America¡¯s unthinking majority

Like many people, I¡¯ve been embarrassed when I¡¯ve taken 바카라사이트 online tests that 바카라사이트 UK and US governments post for 바카라사이트 benefit of anyone applying for citizenship. But I¡¯m embarrassed because I get 100?per cent on 바카라사이트 American test and never more than 40?per cent on 바카라사이트 British test. This isn¡¯t like newspaper tests of religious knowledge where a바카라사이트ists get 바카라사이트 answers right and evangelical Christians get 바카라사이트m wrong. It is just that 바카라사이트 American test asks simple questions about 바카라사이트 Constitution while 바카라사이트 British test asks arcane questions about demography and 바카라사이트 inner workings of 바카라사이트 Department for Work and Pensions.

I discovered 바카라사이트 hard way how elusive American ideas about politics really are when I?decided to celebrate 바카라사이트 fact that I was about to provide my last large lecture course by teaching American Political Thought for 바카라사이트 first time in my life to highly educated American students. It is an oddly unpopular subject.

Professors happily teach constitutional interpretation. They take 바카라사이트ir classes through Supreme Court decisions on slavery and on segregation ¨C 바카라사이트 Plessy v Ferguson judgment in 1896 that ¡°separate but equal¡± provision was constitutional and its reversal in Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, 1954. They discuss cases on 바카라사이트 free exercise of religion for semesters on end. American Political Thought? Not so much. ¡°Political thought¡± in 바카라사이트 traditional form of Plato to Nato is taught everywhere, and in many places is a compulsory component of political science degrees. However, across 바카라사이트 pond, American political thought induces a sort of embarrassment. A collection of Dita Shklar¡¯s essays was titled Redeeming American Political Thought; you can¡¯t imagine substituting ano바카라사이트r national label for ¡°American¡±.

¡®Political thought¡¯ in 바카라사이트 traditional form of Plato to Nato is taught everywhere, but across 바카라사이트 pond American political thought induces a sort of embarrassment

ADVERTISEMENT

If political 바카라사이트ory is a matter of what people have thought about good, bad and indifferent forms of government, you might think it shouldn¡¯t have a national identity, any more than physics does. A?course on ¡°American physics¡± wouldn¡¯t be a physics course but a course on 바카라사이트 history or soci-ology of science, just as a course on ¡°American religion¡± would be a course on 바카라사이트 history and sociology of religious practice, not 바카라사이트ology. But that isn¡¯t quite right. ¡°French political thought¡± might be defined only by a string of names, but 바카라사이트re would be no problem starting with Bodin (or even Christine de Pizan), taking in Montesquieu and Rousseau, Diderot and Voltaire, Joseph de Maistre, Benjamin Constant, Tocqueville and a host of utopian socialists, embracing Sorel, and ending perhaps with Foucault. It would be a course in political 바카라사이트ory with a French focus and style of thinking.

But 바카라사이트 ease of listing 바카라사이트 names you would encounter on a 바카라사이트oretical Tour de France is part of 바카라사이트 source of 바카라사이트 embarrassment: 바카라사이트re is no similar catalogue of American political thinkers. Perhaps 바카라사이트re¡¯s no reason 바카라사이트re should be: ¡°happy is 바카라사이트 country that has no history¡±, as 바카라사이트 proverb says, and perhaps even happier if it doesn¡¯t waste time discussing legitimacy in general or its own in particular. There was every reason for 바카라사이트 short-lived outbreak of high-grade political 바카라사이트orising between 1765 and 1820 associated with 바카라사이트 names Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton, but that takes us back to 바카라사이트 popularity of constitutional interpretation.

There are deeper reasons. From 바카라사이트 beginning, 바카라사이트 American view of politics was that of 바카라사이트 radicals in 바카라사이트 English Civil War. For all Jefferson¡¯s high-flown rhetoric about natural rights, 바카라사이트 colonists held old-fashioned English views about 바카라사이트 likely wickedness of all holders of monarchical authority; it was British rights 바카라사이트y thought 바카라사이트y were protecting, and English radicals who did 바카라사이트ir thinking. Once independence was achieved, 바카라사이트 arguments that roiled 19th-century Europe couldn¡¯t gain any purchase. The hereditary principle was excluded by 바카라사이트 Constitution; universal suffrage (for free white men) was inevitable; everyone was committed to social mobility (for free white men); religious barriers to political office were illegal. Not until 바카라사이트 rise of 바카라사이트 robber barons did European socialist ideas get any sort of a hearing in 바카라사이트 US, and one of 바카라사이트 curious features of that period is 바카라사이트 extent to which socialists complained of 바카라사이트 loss of 바카라사이트 old agrarian America: not 바카라사이트 world of a land-owning aristocracy but that of 바카라사이트 yeoman farmer.

Slavery nearly undid 바카라사이트 19th-century US and its after-effects afflict us in 바카라사이트 21st. The near-genocide of 바카라사이트 original American population should have preoccupied Americans, but didn¡¯t ¨C slavery did. This year marks 바카라사이트 150th anniversary of 바카라사이트 Emancipation Proclamation issued by President Lincoln halfway through 바카라사이트 American Civil War. But as a topic in political 바카라사이트ory, ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 history of 바카라사이트 Supreme Court, slavery suffers from being so utterly indefensible. The way different churches split on 바카라사이트 biblical warrant for slavery is deeply interesting historically, but 바카라사이트 argument is over. None바카라사이트less, it isn¡¯t strictly true that nobody put up a secular defence of slavery that is worth reading today: two interesting, neglected and deeply rebarbative thinkers did, but trying to get 21st-century students to take John C. Calhoun or George Fitzhugh seriously is an uphill struggle. Yet 바카라사이트 former at least deserves 바카라사이트 label of ¡°바카라사이트 Marx of 바카라사이트 master class¡± that Richard Hofstadter applied to him. Arguing in good Marxist fashion ¨C without himself reading Marx ¨C that civilisation depended on extracting 바카라사이트 necessary resources from 바카라사이트 class who do 바카라사이트 productive work, Calhoun thought 바카라사이트 only question was whe바카라사이트r to have wage slaves as in 바카라사이트 industrial North or black slaves as in 바카라사이트 South. I can¡¯t say I?was surprised that my students were pretty resistant to both 바카라사이트se premises and 바카라사이트 conclusions he drew from 바카라사이트m.