"Nomination for Supreme Court Stirs Debate on Influence of Federalist Society" (news article, Aug. 1) does not go into the shocking ignorance of American history displayed by the Federalist Society's members.Schlesinger is relying on our "shocking ignorance" for his zinger to work. With no actual knowledge to get in the way, we shouldn't imagine that Washington, Adams and Hamilton were distorting the truth when they claimed the term "Federalist" for themselves or that the modern-day centralization of American government far exceeds what even the strongest nationalists of the founding era had in mind.
The Federalist Party, the party of Washington, Adams and Hamilton, stood for a strong central government. The Federalist Society stands for negative government and states' rights. If its members were honest, they would call themselves, in the terms of the 1790's, the Anti-Federalist Society.
७ ऑगस्ट, २००५
"Shocking ignorance of American history."
Arthur Schlesinger Jr. has a letter in today's NYT:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८ टिप्पण्या:
I find this Federalist Society bruhaha rather silly, except possibly as an indication that those opposing Roberts don't really have anything else (except that he is Catholic - but that brings up the ban on religious tests in the Constitution).
Whether Roberts is or is not a bona fide member of the society is really no more relevant than that J. Ginsberg was presumably a member of the ACLU when she represented them. (And note that Roberts apparently worked pro bono on the ACLU side of the Colo. Amdt. 2 litigation).
"With no actual knowledge to get in the way, we shouldn't imagine that Washington, Adams and Hamilton were distorting the truth when they claimed the term 'Federalist' for themselves or that the modern-day centralization of American government far exceeds what even the strongest nationalists of the founding era had in mind."
Excellent point, Ann. Washington, Adams, and Hamilton advocated a stronger central government in contradistinction to the "system" which prevailed under the Articles of Confederation and in opposition to the views of Thomas Jefferson or the ever flip-flopping James Madison. (By the way, Garry Wills' new treatment of Madison, part of the American Presidents series, which is under the general editorship of Schlesinger, is outstanding.)
While Schlesinger wants to claim the Federalists for the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, such theorizing is always difficult to prove. My own view is that the three Federalist giants he cites are closer to the moderate conservatism of Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and John McCain than to the liberalism of John Kerry or Hillary Clinton or to the conservatism of Reagan or the neoconservatism of Bush the Younger.
Institutionally, Federalism's descendants were the Whigs and then the Republicans, although clearly the latter has changed its colors many times since, as has the Democratic (formerly known as Republican) Party founded by Jefferson and Madison.
I think that the founding fathers would have been appalled at the modest centralization of the Lincoln Administration.
The record of socialism and relativism at the time of the founders was as bad as the record of socialism and relativism since the founding. Consequently, neither party (Federalist nor Democratic-Republican) can be seen as a pre-courser to the modern post FDR Democrat party. In contrast, the Federalist Society reflects the ideology of both political factions of the founders (Federalist and Dem-Republican) in the core beliefs of 1) a textual foundation to the operation of the Federal Government and 2) the liberty that derives from limited government. Today's Democratic party disregards the text and argues that the Constitution must be interpreted relative to the times. Further, today's Democrats believe that Socialism is compatible with Democracy and Liberty.
Thanks, Jim. I wish the Federalist Society would explain their name on their website. If they do, I couldn't find it. I wanted to link to it here. They shouldn't let Schlesinger's cheap shot be so easy!
"Let’s just chalk it up to Schlesinger having had a bad day."
Let's just chalk it up to Schlesinger having a political day.
Perhaps Schlesinger feels akin to the Federalists who were bitterly opposed to "Mr. Madison's" war with the British in 1812. Federalists were so against the war that they saw it as a duty to sabotage the war effort as a form of patriotism. Fortuately, for Madison, the Federalists made up a minority of the federal government at the time.
Sound familiar....
It turns out that the Federalists were right and that the War of 1812 amounted to nothing (unless you count Andrew Jackson's conquest of the Creek Indians, which set up the later annexation of Florida). Despite the worthless outcome, it actually become unpopular to have opposed the war after the war was over. Eventually, the Federalists ceased to exist as a party. Perhaps Schlesinger should read some more history... to learn that no matter how right you may become about a war effort, unbridled opposition will never become patriotism.
At some point the world is going to be punished for continuing to take Prof. Schlesinger's political mudslinging seriously. Kind of like we're currently paying the price of Chomskyism.
The age of Kennedy (well, except for the fat one) is over.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा