Commentary:
The American Founding as the Best Regime
Harry V. Jaffa
April 4, 2017
G.D.O’Bradovich III
As grateful citizens, we long ago informed Apprentice Denver and Assistant to Apprentice Denver Joe that the best practical government is to be entrusted to the rule of gentlemen. Nature has divided man into three classes and these divisions are represented in the city. The mediocre who can do one thing well and gentlemen who partake both of virtue and reason. In conclusion to this part, we may that there are few gentlemen in the city.
The manner that Yours Truly understands the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is different by degrees, not by kind, from Dr. Jaffa. We understand the brilliant insight of the Founding Fathers through these documents. By explicitly stating man is endowed by the Creator with certain rights, this effectively prevents the state from having any future claim that these rights originate with the state and its laws. The Founding Fathers realized that what the state gives, the state can take away and subsequent history has demonstrated the wisdom of their prudence.
Our commentary will be limited both to allow Jaffa's erudite insights the priority they rightly deserve and to minimize our folly. The Ohio State University and the University of Chicago were members of the Committee on Internal Cooperation during the tenures both of Dr. Jaffa (1951-64) and Leo Strauss (1949-69).
The manner that Yours Truly understands the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is different by degrees, not by kind, from Dr. Jaffa. We understand the brilliant insight of the Founding Fathers through these documents. By explicitly stating man is endowed by the Creator with certain rights, this effectively prevents the state from having any future claim that these rights originate with the state and its laws. The Founding Fathers realized that what the state gives, the state can take away and subsequent history has demonstrated the wisdom of their prudence.
Our commentary will be limited both to allow Jaffa's erudite insights the priority they rightly deserve and to minimize our folly. The Ohio State University and the University of Chicago were members of the Committee on Internal Cooperation during the tenures both of Dr. Jaffa (1951-64) and Leo Strauss (1949-69).
Text and Commentary
Jaffa hints at the fundamental antagonism between philosophy and revealed religion. Philosophy questions the origins of revealed religion, while revealed religion is suspicious of the skepticism of philosophy. There can never be a synthesis between a life of inquiring, and a life of obedience. The philosopher is in fear for his personal safety, as the adherents of revealed religion cannot allow their unsubstantiated beliefs to be questioned. This has always been the issue between philosophy and revealed religion.
The founders of the United States refused to allow a state religion dominate important aspects of the new country, which would necessarily restrict or hinder the Enlightenment or Age of Reason. Therefore, the Founding Fathers accepted Plato's practical solution of having gentlemen openly rule in their new republic.
We are intrigued by this solution, as philosophers and adherents of revealed religions are separated, to reduce, but not eliminate conflicts, while gentlemen govern. Conservative gentlemen partake of virtue and reason and, therefore, actively prevent radical religious beliefs from subverting the secular nature of country.
The skepticism of modernity suggests that United States is no different, and no better, than any other country. It is evident from the various historical facts represented in this commentary that this is not a reasonable conclusion.
Modernity denies that man possesses the ability to reason and as a result, the inability to know. In essence, modernity wishes to teach that humanity, which may or not be intelligent (we cannot be certain), cannot know either what our senses indicate, or what we can conclude using reason.
Modernity states a definite belief- "We cannot know" -yet, this dogmatic statement begs at least one question: "How can we know that we not know?" This, Gentle Reader, is the consequence, and unstated goal, of denying that the mind has any ability to reason.
The crisis facing Western Civilization, is the denial of what made Western Civilization possible: Biblical religion and traditional philosophy. We suggest that Russia, certain Islamic countries, and various Oriental countries will not be affected by this crisis, as these nations do not a have an understanding of the separation of religious and civil freedoms that can be compromised by dogmatic skepticism.
Jaffa’s not unreasonable concern is that should the United States succumb to modernity, everything the Western Civilization has created and built over the previous centuries will be gone for a long time, perhaps permanently.
The founders of the United States refused to allow a state religion dominate important aspects of the new country, which would necessarily restrict or hinder the Enlightenment or Age of Reason. Therefore, the Founding Fathers accepted Plato's practical solution of having gentlemen openly rule in their new republic.
We are intrigued by this solution, as philosophers and adherents of revealed religions are separated, to reduce, but not eliminate conflicts, while gentlemen govern. Conservative gentlemen partake of virtue and reason and, therefore, actively prevent radical religious beliefs from subverting the secular nature of country.
The skepticism of modernity suggests that United States is no different, and no better, than any other country. It is evident from the various historical facts represented in this commentary that this is not a reasonable conclusion.
Modernity denies that man possesses the ability to reason and as a result, the inability to know. In essence, modernity wishes to teach that humanity, which may or not be intelligent (we cannot be certain), cannot know either what our senses indicate, or what we can conclude using reason.
Modernity states a definite belief- "We cannot know" -yet, this dogmatic statement begs at least one question: "How can we know that we not know?" This, Gentle Reader, is the consequence, and unstated goal, of denying that the mind has any ability to reason.
The crisis facing Western Civilization, is the denial of what made Western Civilization possible: Biblical religion and traditional philosophy. We suggest that Russia, certain Islamic countries, and various Oriental countries will not be affected by this crisis, as these nations do not a have an understanding of the separation of religious and civil freedoms that can be compromised by dogmatic skepticism.
Jaffa’s not unreasonable concern is that should the United States succumb to modernity, everything the Western Civilization has created and built over the previous centuries will be gone for a long time, perhaps permanently.
“Alone among the ends of the Constitution, to secure liberty is called a securing of "blessings." What is a blessing is what is good in the eyes of God. It is a good whose possession—by the common understanding of mankind— belongs properly only to those who deserve it.”
