Posted on 11/22/2009 9:00:32 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Philosophically speaking, there are two Americas, each with a founding father. The first man, born 500 years ago last July, was the theologian John Calvin. Should this sound incredible, bear in mind that this has been the contention of more than a few historians in the past.
In his book Christianity and the Constitution, John Eidsmoe lists several reasons for agreeing with this estimation. First, at the time when America became a country, about two-thirds of the population had a religious affiliation that was at least partly Calvinistic in doctrine. In fact, it was the persecution of that particular religious inclination that drove many if not most of the immigrants across the Atlantic and into the often harsh environs of the New World in the first place.
The Reformed doctrine that Calvin systemized was a central force in shaping not only the religious perspective of early America, but also the very structure of its government. For example, their acceptance of Calvin's teaching that every aspect of man is sinful by nature led the colonial leaders to reject the utopian ideas forwarded by the French philosophers of that time.
It was the French Revolution, not ours, that followed the edicts of the Enlightenment, with cataclysmic results. America's founders focused instead on creating a balance of power between government and the individual, to avoid the opposing evils of anarchy and despotism. This they accomplished by decentralizing government -- in a manner resembling the Presbyterian form of church government that Calvin had long before instituted -- and by divesting its power into three separate branches.
Eidsmore goes on to point out that the priesthood of all believers, a protestant doctrine that Calvin expounded on, led to the education of nearly all America's citizens, since all believers are responsible for seeking to know what God has said to them in the Bible. This widespread literacy allowed the democratic system to operate, given the relative isolation of towns back then, and the lack of any mass media other than the printed word.
In addition, Calvin exhorted believers to work hard, while declaring secular occupations to be every bit as holy as that of the pulpit. These teachings, along with his view on the limitations of government, together set the philosophical stage for Capitalism. Given all of these factors, one can see just how profound an influence this theologian has had on the social and political formation of the United States of America.
The founder of the other America (which, in view of the first one, might well be considered the anti-America) also had a major anniversary this year, having been born in 1809. Though his discipline was science, the theory of origins that he formulated from his observation of plants and animals has had enormous implications in America's social and political realms as well. I am, of course, referring to Charles Darwin.
In his article entitled "Progressivism and the New Science of Jurisprudence," Bradley C. S. Watson lists six core ideas that social Darwinists in the 20th century came to have with respect to politics in general and constitutional government in particular.
First, there is the denial of fixed or eternal principles that might aid the wise course of any government. Next is the notion that continual growth is the goal of the state, and never-ending change is means to that end. Third, social Darwinists stress experimentation with government institutions and laws from a utilitarian perspective. Thus, the only valid way to determine good policy from bad is the particular consequences of its implementation.
The fourth core belief, according to Watson, is the history of a government as an "inevitable process" rather than merely a cause and effect chain of events. Of course, if it is a process, then, despite temporary setbacks, the state will, on the whole, continue to improve. The fifth idea is that an elite class is needed to supervise the steering of government's great ship, through the obstacles of obsolete institutions, laws and ideas. The final belief is that truth and moral rightness are relative to the particular position in a government's history.
It's not hard to distinguish which of the two philosophies President Obama adheres to. Change was but half of his campaign mantra, yet it was offered as a virtue in itself. "I am someone who is no doubt progressive," he proudly proclaimed. He is also an elitist. That is evident from the fact that he never denounced the messianic laurels that were so lovingly placed at his feet. Moreover, since the election, the president and his ever-expanding court of czars have, through their never-ending quest to takeover private industry, shown no regard for the limitations of power the Constitution has drawn, and the highest regard for themselves as America's neo-monarchy.
As for his other partners in crime, the reigning congress, Barney Frank is a particularly glaring example of elitism. We see it all too clearly in the belligerent manner in which he's answered both protesting citizens, and conservative commentators such as O'Reilly. When the banking crisis hit, just over a year ago, he unabashedly expressed the mentality of those currently running the country with the following statement:
I think there are a lot of very rich people whom we can tax down the road, and recover some of this money.
