Well, At Least the Tea Party Takes the Constitution Seriously
In Monday's Wall Street Journal, Peter Berkowitz notes that the Federalist Papers remain an indispensable text for anyone seeking to understand the Constitution and the principles that underlie it--which is to say, of course, for anyone seeking to understand the American experiment in democracy.
Do our institutions of higher learning take the Federalist Papers seriously? No they do not.
An excerpt:
By the end of 1788, a total of 85 essays had been gathered in two volumes under the title The Federalist. Written at a brisk clip and with the crucial vote in New York hanging in the balance, the essays formed a treatise on constitutional self-government for the ages.
The Federalist deals with the reasons for preserving the union, the inefficacy of the existing federal government under the Articles of Confederation, and the conformity of the new constitution to the principles of liberty and consent. It covers war and peace, foreign affairs, commerce, taxation, federalism and the separation of powers. It provides a detailed examination of the chief features of the legislative, executive and judicial branches. It advances its case by restatement and refutation of the leading criticisms of the new constitution. It displays a level of learning, political acumen and public-spiritedness to which contemporary scholars, journalists and politicians can but aspire. And to this day it stands as an unsurpassed source of insight into the Constitution's text, structure and purposes.
At Harvard, at least, all undergraduate political-science majors will receive perfunctory exposure to a few Federalist essays in a mandatory course their sophomore year. But at Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Berkeley, political-science majors can receive their degrees without encountering the single surest analysis of the problems that the Constitution was intended to solve and the manner in which it was intended to operate.
Most astonishing and most revealing is the neglect of The Federalist by graduate schools and law schools. The political science departments at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Berkeley—which set the tone for higher education throughout the nation and train many of the next generation's professors—do not require candidates for the Ph.D. to study The Federalist. And these universities' law schools (Princeton has no law school), which produce many of the nation's leading members of the bar and bench, do not require their students to read, let alone master, The Federalist's major ideas and main lines of thought.
How can this be?
Particularly in the aftermath of the New Deal, according to the progressive conceit, understanding America's founding and the framing of the Constitution are as useful to dealing with contemporary challenges of government as understanding the horse-and-buggy is to dealing with contemporary challenges of transportation.
Berkowitz doesn't go into this, but his argument makes me love the Tea Party even more. As a friend who works in a bookstore told me not long ago, once the Tea Party movement got started a couple of years ago, books on the Constitution, the Founders, and, yes, The Federalist, really took off. Ordinary Americans--taking our founding principles seriously. Hamilton, Madison and Jay would have been delighted.
- Comment (26)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: Well, At Least the Tea Party Takes the Constitution Seriously
It doesn't hurt to read the Anti-Federalists as well. They lost the argument, but some of their positions proved prophetic.
Jun '10
Re: Well, At Least the Tea Party Takes the Constitution Seriously
Three questions"
Isn't it odd that a group--the Tea Party--that simply wants us to read, understand, and apply some of our founding documents is vilified as extremist?
Is this not a crystal clear application of the term "moral inversion"?
Why is this so hard for people to see?
Edited on May 7, 2012 at 4:15amRe: Well, At Least the Tea Party Takes the Constitution Seriously
Exactly!
Sep '10
Re: Well, At Least the Tea Party Takes the Constitution Seriously
The Tea Party is against runaway spending and higher taxes, and they're critical of President Obama. All three of these positions are racist. End of argument!
Jun '10
Re: Well, At Least the Tea Party Takes the Constitution Seriously
Peter: Your post reminded me that the Hillsdale online course on the Constitution is now available. On the right side of Hillsdales' home website is a link to what it calls "Constitution 101: The Meaning and History of the Constitution." You need to register and can take the course free, although if you can they request a contribution. I'm partway through and it's terrific.
Please note that there's a five-part introduction by Larry Arnn, Hillsdale president and recent Uncommon Knowledge Guest. The main course is ten segments by a variety of constitutional experts.
If ever the heavy hand of government should mandate education policy, this course should be required for Seniors in high school and then repeated for college Freshman.
Edited on May 7, 2012 at 4:26amJun '10
Re: Well, At Least the Tea Party Takes the Constitution Seriously
dogsbody
The Tea Party is against runaway spending and higher taxes, and they're critical of President Obama. All three of these positions are racist. End of argument! · 5 minutes ago
Sorry. I keep straying from the approved script.
Feb '11
Re: Well, At Least the Tea Party Takes the Constitution Seriously
I praise anyone with an interest in The Federalist Papers. That said, the writer is either misleading or hysterical. A student at any top flight university who majors in political theory or American government will encounter at least a few of Publius' pamphlets.
