Our Jefferson

CHENEY, OBAMA, JEFFERSON…AND BRYAN

My nephew Bryan Spatz and I occasionally have an email discussion about national or international affairs. They often take interesting diversions from their starting point. The most recent discussion was no exception, as it started with Israel and diverged to the national security ‘debate’ between President Obama and former VP Dick Cheney. Bryan and I have these discussions because they are fun for us and they seem to be more fun when we disagree and challenge each other to support our positions. So, although we agree on a lot, we tend to debate issues rather than emphasize common ground. Of course, there are real political differences between us since I consider myself an independent moderate and while he is certainly independent I consider him generally to be to my ‘left’. But neither of us fit easily into a label (or party), although we both voted for Obama, and he is both intelligent and articulate in explaining his views. However, my purpose here is not to dissect our views, but rather to share how our debate led us to common ground in the name of Thomas Jefferson.

Bryan knows far more than me about today’s political thinking. During our exchanges he often sends links to articles, opinion pieces, and blog posts that I almost always find interesting, even when I disagree with the authors. On the other hand, I know more about American history than he does, especially the first 50 years (Jefferson died exactly 50 years after July 4, 1776) and the years between my birth in 1945 and Bryan’s birth in 1978. Hopefully, he learns some things from me, as I do from him.

So, we were merrily debating such things as…did Cheney (Bush was rarely mentioned) violate the law by torturing prisoners…was Cheney a war criminal…did the Bush administration violate American values… should there be a Truth Commission…were Reid and Pelosi blameless…was Obama doing enough to reverse the previous policies...has America lost its moral bearings...does the President take an ‘oath’ to protect America…what is the role of the Commander-in-Chief…etc., etc.

Then the unexpected occurred. Bryan asked what TJ would think/do. During the discussion of the Constitutional powers of the president he asked “if you have evidence that the Founders really wanted Presidents to not be bound by law or custom but to do whatever was necessary even beyond the confines of the law, I hope you will provide some good evidence of that.” He even asked what Washington, Jefferson, and Madison would think. Thank you, Bryan.

I had been thinking about just these topics since the President’s and Cheney’s speeches on national security. So I was ready. I’ll leave out my responses to the issues of oaths and Commander-in-Chief and go right to TJ. Here was my answer to Bryan (with some editing).

As for the founders, TJ’s purchase of Louisiana was not covered in the Constitution -  like all human documents, not a perfect one - and he was concerned about that but made the deal anyways. He figured the Congress could overturn his action. Checks and balance. He has some interesting things to say that are in direct opposition to your ideas. They are hard to summarize, but I’ll quote a couple of things, just for fun.

“Self-preservation is paramount to all law…Should we have ever gained our revolution, if we had bound our hands by manacles of the law, not only in the beginning, but in any part of the revolutionary conflict?” He feared the laws of “a dictator, or martial law”. “The question you propose, Whether circumstances do not sometimes occur which make it a duty in officers of high trust to assume authorities beyond the law, is easy of solution in principle, but sometimes embarrassing in practice. A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation.” He goes on to clarify his view and ends by saying that the official is still answerable to “the controlling powers of the constitution” and “must throw himself on the justice of his country and the rectitude of his motives”.

Well, I didn’t think Bryan would agree that the president or any high government official has the right to override the laws of the land (as he believes Bush/Cheney did) but I was mistaken. Bryan said, “I should add, the Jefferson quotes are excellent and he appears to get this whole thing exactly right.  This leaps off the page though: he ends by saying that the official is still answerable to ‘the controlling powers of the constitution’ and ‘must throw himself on the justice of his country and the rectitude of his motives’. Bryan wonders if that view would support a Truth Commission, to which my response was: I don’t believe in his time he would have been too eager to investigate the authorities, if he believed people thought they were doing what’s right. Historically new Presidents don’t try to criminalize the acts of their predecessors. By the way, TJ came to power during the Alien and Sedition Acts, which he ended but didn’t seek retribution even though he thought they were completely counter to American values. Obviously, he lived in an extremely morally ambiguous world (slavery).

That’s where we left it, at least as of now.

   -------------------------------------------------

[ FOOTNOTE :  For those who want more of the TJ quote, which I didn’t share with Bryan, here it is. September 20, 1810]

To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property & all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means...The unwritten laws of necessity, of self-preservation, & of the public safety control the written laws…

The officer who is called to act on this superior ground, does indeed risk himself on the justice of the controlling powers of the constitution, and his station makes it his duty to incur that risk. But those controlling powers, and his fellow citizens generally, are bound to judge according to the circumstances under which he acted. They are not to transfer the information of this place or moment to the time & place of his action; but to put themselves in his situation...

From these examples & principles you may see what I think on the question proposed. They do not go to the case of persons charged with petty duties, where consequences are trifling, and time allowed for a legal course, nor to authorize them to take such cases out of the written law. In these, the example of overleaping the law is of greater evil than a strict adherence to its imperfect provisions. It is incumbent on those only who accept of great charges, to risk themselves on great occasions, when the safety of the nation, or some of its very high interests are at stake. An officer is bound to obey orders; yet he would be a bad one who should do it in cases for which they were not intended, and which involved the most important consequences. The line of discrimination between cases may be difficult; but the good officer is bound to draw it at his own peril, & throw himself on the justice of his country and the rectitude of his motives.

THE AMERICAN SPIRIT: From Obama to Lincoln to Jefferson

 

Last month the nation, especially Illinois, celebrated the 200^th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth. Shortly thereafter we honored Lincoln and Washington on President’s Day. But what America had already done to honor the memory of our great presidents occurred in November when we elected an African American president. When this country was founded there were essentially no African Americans, for there were only Americans and Africans  who lived in America, most of whom were slaves. Even freed slaves weren’t fully accepted as Americans.

I believe each nation possesses a National Spirit that encompasses its collective values, ideals, and vision, and the meaning and purpose they give to the nation. A nation’s spirit endures despite all the changes as the nation grows and evolves. The essential aspect of the National Spirit is the Sacred Mission, the effort to turn the nation’s highest vision into reality, in order to live its purpose. The Sacred Mission represents what the nation exists to do at its best. The Spirit binds the nation together by the force of its Mission.

The American Spirit includes our basic political principles. The nation is often reminded of these principles and their origins when a new president is inaugurated. In the case of President Barack Obama his very presence was a reminder. Before the inauguration he had already deliberately linked himself to Abraham Lincoln, from announcing his candidacy at the Illinois Capital, to following the same route Lincoln took to get to his inauguration, to taking the oath of office on a Bible used by The Great Emancipator.

Obama’s Inaugural Address echoed the words and inspiration of Lincoln. (Although I try to avoid quotations, this post needs to be an exception in order to convey the eloquence of the subjects.) “The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit, to choose our better history,” Obama said,” to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation; the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.”

Another recent president who tried to establish connections with a celebrated predecessor was Bill Clinton. Clinton and Al Gore honored the memory of Thomas Jefferson by travelling from TJ’s home at Monticello to Washington for their inauguration. And almost thirty years earlier a non-president reminded the whole world of the American Spirit by linking Lincoln to Jefferson. In the summer of 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and declared that the Founders had signed a promissory note to future generations. “This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men and white men, would be guaranteed the ‘inalienable Rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness’.   He had “a dream deeply rooted in the American Dream.” He said, “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’” The nation’s creed is part of the American Spirit.

Just a few years before King spoke President John F. Kennedy in his Inaugural Address had also reminded the world of the American Spirit. He had said that “The same revolutionary beliefs for which our forbearers fought are still at issue around the globe – the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God. We dare not forget that we are heirs of that first revolution.”

The American Spirit has a set off sacred scriptures and a number of prophets. Our scriptures consist of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Gettysburg Address. The Declaration is the most fundamental because it sets out our basic political faith. President Lincoln, one of our greatest prophets, considered himself a disciple of Jefferson, believing that “the principles of Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of a free society.” He named his Republican Party after Jefferson’s party of the same name. (This led to the curious fact that both parties count TJ as their founder, since the Democratic Party evolved from Jefferson’s original party.)

In the Gettysburg address Lincoln amplified the principles of the Declaration and elevated it above the Constitution by proclaiming it America’s founding document and statement of national purpose. “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Before the Civil War he had called the nation to “re-adopt the Declaration of Independence.” He understood that the ideals declared by TJ had yet to be fulfilled, and they were not intended for America alone. Lincoln said, “I had thought the Declaration contemplated the progressive improvement in the condition of all men everywhere,” and that it “held out a great promise to all the people of the world to come.”

Before becoming president Lincoln said that the fathers who issued the Declaration “meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere.”

Well, America in 2008 may not have perfectly attained its ideal, but it has come so close that we all can feel proud.  The noble idea that President Obama referred to has truly been “passed on from generation to generation”.

  ------------------------------------

  We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

            1776

THANK YOU, BARACK AND MICHELLE

January 20, 2009. What a glorious day?  Americans and the world have so much to be proud and grateful for as the first biracial man of color has become the President of the United States. I know most people call him a black or African-American man and some call him a multiracial man (as Tiger Woods sees himself), but whatever label we use, he is a first. I like to think of Barack Obama as biracial because in that way he represents most of America’s ancestry and history. He is a living symbol of how far America and the world have come since 1776 in terms of justice and equality.

President Obama symbolically represents slaves, and slaveholders, and those who sought freedom for slaves; he represents both blacks and whites through Reconstruction, segregation, and the civil rights movement. He represents both America’s worst and best. He is the fulfillment of a dream so elevated that many were unable to even dream it. It was not only a black dream, which became vividly obvious when we saw the variety of faces in the audience at the Inauguration with tears flowing down.

Many people deserve our thanks for bringing America to this day, but today I want to thank just two. But first some background.

For many years I have believed that white America was being unfairly portrayed as racist. Obviously I know that there are many racists in America and around the world, but it often seemed that white Americans were singled out. My opinion was certainly influenced by the fact that I have lived my whole life without ever having anyone I know use the word “ nigger” or say anything derogatory about blacks as a group. I might add that I’ve had the same experience regarding Jews and anti-Semitism and other ethnic/racial groups. This all may not be surprising since I grew up in a Jewish family with many Jewish friends, since tradition holds that Jews are less likely to be racist than other groups.

My personal experience, however, merely provided anecdotal evidence, and by itself was not very persuasive, especially since I grew up during the racial turmoil of the 1950s and 60s. Another influence on my views came from living in the Chicago area most of my life. In my early years I grew up in the integrated community that the Obama’s call home, Hyde Park, and like the Obama girls, I attended the integrated University of Chicago Lab School.

Chicago, despite recently being called the most segregated city in America has had two African-American mayors, and Illinois in the 1970s elected a black Attorney General (the new Senator from Illinois, Roland Burris), and we currently have an immensely popular black Secretary of State, Jesse White. And there are numerous blacks in positions of power in Chicago business and government. (NOTE: I don’t like the term African-American or any other hyphenated American terms, and I only use it out of respect for those who claim it as their identity. I’m aware that while all African-Americans are ‘black’, not all blacks are African-American.)

Two names of Chicago residents say a lot – Michael Jordan and Oprah Winfrey. Jordan was only recently supplanted as corporate America’s favorite marketing spokesman, by Tiger Woods. Oprah’s media empire seems to be fueled in large part by white American women. So, despite on-going racial tensions in parts of Chicago I see our glass as more than half full.

The list of popular black athletes and entertainers has been a long one and has continued to grow for the last three decades. But black achievement on the national political stage has been less impressive. While several black leaders have campaigned for the Democratic nomination none had any chance of succeeding, but I thought this reflected more on the quality of the candidates than on white racism.

The first black leader I thought had a chance to seriously contend for a presidential nomination, Colin Powell, chose not to run. There were rumors that he, or more likely his wife, was scared off by the dangers he would face running in white America. I think everyone understood the grounds for those fears, whether or not they agreed.

When Barack Obama ran for the state Senate in Illinois I admit I didn’t pay much attention. I doubt that many people outside of the mostly black south side of Chicago noticed when he was elected. It certainly wasn’t unusual to elect a black man from Chicago as a city alderman or state legislator, and the whites where he lived tended to be quite progressive. He seemed to me like an upstart when he challenged the incumbent Bobby Rush for the U. S. House and was crushed two to one.

When he won the Democratic nomination for the U. S. Senate after the incumbent had chosen not to run I was mildly surprised and ready to pay attention. But when his Republican opponent Jack Ryan got caught up in a sex scandal and eventually quit the race, guess who got all the publicity and headlines? When the Republicans had to import a  black candidate from outside the state as a political sacrificial lamb the campaign became a farce. Despite Obama receiving a record 70% of the vote, it failed as a test of the attitudes and support of white Illinois. It also failed to showcase him in a competitive race.

Yet, almost immediately upon joining the Senate something convinced Barack Obama that he could be a viable candidate for the Presidency against the formidable Clinton team. He believed he could win the support of white America. I didn’t think he was ready, too inexperienced on the national and international stage. What made him believe he could compete? Was it polls, supreme self-confidence, or simple trust in white America? Was it the lessons he had learned being raised by a white mother and white grandparents? Or, perhaps it was all of the above and more.

And what made Michelle Obama agree to the campaign? Clearly, without her support he would not have run. During the campaign she made the unfortunate comment that for the first time in her life she was proud of America (or, something to that effect.) Her comment clearly referred to white America, so did that mean she didn’t really trust America until the positive reaction of whites to her husband’s campaign changed her mind? She certainly wouldn’t have been the only American to feel that way, and probably represented the majority of black America. People were being forced to re-evaluate some of their assumptions about whites.

But clearly from the beginning Barack believed and trusted that whites would support and vote for him in massive numbers. Did he always think he would win? I don’t know, but we do know he thought he had a real chance. We may never know exactly what convinced Barack and Michelle to trust that white America would vote for a young, politically inexperienced (in my opinion), urban, black man. Millions of us are now very grateful that they did.

Regardless of what kind of president he becomes, and I’m hopeful that the combination of great challenges and his wisdom and talent will result in a great presidency reminiscent of President Kennedy’s (but much longer), he has already changed America –white, black, and all others – for the better.

While racism still exists, Barack and Michelle’s faith in white America and the resulting embrace of him by the voters has lightened the weight of slavery and racism on the consciences of white Americans and reduced the burden of suppression on all other Americans. All of us now have the opportunity to see ourselves in a better light as the shadow of racism recedes.

So, with heartfelt gratitude I say to Barack and Michelle – and all those who believed in their dream – THANK YOU!

                 ---------------------------------

  I steer my bark with Hope in the head, leaving Fear astern. My hopes indeed sometimes fail; but not oftener than the forebodings of the gloomy.

                                                                To John Adams, 1816

SO VERY, VERY PROUD OF AMERICA

 

I’m so proud of America. I’m proud of America for nominating a woman, for nominating a Catholic, and for nominating a maverick senior citizen. And, of course, I’m proud of America for nominating a biracial African American for president. But all that was mere prelude to what Americans did yesterday.

It’s not just that America elected a black president. Given the political landscape in the country today anyone who ran as a Democrat for president should have won, and won decisively. But Americans didn’t just elect Barack Obama they embraced him. In overwhelming numbers whites, blacks, Hispanics and others came together from small towns to big cities, from New England to California, from Iowa to Virginia and declared emphatically that this is the man they want to lead our nation through these perilous times.

I, myself, had been holding back. I’ve suffered from ‘blog writer’s block’ throughout the primaries and the general election. In the primaries I knew from the beginning that I wanted to see Obama and McCain nominated, but largely because I opposed Hilary (and especially Bill) and all McCain’s  Republican opponents. Once they were nominated I decided to stay undecided as long as possible. I liked both candidates personally and thought that once people picked a candidate they lost their ability to find flaws in their choice and virtues in the opposing candidate. I thought either one might make an excellent president, or not. I had serious reservations about McCain being a Republican who needed conservatives to support him. I had serious reservations about Obama’s lack of experience, his association with Rezko and Wright, and most important to me, his position on how to ‘end’ the Iraq war (by rapidly withdrawing our troops). But I had psychological issues as well. Perhaps these are best addressed in my other blog, but I’ll briefly express them here.

I liked the idea of an African American president (although I don’t like the idea of hyphenated Americans, but that’s another story).  I enjoyed seeing the enthusiastic supporters Obama had, especially among the young and minorities, including young members of my extended family. I would argue with some of my family members, especially my bright, eloquent and passionate nephew Bryan Spatz.  Another nephew worked long hours as a full-time staffer for the Obama campaign. My daughters Rachel and Laura were also for Obama and seemed to care more for him than they had ever cared for a candidate before. Even when I disagreed with some of their views I didn’t want to change their minds about Obama, I just wanted them to carefully consider the issues. In fact, I secretly hoped I would also be able to support him, especially since I had never voted for a Republican president.

Yet, seeing myself as a moderate, independent political blogger I hid behind the guise of being non-partisan, while I quietly admired the enthusiasm, hope, idealism, and optimism of these young people and of so many of the Obama supporters. It took me back to my teenage years when I felt the same way, or even stronger, about John F. Kennedy. But I could not, would not, believe in Obama. I had my logical reasons. For example, I’m was extremely disappointed that he said he would except public financing until it was convenient to change his mind and then he lied about the reasons for the change. (I consider public financing the greatest election reform in my lifetime and fear it will not survive Obama’s decision, but perhaps it just needs to be reformed.) I asked myself if I would vote for him if he were a WHITE liberal from Chicago with a mere 8 years in the corrupt Illinois legislature and only three years in the Senate, mostly running for president. Anyways, my point is not to resurrect these issues, but to note that I, like all Americans, had excuses why not to support Obama, but these weren’t my real issues. 

I decided to wait until after the conventions, see who they both selected as their vice president candidate, and then see if I could still remain undecided and critique them both ‘objectively’. This plan became undone by the selection of Sarah Palin. I couldn’t support her or the man who selected her. So now my excuses for not supporting Obama began to unravel. When he defeated McCain in each debate I began to become aware of the real reasons I wasn’t supporting him.

I was scared. I was afraid that if I really believed in Obama he might be taken from us, like John, Martin, and Bobby.  I didn’t think there was a causal relationship between my belief and those dire consequences, but it did seem like that the best men with the most passionate followers are most at risk. Or, perhaps Obama would turn out to be a huge disappointment, like William Jefferson Clinton, the only presidential candidate since JFK I really believed in. Even TJ’s reputation has been unfairly smeared in recent years, another disappointment. I was letting myself become cynical and fearful – and I didn’t like it. But gradually over the last few weeks I began to let my guard down.

Then last night as I sat in front of the TV and the tears began to flow down my cheeks I knew I was ready to care again, ready to cautiously hope, and ready to believe in a new leader. It’s time to risk the possible loss and disappointment. I will open my mind and heart to this wise and good man. I will risk trusting him. He will not be perfect, he may even have his Bay of Pigs, but I will still believe in the change he will bring. I will declare that with President Obama – YES, WE CAN!

One final point – people sometimes ask me what TJ would think about some modern issue. I avoid answering, believing it would be too presumptuous of me to claim to know. But this time no one needs to ask and I’m willing to say. TJ would be SO VERY, VERY PROUD OF AMERICA.

                  -----------------------------------------------

      Some men are born for the public. Nature, by fitting them for the service of the human race on a broad scale, has stamped them with the evidences of her destination and their duty.                 1803

                  -----------------------------------------------

THOMAS JEFFERSON: FRIENDS AND FOES

I recently returned from the 20^th Jefferson Symposium at the school Jefferson created, the University of Virginia, and in the buildings he designed. Twenty? How time does fly, and at a certain age, which apparently I have reached, it flies like a jet plane. I first attended the Symposium  in 1993 after the 250^th Anniversary of Jefferson's birth, and have not missed many since. (For info on the Symposiums -www.virginia.edu/travelandlearn)

This Symposium was particularly timely because it addressed the personal alliances and conflicts that in large measure shaped our political heritage. Although there was little reference to today’s politics I think there was much thinking about it among the participants. In addition to TJ, the presentations by the outstanding faculty focused mostly on John Adams, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, with some Aaron Burr. Other founders, especially Franklin and Washington, were addressed in the Q&A (around 30 minutes of each session) that followed the presentations (each around 60 minutes).  The faculty, led by Peter Onuf, who organized the event and is the pre-eminent practicing Jefferson scholar, took a daring risk. In several sessions they “channeled” (their word, said with a sly smile) the Founders. Or should I say they role-played them.

Introducing: David Thomas Konig from Washington University as Madison, Richard Bernstein from New York Law School as Adams (and by a strange coincidence, a friend of Paul Giamatti, who played Adams in the recent HBO series), Joanne Freeman from Yale University as Hamilton, and , of course last, but surely not least, Peter Onuf from the University of Virginia as Mr. Jefferson. As they mostly debated one another with humor and intellect they demonstrated most dramatically the appeal of the Symposiums—they are fun and educational. Frankly, I didn’t learn a lot of historical details in this format, although others did, but I did come away with a greater sense of how the Founders were human beings and how they related to one another.

We always receive handouts of relevant writings, and in one of them I was struck by a statement from Madison. Referring to the difficulty of writing the first written constitution to govern a nation, he said: ”Adding to these considerations the natural diversity of human opinions on all new and complicated subjects, it is impossible to consider the degree of concord which ultimately prevailed as less than a miracle.” It also seems miraculous that a group of men with such varied political views were able to join in declaring independence from the most powerful nation on earth.  They knew if they failed they all would likely be hung as traitors to set an example to others who might seek to leave the British Empire.

The Founders shared a complete commitment to holding the nation together during the revolution and afterwards. They often diverged on the exact means of doing so, but not in their dedication to the cause. At the risk of oversimplifying, they mostly differed in the degree they trusted the people to govern themselves while protecting civil rights and maintaining a strong government. On the scale of trust, Hamilton trusted 'the people' least , then Adams, then Madison, and finally, TJ trusted them the most. Seeing the faculty performances so soon after watching the HBO Adams series (quick review-I loved it, as did at least 2 of the faculty- get the DVD and see it!) it became clear to me how the political views of these Founders reflected their personalities.

For example, Hamilton, a military man, liked hierarchy and strong authorities even in his personal relationships, and he liked being the boss! Adams often felt personally mistreated by people and thus didn’t trust the public as much as Madison did. The division over the Alien and Sedition Acts that restricted criticism of the government marked a dividing line between Adams and Hamilton who supported it, and Madison and Jefferson who vehemently opposed it. Jefferson sincerely liked people in his private life, and despite what some historians have thought, was warm and personable. The only one of the men mentioned that was a “foe” of Jefferson was Hamilton and even in his case TJ spoke well of him as a private man, but he REALLY didn’t like his politics.

It occurred to me that historians explain these men to us, and yet these historians may lack the skills of psychological insight that allow us to truly understand their subjects. The Founders political views and actions grew out of their personalities and attitudes towards life. And the personalities and attitudes of the historians and biographers tend to shape their interpretations. The role-playing and discussions that followed highlighted the interaction between the Founders and their interpreters in a fascinating way. Thus it reinforced the idea of 'Our Jefferson', the Jefferson that speaks to the individual. For example, some people today who study Jefferson say we live in a Hamiltonian country, because we are so industrialized, centralized, and materialistic. Not so, a Jeffersonian like me would say. We live in a Jeffersonian country because we are so free, independent, and idealistic.

As another Fourth of July comes around, it's another opportunity to remind people that TJ and Adams both died on July 4th exactly 50 years after the Declaration of Independence. As part of the Symposium we visited the house near Monticello of former President James Monroe, a close friend and ally of Jefferson and Madison, and we were told that five years after Jefferson and Adams died Monroe also died on July 4th. After the Symposium, Kay Wilkinson, a friend from the Symposiums, who now is part of the development staff of Colonial Williamsburg, and I went to Madison's home near Monticello at Montpelier. The description of Madison as short, shy, sickly, cool, and reserved, reminded us how few Founding Fathers, if they had lived today, would even run for office, no less get nominated and elected. We learned that during his final illness Madison was asked by his doctors if he wanted to try to prolong his life. He said "no" and died less than one week before the 60th Fourth. He was the last Founder to die.

Three of the first five presidents died on July 4th and one came close!  Miracle? Strange?  Glorious?  HAVE A HAPPY FOURTH!

       -----------------------------------

  The flames kindled on the Fourth of July, 1776, have spread over too much of the globe to be extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism: on the contrary, they will consume these engines and all who work them.       To Adams, 1821

       -----------------------------------

MUSLIM ARABS, ISRAEL, AND ANTI-SEMITISM

There is an interesting form of political correctness that is widespread in the West. It is not new and it’s so prevalent that it almost goes unnoticed. Let me explain. If I were to criticize communism, socialism, authoritarianism, or fascism, or the people who adhere to these beliefs systems, no one would question my right or justification for doing so. They may disagree with me, but not declare that I was wrong to express negative opinions. In other words, political beliefs and systems are fair game for criticism.

However, were I to take the same approach to a religion or its adherents, I might be subject to severe criticism from good-natured, fair-minded people who weren’t even followers of those religions. I might be called intolerant or worse. Now I say this is an issue in the West, because it is not an issue in the Muslim Arab world. In that world there are generally no strictures against being critical of Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion that isn’t Islam. Indeed, there is a widely used name for followers of these religions; they are called “infidels”. It is not a compliment. In fact, in Islam, or to use the politically correct term, in “fundamentalist Islam” (actually Islam is fundamentalist by nature and practice), it is a serious crime to leave Islam for another religion, with many even believing the legal Islamic penalty as ordained by the Quran is death.

Some of this is true not just among “fundamentalists” (not the death penalty part), as I discovered first-hand not long ago. I got to know a group of American Sufis, who practiced a brand of Islam that is as liberal, mystical, and open-minded as any. Yet, these good people who were born Christians and Jews believed that their former religions were severely flawed because they didn’t accept Mohammad as The Prophet. Of course, all religions believe they are supported by the truth, but I had never heard someone tell me that all religions, except one, were essentially wrong. The only other place I had heard about a similar view was the Catholic Church, but they no longer takes such a position. The Sufis also believed it was wrong (or too difficult) to marry a non-Muslim. If liberal-minded Sufis thought this way, I could only wonder what fundamentalists thought.

These thoughts arose partly in reaction to an interesting book review (Chicago Tribune, May 24, 2008) of the book The Bin Ladens: An Arabian Family in the American Century by Steve Coll . The reviewer praises the book as one of a handful of recent books that are necessary reading for anyone trying to understand the origins of the current international crisis. The author is a Pulitzer Prize winner for Ghost Wars about the CIA’s secret operations in Afghanistan. The review makes a number of interesting points about the Bin Laden and the al Saud families and their interconnections. The al Sauds are the creators and rulers of Saudi Arabia, a country that, like the modern state of Israel, only came into existence in the first half of the 20^th century.

Rather than paraphrase I’m going to quote the relevant passages:  “ What’s most striking about Coll’s book is it’s undidactic but unflinching account of just how rancidly dysfunctional the Saudi royals governance has been….Corrupt, hypocritical, frightened, and inept at everything but self-preservation, the Sauds have essentially looted their country’s foreign-development oil riches, using the bin Ladens to dole out development only when it was absolutely necessary to placate a restive populace.”

