As if that has any relevance.
When I see people wearing T-shirts with "King Obama" written on them. I want to put my head in a blender. I feel like George C. Scott in the movie Patton when he sees that a cartoonist has drawn a swastika on his boot, "ON MY BOOT A SWASTIKA! A SWASTIKA!!" Monarch lovers in my country!!!
It just seems to me we are almost to the point when people are willing to have a king in place of a constitution, if the king is powerful enough to forcibly execute their 'intelligent' agenda, because the 'stupid people' are halting their efforts. On the other side, we have people who are willing to throwout all the laws of the constitutional republic and let the minority be subject to the ever shifting passions of a bankrupt society.
As for me I'll take the constitution. The founders thought more about government in one day, than most of our country and pin headed professors do in a lifetime. I tremble to think there may come a day when the mob says "let's take everything from churches and those who give to those 'evil hate-mongers' and give it to politicians." I know that sounds crazy, but given the disposition I've seen from many a fellow citizen or co-worker, I wouldn't put it past them at all to support measure of this sort, wouldn't put it past them AT ALL.
Thomas and John, where are you when we need you.