Jun '10
Re: Well, At Least the Tea Party Takes the Constitution Seriously
Speaking of colleges and the Federalist:
Feb '12
Re: Well, At Least the Tea Party Takes the Constitution Seriously
how did it happen? the progressives, beginning in the 19th century, embraced german philosophy (hegel, then marx and nietzsche) and an evolutionary theory of politics, and began a brazen, direct, and utterly hostile attack on our framers (and the entire past, really). the new deal was merely the natural consequence of many decades of writing, speaking, and agitating against the very idea of natural rights and in favor of the power of the self-selected few.
ronald pestritto is one of the finest scholars on this subject. this essay speaks directly to this point. even if you have just a minute, i recommend taking a glance - and then buying his inimitable book on wilson and progressivism at amazon.
studying the founding began again only in the 50's and 60's, and did not begin in earnest until the 70's and 80's. professors such as herbert storing and martin diamond, colleagues of leo strauss, had a lot to do with the renaissance - not to mention, of course, the brilliant harry jaffa, among many others.
the emergence of the tea party and the popular interest in reading the original documents of the american framing is nothing short of splendid.
Feb '12
Re: Well, At Least the Tea Party Takes the Constitution Seriously
No, I think that is not true, actually, but, even if it were, is encountering "a few" of the Federalist papers anywhere near sufficient as an education in the Constitution?
I think you will find that most professors at top-reputed schools will not do more than pay lip service, if that, to the framing, and then turn back to whatever other aspect of American history they prefer to teach (often some sort of social history).
Mar '12
Re: Well, At Least the Tea Party Takes the Constitution Seriously
As to the law schools there is less to Mr. Berkowitz's argument than meets the eye. Most US law schools (and certainly the ones named) employ the case method of studying Constitutional Law. In studying the US Supreme Court opinions interpreting various phrases of the Constitution, law students will encounter the justice's quotations of pertinent Federalist Papers. A student with some familiarity with the Federalist Papers (say from undergraduate history) may have his own views on the aptness of the quote or the consistency of the court's ruling with the general philosophy of the Federalists. However, in the training of a lawyer, the focus will rightly be on knowing the judicial history of interpreting a given Constitutional provision. At this point in our legal history, Constitutional cases of first impression are vanishingly rare.
Jan '11
Re: Well, At Least the Tea Party Takes the Constitution Seriously
Peter Robinson
Hamilton, Madison and Jay would have been delighted.
What would Robert Yates have felt? Slighted, is my guess.
Oct '10
Re: Well, At Least the Tea Party Takes the Constitution Seriously
The MSM's interest in Federalism begins and ends with interviewing an earnest but inarticulate tri-corne hatted Tea Partier.
Jan '11
Re: Well, At Least the Tea Party Takes the Constitution Seriously
Only die-hard, feeble-brained, backward-looking and -thinking extremists would care about a bunch of dusty non-living documents from the eighteenth century when everybody who's anybody knows that it's the still-have-that-new-political-screed-smell nineteenth century documents that are going to let us progress forward into the glorious future. Why, they were still writing on parchment in the seventeenth century; just think off all the poor sheep that had to die just to form our government!
Edited on May 7, 2012 at 5:54amApr '11
Re: Well, At Least the Tea Party Takes the Constitution Seriously
Leporello: how did it happen? the progressives, beginning in the 19th century, embraced german philosophy (hegel, then marx and nietzsche) and an evolutionary theory of politics, and began a brazen, direct, and utterly hostile attack on our framers (and the entire past, really). ...
ronald pestritto is one of the finest scholars on this subject. this essay speaks directly to this point.
William F. Buckley once noted how liberals could not truly be patriots. The only country they could love is some potential America. I would say that today's Liberal Fascists are not Americans except in the most narrow, legalistic sense. Obama is just a figure of the future, raised outside America, his every caretaker, mentor, and close associate, from his grandfather to his wife, hating America and what has made her great and good.
Jul '11
Re: Well, At Least the Tea Party Takes the Constitution Seriously
I have been a fan of the Anti-Federalist Papers for years. I am always surprised at the number of people that not only have not read the Federalist or Anti-Federalist Papers but do not even know they exist. Truly our educational system is abysmal, the amount of damage educators and their administrators have done to our country is immeasurable.
May '10
Re: Well, At Least the Tea Party Takes the Constitution Seriously
Western Civilization does not value its own history enough to be able to preserve itself, I worry.
Feb '12
Re: Well, At Least the Tea Party Takes the Constitution Seriously
I heard something about Elena Kagan, while dean of Harvard law, changed the curriculum so students didn't have to take courses in American constitution. The topic would be covered in other classes. Can anyone verify/explain? Thanks.
Aug '10
Re: Well, At Least the Tea Party Takes the Constitution Seriously
Spot on with the recommendation to read both Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. I'd only add one other thing--toss in an overview of signers' private comments on their major concerns and also a few foreign reactions. Taken together, this is a worthy and invaluable guide to American citizenship and governance in the 21st century.
May '10
Re: Well, At Least the Tea Party Takes the Constitution Seriously
Laws only work when they adequately represent the will of citizens and are enforced. Neither is the case today.
The Constitution worked well in its first century because it reflected American values. Today, we have generations raised with powerful and centralized government. Even those who agree with limited government in principle often have difficulty imagining it or accepting it in reality. The concept of rights has been inverted from restraints upon government to provisions of government.
Which is to say that the Left is half-right. The history of our nation's founding and the Constitution are not entirely relevant to modern American government. Some parts of the Constitution survive, but other parts have become a conservative dream of paradise lost.
The genie can't be put back in the bottle. But perhaps we can tie him to a chair.