The most famous bin Laden, Osama, was a member of an elite high school when he joined the radical Muslim Brotherhood, and like his family he had already adopted the strict Wahabi brand of ultrapuritanical Islam. He was radicalized not primarily in response to America or the west but in reaction to the Sauds and his own family.

The reviewer concludes: “ Finally, Coll’s book makes an important contribution to the contemporary debate by putting to rest the myth that jihadism is fueled by a passion to see justice for the Palestinians. In fact, garden-variety anti-Semitism of the most repellent kind has been part of the Saud/bin Laden axis from the start. Abdul Aziz [the primary founder of Saudi Arabia] was a rabid anti-Semite, although he never met a Jew nor heard of Zionism. Faisal, apparently the best of the Saudi kings because he stole the least, nonetheless peddled every sort of outlandish anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, along with copies of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” [an infamous forgery that supposedly was written by Jewish leaders as the blueprint for the Jewish secret plot to take over the world].”

He ends the review by describing a group in America called the World Assembly of Muslim Youth led by an Osama family member that reaches out to American Muslims with statements such as: “The Jews are enemies of the faithful, God and the angels; the Jews are humanity’s enemies: they foment immorality in this world.” By the way, that man is here on a Saudi diplomatic passport and the quote comes from Wahabi religious materials. From what I can tell, in Saudi Arabia and much of the Arab Muslim world, the quoted statement wouldn’t be considered either radical or controversial.

I began by discussing American Sufis, and I don’t want to suggest that their beliefs made them anti-Semitic. But there does seem to be a connection that can run between thinking a people’s religion is wrong and misguided and despising the people who practice that religion. I believe all too many Muslim Arabs have slid down that slippery slope. We in the West, of course, don’t want to make a similar mistake regarding Islam. Indeed, there exists today in the West an admirable effort to understand the world from which the Islamic terrorists have risen. I applaud that effort. I do not believe in hating those who declare themselves to be your enemy, or anyone else for that matter.

But I also don’t believe that understanding is the same as justifying. It would be extremely naïve to look at the Middle East situation, and world-wide terrorism in general, without taking into consideration the powerful pathological anti-Semitism that has flourished in Arab countries historically. Arab anti-Semitism can be traced all the way back to the time when the Middle Eastern Jews rejected Mohammed as The Prophet while he was alive. Today, while over a million Arabs live in Israel, almost no Jews still live in Arab countries. Many left because they  no longer felt welcome.

Obviously, not all Arabs or Muslims are anti-Semitic, but it is always difficult for individuals to resist a pervasive cultural phenomenon—for example, imagine what it would have taken for southerners to resist racism during the time of slavery. Obviously, I’m not advocating we respond to anti-Semitism with anti-Muslim sentiments. On the other hand, just because we are dealing with a religion, especially one where the religious and political are deliberately intermixed (there is no ideal of separation of church and state in Islam), does not mean all criticism is unjustified. I’m advocating looking with an open-mind and an open-heart, but to be willing to see what is real, whether we like it or not. And then perhaps we can find some way to bring positive change to what we don’t like.

     -- ---------------------------------------

An enemy generally says and believes what he wishes.       1788

      ------------------------------------------

IS THERE AN IRAQ WAR?

The Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War, the World Wars, the Vietnam War…..the Iraq War. Without diminishing the sacrifices of our soldiers and the vast sums of money expended, it’s hard to see Iraq as a war.  A military action, an insurgency fight perhaps, but does it rise to the level of an actual war.

I understand why many thoughtful and humane Americans strongly opposed the Iraq war, but I would argue that the Iraq war ended several years ago, what we are facing in Iraq now is not a war.  It is an insurgency largely funded and led by terrorist groups and their supporters.  Frankly, I don't understand why so many thoughtful, humane Americans and politicians feel that we should now abandon Iraq by withdrawing all our combat troops and leave the Iraqis to deal with the problems that have arisen since the invasion that America led.

You may wonder what difference it makes what we call the situation in Iraq. Well, if it’s an insurgency and we don’t have the will to resist it, what does that say about our national will to resist terrorists and terrorism wherever we find it. If it is a war, then leaving it unitarily without a peace treaty can only be defined as surrendering. That means our enemies in Iraq can rightly claim a victory over America that can embolden our radical Islam adversaries.

There are only two countries in the world where we are clearly and directly fighting Al Qaeda and their allies-- Iraq and Afghanistan.  We have withdrawn most of our troops from Afghanistan and have left the major responsibility with NATO, and now many Americans, including both the Democratic candidates for president, want us to withdraw from the only other place where we are directly confronting Al Qaeda.  Al Qaeda has made this confrontation quite clear by naming themselves Al Qaeda in Iraq, and making every effort to start a civil war that would leave the country so weak that they could take over.  The Iraqi people have so far avoided falling into the this trap, despite the claims of some American politicians that Iraq is already in a civil war, but the ultimate outcome is still uncertain.  The Iraqi people, like people around the world, have demonstrated a desire for a democratic society.  Perhaps not modeled precisely on our American example, but nevertheless a society where people have an opportunity to control and improve their own lives.

If we look around the world it becomes clear that people desire democracy, and that democracy is a very difficult political system to create.  These are two core Jeffersonian principles. As I indicated in an earlier post, Thomas Jefferson believed the desire for freedom and democracy was inherent in human nature, and he also believed that there were powerful forces of greed, selfishness and fear that made the practice of democracy and freedom difficult.  We are seeing these principles demonstrated in Iraq, and it disappoints me greatly to discover how many Americans don't think the efforts of the Iraqi people are worth the loss of American money and lives.  Of course, there needs to be some limit on our commitment to Iraq, but I don't believe we have reached those limits.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m no war-mongerer. But I think there are still times and places in this world when taking up arms are necessary. Jefferson was considered a peaceable man, yet he supported the American Revolution. While president he did everything he could to avoid war with France and England, yet rather than pay a tribute he attacked the Barbary pirates, our first war against Muslim terrorists. All the Americans - including the men and women of the military forces who have suffered injury and death, the civilians who have risked their lives to help create a civil society, the businesspeople who have worked to rebuild the Iraqi economy, and the federal government officials and diplomats- who have served in that difficult nation deserve the support of the American people and government that would allow the possibility for their efforts and sacrifices to result in a new free society in the Middle East.  The next generation of Iraqi people and all the generations after them deserve our best effort to uphold the responsibility we took when we chose to remove Saddam from power.

I recently heard a journalist on NPR talking about Iraq. He had been reporting on the country for over 20 years and unlike most commentators/ politicians regarding Iraq he clearly cared deeply about the Iraqi people. He believed if we left too soon there would be chaos, and instead suggested that we negotiate a peace agreement with the major groups, Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, agreeing on when and how we withdraw. This would provide us with an honorable ending, if this is indeed a war, not a surrender followed by chaos. But because the insurgency would likely continue, we would need to leave some soldiers to help.