Securing liberty requires action and, therefore, only belongs to those individuals who deserve it.
The “final paragraph of the Declaration of Independence appeals to "the Supreme Judge of the World…”.
Relying on the protection of “Divine Providence" is not identical to “the enjoyment of worldly goods, of … external goods.”.
The Declaration of Independence suggests “that the compensations, both of evil and of good, are not altogether those visible in the natural order.”
“Nevertheless, reflection teaches us that the possession of health, wealth, and freedom are not the ultimate measure of human well-being. We know that there have been human beings who, being in the full possession of health, wealth, and freedom, have yet committed suicide.”
“Health, wealth, and freedom must be combined with something else ... before they become blessings …”
“Aristotle says that no man ... would wish to live without friends.”
Tyrants “do not have … the kind of friends who make life worth living.”
Liberty, can only be preserved “by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue ...”.
“The idea of liberty … being an emancipation … from moral restraint had no place in the constitutional doctrine of” a new order for the ages.
“The liberty which is a blessing must be ... a good in the sight of God, who is the source of blessings.”
“Such a good must point to felicity, whether in this world or the next ...”
By calling the advantages of liberty "blessings,” the “Constitution … aligns itself … with traditional moral philosophy and moral theology.”
The Constitution grounds “the regime in the doctrine of human equality” and “cleared paths for all, given hope to all … and industry to all.”
The Constitution “has lifted the burden of unjust inequality … from the backs of the common people.”
The Framers “never conceived the blessings of liberty in nonmoral terms” and “never imagined it to encompass the exhibitionism of lesbians, sodomites, abortionists, drug addicts, and pornographers.”
Jaffa has not written “homosexuals”, as might be expected, but “lesbians” and “sodomites”. From the word “exhibitionism”, we suggest that Jaffa understands homosexuals as cautious and reserved, not forthcoming, regarding their tendencies, while lesbians and sodomites are open regarding their private lives, so called. As Bloom noted, openness is the hallmark of modernity.
“The people are the source of the authority … of all lawful authority.”
As Jefferson noted: “the people "are inherently independent of all but [they are not independent of the] moral law".
“Absent the moral law, a people becomes a mob. And mobs give rise ... to despotism.”
“The first amendment, in a single sentence … joins together its civil and religious guarantees.”
“Although it is customary to speak of "civil" before "religious," the first amendment actually reverses this order. This is not accidental.”
“Without the establishment of religious Liberty … a regime combining majority rule with minority rights is not a feasible enterprise.”
The “sacred principle”, that although “the will of the majority ... prevail, that will … must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate [the rights of the minority] would be oppression.”
It is clear from the foregoing that "rightfulness" and "reasonableness,being restraints upon the will of the majority, are not themselves mere expressions of will.”
“Jefferson is not only saying what the Constitution is, but why it is what it is.
The "what" of the “Constitution is inseparable from its "why," and any “attempt to understand the former without the latter is … vain.”
Certain commentators suggest “that constitutional "safeguards for individual liberty" are grounded neither in "intrinsic worth" nor in "someone's idea of natural justice...".
“The Framers' ideas of natural justice were the ... origin of their intent. To appeal to the conception of "original intent" in interpreting the Constitution … while denying the ideas of natural justice which formed the "why" of the Constitution” represents flawed reasoning.
Per Madison: “Legitimate political authority ... always arises from an agreement … made between men who are by nature—or originally—equal ...”.
The fact "that all men are created equal" is the foundation “both of majority rule and of minority rights.”
Sovereignty has its foundation “in the natural right to rule oneself” which everyone “possesses.”
“Sovereignty in the political sense” occurs “when men transfer their right to rule themselves to a civil society...”.
“That the will of the majority should prevail is a "sacred principle" because the authority of the majority is derived from those natural rights with which all men have been equally "endowed by their Creator."”
“A civil society is perfectly formed, to the extent that each … of the contracting parties recognize in each other that equality of rights ...which makes the will of the majority "sacred."
“For the majority … must represent the minority as well as itself. And we all recognize that the President of the United States is equally the President of every citizen of the United States.”
“Majority and minority” exist because of the various opinions and “questions of what means ought to be adopted, for the sake of the ends which are common to all.”
“But it also belongs to any minority faced with a majority that ceases, as Jefferson says, to be "reasonable," and which passes laws which violate the "equal rights" of their fellow citizens.”
“Madison ... defines the limits of the authority of the majority by reference to whatever might be done rightfully and by unanimity. The qualification of unanimity refers … to the original constitutive principle of the polity.”
“Unanimous consent is, however, the necessary but not the sufficient condition of government that is nondespotic.”
The “sufficient condition” is the presence of reason, as“unanimity” does not “make that action reasonable … ”.
“Rightfulness implies moral understanding …”.
The “"moral law" … without which the authority of the people itself fails.”
“For the rights ... to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," are not unconditional justifications for idiosyncratic [personal] behavior. They are rights under the "laws of nature and of nature's God."
“The constitutionalism of our Founding is inseparable from its moral realism and its natural theology. “
However “differently they [men] might conceive of the divine attributes ... there was a common understanding of morality underlying ... religious differences.”
“This common understanding was strengthened by all the churches [as] … it was not called into question by their theological differences.”
“By strengthening this moral consensus, … confidence and even friendship” was promoted “among the citizens.”
“By doing so, it promoted a regime in which the rule of the majority might be consistent with the rights of the minority.”
“But the practical achievement of such a regime was” difficult and without the concept of “religious freedom it would have been impossible.”
The “idea of religious freedom encompasses and promotes moral law independently of any particular dogmas of revealed religion.”
