Center for American Progress: Prt 1: Intellectual Heritage
Thomas Jefferson: "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate
ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But
I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the
human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries
are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of
circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might
as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized
society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." (Thomas Jefferson who wrote in 1816)
Justice Louis Brandeis, Holmes’ colleague, is especially eloquent on this point. Brandeis
explained in his famed essay, “The Living Law,” that the meaning of the American
Constitution necessarily shifted as democracy “deepened” over time. First pursuing a
“government of laws and not of men,” Americans later sought “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” and finally pursued “democracy and social justice.”
It should be noted, however, that Brandeis believed his argument to be well within the
American founding tradition. He considered Alexander Hamilton “an apostle of the living
law,” since he always considered the law to be “ a reality, quick and human, buxom and
jolly, and not a formula, pinched, stiff, banded and dusty like a royal mummy of Egypt.” (p.11/footnote 28)
Pragmaticism: "James formulated the same idea in somewhat more straightforward
terms: “The pragmatic method in such cases is to try to interpret each notion by
tracing its respective practical consequences. What difference would it practically make to
anyone if this notion rather than that notion were true? You must bring out of each word
its practical cash value, set it at work within the stream of your experience.”33
"The meaning of natural rights in pragmatic terms consisted of
their effects. If the traditional interpretation of the right to amass property resulted in
suffering, exploitation, and inequality, then this was the real meaning of this principle. It
remained for voters and political leaders to consider if these consequences were in keeping
with the good of the community, but Dewey was convinced that they were not." 13
While American individuals at the founding sought protection from government intervention in
their private lives, 20th century Americans found their lives more dangerously determined
by massive economic and social forces. Dewey wrote, “Present evil consequences are
treated as if they were eternally necessary, because they cannot be made consistent with
the ideals of another age. In reality, a machine age is a challenge to generate new conceptions
of the ideal and the spiritual.”38
In his famous essay, “Two Concepts of Liberty,” philosopher Isaiah Berlin argues that there are two fundamental ways of understanding liberty. Negative liberty is the freedom from formal coercion, restraint, or limits. It is closely linked to the classical liberal school of political thought. Positive liberty is the freedom to pursue and achieve ends. It is often considered in terms of human individual flourishing. Individuals are free insofar as they are capable of pursuing the ends they choose. Dewey took this to be the true meaning of liberty in a modern democratic state.40
The Role of Science: Since progressives argued that public policy ought
to be designed to serve the common good, many enthusiastically applied the scientific
method to the study of politics. Invigorated by recent successes in the natural sciences,
progressives believed that economic and political science could help to improve public
policy’s effectiveness and accountability. Modern sociology and psychology provided progressives with helpful evidence in support of political change. In many cases, this approach
led to new, comprehensive shifts in the approach to longstanding political problems. This
was particularly useful for adjudicating between competing interests in the political, economic,
and social spheres, since it provided a way of stripping away rhetoric and exploring
the actual consequences of various policy approaches. Progressivism—the promotion of human autonomy within a democratic national community— thus provided Americans with the means and the ideas to shape their own lives and destinies in better ways. It provided them a viable way to free themselves from the tyranny of excessive corporate power and a corrupt political class without losing the positive effects of technology, industrialization, and capitalism. It made economic behavior subject to public regulation, instead of neglecting the domination of public institutions by economic interests. It paved the way toward the midcentury “mixed economy” that lifted living standards for millions of people, reduced poverty and inequality, and helped to create the vast American middle class.
No comments:
Post a Comment