the Founders expected the courts to void laws they found unconstitutional.Details
The life of a liberty activist is not always the easiest road to follow. Sticking to principles and not simply selling out to the highest bidder can make it even tougher. We work long, long hours and get attacked from all sides of the political spectrum.
Just by keeping the message the same, we see shifts over who leads those attacks too. For example, during the Bush years, we’d often get conservatives attacking us for opposing his unconstitutional policies.
PEOPLE REALLY SAY THIS STUFF
We hear things like –
“Are you with the terrorists? Bush is just trying to keep us safe. That’s his job!”
Or the classic…
“You don’t like it here? Move to Cuba, commie!”Details
Did the Founders approve of Obamacare in 1798? Absurd.Details
No one doubts that our understanding of historical figures may need to be revisited from time to time. But academic specialists have been known to overreach. To portray a historical figure in a light exactly opposed to the popular impression and to how all other scholars have viewed him is far more exciting than repeating the boring conventional wisdom. And if you can contrive a case that an admired statesman from history actually supported your own views after all, all the better.
Poor Thomas Jefferson has suffered this kind of treatment at the hands of countless historians, and Marco Bassani, a scholar of the history of political thought, will have none of it. Bassani, an American-born professor teaching at the University of Milan, takes ruthless aim at what has been called the “scholars’ Jefferson,” who bears scant resemblance to the classical liberal figure of the popular mind. Jefferson is one of those cases in which — in terms of his views on property, states’ rights, the Union, political majorities, and the Constitution — the earlier, conventional view was in fact the correct one. Bassani’s wide-ranging knowledge of Jefferson scholarship serves him well in Liberty, State, & Union, as he carefully describes and then refutes the competing schools of thought.
He begins with the controversy over “republicanism” and “liberalism” that erupted among historians of early America in the latter half of the 20th century. The “republican” consensus that developed sought to downplay, and even to dismiss altogether, the role of classical liberalism in the tradition of John Locke from the formative influences of the revolutionary generation. In its place they substituted an ideology called “republicanism.”Details