The moral law exists independently of religion and it “lays the foundation for the idea of limited government ... and not only with reference to the question of religion.”
The Constitution survived many tests as “the religious question” was wisely placed “outside its” authority.
The election of 1800 was the “first time …. change in the offices of government had ever occurred on the basis of a free popular election.”
“The election of 1800 in the United States was the the first time that the losers gave up their offices peacefully and the winners did not proscribe their defeated opponents by death, imprisonment, loss of property, exile, or even the loss of civil or political rights.”
The “Constitution … showed that the Framers did not anticipate the kind of partisan contests [political parties] that actually developed.”
“It cannot be emphasized too strongly, however, that America was forging the principles of modern democracy for all humanity, and doing so with no precedents to guide her.”
“It was Lincoln's fate to explain ..why the decision of the ballots might not be reversed by bullets.”
Secession was not an option, as the voters had another election in four years and this situation is unlike the Revolutionary War, as the Divine Right to rule entitled King George III to appoint officials at will.
“[E]very difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.” -Jefferson
From the Constitution, it is evident that guiding principle of the country was not democratic, as the majority could confiscate the property and wealth of the minority. Hence, the right to bear arms is not primarily of protection, but personal property. Legally speaking, it follows that if citizens do not have the right to own small possessions, such as guns, then the right to own any property, whether land, a business, or investments,will be questioned.
“If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. To tolerate error is not to be indifferent to error.” -Jefferson
A society can tolerate erroneous opinions, provided that reason is free to challenge those opinions.
During the Civil War, “Jefferson's confidence in the power of the truth to prevail was put to a supreme test.”
"As we have noted, ... the religious guarantees come first. The guarantees after the semicolon—speech, press, assembly, petition—are all active elements in the political process and are intended to provide for its integrity.”
“Freedom of religion is understood to be necessary for the integrity of the political process ....”.
“Civil and religious liberty are distinct, yet … we regard them as inseparable. Their "bonding" ... is ... the achievement of the United States of America.”
The Founding Fathers rejected "enlightened despotism … on the ground that the enlightened consent of the governed was the only durable foundation for free or good government.”
“But the necessity for enlightenment in the consent of the governed was never far from their thoughts. Free government was never possible apart from it.”
Washington noted: “The foundations of American government” were “not laid in the gloomy ages of ignorance and superstition, but ... when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined than at any other period.”
The opposites of ignorance and superstition are knowledge and reason.
“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” - Jefferson
The “American Constitution became possible only because the rights ... of an enlightened humanity under the moral order of the laws of nature ... defined the ground of civic friendship…”.
The distinction between civilisation and savagery is “the distinction between those who do and those who do not respect the rights of others, under the laws of nature. Of course, the necessary ground for such respect is enlightenment: One cannot act on principles of which one is ignorant.”
The “United States is the first nation in the world to declare its independence, … because of rights which it shared with all men everywhere.”
The United States “declared the ground of "government of the people, by the people, for the people" in a sense absolutely unprecedented.”
The Declaration of Independence “laid an equally unprecedented claim to the character of the best regime of Western civilization.”
The claim of the best practical regime “cannot be understood” as identical to “the best regime as it is found ... in Plato...”.
For Plato, moral “virtue … did not represent in itself the highest of all possible ends: that was to be found in purely contemplative activity.”
“Biblical religion, however, found ... the life of obedient love of the living God, to be the highest” goal “of human existence.”
“Like classical philosophy, biblical religion finds that man's highest end transcends morality.”
Man’s “relationship with God, is a transmoral end.”
Biblical religion presupposes a living God whose existence is primarily and ... a matter of faith. Whatever demonstrations unassisted reason might make of God's existence and attributes may complement or supplement the teachings of faith. But they [demonstrations] can never supplant faith as the ground of belief.”
“Philosophy, the way of life grounded upon the powers of unassisted human reason, can never refute the existence of the biblical God ...”.
“The skepticism that is the core of philosophy ... always leaves philosophy open to the challenge of revelation.”
Revealed religions are suspicious of philosophy and incessantly attach it.
Skepticism “always leaves philosophers open to the undeniable fact that the claims of autonomous human reason cannot be fully vindicated by that reason.”
Skepticism “always leaves philosophers open to the possibility that the fully consistent life … is possible only on the basis of revelation.”
“What we call Western civilization is to be found primarily and essentially in the confluence of the autonomous rationalism of classical philosophy and the faith of biblical religion.”
“The triumph of Western civilization is to be found in the evidence, supplied by both philosophy and revelation, that the human soul ... participates in a reality that transcends all time and change.”
“The tragedy of Western civilization has been the unfettered attempt, by political means, to vindicate claims whose very nature excludes the possibility that they can be vindicated by political means.”
The American Founding “provided for the coexistence of the claims of reason and of revelation ..., without requiring ... any political decisions concerning them.”
The United States “refused to make … reason the arbiter of the claims of revelation, and it refused to make revelation the judge of the claims of reason.”
The American Founding “is the first regime in Western civilization to do this, and for that reason it is, in its principles … the best regime.”
“But the virtue of the American Founding rests not only upon its defusing of the tension between reason and revelation, but upon their fundamental agreement on a moral code which can guide human life both privately and publicly.”
“Defusing” is not synonymous with “eliminating”.
“This moral code is the work both of "Nature's God"—reason—and the "Creator"—revelation.”
Jaffa understands the God of Nature as reason and the Creator as revealed religion.
“Religious freedom properly understood ... emancipates” the “conflict between reason and revelation.”
Proper understanding of religious freedom is through the application of reason. The implication is that the understanding of religious freedom cannot be through the application of revelation.
