Reasoned Argument: Counter to Cancel Culture, Session 7

[Music] welcome everyone this is the seventh session of our book club reasoned argument the counter to cancel culture tonight we're going to start off with the french revolution and then we're going to go into the washington administration now the discussion between or debate between burke and payne over the revolution was carried over from last week but it turns out to be a good thing because the revolution has an impact on the washington administration so let's look at the three thing points for tonight first the french revolution as viewed by edmund burke thomas paine and how that affects american law and politics two washington builds america's constitutional structure and has to resist french radicalism three the lessons from washington's farewell address including and shaped by his reaction to the french revolution so let's go to the first point for tonight and that is the french revolution as you by edmond burke and thomas paine of course so here's a photo of burke edmund burke is claimed by many to be the father of conservatism and yet even some liberals claim burke is an interesting character for many reasons and one of those is that as a member of the house of commons for 29 years he was really a defender for the american colonies and eventually was willing to concede that they should be independent so there's a lot going for burke in terms of americans but we're going to look at it later on as well and ask about his rhetoric because he was a great statesman yes and he wrote a lot but he's also a great speaker and that's very important as we'll see in the following selection that i'm going to take from a summary of burke's position and his importance so this selection is from the american conservative let me read this piece that was uh created by peter stainless dr peter stanlis burke's electrifying maiden speech in parliament given in january 1766 urge repeal the stamp act so right out of the box he's taking the side of the american colonies that catapulted him to national fame from beginning to end burke's main purpose regarding britain's colonies was to preserve and harmonize american liberty and british sovereignty he was convinced that the conflict between britain and america resulted from important actions by the british government including taxing the colonies without their consent so what bert's position is important is to show that the american view wasn't just one-sided it is a prominent member of the house of commons basically was saying that the british government which he very much supported was nevertheless acting imprudently in a way that was hurting the relationship with the colonies so back to text all were unsuccessful attempts to persuade the king that is the letters and speeches he gave his ministers the majority of parliament and the british public of the folly of england's policy towards the colonies and the great danger in attempting to coerce americans into obedience now we're going to continue with this piece from peter stanley's burke never believed that the colonies sought independence on speculative or ideological theories of absolute rights that's to be important in terms of works consistency and his opposition to the french revolution pointing out that the american revolution the french revolution are very different but rather that they're they rebelled as disaffected subjects of britain who wish to preserve their constitutional rights and the constitutional rights of englishmen we've seen before and will emphasize again are very different than the abstract rights of man as the war of rebellion continued burke became convinced that the colonies were lost to britain and he was among the first to willingly grant independence to the colonies burke is really non-ideological what do i mean by that he doesn't have a clearly outlined system of political theory what he has are principles certain key principles and it's heavily grounded in history and tradition nature and natural law all of that is in a mix it's not something you write out or that he wrote out in a systematic way and for this reason different people can find different things in burke makes a rather fascinating in that sense what we want to focus on is his work the reflections on the revolution the french revolution now this may not be his most comprehensive book or the one best to illustrate his thinking but it's the one for which he is most well known in this book he is attacking the whole notion of abstract rights of man why is this important to us well because the french declaration on the rights of man along with the american declaration become the basis for modern discussions of human rights post second world war america and the world and we have a tendency to go towards the abstractions rather than the historical understanding of the rights involved burke predicted first of all burke actually supported the revolution initially until he realized what the declaration for the right of the rights of man that these were not like the americans at all these were very abstract and that at that point he turned against it and started to attack what was going on in france and quite uh visibly realized that it was not going to end well it was going to end in violence so let's go now to our first excerpt from burke's reflections you will observe from magna carta to the declaration of right it has been the uniform policy of our constitution to claim and assert our liberties as an entailed inheritance derived to us from our forefathers and to be transmitted to our posterity as an estate specifically belonging to the people of this kingdom without any reference whatever to any other more general or prior right by this means our constitution preserves a unity in so great a diversity of its parts we have an inheritable crown an inheritable peerage and a house of commons and a people inheriting privileges franchises and liberties from a long line of ancestors burke is stressing inheritance that is it's a long line it's historical it is traditional it is not abstract that's the whole point of this part of his his reflections but the age of chivalry is gone that of sophistic economists and calculators have succeeded and the glory of europe is extinguished forever never never more shall we behold that generous loyalty to rank and sex that proud submission that dignified obedience that subordination