Neither the founders nor the views they espoused fit nicely into the secularist, libertine individualistic box the neo-reactionaries wish to place them into.
You make very good points. I’d just like to comment on the “value-neutral” point. Adams, it should be noted, famously defended in court the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre, indicating that he believed in due process (supposedly something that is “value neutral” according to some “neo-reactionaries”). I think it isn’t so much that neutrality is the end goal of “value-neutral” institutions so much as it is a case of the conflict between outcomes and process. The New Right’s (and the Left’s) mistake is in thinking that if the outcomes aren’t the ones we want, the process must be corrupt and should be replaced. The conservative view (or “tragic” view, or “constrained” view) is that we cannot guarantee outcomes in life and that therefore process (the rule of law) is the thing that really matters. As Ralph said in Lord of the Flies, “the rules are all we’ve got.” Process is what separates civilization from barbarism and therefore “value-neutral” process isn’t value neutral at all.
That's very good and needed qualification. "Neutrality" in the sense of judicial and administrative impartiality (like the venerable example of Adams defending the British soldiers) is absolutely crucial to prevent us from becoming a banana republic. Similarly, "view point neutrality" in the context of free speech must be defended and civil libertarians like David French have done excellent work in defending and extending those protections. However, I think the neo-reactionaries strawman the founders regarding "neutrality" in the sense of what kinds of goods government and society should be pursuing. I love Alito's decision in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum 2009 acknowledging the legitimacy of local governments recognizing the importance of e.g. the Ten Commandments as part of our country's founding tradition in the way that, for example, some random pagan group wanting to erect the "7 Aphorisms of Summum" is not.
Right. I think the neo-reactionaries take judicial and administrative impartiality and extrapolate that to mean “neutral regarding the best aim for a good society,” which it doesn’t mean. Also, some of them seem to accept the argument you sometimes hear from some atheists that “freedom of religion” means “freedom from religion,” which it doesn’t. It’s one thing to say that the government needs to allow for diversity of religious belief and quite another to say that all hints of religion should be absent from the public square.
I would say they wanted virtue in society, and had some disagreements about the connection between government policy and its impact on virtuous society. Would they be appalled at certain neutralities in our government? Yes. Specifically, they would have balked at our expansion of freedom of speech to protect such morally corrupting things as pornography or the desecration of civic symbols, like the American flag. For them, freedom of speech was predominantly a protection of political speech and religious speech. They would have felt that the police powers of the several states justified generous limits on non-protected speech that all agreed were damaging to the moral fabric of society. But, on the other hand, they would have been outraged at the government powers exercised during COVID, specifically the shuttering of churches while other gatherings were allowed to take place. They would have been outraged at the government collusion with social media companies to silence views contrary to the official stances of the government. And, beyond everything going on with government, they would have been far more concerned with the health of society and our lack of moral fortitude and religiosity, but amazed at how well the form of government they crafted has weathered well over a century of contrary vision chipping away at it.
You said it very well, Justin. I’d just like to emphasize this point in particular:
“they wanted virtue in society, and had some disagreements about the connection between government policy and its impact on virtuous society.”
This is the crux of the issue to me, and perhaps the biggest fallacy in New Right thinking is a confusion of ends and means. Specifically, the classical liberal view tends to be more skeptical about state power as a means for achieving the end of a virtuous society. Personally I would argue that as much as I want a virtuous society, I believe the government is largely powerless to achieve that, and that only flourishing and healthy institutions (including churches) can make an impact on shaping a more virtuous society. Some on the New Right think that what I just said is, “government should promote the idea that every individual should pursue their own selfishness,” in part because they don’t believe that anyone who wants a virtuous society wouldn’t believe government power wasn’t the most effective means to achieve that goal (but I digress).
I believe in a strong separation of church and state not for the health of the state but for the health of the church! When Tocqueville came to America, he noticed that even though there wasn’t a federally established church (as there was in France), Christianity flourished in a way that it didn’t anywhere in Europe (where every nation had an established church). Throughout the 20th century, America was far more religious than Europe, despite having freedom of religion. This is still true today - and it’s still true today that France and England etc. have state churches and we don’t. Hungary and Russia (two supposed models of state-backed religion) have lower church attendance than the most secular state in America.
I agree with everything Justin said, but I think this is most important distinction to draw. The “neo-reactionary” mistake isn’t just a lack of appreciation for the Founders’ religiosity, but a mistaken view of what classical liberalism (or individualism) really is - a mistaken view that basically accepts a left-wing caricature as correct.
