A recent comment praising me for invoking these men's names and thought brought to mind that neither are well enough known... especially in this sad day when the major parties don't really differ substantially on taxing, spending, regulation, federalism, etc. The difference between them comes down to...
- whom to tax and regulate
- which of our personal and civil liberties the government should be violating-
- which of our personal choices they should be usurping
It was not always so. In the early days of our Republic, there were those who favored a big authoritarian government, and those who favored a smaller less intrusive decentralized one. The leader of the latter was none other than Thomas Jefferson. Those who follow after him are called "Jeffersonians" or "Jeffersonian Liberals"
The
Wikipedia aptly enough expands this:
Jeffersonians, so named after Thomas Jefferson, support a federal government with greatly constrained powers, and are strong advocates and followers of a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Jefferson himself followed and exhibited these principles. Jeffersonian philosophy also called for state and local governments to safeguard the rights and property of citizens. Jeffersonians recognized both private and common property. During his early public career, Jefferson hoped that each State and County would be smaller examples of the national American Republic. He believed that republican governments established and governing at these levels would best keep the federal government in check.
The Jeffersonian philosophy held that all men had the right to be informed, and thus, to have a say in the government. The protection and expansion of human liberty was one of the chief goals of the Jeffersonians. They also reformed their respective state systems of education. They believed that their citizens had the right and should be educated no matter their circumstance or status in life.
The most famous adage of the movement which grew out of and flowed from Jefferson's thought is
"The government which governs best governs least." This was coined by Henry David Thoreau in his monumental essay
"Civil Disobedience." If you've not read it... you should... BEFORE you vote, and before you let the government do any more of your thinking for you or take any more of your rights away.The Wiki's summary of this captures nice the power and point of this essay.
Civil Disobedience is an essay by Henry David Thoreau that was first published in 1849. It argues that people should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that people have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice. Thoreau was motivated in part by his disgust with slavery and the Mexican-American War.
...
“That government is best which governs least”
An aphorism attributed to either Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine — “That government is best which governs least” — actually was first found in this essay.[3] Thoreau was paraphrasing the motto of The United States Magazine and Democratic Review: “The best government is that which governs least.”[4]
A Paraphrased Synopsis
- Governments are typically more harmful than helpful and therefore cannot be justified. Democracy is no cure for this, as majorities simply by virtue of being majorities do not also gain the virtues of wisdom and justice.
- The judgment of an individual’s conscience is not necessarily or even likely inferior to the decisions of a political body or majority, and so “[i]t is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.… Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice.”(¶4)
- Indeed, you serve your country poorly if you do so by suppressing your conscience in favor of the law — your country needs consciences more than it needs conscienceless robots.
- It is disgraceful to be associated with the United States government in particular. “I cannot for an instant recognize as my government [that] which is the slave’s government also.”(¶7)
- The government is not just a little corrupt or unjust in the course of doing its otherwise-important work, but in fact, the government is primarily an agent of corruption and injustice. Because of this, it’s “not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize.”(¶8)
- Political philosophers have counseled caution about revolution because the upheaval of revolution typically causes a lot of expense and suffering. However, such a cost/benefit analysis isn’t appropriate when the government is actively facilitating an injustice like slavery: Such a thing is fundamentally immoral and even if it would be difficult and expensive to stop it, it must be stopped because it is wrong. “This people must cease to hold slaves, and to make war on Mexico, though it cost them their existence as a people.”(¶9)
- We can’t blame this problem solely on pro-slavery Southern politicians, but must put the blame on those here in Massachusetts, “who are more interested in commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity, and are not prepared to do justice to the slave and to Mexico, cost what it may.… There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them.”(¶10) (See also: Thoreau’s “Slavery in Massachusetts” which also advances this argument.)
- Don’t just wait passively for an opportunity to vote for justice. Voting for justice is as ineffective as wishing for justice; what you need to do is to actually be just. This is not to say that you have an obligation to devote your life to fighting for justice, but you do have an obligation not to commit injustice and not to give injustice your practical support.
Which of our politicians dares speak this way today?
And for that matter, what of our body politic?
- Why have we let the politicians get away with pandering to us instead of leading us?
- Why do we settle for the lowest common denominator instead of striving to reach the
So when I talk of "Jeffersonian liberalism,"
"Libertarianism" Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Adam Smith, and so forth... now you know a bit of the substance and background of it. Those other people are worthy of comment as well, but I am going to stop here to determine how much more of the free Poly Sci lecture you're really interested in.
Regardless, Jefferson and Thoreau are such monumental figures that they and their thought should be known to everyone... if only we would listen to them more and the screaming "talking heads" on TV less, we'd be a lot better off as a nation and as people.