of the heart which kept alive even in servitude itself the spirit of exalted freedom the unbought grace of life the cheap defense of nations the nurse of manly sentiment and heroic enterprise is gone it is gone that sensibility of principle that chastity of honor which felt a stain like a wound which inspired courage whilst it mitigated ferocity which ennobled whatever it touched and under which vice itself lost half its evil by losing all its grossness that's one of the most famous lines from burke about the age of chivalry is gone and then the age now of sophisters meaning false reasoners office economists and calculators accountants yeah that's the age we live in we've lived in it for a long time question really is how can conservatives use berkey and record rhetoric to deal with the revolution of france which in many ways is still with us so when you read from sections of the rights of man you easily can see why payne was welcomed into france even though he couldn't speak any french let's read as mr burke occasionally applies the poison drawn from his horrid principles not only to the english nation but to the french revolution and the national assembly and charges that august illuminated and illuminating body of men with the epithet of usurpers i shall sans ceremony place another system of principles in opposition to his the english parliament of 1688 did a certain thing which for themselves and their constituents they had a right to do and which it appeared right should be done but in addition to this right which they possessed by delegation they set up another right by assumption that of binding and controlling posterity to the end of time the case therefore divides itself into two parts the right which they possess by delegation and the right which they set by assumption the first is admitted but with respect to the second i replied there never did there never will and there never can exist a parliament or any description of men or any generation of men in any country possessed of the right or the power of binding and controlling posterity to the quote end of time or of commanding forever how the world shall be governed or who shall govern it and therefore all such clauses acts or declarations by which the makers of them attempt to do what they have neither the right nor the power to do nor the power to execute are in themselves null and void every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the agent generations which preceded it the vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies man has no property in man neither has any generation of property and the generations which are to follow the parliament or the people of 1688 or of any other period had no more right to dispose of the people of the present day or to bind or to control them in any shape whatever than the parliament or the people of the present day have to dispose of bind or control those who are to live a hundred or a thousand years hence every generation is and must be competent to all the purposes which its occasions require it is the living and not the dead that are to be accommodated when man ceases to be his power and his wants cease with him and having no longer any participation in the concerns of this world he has no longer any authority in directing who shall be its governors or how its government shall be organized or how administered there's a certain attractiveness to what pain is saying with the notion that every generation is free to start over again but when you think about it it means scrapping everything that there is in place at least the notion that you have a right to do that only in the french revolution and revolutions like it since has that been attempted the key to our constitution which pain could not really have liked is that it allows both it allows a certain permanence in the constitution with the ability to change quite a bit through the legislative process as radical as pain seems to be he's not that radical compared to the real radicals in the french revolution and why is that important pain is really inconsistent with our constitution but these people who are the radicals in france and who have a great deal of influence around the world indeed all of the revolutions basically since the french revolution have been driven or find their roots in the french revolution including the bolshevik revolution the f and the chinese cultural revolution and some would say even our own counter cancel revolution so we're now about to transition to washington and remember washington used the writing of pain to inspire his troops that is from the crisis but that doesn't mean that he is agreeing with pain on the french revolution it's going to be quite the opposite of that washington not only doesn't support the french revolution he has to deal with it and work against it why the french revolution is a threat to our constitution and people in the united states need to understand that there are many legal academics who actually are quite supportive of the ideas of the french revolution and of course you have the french declaration of rights as part of the basis for the un's declaration on human rights so let's turn now to the next section which is going to take us into washington as well as continue our discussion about the french revolution section two is the following washington builds america's constitutional structure and resists the french revolution french radicalism washington is the indispensable man as justice scalia and others have referred to him he doesn't get enough credit he doesn't even get his own day anymore it used to be washington's birthday and lincoln's birthday now it's president's day well a lot of young people don't know who these presidents are and maybe they think they're simply we're simply celebrating recent presidents no we're celebrating the two presidents that made and then kept the union together that's why they're celebrated and their great leadership so washington is the indispensable man and he earned the reputation as a result of winning the revolutionary war and without him there really probably wouldn't been a constitutional convention or it wouldn't have turned out the way it did washington said very little at that convention but it was his presence and his support for madison and others in particular who wanted a stronger government that was critical all the way through and afterward everyone