Thus, whatever funds private citizens are able to amass belongs to the federal government, to be gathered and dispensed in whatever way they see fit. They alone are capable of redirecting such "resources" wisely, as they chart America on a new and far more glorious course.
Finally, as for denying objective truth, let alone eternal principles, the only truth the reigning Democrats concern themselves with can be found in fluctuating polls. To them, good and evil are obsolete notions that only intellectual Neanderthals bother about. They may refer to such concepts, to pacify the masses, as after the 9/11 attacks, or to slander opponents, as when Pelosi compared Tea Party protesters to Nazis, but they do so without genuine conviction. Their only rudder in directing our nation is an insatiable appetite for control. The multitude of lies they have to commit in order to accomplish this end amounts to nothing in their jaded eyes.
Due to our ethnic diversity and the foggy halls of public education that most citizens have trudged through, the picture is less than clear as to which current of thought the American public stands in. This is evident from the fact that, while most Americans consider themselves Christian, a majority also say that truth is relative. Yet, according to a 2004 CBS poll, most Americans don't believe Darwin's theory. And it seems clear that an even greater majority have come to regard the social Darwinism employed by Obama and his congressional cronies as a bust.
Ironically, the very utilitarianism that progressives hold up as their standard inevitably works against them. They may not be intellectually consistent, but Americans in general are correspondingly pragmatic. As such, they can see that, rather than bringing about positive change, the progressive politicians are dismantling our present quality of life and destroying our country's chances for future prosperity. And they will vote accordingly in 2010.
If only. Progressives are amazingly unconcerned with the practical consequences of a policy.
Then where’d this “freedom” stuff come from? Strict Calvinism has no room for free will.
Everyone is either elect or reprobate. No chance of changing it. No free will. Grace is irresistible, as is reprobation. And so forth.
On the island where we go in Maine in the summer, there’s a Free Will Baptist Church. It’s named that way to distinguish it from the other Baptist Church on the island.
I’m not attacking Baptists here, just saying that it took more than Calvinism to make America what it was at the Founding.
I have some old friends at Calvin University. They have their beliefs; I have mine, and we can agree on a lot of things like traditional families and the right to life.
Since when has the Left ever shown a fondness for science? They cut off funding for the supercollider. Their funding of NASA is niggardly and of the lowest priority. They don't want to go to the moon. They don't want to go to Mars. Their hatred of the drug companies has the effect of cutting off research and development of new drugs. Their support for global warming hokum stems not from serious scientific inquiry but from political calculation.
I think they'd throw science under the bus in a New York second if it'd further their political goals.
Marx is their man, not Darwin.
I go with Calvinism.
How could an educated person write a headline including ‘America’s’ when the context indicates that they meant ‘Americas’
It is called a typo and if you have been here in FR for some time, you should know that we don’t have the facility to correct typos in our original posts.
Great article, and thanks for posting it. American Thinker has really had a lot of wonderful stuff lately. With regard to the article, I wish the author would have provided a brief description of who Bradley C. S. Watson was for the benefit of ignoramouses like me. I had to google it. One very interesting thing to me is that the term ‘social darwinist’ has until now been a pejorative used by the left.
Calvinism may have no room for free will when it comes to Sotreiology(Doctrine of salvation). But when it comes to economical stuff, as far as I know, most of them are very free will, your standard of living on earth is determine by your own works or lack of it. As far as government goes I believe they were for very limited government, and the doctrine of common grace, that is if you keep God's law you would more likely be blessed, and if you didn't you would be cursed. No just thing as being blessed by the government.
“Calvinism may have no room for free will when it comes to Sotreiology(Doctrine of salvation). But when it comes to economical stuff, as far as I know, most of them are very free will, your standard of living on earth is determine by your own works or lack of it. As far as government goes I believe they were for very limited government, and the doctrine of common grace, that is if you keep God’s law you would more likely be blessed, and if you didn’t you would be cursed. No just thing as being blessed by the government.”
here here! Indeed ones success was seen as a sign of God’s blessing and being in His will.