The only thing these men really agreed on was the fact that Britain was doing them wrong and the colonial administration had to go. Once the new country was established, the partisan disputes hidden by the Revolution re-emerged in full force.
But I would argue even the disputes were generally within the same vein of thought. The federalists and anti-federalists did not disagree over broad principles, but disagreed over whether confederal or federal government was the best way to secure their liberty and rights. And the dispute between the Hamiltonian Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans was largely a continuation of the unresolved disputes from the ratification battle, with many erstwhile federalists like Madison and Jefferson becoming the nucleus of the Jeffersonian Republicans when they observed and resisted Hamilton's centrally controlled industrial vision. Even John Adams, the quintessential classical republican, eventually revolted against Hamilton's influence within the Adams administration.
Virtually every founder (with, perhaps, the exceptions of Hamilton and Paine) all wanted a society and a form of government that concerned itself with liberty, sovereignty, and virtue. The disagreements were ones over emphasis within this framing. Which of the three is most important? Adams wondered if liberty exist and if popular sovereignty is possible if the people are not virtuous. Jefferson wondered if liberty can be preserved and if the people can become virtuous without popular sovereignty. And Madison wondered if virtue was sufficient to rely upon for effective government without establishing auxiliary precautions to protect liberty and to ensure true popular sovereignty in the face of faction. The hard fact of the matter is they are all right, but none are fully right on their own. It's a debate that never ended, and one that continues to this day and that is necessarily so, because the best path is found in tension between the emphases, in the dialectic that must be had between the varying views.
I'm a classical liberal. To be specific, I'm a Lockean liberal, a quintessential Madisonian, and generally a Jeffersonian republican. But I count as very close friends those who tend be more Adamsian republicans and Burkean conservatives with serious, but peripheral, disagreements on the balance between liberty and virtue. But we try to follow the admonition of Reagan that because we agree on 80% of the questions, we are 80% friends and allies, not 20% enemies.
I would agree that despite their variety of thought, the founders were predominantly working from within the same vein of thought. Maybe "the Anglo-American Whig Tradition" would be a good way to describe the cluster of thinkers including Madison, Jefferson, Sam & John Adams, Hamilton, Burke, Locke, Adam Smith, etc.
You make very good points. I’d just like to comment on the “value-neutral” point. Adams, it should be noted, famously defended in court the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre, indicating that he believed in due process (supposedly something that is “value neutral” according to some “neo-reactionaries”). I think it isn’t so much that neutrality is the end goal of “value-neutral” institutions so much as it is a case of the conflict between outcomes and process. The New Right’s (and the Left’s) mistake is in thinking that if the outcomes aren’t the ones we want, the process must be corrupt and should be replaced. The conservative view (or “tragic” view, or “constrained” view) is that we cannot guarantee outcomes in life and that therefore process (the rule of law) is the thing that really matters. As Ralph said in Lord of the Flies, “the rules are all we’ve got.” Process is what separates civilization from barbarism and therefore “value-neutral” process isn’t value neutral at all.
That's very good and needed qualification. "Neutrality" in the sense of judicial and administrative impartiality (like the venerable example of Adams defending the British soldiers) is absolutely crucial to prevent us from becoming a banana republic. Similarly, "view point neutrality" in the context of free speech must be defended and civil libertarians like David French have done excellent work in defending and extending those protections. However, I think the neo-reactionaries strawman the founders regarding "neutrality" in the sense of what kinds of goods government and society should be pursuing. I love Alito's decision in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum 2009 acknowledging the legitimacy of local governments recognizing the importance of e.g. the Ten Commandments as part of our country's founding tradition in the way that, for example, some random pagan group wanting to erect the "7 Aphorisms of Summum" is not.
Right. I think the neo-reactionaries take judicial and administrative impartiality and extrapolate that to mean “neutral regarding the best aim for a good society,” which it doesn’t mean. Also, some of them seem to accept the argument you sometimes hear from some atheists that “freedom of religion” means “freedom from religion,” which it doesn’t. It’s one thing to say that the government needs to allow for diversity of religious belief and quite another to say that all hints of religion should be absent from the public square.
It's interesting that they all wanted "virtue" as part of the government. The modern American government would appall them all in that sense.
