Democrats and War

I have been saying for some time now that the Democrats, while they might be critical of the way Bush has carried out the war in Iraq, are not against going to war or bombing Iran, even if this turns out to be unjust and reckless.

Here is an article that says the same thing:

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/sf/nyt3_27_7.htm

We should not think that the efforts of Democrats to oppose Bush in Iraq actually has any substance. It is an effort to appease and trick their antiwar constituency.

Unfortunately, both sides, Democrats and Republicans, are united in setting out to bomb Iran.

Stoking Revolution, in France, in Iran

I know that this is almost a re-statement of a previous entry, but I have re-worked the paragraphs. The story that is told here might be very relevant for our own times, as we face a potential US attack on Iran. If we understand the current Iran to be analogous to France in 1787, the current US to be analogous to England in 1787, and current Europe as analogous to the US in 1787, we can perhaps sympathize with Jefferson's position. In addition, we can take pause when considering our own situation. Our country might be doing things in the international sphere so as to radicalize Iran, making her look to be the kind of country we should fight. Whereas, if we were to leaver her alone or engage her diplomatically, many of the democratic changes that we claim to hope for, might happen anyway (as they were happening in France).

And so due to the French political situation, it seems to be the case that Jefferson, during the summer of 1787, remained silent about the book translation project, and while he probably did not block the project, he probably did not fight to get the book translated and published either. One aspect of the problem had to do with the political situation of France and how Jefferson saw the French experiment in relation to the ideal as compared to the English Constitution in relation to that ideal. The second aspect of the problem had to do with what Jefferson saw to be the larger political situation in Europe, and where Britain and the soon-to-be United States of America stood in relation to that larger situation.

As Jefferson wrote to Adams in the summer and Fall of 1787, he described mobs gathering in the streets of Paris. They hissed at the nobles. The King was perceived as being aloof, as he was drinking wine rather than addressing the problems of the nation. While Jefferson did not make direct attacks on Adams’s book, his letters to Adams indicate that he was aware of the ideas in Adams’s book, and that he was, perhaps, trying to draw attention to what he saw to be a more refined view of the problem of Constitutions and society. Jefferson thought that a revolution had already taken place in France, a revolution that outstripped any revolution in England: “I think that in the course of three months the royal authority has lost, and the rights of the nation gained, as much ground, by a revolution of public opinion only, as England gained in all her civil wars under the Stuarts” (Paris, August 30, 1787. Jefferson to Adams, 196-197). Jefferson did not think that the ground gained by the nation would ever be lost.

Jefferson continued this theme in a second letter sent in September in which He explained to Adams the principles of good government: “the first principle of good government is certainly a distribution of it’s powers into executive, judiciary, and legislative, and a subdivision of the latter into two or three branches.” He admitted that the English constitution was better than previous constitutions, but that it was only better in relation to this standard (Jefferson to Adams, Paris, Sept 28 1787).

As Jefferson pondered the progress made in constitution-building, he also was aware of the difficulty of building an advanced constitution, given a complex political situation. And so, he discussed the Constitution of France and England in the light of events in Europe. In August he indicated that at the same time that France was undergoing her revolution, Jefferson feared that London and Berlin might have been pining for a war against France.

France did not want such a war, and France would look for ways to change Europe rather than submit to the aggression of the English and the Prussians. France, he predicted, would change all of Europe, making it conform to her laws, rather than submit to the yoke of England (Paris, August 30, 1787. Jefferson to Adams, 196-197). In his second letter, Jefferson indicated that the French clearly saw England as her enemy, and was making diplomatic efforts to unite Russia and Austria against England (Jefferson to Adams, Paris, Sept 28 1787).

Jefferson then commented on the situation in Holland, which he thought showed that it was better to never have hereditary offices. Overall, Jefferson hoped that the nations of Europe would be able to chasten England, if only a little. He feared that a conflict was coming with England, and that the nations of Europe were hesitating before confronting her. Jefferson hoped that, in this coming conflict, America would be able to remain neutral. He feared that the English, or rather the King, would force America to take the side of the English. Jefferson thought that common sense would lead the English to leave America neutral, and so she would not.