In Iraq today America has an opportunity to stand up for what we value as a nation. We value justice, freedom, democracy, and human rights.  These are the values that are at stake in Iraq.  These values are cherished by both political parties and it’s too bad they can’t receive bi-partisan support regarding the Iraq conflict. The insurgents and terrorists do not share these values, and the Taliban in Afghanistan have demonstrated to the world what a nation would look like if the insurgency succeeded.  Avoiding the oppression of women alone justifies our struggle against this perverted philosophy. The only way I can understand the unwillingness of the American people to see this struggle through to the end is that I assume that they believe we cannot succeed, or that the price will be too high. So far I don’t think the price has been too high.

I have heard it said that these people, these Iraqi people, can't create a free society.  I've heard the argument that because they are a patchwork nation of different tribes they can't create a free society, because they are Muslims they can't create a free society, and because they have never been free they can't create a free society.  Well, I say, if we understand the imperfect way that the United States of America came into existence we would realize that all those arguments do not stand up. The more we understand our own national struggles and heritage the more we will see the possibilities for democracy around the world.  Jeffersonian democracy has spread and continues to spread around the world at an astounding rate, and there is no compelling reason to believe that it cannot find a home in the middle of the Middle East.  But it seems apparent that it will never happen without the support of the American government and the American people.

      -----------------------------

  The ground of liberty is to be gained by inches, that we must be contented to secure what we can get from time to time, and eternally press forward for what is yet to get. It takes time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good.                                       1790

      ------------------------------

LET’S TALK ABOUT POLITICS

When Thomas Jefferson ran against John Adams in 1800 it was the first free election of the president of a modern nation contested between two political parties.  And it was a ruthless struggle to determine the fate of the new nation. For just one example, New England preachers told their congregations Jefferson was an atheist who would confiscate all Bibles, if he were elected. Yet, in TJ’s Inaugural Address, in an attempt to unify the nation, he said the equivalent of we are all Democrats, we are all Republicans.  By the time he finished his eight years as president, the country was so politically united that essentially there was only one national political party.  So in a sense he had turned his statement into reality.

Today, we live in such a polarized political world that it seems necessary for me to state some of my political views before I address the issues of today.  Unfortunately, many of us don’t evaluate the ideas we hear, but rather we judge them based on their source. Liberals and conservatives don't listen to each other, and when they do it's not with openness to new ideas, but to support their belief that the other is wrong.  I generally listen to both liberals and conservatives, and I look for what I can agree with in both.

I was raised in a liberal Democratic family where my first political hero was Adlai Stevenson, followed closely by John F. Kennedy.  I've considered myself a Kennedy Democrat ever since, and that means I oppose tyranny and injustice around the world.  I was inspired by Kennedy's Inaugural Address, which years later I discovered was modeled on TJ’s first Inaugural.  President Kennedy clearly stated his opposition to any political system that was oppressing the people.  There was never any doubt that he strongly opposed communism and was an advocate of democracy.  Of course, some would say that his attitudes led us into Vietnam.  Perhaps it was that point of view that later led so many Democrats to retreat from strong opposition to communism and to cede that position to conservative Republicans.  It was that retreat that led, at least in part, to the election of Ronald Reagan.  So, even though I've never voted for a Republican president, I've been dismayed by the recent lack of a more forceful Democratic opposition to tyranny around the world.  Of course, now some would object that opposition to tyranny is partly what led us into Iraq to overthrow Saddam. But that’s a topic for another time

I don't think I've changed much politically over the years since JFK, as I have remained a Kennedy Democrat and a Jeffersonian.  I just believe the Democratic and Republican Parties have changed in some unfortunate ways, and in other ways have stubbornly refused to change.  For example, large Democratic sponsored federal government programs, such as Social Security, welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid, have played an important part in protecting the American people, and now they need to be protected.  But as we saw with welfare reform sometimes the best way to protect a program is to be willing to revise it. Perhaps the time has come when the country does not need more such large federal programs, but instead needs creative, nonpartisan thinking to save the programs we have before going on to institute new programs regarding health-care. It’s time for Democrats to rethink their image of always preferring the federal government over state’s rights. After all, it’s the states, such as California, that are taking the lead on protecting the environment, as well as other social reforms.

Regarding Republicans, conservatives insist on their patriotic faith in America, but they stubbornly resist having the wealthy pay what they can easily pay to support this great nation they admire so much.  They don't object when the federal government uses taxes and fiscal policy to help corporate America, but balk at using that same government to protect our environment and assist those in need. Is it really possible to love America and despise the national government designed by the Founding Fathers and elected by the American people? Of course, these are all necessarily generalizations and oversimplifications, but they make me wonder about liberals and conservatives, and whether either possesses the best roadmap for America.

So, over the years I have become an independent who finds value in both Democratic and Republican thinking.  My views, however, are not merely compromises always leaving me in the political middle.  Rather sometimes I think like a liberal and sometimes like a conservative , though admittedly most often I think like neither, thus becoming a moderate.  Therefore, if a category is required, I guess the bottom line is that I'm a ‘ moderate independent’, or might I be an’ independent moderate’.  Whichever, the result has been that I have always voted Democratic for Illinois Senator and U.S. President, and on occasion voted Republican for U.S. Representative or local and state officers.

Both political parties justifiably claim TJ as their founding inspiration. TJ’s Republican Party became the Democratic Party and Lincoln claimed him as the inspiration of the new Republican Party. Our Jefferson, the TJ that speaks to this generation, would not fit easily into any political party. He once said that if the only way to get to heaven was as a member of a party, he'd just as soon not go.  Well, I'm guessing you can get to heaven without being a member of a political party, so I'm going to give it a shot.

      ---------------------------------

  I have never thought that a difference in political, any more than in religious opinions should disturb the friendly intercourse of society. There are so many other topics on which friends may converse and be happy, that it is wonderful they should select of preference the only one on which they cannot agree.                                          1810

      ---------------------------------

   

A NEW YEAR: SPREADING DEMOCRACY?

While we enter a new year when Americans will elect a new president, it seems like a good time to highlight a guiding Jeffersonian value.  Although the concept of 'our Jefferson' invites us each to discover our own Jefferson or Jeffersonianism, it also maintains that there are some core Jefferson values that need to be honored.  One of the most powerful of these values is belief, even spiritual faith, in democracy.

As a writer I'm always interested in the use of words.  Because of the richness and complexity of the English language the words "spreading democracy" can have at least two meanings.  If spreading is used as an adjective, then we are saying that democracy is spreading, like a spreading vine.  If spreading is used as a verb, then we are speaking of an effort to spread democracy, to increase and expand it.  I believe that TJ's views on democracy embraced both meanings.  He thought that democracy would spread and that America would assist in the spreading.  America would be a model for spreading democracy. 