knew that washington would be the first president that gave us stability in his person from war to constitutional convention through ratification and into the first presidency and remember patrick henry's attitude and great respect and i would suspect fear of washington fear in the sense that henry was opposing what was washington's project so we were blessed not only with great intellects but we were great blessed with a great leader and without washington it is difficult to imagine that we actually could have succeeded to the extent that we did but washington was not himself as strong maybe as the image that he projected and let's look at what forest mcdonald has to say about him in novus ordo so washington was self-consciously playing a role says forrest mcdonald living his life in such a way as to establish and maintain a certain public image and adams or jefferson could find role models in books but washington was not a bookish man there was also the military ideal with his emphasis on glory and honor and then forrest mcdonald talks about the model of republican virtue it seems likely that the ideal in washington's case was joseph's addison's play cato think about that washington was shaped by something that dominated public culture now compare that to our age as opposed to an earlier time in our country when people students that is read biographies and what was the purpose of reading biography it wasn't just about the information on the person as such it was as role models everyone even adults need role models but especially students youngsters need role models without role models they don't have an idea about what to do of course the most important and first role models should be parents but parents don't always live up to the highest expectations that children may have and it may be that they have interests that are not like those of the parents so they have to find a role model somewhere where do they find them today given all the time that young people spend on social media including video games many of them violent what can we expect in the education of our young people a couple of years ago i saw that there was a poll taken of young people and it was said that the number one ideal for most of them was to become quote a celebrity isn't that wonderful but it's understandable because the video games and television and movies they are all art forms and life does imitate art it imitates it for a model and this is a serious situation for us in which we have to understand the importance of education and let's look at in particular how this business a role model affected the formation of the politics at the founding in a way that is difficult for us to understand today washington was a tremendous leader even though he wasn't bookish and we need great leaders the difficulty as i've already indicated is how do you find them how do you grow them but a leader has to be able to persuade now rarely is that word used today it is instead communication indeed they talked about president reagan as a great communicator no that was a bad description of him he was first of all an advocate for what for our freedom he believed deeply in it and when he went to the berlin wall and said mr gorbachev tear this wall down that had a huge impact in eastern europe it gave great hope one line we are not training people to understand that the power of belief expressed adequately to the general public is what gives leadership so i'm going to read this clip from forest mcdonald but not in no notice order it's from another book that is the biography of alexander hamilton but this reading i think is very insightful about washington in terms of our understanding of him so washington clearly did not think of himself as a symbolic king indeed though he always wanted the esteem of his countrymen he thought they carried the matter too far it made him downright uncomfortable to receive the adulation normally due to royalty yes that's the kind of adulation he had he was also generally genuinely afraid of such treatment why where his popularity unlike that of a king rested ultimately on performance and as he took office the people were experi expecting miracles if the constitutional experiment failed extravagant praise could become equally extravagant censure nor was he being falsely modest when he protested in his inaugural address that his talents were not up to the test before him most of the problems with which he would have to deal as president were beyond his experience and our fact many of them were beyond his can as well he determined that his only hope was to surround himself with able men supervise them as closely as possible and pray for the best now these challenges were great in themselves but two and a half months after his inauguration washington has to face up to the french revolution and although it's almost never talked about in terms of washington in in the basic textbooks anyway it has an impact and that's what we have to think about going forward the french revolution and the impact on this administration as in england there was fear in the united states among those who had been responsible for the constitution that the radicalism in france would spread to the united states jefferson was supportive of the french revolution there were the formation of democratic clubs in the country the first real praising of democracy in that sense and it was a radical sense and the french were involved in promoting that in the country and so the notion of foreign interference in the us is something that later washington will focus on in his farewell address all of these factors are going at a time when washington's got this huge undertaking there's no precedent for what he's doing what the others are doing and he's got to rely on these great minds and great men that he's put together but they don't all get along madison and hamilton did get along but that quickly changes madison and jefferson continue to get along but we find the factionalism that madison wrote about in federalist 10 quickly takes over in the administration of george washington and along with this comes a concern especially on one of the biggest issues the bank of the united states but the bank of the united states is not only one issue it's characteristic of the whole financial plan that hamilton was putting forward the opposition of hamilton and madison to that plan so it is in that context