Religious freedom “makes reason and revelation ... allies on the political level”, as both reason and revelation agree upon the “role of morality in the good society.”
“But radical modernity is the enemy [of] ... reason and of biblical revelation.”
“The core of radical modernity is … a dogmatic skepticism that denies that we do have ... any genuine knowledge of the external world.”
“This dogmatic skepticism denies that either philosophy or revelation ... are possible.”
The “core conviction”of modern scientific positivism “is that we know only what we make.”
“In constructing a world from hypotheses, we ourselves are the source of all creativity” and have “perfect knowledge of that world”, therefore, “there is neither need ... for God” or “for philosophy.”
“Since there is no ... knowledge in nature or … (no "self-evident" truths) to guide the human will, the human will must itself be the ... source of all knowledge. Unfettered will is the ground, then, of all morality… [and] why National Socialism … is the prototypical modern regime.”
Marx wrote: "The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world. The point, however, is to change it."
Marx suggested that any “attempt to interpret or understand the world— was illusory.”
Marx believed, or wished to teach, “that genuine knowledge of the world was possible only by changes in the world that originated in one's will.”
According to Marx, “the highest form of intellectual activity … was to be found not in speculation … ,but in ... revolution.”
Marx believes that the “supreme revolutionary is the supreme philosopher.”
“The outcome of the most radical revolution is therefore the highest form of wisdom.”
No comment is necessary.
Appeals to ”inner truth and greatness" are “beyond skepticism.”
The “aim or purpose of radical modernity … is the elimination of skepticism” and the “abolition” both of “reason and revelation”.
Totalitarian regimes “are the natural and culminating manifestations” of dogmatic skepticism.
Dogmatic skepticism is “endemic to the universities of the free world.”
Dogmatic skepticism “is typically expressed as "value relativism," and is found in the writings … [of] so-called philosophers and social scientists of our universities.”
"Value relativism" ... “denies the rational or divine foundation of any virtue, including … tolerance. But if there is no human or divine reason to prefer one opinion to another, neither is there any such reason to prefer one regime to another.”
“If knowledge is power, [then] the most powerful opinion is the best opinion.”
“And there is no reason why the most powerful opinion—from which any skepticism concerning its own truth has been eliminated—should give place to any less powerful opinion.”
Relativism “undermines the confidence that free government once had in its own truth” which it “proclaimed its right to an equal station among the powers of the earth.”
Relativism “leads ultimately but inevitably toward the worst forms of tyranny.”
“For Americans, comfortable self-preservation, implemented by free-market economics and the scientific enhancement of man's productive powers, replaces eternal salvation or contemplation as the end of man.”
“The American Founding limited the ends [or purpose] of government. It did not limit the ends [or goal] of man. The … ends of government, were lowered. But the ends both of reason and revelation served by the regime ... were understood to enhance, not to diminish, the intrinsic possibility of human excellence.”
“As long as the idea of human excellence itself survived, as understood by the great tradition of Western civilization - … of the Bible and of classical philosophy— the dignity of the American Founding remained that of man's highest ends.”
“It is the outright denial— within ... the universities— of the dignity of reason and of revelation that threatens … Western civilization itself.”
The “true theory of religious liberty" was not … recognized in the public laws of any other government before the American Founding.”
Religious liberty “could not be so recognized as long as the ground of political authority was understood to originate in divine law.”
A country founded on a religion cannot, for purposes of unity, tolerate different opinions. The United States has experienced the creation of new gods without any detriment to the country's foundation.
“The rights with which all men are by nature equally endowed qualify any man to enter into an agreement with any other man ... to form a civil society.”
“The authority of government is collective promise-keeping of all the parties to the social contract.”
A contract. as understood under natural law, “excludes religious stipulations, since any such … reservations would be inconsistent with the equality which is the ...condition of the contract.”
The “sovereignty of the individual who is the party to the social contract means that the government arising from this contract is limited government. This follows from the intrinsic nature of contract itself. A contract can only be made between equals” and there can be no further obligations “than the intentions of the contracting parties.”
We “reflect upon the radical novelty ... of the idea of limited government based upon the social contract of men created equal.”
“The ancient city understood itself altogether as a creation of divine law.”
“The conception of political obligation—as set forth in the Declaration of Independence — ...did not exist for ancient man.”
“Ancient man obeyed the laws because they were of divine, not human origin.”
Our “conception of religion ... was as unknown to Socrates as it was unknown to Moses ..., for we distinguish religious from nonreligious spheres of life, just as we distinguish church from state, state from society, and society from government.
“In denying the charge of impiety, it seems never to have occurred to Socrates to deny that impiety was a crime.”
“There was no ground for distinguishing the infidelity of the rebelling Israelites from their lawlessness, since there was no other source of law than God. In this ...we see the principle of every ancient city, and not of Israel alone.”
“The laws of Moses regulated all aspects of human life, … private as well as public.”
Aristotle's dictum: "Whatever the laws do not permit, they forbid."
“It took one of the greatest revolutions … to change” Aristotle's dictum “to "Whatever the laws do not forbid, they permit."”
Jews paid “tribute because the Roman legions were there to enforce payment—and to crucify anyone who resisted the authority of Rome.”
No comment is necessary.
The convention “of the ancient city” of “a single source of law implied a single God” and there was “an inherent compulsion of reason in saying: one city, one law, one world, one God.”
The God of Israel “transcended the universe of which He was held to be Creator. Such a God could not be defeated … [by] any other power, whether in the world or out of the world.”
The “civic gods tended to be jealous gods …” and belief “was not central to fidelity. Obedience was central.”
Laws “were regarded as laws for a variety of reasons, ancient custom or tradition being foremost. And” divine law was “the characteristic form of all law in the ancient world ..”