In this letter of Jefferson to Adams, we can see the beginning of what would come to be divergent views between Jefferson and Adams over the emphases necessary to keep America closest to the ideal constitution, given the coming war in Europe. Jefferson and Adams agreed on the desirability of revolution for France. They also agreed that the best kind of Constitution involved a balancing of three powers. Their disagreements were more matters of emphasis than principle. Jefferson, from his letter to Adams, thought that the popular branch should keep a legislative power.

Adams thought it should keep a diplomatic power. Jefferson admitted that the British Constitution was better than most Constitutions, but it was very imperfect in relation to the ideal. If the French were to change their constitution, they should look to change it with respect to the ideal, not with respect to the British Constitution. The English Constitution was a compromise, given the historical circumstances, with respect to this standard. France might have already outstripped England in achieving rights to bring about this standard. By implication, it would be foolish to propose the British model for a society which was on the verge of better adhering to the ideal standard than the British compromise. A book like Adams’s, if widely distributed, might confuse the French population as to real gains that had been made in France in 1787.

In addition, Jefferson thought that to extol the English government too much might be dangerous with respect to foreign policy, and how foreign policy could affect the internal order of the soon to be United States. The English seemed to be on the verge of a war against France and come combination of other European states. To extol England at a time such as this might lead Americans to think that they were allies of the British, and to drag Americans into the war alongside the British against the other nations of Europe. This policy, Jefferson thought, would be potentially harmful to the young democracy in the US. It could also lead the US to see Britain as the standard of government, rather than the ideal that was currently being established, one of a balance of powers between the three branches of government, with the principle of representation being popular sovereignty.

This strain would only be exacerbated by the coming of the French Revolution. And, in a way, England’s bellicosity from even before the Revolution might have been partly responsible for the radical turn taken by the Revolutionaries during the revolution. Jefferson thought a great war was about to take place in Europe, and that the United States should stay out of the war. He was convinced that the end result of the war will be progress in the art of free government, furthering the advances made in the British and American revolutions, as well as the revolution in public opinion that was happening in France. In a European war, England would attempt to draw the United States into a conflict to defend aristocratic constitutions, which Jefferson, overall, did not think upheld the standard of free governments.

Adams, it seems, did not respond to the statements of Jefferson about balance of powers between the three branches. He was, overall, ambiguous about America’s relationship with England. He was ambiguous about the question of whether the United States should commit to helping England or not in the upcoming conflict. Instead, he admitted that only “Force, Power, and Strength” would restrain some nations. He thought that not England, but that Europe would try to draw America into its conflicts, and he hoped that the United States would come out richer for it, in the end (Adams to Jefferson, Grovenor Square, October 9, 1787).

Jefferson, Adams, and War

In 1787, Jefferson argued very clearly that the United States should stay out of European affairs. He saw a war coming in europe between Engalnd and France. He saw that, over time, France and the other nations of Europe would have their own internal revolutions that would bring about republican governments in those societies. What he feared was being dragged into a European war on the side of England, and to end up defending a government that was, to some degree, behind the times. Jefferson advocated neutrality. Adams was ambiguous. His response to Jefferson was that Force and power will prevail, and that America will come out richer in the end. By implication, he was open to an alliance wtih England. This ambiguity on the part of Adams helped forge one of the first major poliltical divides in the United States.

We face a similar problem now, how should the United States see itself in the Middle East? Only now, we have become what Engalnd was in the 1780s. We should learn from the wisdom of Jefferson. If we were to leave the Middle East alone, the nations there, over time, would develop republican forms of government, including Iran and Israel. Otherwise, we risk fighting wars, expanding the Empire, and destroying our way of life.

Below, is a summary that explains the previous two paragraphs.

Before 1789, we see Jefferson and Adams exchanging impressions on the events in Paris, the upcoming revolution, and their hopes and fears for its final outcome. By 1785 Jefferson was in Paris to negotiate on behalf of the United States a treaty with France on commerce. Adams was in London for a similar purpose. Within the context of negotiating this treaty, Adams and Jefferson began what became a life-long conversation about France and the French Revolution. To begin, Jefferson and Adams both sense that great changes are about to take place in the country. Jefferson notes its poverty. He also notes that the situation in Paris was growing more tumultuous over the summer of 1785. The government, which was actually fairly moderate, was putting more people in jail, especially those who were infiltrating France with radical ideas that were coming from England and the German states. He also notes the hostility that the French Court was expressing to English ideas. As an example, he observed how the Queen refused to weak clothing made from English wool (Cappon, 20-100).