that i want to turn to arguments first of all from jefferson against the bank of the united states because some of his arguments don't show up in the decision by chief justice marshall in the mcculloch case later but also it's important to realize there were no constitutional cases to deal with at the point that we're addressing in congress and with the president whether or not to create a bank of the united states this has to come based on argument argument by the two sides jefferson and hamilton over whether the constitution will support such a thing will support a corporation of a bank and what the impact of that will be so let's look first of all at one of jefferson's or part of jefferson's argument jefferson is referring to an argument made on behalf of the bank in this paragraph and he begins by saying to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power no longer susceptible of any definition among anyone committed to the constitution in any form of an originalist interpretation yes we have to agree that congress should not go beyond its powers that's the easy part when it comes to interpreting particular words it's not to say that they are open to any interpretation but even originalists will have disagreements at points as to what a particular word means here though it's really more fundamental that is jefferson's approach to interpretation was very tied it seems to the articles of confederation which was after all a contract it was an agreement and in any contract or agreement you only give up what you've written down that you give up now the delicacy in creating the constitution was to write words in such a way that they pin congress down but on the other hand didn't specify every thing that congress would do and that is they use more generic words and the question is whether a particular word falls within the generic word so for instance i could use the word automobile or i could use the word vehicle if i use the word vehicle it includes more than automobile it includes trucks for instance but when you say automobile you're more specific if you want to list all the vehicles you could or you could say vehicle and it would include everything this is an interpretive problem as to the meaning of words are they generic or are they terribly specific it is clear that when the constitution was drafted it was drafted in generic language that doesn't mean it's unlimited language as justice scalia says i'm not a strict constructionist in other words he didn't give the narrowest meaning to a word he would give a word its full meaning but not beyond living constitutionalists basically will manipulate a word or ignore a word as they think fit to whatever purpose they want to achieve so there are legitimate interpretation differences there were differences between justice scalia and justice thomas both originalists and also there are differences between what congress might think is and isn't constitutional and what a court might think is and isn't constitutional but we'll get back to that as we go further so back to the text the incorporation of the bank and the powers assumed by this bill have not in my opinion be then delegated to the united states by the constitution no the congress did not have a general power of incorporation it doesn't states have general powers of incorporation you go to the secretary of state to create a corporation but that does not mean that in order to execute another power that is clearly given that they can't use as the means to get there so for instance on the bank or on the post office system we have crimes against stealing the mail there is no part of the constitution that gives congress power over theft from the mail but it does give congress a power complete power over the postal service and with that congress has to protect the postal service that's an implied power related directly to the end the end being the functioning of the postal service now what jefferson is going to go on to deal with is the argument made on behalf of the bank that it is needed or convenient in order to make payments that's a critical argument that we look at right now but let us examine this convenience and see what it is the report on this subject page three states the only general convenience to be the preventing the transportation and re-transportation of money between the states well that could be rather significant but there's another thing i want to talk about just a second the treasury will have to pay in every state a part of the interest on the public debt and salaries to the officers of the government resident in that state okay there is no particular provision in the constitution that talks about employing people for the government other than the departments that there would be departments the president could get the opinion of heads of departments but it certainly contemplates that the government is going to hire people it wasn't designated what all those positions were they didn't designate an attorney general or secretary of state position or secretary of the treasury those are positions that are taken as a given as a part of running the government but once you have that you've got to pay those people there's nothing about paying people in particular it goes with the position well what about paying them does the government have to pay through the states or state banks well remember the states are very jealous of their powers there is good reason for the federal government to fear that some people in some states will attempt to interfere with the federal government and when it doesn't like a particular policy is the federal government in his right mind going to leave its funds under the control of state governments that would be crazy to do and while they may not fully enunciate it what they're saying is that we've got to control payment of salaries but there's also the question of payments and raising money for war that's a big issue remember patrick henry talked about direct taxes and war but you can't always get all the taxes you need and when you get get them where do you put them all of these issues are practical issues that derive not from pragmatism but practical related to the end of the government this is not broad expansion of power this is the exercise of power to do the things that they were allowed to do required to do by the constitution jefferson is questioning whether or not the bank