The “problem was how to discover a source of law for particular political communities within ... the cosmopolis ... of God."
Plato addressed “the question of who should rule ... in terms of the moral and intellectual excellences that might comprise regimes. His answers were designed to gain acquiescence by philosophers and gentlemen.”
However, Plato “expected the generality of mankind to accept the judgments of the wise because they would be attributed to the gods.”
“In Protestant countries, the Reformation removed the anointing ... of secular rulers from the jurisdiction of Rome.”
“The doctrine of the divine right of kings was invented to enable kings to be anointed by bishops they had themselves appointed, rather than by appointees of the Pope.”
The “Church of England itself was converted from the divine right of kings to popular sovereignty, exercised in and through the Parliament.”
“Salvation—citizenship in the City of God—is individual. Individuals are held to be saved by Christ's merit…”
After the founding of the United States, one's family, “clan, tribe, nation, the community of blood descendants, ceased to have the integral moral, political, and religious unity they possessed in the ancient city.”
“In the ancient city—and the Old Testament here is typical—the individual sees himself primarily as a link in the chain of ancestors and descendants.”
“Individuality—including personal immortality—plays virtually no role as a paramount concern” in ancient cities.
“As personal immortality in the City of God came to be the paramount concern of Western man, political life was displaced from the central place in human life it had occupied in the ancient city.”
“The social contract theory embodied in the American Declaration of Independence solved a problem that had plagued Western civilization…”.
“Political authority” was “the result of the voluntary action of naturally free and equal individuals…”.
“These free and equal individuals are enfranchised in the rights that they bring with them into civil society by the fact that they are a priori under the universal "laws of nature and of nature's God."”.
In the United States, there is “no tension between one's membership in that larger community … [of] mankind, and ...obligations to one's own community, here and now.”
“The Declaration of Independence recognizes … the divine government of the universe. But … does not cause any divided allegiance in one's political obligation” on earth.
“The role played by the power of the Church ... to dissolve the allegiance of their subjects, becomes in the Declaration the right of revolution.”
“But the power ... of whatever means a man may choose to direct his own way to his highest end— remains free of civil authority.”
The “bonding of civil and religious liberty is the core … of limited government, and hence of freedom in our world, for we are compelled both to rely upon and to enjoy … personal autonomy that was inconceivable in the ancient city.”
“But the principles [“the moral law”] by which this autonomy is to be guided … remain the same. And the ground of that autonomy is still the revelation and the reason that are our inheritance .....”.
“The new order of the ages is radically novel in its solution of the political problem within the framework of a cosmopolitan, monotheistic universe. It is radically traditional in its conception of the ends, whether of reason or of revelation, to be served by that order.”
We “are faced with an unprecedented threat to the survival of biblical religion, of autonomous human reason, and to ... political freedom.”
"It is important to understand why the threat to one of these [revealed religion and reason] is also the threat to all [citizens]."
“It is above all important to understand why this threat is ... an internal one, ... sapping our ancient faith, both in God and in ourselves.
“The decline of the West is the paramount reality facing us today. Perhaps our most immediate danger comes from the historical pessimism of those who counsel us that this is inevitable and that nothing can be done by taking thought. But this danger is itself a danger only if we believe it. It is precisely by taking thought that this superstition [historical pessimism] can be dispelled and, with it, the unreasoning fears that it breeds.”
Securing liberty requires action and, therefore, only belongs to those individuals who deserve it.
The “final paragraph of the Declaration of Independence appeals to "the Supreme Judge of the World…”.
Relying on the protection of “Divine Providence" is not identical to “the enjoyment of worldly goods, of … external goods.”.
The Declaration of Independence suggests “that the compensations, both of evil and of good, are not altogether those visible in the natural order.”
“Nevertheless, reflection teaches us that the possession of health, wealth, and freedom are not the ultimate measure of human well-being. We know that there have been human beings who, being in the full possession of health, wealth, and freedom, have yet committed suicide.”
“Health, wealth, and freedom must be combined with something else ... before they become blessings …”
“Aristotle says that no man ... would wish to live without friends.”
Tyrants “do not have … the kind of friends who make life worth living.”
Liberty, can only be preserved “by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue ...”.
“The idea of liberty … being an emancipation … from moral restraint had no place in the constitutional doctrine of” a new order for the ages.
“The liberty which is a blessing must be ... a good in the sight of God, who is the source of blessings.”
“Such a good must point to felicity, whether in this world or the next ...”
By calling the advantages of liberty "blessings,” the “Constitution … aligns itself … with traditional moral philosophy and moral theology.”
The Constitution grounds “the regime in the doctrine of human equality” and “cleared paths for all, given hope to all … and industry to all.”
The Constitution “has lifted the burden of unjust inequality … from the backs of the common people.”
The Framers “never conceived the blessings of liberty in nonmoral terms” and “never imagined it to encompass the exhibitionism of lesbians, sodomites, abortionists, drug addicts, and pornographers.”
Jaffa has not written “homosexuals”, as might be expected, but “lesbians” and “sodomites”. From the word “exhibitionism”, we suggest that Jaffa understands homosexuals as cautious and reserved, not forthcoming, regarding their tendencies, while lesbians and sodomites are open regarding their private lives, so called. As Bloom noted, openness is the hallmark of modernity.
“The people are the source of the authority … of all lawful authority.”
As Jefferson noted: “the people "are inherently independent of all but [they are not independent of the] moral law".
“Absent the moral law, a people becomes a mob. And mobs give rise ... to despotism.”
“The first amendment, in a single sentence … joins together its civil and religious guarantees.”
“Although it is customary to speak of "civil" before "religious," the first amendment actually reverses this order. This is not accidental.”