Since TJ's time the spread of democracy around the world has become probably the most extraordinary event in the history of the human race.  It is certainly the most extraordinary political event.  Think about that.  It has transformed every aspect of human society. Science, religion, business, culture, the arts, human rights, sports, law, and government all have been changed through the democratic process.  And while democracy has origins deep in human history, it really began to take off with the founding of the American nation.  Last month alone, we have seen the issue of elections stir the people of Venezuela, Kenya, Thailand, Russia, the nations of the former Soviet Union, and Pakistan, and that's just a partial list.  Every region, every continent, every religious group, every political orientation, every racial and ethnic group, has entered the fray.  And a fray it is as these nations demonstrate the difficulty of creating a truly democratic society.  Yet, people around the world keep trying.  As for the conscious act of spreading democracy, all these nations have been deliberately impacted by the American and British models of democratic government.

Two hundred years ago TJ predicted this, this 'spreading democracy' as both a description and as an action.  They are intertwined.  Democracy spreads, in part, because the United States spreads it. Yet more importantly, the spread of democracy is not a purely conscious act, or a fortunate accident, it's not even a political choice, it is a force of nature, a force of human nature.  Many of the founding fathers knew this, while many of us have forgotten or never understood this aspect of democracy.  Many of us today see democracy as one political system among a number of choices -- socialism, authoritarianism, communism, Islamic government, capitalism, and monarchy.  In fact, some of these systems are more economic than political, but the point is that democracy (or a republic) is seen as a choice, an option, among several.  Americans and Western society clearly see democracy as the best system, but many aren't sure it's for everybody, for every nation. 

During a recent conversation I was reminded of two points I've previously heard about Iraq.  The first is that Iraq was of collection of tribal areas pieced together as a nation by the British, and second,  it has no history or experience with democracy.  Although I'm not sure point two is accurate, I accepted the premises.  What bothered me was that they were being offered as a reason why democracy might not work in Iraq.  The clear implication was that Iraqi society was somehow deficient of what is required for democracy.  I think we both sensed an uncomfortable element of condescension in the position he stated, as if Americans can do it, but not Iraqis.  Doubting Iraq's, Iran's, and Arab nation's ability to create a democratic society seems commonplace today.  Yet, for just one example, is Iraq any more tribal or patched together by the British then Kenya, and they just had an election where despite many difficulties turnout was high, as eight to 10 million Kenyans, many waiting for hours, voted in their national election.  The turmoil that followed suggests the challenges and passions surrounding the democratic process, even in a country with many years of experience.  Meanwhile, despite such obvious difficulties many Americans profess such belief in democracy that they can justify trying to force it upon other nations. 

While the political climate heats up in this election year the time has come to bring Jefferson and Jeffersonian democracy more fully into the debate about Iraq and democracy.  For TJ the subject of democracy was not about a political system, but about the human condition.  He didn't believe in democracy because it happened to be the best choice among several systems.  He believed in it because it sprung from our God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Those rights derived from our natural desire for freedom, which also came from the "Benevolent Creator", as he called it.  Those rights carried with them the duty to establish and exercise those rights in society.  TJ believed that each of us possesses an inherent desire to have the freedom to live our lives as we choose, and because we possess a moral sense that contains compassion for others, we desire that our personal freedom coexist with the freedom of others.  Even selfishly we defend other's freedom to protect our own.  In other words, democracy is an expression of a basic human instinct -- the instinct to seek freedom for ourselves and for others.

Certainly, TJ identified various conditions needed for democracy to be established and grow.  As Lincoln said, Jefferson stated the axioms of a free society, which is why many political scientists and politicians have called our system Jeffersonian democracy.  But among those conditions there was none regarding how the borders of the nation were formed.   Indeed, isn't that always an arbitrary process subject to change by purchase (the Louisiana Purchase and Alaska ) or war (all of Europe)?  Nor did a nation need to be ethnically homogeneous.   Nor did TJ believe that a society had to have previous experience with a democratic system.  That would require putting the cart before the horse.  Even in his day, he thought that monarchies could be transformed into republics. 

A few years ago 12 million Iraqis voted despite threats from the terrorists/insurgents to not do so, and they had no previous experience with free elections.  The leaders of this fragile country daily risk their lives to move the nation towards freedom.  While not all their motives are pure, every single person who serves in some official capacity faces the constant threat of injury or death by those who live in abject fear of the power of a democratic society.  I am in complete awe of these brave people.  They cannot look to their neighbors, except perhaps Turkey, to see the likely benefits of their efforts and yet they struggle on. The benefits of their efforts may not be fully experienced until the next generations arise.  Yet they struggle on.

If anyone doubts the wisdom of TJ's belief in an innate desire for freedom and democracy, then take a look around the world and especially take a closer look at Iraq today.  And don't just look at what they have failed to accomplish in less than five years, rather look at what they're accomplishing everyday.  TJ understood that creating a new democracy was not ever going to be easy.  In fact, his election has been called the Revolution of 1800 by many scholars who think it wasn't until 24 years after the Declaration of Independence, including eight years of war, that the United States securely established a truly democratic society.

Regardless of your political views, your party affiliation, and your opinion about the proper role of American troops, I invite you to enter the new political year rejoicing in the human spirit of freedom that is being demonstrated in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in fledgling democracies around the world.

If you believe in the incredible power of the human spirit to seek life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then rejoice in and support the valiant efforts of the Iraqi people to create a new society.  Might they fail?  Of course, and that fact of itself proves the courage of their efforts. Nothing more eloquently and dramatically expresses the justification for a Jeffersonian faith in democracy and the human spirit.

        ----------------------------------

I'm guessing you have an opinion or two about democracy and Iraq.  I'd love to hear them.

        ----------------------------------

   It is unfortunate that the efforts of mankind to recover the freedom of which they had been so long deprived, will be accompanied with violence, with errors, and even with crimes.  But while we weep over the means, we must pray for the end.                                                1795

                                    

TJ, WOMEN, AND MISOGYNY

" Misogyny found throughout his writings", "surprisingly hostile toward women", " reacted with predatory misogyny"--these and other accusations are used to describe a new book about Jefferson and women. Misogyny is defined simply as " hatred of women" and a misogynist is "one who hates women". According to one reviewer (Booklist), the author of Mr. Jefferson's Women, Jon Kukla, " concludes that Jefferson's sentiments regarding women were a mixture of suspicion, contempt, and possessiveness".  Of all the misunderstandings regarding TJ the claim that he didn't like women, no less hated them, is probably the most absurd.  True, I have not read this book, but I took the quotes from book reviews and the book's opening chapter on Amazon.com designed to sell the book. They were repeated in an annoucement of a talk the author is giving at the International Center for Jefferson  Studies. So, Kukla 's views are being promoted and given respect. Besides, I have heard these ideas before, including from one of the speakers at this summer's Jefferson Symposium (Jan Lewis), and have researched the subject myself and discovered similar opinions.

The evidence for the charge of misogyny seems to be drawn from TJ's brief uneventful, though lustful, encounters with a teenage girl whom the college student TJ hoped to marry someday (Rebecca Burwell), the wife of a close friend when he was single, and a married woman in Paris when he was a widower. Then there is the relationship with his slave Sally Hemings that despite the public's understanding is still essentially a mystery to historians.  Despite DNA evidence that appears to support a sexual relationship bearing children, a debate continues whether such a relationship existed. (I won't address this further today.) The point is we know almost nothing about his treatment or attitude towards Sally.