fits within the necessary and proper clause it's a particular it is a perfectly legitimate argument for a member of the executive branch or a member of the congress to argue whether a particular measure is necessary and proper because that power which is an additional power in article one is one tied to circumstances it's tied to the constitution yes it's tied to the objects that are otherwise approved by the constitution but as to whether it is or isn't necessary is a matter of judgment i'm not justifying anything going beyond what is legitimately related to the end that is in the text but what members of congress can argue for and against is different from what a court should do afterwards so if congress has decided that something is necessary it doesn't mean that the court should rubber stamp that if there is a relationship between the act taken and the constitutional and listed in the powers given congress we're way far away from that for a long time with congress doing all kinds of things that are totally unrelated to the legitimate powers designated often this is through the commerce clause and the problem has been how the supreme court has interpreted the commerce clause for many years that's the problem but there is a point at which it's clear that what congress has done has no constitutional relationship to the end these may be difficult questions but that is the question for a court to decide even if congress thinks it's constitutional that has always been the struggle and it begins in this context over the bank and that's why it's such a great debate to look at between jefferson and hamilton so let's continue perhaps indeed bank bills may be a more convenient vehicle than treasury orders but little difference in the degree of convenience cannot constitute the necessity which the constitution makes the ground for assuming any non-enumerated power well the question is what does necessity mean it is an expansive term and when the constitution wants to designate a difference it can else around the constitution and respecting the states they're restricted in terms of inspection laws to those which were absolutely necessary it's a burden of proof question in the case of the state imposing a restriction based on inspection laws they have the burden of proof that it's absolutely necessary that word absolutely does not appear in the necessary improper clause and that was by intention it is left largely but not completely to the judgment of congress as long as they can make a means and relationship but many statutes as i just said have no means ends relationship it's a reasoning question that unfortunately people have forgotten or moved away the mode of reasoning that was used by the framers means ends it's tied to causation and that changes later on when people have a different notion of what is causation and i could give you an example a case in particular if you look at the lopez case in the early 90s there's a debate basically between chief justice rehnquist and justice breyer over causation and the outcome is that there's no causal relationship between what congress did in the particular bill which was a gun-free zone bill and the end of commerce that was the question and so regardless of congress's normal discretion in deciding what is necessary and therefore also proper there are limits to it and that's what lopez and later morrison were insisting on although congress has tended to totally ignore both cases besides the existing banks will without doubt enter into arrangements for lending their agency and the more favorable as there will be a competition among them for it whereas the bill delivers up bound to the national bank who are free to refuse all arrangement but on their own terms and the public not free on such refusal to employ any other bank well again there's a struggle here between whether the federal government is going to be independent in the sense of being able to operate without asking or depending on the states the state's control on the federal government was largely through the senate where senators were elected by state legislatures that has weakened federalism as i've mentioned before but here it's clear and it continues to be a problem for many years that states are trying to control the federal government and they often are the ones who are extending their powers beyond what is permitted by the constitution this struggle is not necessarily a bad struggle at all as in federalist 51 the protection of liberty is or it should be the struggle over power between the federal government and the states and the balance that is struck in the constitution was brilliant but it requires that both the states and the federal government be held within their own lanes back to text next paragraph it may be said that a bank whose bills would have a currency all over the states would be more convenient than one whose currency is limited to a single state jefferson's argument against the bank is both constitutional in the sense of the text and that the word corporation or bank doesn't appear there but also it's a policy argument as well jefferson is against banks he's following adam smith who's against corporations so it's really about the idea what kind of a country are we going to be is it going to be a country that is grounded primarily in irvarianism or is it going to be a very commercial country let's hear from hamilton and how he responds to jefferson on a broader basis than some of jefferson's argument the circumstance that the powers of sovereignty are in this country divided between the national and the state governments does not afford the distinction required it does not follow from this that each of the portion of power is delegated to the one or to the other is not sovereign with regard to the proper objects it will only follow from it that each has sovereign power as to the certain things and not as to other things it is absolutely critical and understanding of what they have created again i understand that jefferson and others didn't not only like it they didn't understand it in large part as far as i'm concerned but people who go back and say well look that kind of view that hamilton is expressing for washington is what got us in trouble no it isn't we'll hit that when things change after the civil war but for right now what they are talking about is sticking to the objects of the designated enumerated powers