“Without the establishment of religious Liberty … a regime combining majority rule with minority rights is not a feasible enterprise.”
The “sacred principle”, that although “the will of the majority ... prevail, that will … must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate [the rights of the minority] would be oppression.”
It is clear from the foregoing that "rightfulness" and "reasonableness,being restraints upon the will of the majority, are not themselves mere expressions of will.”
“Jefferson is not only saying what the Constitution is, but why it is what it is.
The "what" of the “Constitution is inseparable from its "why," and any “attempt to understand the former without the latter is … vain.”
Certain commentators suggest “that constitutional "safeguards for individual liberty" are grounded neither in "intrinsic worth" nor in "someone's idea of natural justice...".
“The Framers' ideas of natural justice were the ... origin of their intent. To appeal to the conception of "original intent" in interpreting the Constitution … while denying the ideas of natural justice which formed the "why" of the Constitution” represents flawed reasoning.
Per Madison: “Legitimate political authority ... always arises from an agreement … made between men who are by nature—or originally—equal ...”.
The fact "that all men are created equal" is the foundation “both of majority rule and of minority rights.”
Sovereignty has its foundation “in the natural right to rule oneself” which everyone “possesses.”
“Sovereignty in the political sense” occurs “when men transfer their right to rule themselves to a civil society...”.
“That the will of the majority should prevail is a "sacred principle" because the authority of the majority is derived from those natural rights with which all men have been equally "endowed by their Creator."”
“A civil society is perfectly formed, to the extent that each … of the contracting parties recognize in each other that equality of rights ...which makes the will of the majority "sacred."
“For the majority … must represent the minority as well as itself. And we all recognize that the President of the United States is equally the President of every citizen of the United States.”
“Majority and minority” exist because of the various opinions and “questions of what means ought to be adopted, for the sake of the ends which are common to all.”
“But it also belongs to any minority faced with a majority that ceases, as Jefferson says, to be "reasonable," and which passes laws which violate the "equal rights" of their fellow citizens.”
“Madison ... defines the limits of the authority of the majority by reference to whatever might be done rightfully and by unanimity. The qualification of unanimity refers … to the original constitutive principle of the polity.”
“Unanimous consent is, however, the necessary but not the sufficient condition of government that is nondespotic.”
The “sufficient condition” is the presence of reason, as“unanimity” does not “make that action reasonable … ”.
“Rightfulness implies moral understanding …”.
The “"moral law" … without which the authority of the people itself fails.”
“For the rights ... to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," are not unconditional justifications for idiosyncratic [personal] behavior. They are rights under the "laws of nature and of nature's God."
“The constitutionalism of our Founding is inseparable from its moral realism and its natural theology. “
However “differently they [men] might conceive of the divine attributes ... there was a common understanding of morality underlying ... religious differences.”
“This common understanding was strengthened by all the churches [as] … it was not called into question by their theological differences.”
“By strengthening this moral consensus, … confidence and even friendship” was promoted “among the citizens.”
“By doing so, it promoted a regime in which the rule of the majority might be consistent with the rights of the minority.”
“But the practical achievement of such a regime was” difficult and without the concept of “religious freedom it would have been impossible.”
The “idea of religious freedom encompasses and promotes moral law independently of any particular dogmas of revealed religion.”
The moral law exists independently of religion and it “lays the foundation for the idea of limited government ... and not only with reference to the question of religion.”
The Constitution survived many tests as “the religious question” was wisely placed “outside its” authority.
The election of 1800 was the “first time …. change in the offices of government had ever occurred on the basis of a free popular election.”
“The election of 1800 in the United States was the the first time that the losers gave up their offices peacefully and the winners did not proscribe their defeated opponents by death, imprisonment, loss of property, exile, or even the loss of civil or political rights.”
The “Constitution … showed that the Framers did not anticipate the kind of partisan contests [political parties] that actually developed.”
“It cannot be emphasized too strongly, however, that America was forging the principles of modern democracy for all humanity, and doing so with no precedents to guide her.”
“It was Lincoln's fate to explain ..why the decision of the ballots might not be reversed by bullets.”
Secession was not an option, as the voters had another election in four years and this situation is unlike the Revolutionary War, as the Divine Right to rule entitled King George III to appoint officials at will.
“[E]very difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.” -Jefferson
From the Constitution, it is evident that guiding principle of the country was not democratic, as the majority could confiscate the property and wealth of the minority. Hence, the right to bear arms is not primarily of protection, but personal property. Legally speaking, it follows that if citizens do not have the right to own small possessions, such as guns, then the right to own any property, whether land, a business, or investments,will be questioned.
“If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. To tolerate error is not to be indifferent to error.” -Jefferson
A society can tolerate erroneous opinions, provided that reason is free to challenge those opinions.
During the Civil War, “Jefferson's confidence in the power of the truth to prevail was put to a supreme test.”
"As we have noted, ... the religious guarantees come first. The guarantees after the semicolon—speech, press, assembly, petition—are all active elements in the political process and are intended to provide for its integrity.”
“Freedom of religion is understood to be necessary for the integrity of the political process ....”.
“Civil and religious liberty are distinct, yet … we regard them as inseparable. Their "bonding" ... is ... the achievement of the United States of America.”
The Founding Fathers rejected "enlightened despotism … on the ground that the enlightened consent of the governed was the only durable foundation for free or good government.”
“But the necessity for enlightenment in the consent of the governed was never far from their thoughts. Free government was never possible apart from it.”
Washington noted: “The foundations of American government” were “not laid in the gloomy ages of ignorance and superstition, but ... when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined than at any other period.”
The opposites of ignorance and superstition are knowledge and reason.
“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” - Jefferson
The “American Constitution became possible only because the rights ... of an enlightened humanity under the moral order of the laws of nature ... defined the ground of civic friendship…”.
The distinction between civilisation and savagery is “the distinction between those who do and those who do not respect the rights of others, under the laws of nature. Of course, the necessary ground for such respect is enlightenment: One cannot act on principles of which one is ignorant.”
The “United States is the first nation in the world to declare its independence, … because of rights which it shared with all men everywhere.”
The United States “declared the ground of "government of the people, by the people, for the people" in a sense absolutely unprecedented.”
The Declaration of Independence “laid an equally unprecedented claim to the character of the best regime of Western civilization.”
The claim of the best practical regime “cannot be understood” as identical to “the best regime as it is found ... in Plato...”.
For Plato, moral “virtue … did not represent in itself the highest of all possible ends: that was to be found in purely contemplative activity.”
“Biblical religion, however, found ... the life of obedient love of the living God, to be the highest” goal “of human existence.”
“Like classical philosophy, biblical religion finds that man's highest end transcends morality.”
Man’s “relationship with God, is a transmoral end.”
Biblical religion presupposes a living God whose existence is primarily and ... a matter of faith. Whatever demonstrations unassisted reason might make of God's existence and attributes may complement or supplement the teachings of faith. But they [demonstrations] can never supplant faith as the ground of belief.”
“Philosophy, the way of life grounded upon the powers of unassisted human reason, can never refute the existence of the biblical God ...”.
“The skepticism that is the core of philosophy ... always leaves philosophy open to the challenge of revelation.”
Revealed religions are suspicious of philosophy and incessantly attach it.
Skepticism “always leaves philosophers open to the undeniable fact that the claims of autonomous human reason cannot be fully vindicated by that reason.”
Skepticism “always leaves philosophers open to the possibility that the fully consistent life … is possible only on the basis of revelation.”
“What we call Western civilization is to be found primarily and essentially in the confluence of the autonomous rationalism of classical philosophy and the faith of biblical religion.”
“The triumph of Western civilization is to be found in the evidence, supplied by both philosophy and revelation, that the human soul ... participates in a reality that transcends all time and change.”
“The tragedy of Western civilization has been the unfettered attempt, by political means, to vindicate claims whose very nature excludes the possibility that they can be vindicated by political means.”
The American Founding “provided for the coexistence of the claims of reason and of revelation ..., without requiring ... any political decisions concerning them.”
The United States “refused to make … reason the arbiter of the claims of revelation, and it refused to make revelation the judge of the claims of reason.”
The American Founding “is the first regime in Western civilization to do this, and for that reason it is, in its principles … the best regime.”
“But the virtue of the American Founding rests not only upon its defusing of the tension between reason and revelation, but upon their fundamental agreement on a moral code which can guide human life both privately and publicly.”
“Defusing” is not synonymous with “eliminating”.
“This moral code is the work both of "Nature's God"—reason—and the "Creator"—revelation.”
Jaffa understands the God of Nature as reason and the Creator as revealed religion.
“Religious freedom properly understood ... emancipates” the “conflict between reason and revelation.”
Proper understanding of religious freedom is through the application of reason. The implication is that the understanding of religious freedom cannot be through the application of revelation.
Religious freedom “makes reason and revelation ... allies on the political level”, as both reason and revelation agree upon the “role of morality in the good society.”
“But radical modernity is the enemy [of] ... reason and of biblical revelation.”
“The core of radical modernity is … a dogmatic skepticism that denies that we do have ... any genuine knowledge of the external world.”
“This dogmatic skepticism denies that either philosophy or revelation ... are possible.”
The “core conviction”of modern scientific positivism “is that we know only what we make.”
“In constructing a world from hypotheses, we ourselves are the source of all creativity” and have “perfect knowledge of that world”, therefore, “there is neither need ... for God” or “for philosophy.”
“Since there is no ... knowledge in nature or … (no "self-evident" truths) to guide the human will, the human will must itself be the ... source of all knowledge. Unfettered will is the ground, then, of all morality… [and] why National Socialism … is the prototypical modern regime.”
Marx wrote: "The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world. The point, however, is to change it."
Marx suggested that any “attempt to interpret or understand the world— was illusory.”
Marx believed, or wished to teach, “that genuine knowledge of the world was possible only by changes in the world that originated in one's will.”
According to Marx, “the highest form of intellectual activity … was to be found not in speculation … ,but in ... revolution.”
Marx believes that the “supreme revolutionary is the supreme philosopher.”
“The outcome of the most radical revolution is therefore the highest form of wisdom.”
No comment is necessary.
Appeals to ”inner truth and greatness" are “beyond skepticism.”
The “aim or purpose of radical modernity … is the elimination of skepticism” and the “abolition” both of “reason and revelation”.
Totalitarian regimes “are the natural and culminating manifestations” of dogmatic skepticism.
Dogmatic skepticism is “endemic to the universities of the free world.”
Dogmatic skepticism “is typically expressed as "value relativism," and is found in the writings … [of] so-called philosophers and social scientists of our universities.”
"Value relativism" ... “denies the rational or divine foundation of any virtue, including … tolerance. But if there is no human or divine reason to prefer one opinion to another, neither is there any such reason to prefer one regime to another.”
“If knowledge is power, [then] the most powerful opinion is the best opinion.”
“And there is no reason why the most powerful opinion—from which any skepticism concerning its own truth has been eliminated—should give place to any less powerful opinion.”
Relativism “undermines the confidence that free government once had in its own truth” which it “proclaimed its right to an equal station among the powers of the earth.”