What apparently is not emphasized by this author and some other scholars  is TJ's relationship with his mother, sister, wife, two daughters, grand-daughters, and his many close, long-term friendships with women. (One of my favorite TJ books, The Domestic Life of Thomas Jefferson, is a great resource to understand these family relationships.) If anything, TJ loved women too much, and was occasionally led by his passion into embarrassing behavior. He was human and lived 83 years, and things happen. But his behavior towards women wasn't motivated by suspicion and contempt, rather by attraction and appreciation.

Indeed, I believe TJ loved women more than most men of his time did, and perhaps even more than most men do today. He had his own strong feminine side (there's even a book about that) that gave him a special empathy for females. Like most men, he experienced some discomfort and unease around women, although I wouldn't call it "his lifelong uneasiness around women" as Kukla does, just as most women experience some unease around men. Yet, despite living in an era when the sexes were often divided and separated, including for after-dinner conversation, the testimony from the women close to him all attest to his general comfort with women.

On the political front, Kukla asserts that Jefferson " did nothing whatever to improve the legal or social condition of women in American society" and was "convinced that women posed a serious menace to republican government". It hard to know what he was supposed to do to improve the condition of women per se when he devoted his life to helping create a new nation that would provide justice to all. Its particularly hard to understand these statements knowing that TJ was a strong supporter of educating women, as he personally demonstrated with his daughters and grand-daughters, and made the very radical proposal that girls be educated in public elementary schools. He even thought daughters should be able to inherit from their fathers at a time when it was still commonplace for the first son to inherit everything.

Since my interest is in what we can learn from 'our Jefferson', what is significant about this issue is how the combination of political correctness and presentism (applying present-day values to past events and people) permeates the accusation of misogyny against TJ. The result is a kind of retroactive political correctness. This is not uncommon as revisionist historians try to find something new to say. I also think it indicates the difficulty scholars and historians have in understanding the emotional and psychological motives for the actions of historic figures. I would add spiritual motives, as well.

If someone today criticizes a group (political, social, or ethnic) of men, or certainly one man, no one claims the person doesn't like men, or is disrespecting or degrading men. Yet, if someone criticizes a group of women or a particular woman, say Hillary Clinton,  they risk being called anti-women. For one TJ example, does his criticism of French women using their sexual favors to influence the corrupt French royalty mean he thought women were a "menace" to liberty? Does it negate his respectful political and philosophical exchanges with other French women in the salons of Paris? His far harsher criticism of Kings, Federalists, and some British politicians didn't garner him accusations of being anti-men.

If someone is critical of a strong independent women, a current example might be Condoleezza Rice, does that mean that person "was never entirely comfortable with strong and independent women", as Kukla described TJ? In TJ's case he raised his oldest daughter (his other adult daughter died at 25) as a single parent and she became a strong, educated, independent, and highly respected woman. There has always been, and probably always will be, some unease between the sexes, but this can be seen as a creative tension that adds excitement to gender dynamics. There will always be some men who can't handle 'strong women', and some women who can't handle 'weak men'.

But nothing is gained by labeling men of good-will misogynists. It just increases the discomfort between the sexes. When the term or concept is used to smear the image of a great American we all lose something. True, men like TJ have often felt the need to protect women from the harsher realities of life, such as manual labor, military service, crime, and yes, even politics. They weren't motivated by malice, but by a protective love. This is not to negate the reality of men, individually and collectively, oppressing women inorder to assert their authority and power, or out of fear and insecurity. Indeed, its not always easy to know where to draw the line between these two types of men. But we must try.

Postscript: I encourage you to check out the Discussion Group (click the link in the sidebar) and read what Lisette has to say about the book. She makes several important points and provides some excellent quotes.

             ------------------------------

What do you think about TJ, political correctness, presentism, and today's gender issues? Let us know.

             ------------------------------

It is civilization alone which replaces women in the enjoyment of their natural equality. That first teaches us to subdue the selfish passions, and to respect those rights in others which we value in ourselves.                               1782

HEAD AND HEART

In an earlier post (August 24) I said that TJ  trusted God, and therefore he trusted human nature.  But why exactly did he think that human nature was primarily trustworthy?  There were two main reasons, both of which had to do with how the Creator had created human beings.

The first had to do with our mind.  God had given humans the capacity to reason--to think, calculate, and plan.  He wrote frequently in praise of human reason and its ability to show us how to rise above our problems. Logical thinking raised us above the animals and brought us closer to an understanding of God.  He was an enthusiastic scientist both because he loved to learn new things and more importantly, because he felt science had some ability to reveal the mind of God.  Although he thought reason was limited in its reach, he thought it could help us approach real wisdom.  Some of those who have studied TJ saw his belief in reason as justification for seeing him as primarily an intellectual who lacked strong emotions, some even claiming he lacked a sense of humor.  Such opinions demonstrate a lack of understanding of the man and what he stands for.

There was another human quality that meant even more to TJ than reason.  That quality he called, like some of the philosophers of his time, "the moral sense".  This is the part of us that knows what is right, good, and compassionate, and strives to do those things.  It is our benevolent, caring nature, and he sang its praises.  If it came to a battle between reason and the moral sense, he would trust the latter.  He made this quite clear in a letter where he said he would rather trust the common moral sense of a farmer than that of a professor.

In one of his most famous and beautiful letters he wrote "A Dialogue Between the Head and the Heart".  Some scholars have foolishly thought the Head won this literary debate.  Yet, it is clear that TJ saw the Heart's qualities as the source of kindness, pleasure, and love, without which he thought life wouldn't be worth living.  Thinking, of course, was valuable, but it needed to be guided by the goodness of the heart.  He knew all to well of the evil that could be done by brilliant minds lacking clear guidance from their own moral sense.  Emotions in turn generally need to be directed by reason, but not suppressed by it.  For TJ, the head and the heart both operate best in a balanced relationship. 

What does this have to do with us today, you might ask. Well, quite a lot actually. Psychological research, when it finally began in recent years to study morality, has begun to prove that TJ was right about our possessing something like a moral sense.  We are apparently a benevolent species.   Our democracy has been built in large measure on this Jeffersonian faith in our capacity to know what is right and to do it without being told or forced by others who claim to know what is best for us.  But, on the other hand, because we share a common, innate moral sense and generally have the freedom to discover and exercise it, we should be able to generally agree on what is right and good.  To keep our democracy alive and vibrant we need to trust ourselves and our ability to use both our head and our heart to guide our lives and the life of America. 

       ..........................................................

Do you believe in a moral sense?  Do you think we need to be taught to be kind and compassionate or is it natural?  Do you have an explanation for the evil things people do?  Do you think TJ was a naive idealist or an astute observer of human nature?

       ...............................................

Morals were too essential to the happiness of man, to be risked on the uncertain combinations of the head.  She laid their foundation, therefore, in sentiment, not in science.                               1786