By 1787, the unrest seemed to have grown. Jefferson over the summer of 1787, lots of mobs were gathering in the streets of Paris. The mobs hissed at the nobles when they saw them. The King was perceived as being aloof, as he was drinking wine rather than addressing the problems of the nation. But, Jefferson thinks that a revolution had already taken place in France, a revolution that outstripped any revolution in England: “I think that in the course of three months the royal authority has lost, and the rights of the nation gained, as much ground, by a revolution of public opinion only, as England gained in all her civil wars under the Stuarts” (Paris, August 30. 1787. Jefferson to Adams, 196-197). Jefferson does not think that the ground gained by the nation will ever be lost. At the same time, Jefferson feared that London and Berlin might have been pining for a war against France. France did not want such a war, and France would look for ways to change Europe rather than submit to the aggression of the English and the Prussians. France, he predicted, would change all of Europe, making it conform to her laws.

Jefferson indicates that the French clearly saw England as her enemy, and was making diplomatic efforts to unite Russia and Austria against England (Jefferson to Adams, Paris, Sept 28 1787). In this letter, Jefferson explains to Adams the principles of good government, and how the affairs of Europe represent a potential threat to the American system of government. Jefferson says that “the first principle of good government is certainly a distribution of it’s powers into executive, judiciary, and legislative, and a subdivision of the latter into two or three branches.” He admits that the English constitution is better than previous constitutions, but that it is only better in relation to this standard. Jefferson then comments on the situation in Holland, which he thinks shows that it is better to never have hereditary offices. Overall, Jefferson hopes that the nations of Europe will be able to chasten England, if only a little. He fears that a conflict is coming with England, and that the nations of Europe are hesitating before confronting England. Jefferson hopes that, in this coming conflict, America will be able to remain neutral. He fears that the English, or rather the King, will force America to take the side of the English. Jefferson thinks that common sense would lead the English to leave America neutral, and so she would not.

In this letter of Jefferson to Adams, we can see the beginning of the strain in the friendship between the two men. This strain would only be exacerbated by the coming of the French Revolution. Jefferson thinks a great war is about to take place in Europe, and that the United States should stay out of the war. He is convinced that the end result of the war will be progress in the art of free government, furthering the advances made in the British and American revolutions, as well as the revolution in public opinion that was happening in France. In a European war, England would attempt to draw the United States into a conflict to defend aristocratic constitutions, which Jefferson, overall, did not think upheld the standard of free governments.

Adams was ambiguous about America’s relationship with England. He is ambiguous about the question of whether the United States should commit to helping England or not in the upcoming conflict. Instead, he admits that only “Force, Power, and Strength” will restrain some nations. He agrees that Europe will try to draw America into its conflicts, and he hopes that the United States will come out richer for it, in the end (Adams to Jefferson, Grovenor Square, October 9, 1787).

Rivers of Blood

Reflecting on the French Revolution, and the disagreements between Adams and Jefferson during the 1790s, Jefferson indicates that at the heart of a disagreement was whether, in that time, the popular branch needed strengthening or whether the aristocratic and executive branch needed strengthening. Adams sided with the aristocrats, Jefferson with the popular branch. This is a conflict that has occurred throughout history.

Jefferson indicates that both are committed to free government, and that, in the end rivers of blood will flow before free government will be brought about.

Adams, in the end, says that he contemplates the rivers of blood with melancholy, impliciitly admitting he sees no other way.

This is worth thinking about. Is it really necessary that rivers of blood must flow to bring about just and free societies? Why were Adams and Jefferson unable to see another possibility? In the end, their political philosophies were both too materialistic to admit the possibility of union, republicanism, and freedom coming about any other way than by rivers of blood. They lacked a robust and prinicpled moral system. Adams at least knew that such a system was necessary, but he himself failed to articulate it.

This is all the more significant now, as the US is ready to make rivers of blood flow in the Middle East, and the most that the opponents of such activity can do is look on in melancholy.