I would say they wanted virtue in society, and had some disagreements about the connection between government policy and its impact on virtuous society. Would they be appalled at certain neutralities in our government? Yes. Specifically, they would have balked at our expansion of freedom of speech to protect such morally corrupting things as pornography or the desecration of civic symbols, like the American flag. For them, freedom of speech was predominantly a protection of political speech and religious speech. They would have felt that the police powers of the several states justified generous limits on non-protected speech that all agreed were damaging to the moral fabric of society. But, on the other hand, they would have been outraged at the government powers exercised during COVID, specifically the shuttering of churches while other gatherings were allowed to take place. They would have been outraged at the government collusion with social media companies to silence views contrary to the official stances of the government. And, beyond everything going on with government, they would have been far more concerned with the health of society and our lack of moral fortitude and religiosity, but amazed at how well the form of government they crafted has weathered well over a century of contrary vision chipping away at it.
You said it very well, Justin. I’d just like to emphasize this point in particular:
“they wanted virtue in society, and had some disagreements about the connection between government policy and its impact on virtuous society.”
This is the crux of the issue to me, and perhaps the biggest fallacy in New Right thinking is a confusion of ends and means. Specifically, the classical liberal view tends to be more skeptical about state power as a means for achieving the end of a virtuous society. Personally I would argue that as much as I want a virtuous society, I believe the government is largely powerless to achieve that, and that only flourishing and healthy institutions (including churches) can make an impact on shaping a more virtuous society. Some on the New Right think that what I just said is, “government should promote the idea that every individual should pursue their own selfishness,” in part because they don’t believe that anyone who wants a virtuous society wouldn’t believe government power wasn’t the most effective means to achieve that goal (but I digress).
I believe in a strong separation of church and state not for the health of the state but for the health of the church! When Tocqueville came to America, he noticed that even though there wasn’t a federally established church (as there was in France), Christianity flourished in a way that it didn’t anywhere in Europe (where every nation had an established church). Throughout the 20th century, America was far more religious than Europe, despite having freedom of religion. This is still true today - and it’s still true today that France and England etc. have state churches and we don’t. Hungary and Russia (two supposed models of state-backed religion) have lower church attendance than the most secular state in America.
I agree with everything Justin said, but I think this is most important distinction to draw. The “neo-reactionary” mistake isn’t just a lack of appreciation for the Founders’ religiosity, but a mistaken view of what classical liberalism (or individualism) really is - a mistaken view that basically accepts a left-wing caricature as correct.
The only thing these men really agreed on was the fact that Britain was doing them wrong and the colonial administration had to go. Once the new country was established, the partisan disputes hidden by the Revolution re-emerged in full force.
But I would argue even the disputes were generally within the same vein of thought. The federalists and anti-federalists did not disagree over broad principles, but disagreed over whether confederal or federal government was the best way to secure their liberty and rights. And the dispute between the Hamiltonian Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans was largely a continuation of the unresolved disputes from the ratification battle, with many erstwhile federalists like Madison and Jefferson becoming the nucleus of the Jeffersonian Republicans when they observed and resisted Hamilton's centrally controlled industrial vision. Even John Adams, the quintessential classical republican, eventually revolted against Hamilton's influence within the Adams administration.
Virtually every founder (with, perhaps, the exceptions of Hamilton and Paine) all wanted a society and a form of government that concerned itself with liberty, sovereignty, and virtue. The disagreements were ones over emphasis within this framing. Which of the three is most important? Adams wondered if liberty exist and if popular sovereignty is possible if the people are not virtuous. Jefferson wondered if liberty can be preserved and if the people can become virtuous without popular sovereignty. And Madison wondered if virtue was sufficient to rely upon for effective government without establishing auxiliary precautions to protect liberty and to ensure true popular sovereignty in the face of faction. The hard fact of the matter is they are all right, but none are fully right on their own. It's a debate that never ended, and one that continues to this day and that is necessarily so, because the best path is found in tension between the emphases, in the dialectic that must be had between the varying views.
I'm a classical liberal. To be specific, I'm a Lockean liberal, a quintessential Madisonian, and generally a Jeffersonian republican. But I count as very close friends those who tend be more Adamsian republicans and Burkean conservatives with serious, but peripheral, disagreements on the balance between liberty and virtue. But we try to follow the admonition of Reagan that because we agree on 80% of the questions, we are 80% friends and allies, not 20% enemies.
I would agree that despite their variety of thought, the founders were predominantly working from within the same vein of thought. Maybe "the Anglo-American Whig Tradition" would be a good way to describe the cluster of thinkers including Madison, Jefferson, Sam & John Adams, Hamilton, Burke, Locke, Adam Smith, etc.