to deny that the government of the united states has sovereign power as to its declared purposes and trust because his power does not extend to all cases would be equally to deny that the state governments have sovereign power in any case because their power does not extend it to every case look if the people are really sovereign it means they give out some of their sovereign power to each of the two governments and those powers are sovereign as to the ends given but it doesn't mean that either one of them is as government sovereign that's why hobbes thought the idea of federalism was crazy because it fragmented sovereignty so that there wasn't any sovereignty at all and what hamilton is saying is that you can't have a situation where power itself that's legitimately given is not sovereign that's what the supremacy clause in the constitution is all about the nice thing about looking at the exchange between hamilton and jefferson is it locates us where we should be located in the text of the constitution that is under article 2 section 2 the president has the authority to ask the principal officer in each of the departments for an opinion on various matters that fall within that department so that's what he did the opinions went from jefferson and hamilton directly to washington so the other thing about this is that there is a broader argument that is to say if you compare these arguments to the opinion in mcculloch you're not going to find that some of the elements are in there why well part of this was policy but that's not the business of the court to get into policy part of this was a discussion a political theory about sovereignty mccullough gets into some of that but by painting a bigger picture of what the issue is you hamilton puts it forward for washington to understand it in the broader context unfortunately we rarely have that situation anymore in fact presidents don't normally ask heads of particular departments what they do is they ask the office of legal counsel in the justice department and i once asked justice scalia i said when did you start reading the federalist papers he said when i was edible i'll see the office of legal counsel and i said why he said because there aren't any cases you you have to understand the broader structure what i'm getting to is that the kind of narrow argument that many lawyers have been trained in and have to be trained in for representing clients in district court whether criminal or civil and in appellate courts are not adequate arguments for what we're dealing with so we're going to go into the next section and try to tie several things together along the outlines of different arguments so the next section is lessons from washington's farewell including his reaction to the french revolution i've said before that canceled culture is rooted in the french revolution why it's not just a political revolution it is a cultural revolution it was all about destruction of the existing order and that's what we're experiencing in this country right now and for this as i've already just said appellate and trial argument representing particular clients is inadequate we have to have a broader defense and by way of defense i'm going to put forward that our best defense is with washington's farewell address and some of the other addresses that we're going to have coming up in particular lincoln's but what we're have to realize is that there are different types of argument and we look back at hamilton's argument he was arguing from what richard weaver designated as the argument from definition lincoln does it as well jefferson did it in the declaration of independence but much of the focus in terms of legislation is on policy which deals with expediency and or prudence it's about the future it's a different type of argument so looking at washington right now and ask yourself whether the things that washington is arguing that are essential can they in fact be continued today and you'll note it's all grounded around the constitution and what is necessary to support the constitution so let's turn to those excerpts right now from washington's farewell address i rejoice that the state of your concerns external as well as internal no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety and am persuaded whatever partiality may be retained for my services that in the present circumstances of our country you will not disapprove my determination to retire washington was ready to retire after his first term he was talked into running for and winning a second term he had a speech already written for the after the first term by madison and now he turns to hamilton and hamilton keeps the open and i think the close from madison the rest of it you could say is hamilton but reality is that washington and hamilton work together that is washington told or listed the points for hamilton that he wanted covered so let's continue the unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you it is justly so for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence the support of your tranquility at home your peace abroad of your safety of your prosperity of their very liberty which you so highly prize but as it is easy to foresee that from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken many artifices employ to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively though often covertly and insidiously directed it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness for this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest citizens by birth or choice of a common country that country has a right to concentrate your affections the name of american which belongs to you in your national capacity must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations with slight shades of difference you have the same religion manners habits and political principles you have in a common cause fought and triumphed together the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts of common dangers sufferings and successes one of washington's major concerns is about the unity in the country back then they thought of themselves mostly as citizens of particular states not yet as citizens of the united states so his emphasis is on unity on america he understands that there are sectional divisions that may split the country apart it's a big theme in the federalist papers in the sense that confederations have always either split apart or consolidated that's the big difficulty here in contemplating the causes which may disturb our union it occurs as a matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations northern and southern atlantic and western whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views one of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts you cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection well even though jefferson and madison are creating a new party of the first party actually and the federalists effectively are in a party the idea party at the time was looked down on yes there were factions and it takes a while before the factions really formulate into a party and that's what washington is worried about the party spirit can tear the country apart that's what he's afraid of of course we see a lot of that today to the efficacy and permanency of your union a government for the whole is indispensable no alliance however strict between the parts can be an adequate substitute they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced sensible of this momentous truth you have improved upon your first essay by adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union and for the efficacious management of your common concerns this government the offspring of our own choice uninfluenced and unawed adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation completely free in its principles in the distribution of its powers uniting security with energy and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment as a just claim to your confidence and your support he's just emphasized this is not a confederation we have a government here and that's very different and a lot of people aren't going to be happy with that in a sense but we know from experience already that without a government there won't be a union all obstructions to the execution of the laws all combinations and associations under whatever plausible character with the real design to direct control counteract or all the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency they serve to organize faction to give it an artificial and extraordinary force to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community and according to the alternate triumphs of different parties to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests the emphasis on the rule of law is critical to the union he's making that point later lincoln will make the same point the only thing from the beginning that's really holding us together is the structure of laws both the constitution and the laws that will be created under it there's a sense of america but there's a stronger sense of localism towards the preservation of your government and the permanency of your present happy state it is requisite not only that you steadily discounted irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles however species the pretext one method of assault may be to affect in the forms of the constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown in all the changes to which you may be invited remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country that facility and changes in a country so extensive as ours a government of as much vigor and is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable this is an important section talking about how you can undermine the unity of the government and one of the ways is to introduce other alterations i've already talked about the 16th and 17th amendments how they were essential in creating the administrative state there's a recognition here that if the structure is altered and there is a way of moving authority from one branch to another that will be critical the administrative state is all about moving the responsibilities of congress into the executive but keeping authority over them and that completely undermines the premises of washington's address here i have already indicated to you the danger of parties in the state with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations let me now make a more comprehensive view and warn you in the most solemn manner against the painful effects of the spirit of party generally this spirit unfortunately is inseparable from our nature having its roots in the strongest passions of the human mind it exists under different shapes in all governments more or less stifled controlled or repressed but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankless and is truly their worst enemy the alternate domination of one faction over another sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrend enormities is itself a frightful despotism but this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism the disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty while i've edited the address i followed the order of it and so he comes back in this one to party and emphasizing how it can tear the country apart because of the swings back and forth maintaining stability is absolutely essential for the prospering not only of a government as a government but certainly for economic development as well it is important likewise that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with this administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres avoiding in the exercise of powers of one department to encroach upon another the spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one and thus to create whatever the form of government a real despotism a just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position the necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power by dividing and distributing it into different depositories and constituting each the guardian of the public wheel against invasions by the others has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern some of them in our own country under our own eyes to preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them if in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the constitution designates but let there be no change by usurpation for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed the president must always greatly over balance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield he's continuing the notion of each department staying in its own lane and that's exactly what we don't have today the congress is always trying to interfere in the presidency and the presidency at least the executive department has taken on a lot of responsibilities that really belong in the congress but congress doesn't want that meanwhile the supreme court has gotten itself many decades into policy making policy is for a legislative body that's the nature of it so the administrative state which is what we have departs so clearly from everything that washington is saying of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity religion and morality are indispensable supports in vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens the mere politician equally with the pious man ought to respect and cherish them a volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity let it simply be asked where is the security for prosperity for reputation for life if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice and let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle it is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government the rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundations of the fabric what he says here goes so much against the grain of what we hear in the public square in terms of keep religion out of the public square he recognizes it is absolutely essential even if you don't believe it is he said even the mere politician because we don't know how these different founders actually what they believe that's not really the point if the point is what is the public square in terms of religious and moral support and he says it's absolutely essential this is in perfect agreement with the anti-federalists who wanted more of it they thought morality and religion was everything it's not but it is a big part of what washington's understanding as essential to a republic has to be the great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible so far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith here let us stop europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns hence therefore it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships our enemies often this part of washington's address suggests that he is an isolationist that's nonsense put a focus on what he said about commercial relations his point is we ought not to get tied up like jefferson wanted to do with france that is we should deal with other countries on a purely commercial which is a utilitarian basis why because that's different from being part of the same political body there's a difference between citizens and those who are alien to us it doesn't mean they're not good people they're just different and we have a political body that ought not to be greatly influenced by him by them and that's the point the difficulty is that since the second world war or immediately after the second world war there was this launch of the new world order it got on put on hold for decades until the end of the cold war and then under president bush one there's a rebirth of the new world order that goes completely against the grain of what washington is talking about in offering to you my countrymen these councils of an old and affectionate friend i dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression i could wish that they will control the usual current of the passions or prevent our nation from running the course which is hitherto marked the destiny of nations but if i may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit some occasional good that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue to guard against the imposters of pretended patriotism this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude of your welfare by which they have been dictated as in everything washington makes a gracious ending and he says it's too much to hope that it'll have a lasting effect but clearly he does hope it will have a lasting effect it's especially interesting when he talks about those with pretended patriotism that's what we all look for and be worried about pretended patriotism and are there deals with other countries are there deals not only by political officials but what about big corporations what about big law what about big universities are we so connected with some other countries that we're really losing our independence so for next week here's what the readings are first of all the syllabus only lists the kentuckian virginia resolutions drafted basically by jefferson and madison so we'll have this link if you want to go to the event page on the federal society website for the book club reasoned argument the counter to cancel culture so go to that book site if you want but you can also just go online and find these these two actual resolutions are not very long at all it's not enough by themselves to actually cover the whole hour but i'm going to use the time to go over a couple of things from the ethics of rhetoric but before i get there i want to mention chapter 4 in novus ordo this is a chapter on economic systems and it's something that some of you will want to read and others may not want to read it but it's just background greater background explaining the differences basically between the new finance economy that um hamilton is creating as opposed to the agrarian economy that many of the anti-federalists and certainly jefferson are promoting we'll talk a lot about that but then on the ethics of rhetoric these are two things i've already actually listed in the past so for today i suggested that you look at chapter three and certain pages in there i will go over that next time the other chapter nine i mentioned it a while back and i made a slight reference to it but i really haven't done anything with it but to some extent i will do it and you have to recall or realize that this book was written in the 50s so that chapter 9 talks about certain important words that are controlling in contemporary society many of the ones he talks about certainly still are but since then there are others that have been added like uh equality racist terms like that but look at it according to the way he discusses the impact of certain words all very important look forward to seeing you again next week good night you

Channel: The Federalist Society

Views: 419

Rating: 5 out of 5

Keywords: #fedsoc, federalist society, conservative, libertarian, fedsoc, federalism, fed soc, cancel culture, cancelculture, #cancelculture

Id: Mie8EI_Eskc

Length: 73min 12sec (4392 seconds)

Published: Tue Oct 05 2021