I do know that the thinking of Polybius, Cicero, Coke, Montesquieu, Blackstone, and especially John Locke peppered the writings of our Founders and Framers. Their historical reading and broad perspective of the Bible, Greek, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, European, and English history was remarkable.
IMHO, there isn't a chance in a thousand that such people, unstained by nouveau and self destructive philosophies will meet again. Pity.
That is not the only valid way or even any way at all - a simple understanding of human nature SHOULD be more than enough to determine the consequences of their experimenting.
Taking over healthcare is a good example, but is somehow beyond the grasp of all these people who always think they are the smartest ones in the room.
Um... I was going along all right with Calvin, thinking that the writer was going to steer into Max Weber’s Protestant work ethic and the birth of capitalism...and then I get this Charles Darwin stuff. *sigh*
The real division in the United States right now is between liberty and equality. Those of us who love liberty understand that it will create wealth and progress, but with the price that some will succeed and others will fail. Others love equality, and that comes at the price of requiring an overpowering force - such as government - enforcing that equality in the face of our obvious differences.
I suddenly appreciate why Darwin waited decades before gingerly telling others about the results of his observations and thinking.
In fact, the essence of evolution involves the culmination of a millions of individual choices by individual organisms based on local conditions and individual needs - certainly not “the collective.” It’s not surprising that the idea emerged at the same time as the idea of free markets and individual rights. The bastardization of that idea by national and international socialism has to do with those seeking to control the process, not evolution itself. That’s like blaming the free market ideas of Adam Smith for the command economy of the Soviet Union.
Poor Darwin. He really should have become a minister like his father wanted.
Before I clicked the link I thought the two were going to be:
John Locke (White Hat)
G. W. F. Hegel (Black Hat)
(Honorable mention: Immanuel Kant - Black Hat)
Even given all power and knowledge, no humans are or can be smart enough to run a modern economy. Far too much information, even with modern computers, to efficiently manage.
The more complex and modern an economy becomes, the less possible effective control becomes. That's why Stalin could (kind of sort of) build an industrial smokestack economy in the 1930's, albeit at unbelievable cost in resources and human suffering. It's also why his successors kept falling farther behind the West each year. A market economy is simply so much more efficient.
My biggest beef with a modernized command and control economy is not that it's immoral and oppressive, although it is. It's that it isn't possible.
A free market economy is the economic equivalent of evolution in biology, as the scientific method is in philosophy. They’re all messy and terribly inefficient. But they work, and the alternatives don’t.
The odd thing is that in America those who believe most fervently in biological evolution often reject the efficacy of economic evolution. The reverse is also true.
Very strange.
>>>A free market economy is the economic equivalent of evolution in biology, as the scientific method is in philosophy. They’re all messy and terribly inefficient. But they work, and the alternatives don’t.
The odd thing is that in America those who believe most fervently in biological evolution often reject the efficacy of economic evolution. The reverse is also true.
Very strange.<<<
Thanks for the reflection. I’ve thought about this, too. My guess is that there are issues of control here, on both sides. Those who reject the free market do so because they think that they can control it - using the knowledge gained from the study of the free market. They embrace evolution with similar thinking - now that they have the knowledge of how species interact, they feel like that knowledge can be used to control species, especially the human species.
Those who embrace the free market love freedom and liberty -concepts that first emerged that those things are “ordained by God.” In other words, there was no such thing as divine rights of kings, but there were divine attributes which reflect human liberty and freedom, among which are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” But the idea of living things existing and changing seemingly without that divine touch must really create a cold chill down the spine of those who love God and his creation. Of course, creationism implies control outside human hands, so it’s not a totalitarian impulse, but it is a reasonable rejection of a totally secular view of the universe.
Like I’ve written before, everything that I read about in science texts just reinforces my awe for God’s creation. Science just tells me about structure of the material universe; religion tells me what it means. Both can live quite happily as roommates. The good news is that I really believe the religious community will eventually come around and accept science, like they did with the Copernican revolution; the bad news is that religion teaches me about sin, and the desire for control that motivates many people.
Thanks for your response. Have a good Sunday.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.