Relativism “leads ultimately but inevitably toward the worst forms of tyranny.”
“For Americans, comfortable self-preservation, implemented by free-market economics and the scientific enhancement of man's productive powers, replaces eternal salvation or contemplation as the end of man.”
“The American Founding limited the ends [or purpose] of government. It did not limit the ends [or goal] of man. The … ends of government, were lowered. But the ends both of reason and revelation served by the regime ... were understood to enhance, not to diminish, the intrinsic possibility of human excellence.”
“As long as the idea of human excellence itself survived, as understood by the great tradition of Western civilization - … of the Bible and of classical philosophy— the dignity of the American Founding remained that of man's highest ends.”
“It is the outright denial— within ... the universities— of the dignity of reason and of revelation that threatens … Western civilization itself.”
The “true theory of religious liberty" was not … recognized in the public laws of any other government before the American Founding.”
Religious liberty “could not be so recognized as long as the ground of political authority was understood to originate in divine law.”
A country founded on a religion cannot, for purposes of unity, tolerate different opinions. The United States has experienced the creation of new gods without any detriment to the country's foundation.
“The rights with which all men are by nature equally endowed qualify any man to enter into an agreement with any other man ... to form a civil society.”
“The authority of government is collective promise-keeping of all the parties to the social contract.”
A contract. as understood under natural law, “excludes religious stipulations, since any such … reservations would be inconsistent with the equality which is the ...condition of the contract.”
The “sovereignty of the individual who is the party to the social contract means that the government arising from this contract is limited government. This follows from the intrinsic nature of contract itself. A contract can only be made between equals” and there can be no further obligations “than the intentions of the contracting parties.”
We “reflect upon the radical novelty ... of the idea of limited government based upon the social contract of men created equal.”
“The ancient city understood itself altogether as a creation of divine law.”
“The conception of political obligation—as set forth in the Declaration of Independence — ...did not exist for ancient man.”
“Ancient man obeyed the laws because they were of divine, not human origin.”
Our “conception of religion ... was as unknown to Socrates as it was unknown to Moses ..., for we distinguish religious from nonreligious spheres of life, just as we distinguish church from state, state from society, and society from government.
“In denying the charge of impiety, it seems never to have occurred to Socrates to deny that impiety was a crime.”
“There was no ground for distinguishing the infidelity of the rebelling Israelites from their lawlessness, since there was no other source of law than God. In this ...we see the principle of every ancient city, and not of Israel alone.”
“The laws of Moses regulated all aspects of human life, … private as well as public.”
Aristotle's dictum: "Whatever the laws do not permit, they forbid."
“It took one of the greatest revolutions … to change” Aristotle's dictum “to "Whatever the laws do not forbid, they permit."”
Jews paid “tribute because the Roman legions were there to enforce payment—and to crucify anyone who resisted the authority of Rome.”
No comment is necessary.
The convention “of the ancient city” of “a single source of law implied a single God” and there was “an inherent compulsion of reason in saying: one city, one law, one world, one God.”
The God of Israel “transcended the universe of which He was held to be Creator. Such a God could not be defeated … [by] any other power, whether in the world or out of the world.”
The “civic gods tended to be jealous gods …” and belief “was not central to fidelity. Obedience was central.”
Laws “were regarded as laws for a variety of reasons, ancient custom or tradition being foremost. And” divine law was “the characteristic form of all law in the ancient world ..”
The “problem was how to discover a source of law for particular political communities within ... the cosmopolis ... of God."
Plato addressed “the question of who should rule ... in terms of the moral and intellectual excellences that might comprise regimes. His answers were designed to gain acquiescence by philosophers and gentlemen.”
However, Plato “expected the generality of mankind to accept the judgments of the wise because they would be attributed to the gods.”
“In Protestant countries, the Reformation removed the anointing ... of secular rulers from the jurisdiction of Rome.”
“The doctrine of the divine right of kings was invented to enable kings to be anointed by bishops they had themselves appointed, rather than by appointees of the Pope.”
The “Church of England itself was converted from the divine right of kings to popular sovereignty, exercised in and through the Parliament.”
“Salvation—citizenship in the City of God—is individual. Individuals are held to be saved by Christ's merit…”
After the founding of the United States, one's family, “clan, tribe, nation, the community of blood descendants, ceased to have the integral moral, political, and religious unity they possessed in the ancient city.”
“In the ancient city—and the Old Testament here is typical—the individual sees himself primarily as a link in the chain of ancestors and descendants.”
“Individuality—including personal immortality—plays virtually no role as a paramount concern” in ancient cities.
“As personal immortality in the City of God came to be the paramount concern of Western man, political life was displaced from the central place in human life it had occupied in the ancient city.”
“The social contract theory embodied in the American Declaration of Independence solved a problem that had plagued Western civilization…”.
“Political authority” was “the result of the voluntary action of naturally free and equal individuals…”.
“These free and equal individuals are enfranchised in the rights that they bring with them into civil society by the fact that they are a priori under the universal "laws of nature and of nature's God."”.
In the United States, there is “no tension between one's membership in that larger community … [of] mankind, and ...obligations to one's own community, here and now.”
“The Declaration of Independence recognizes … the divine government of the universe. But … does not cause any divided allegiance in one's political obligation” on earth.
“The role played by the power of the Church ... to dissolve the allegiance of their subjects, becomes in the Declaration the right of revolution.”
“But the power ... of whatever means a man may choose to direct his own way to his highest end— remains free of civil authority.”
The “bonding of civil and religious liberty is the core … of limited government, and hence of freedom in our world, for we are compelled both to rely upon and to enjoy … personal autonomy that was inconceivable in the ancient city.”
“But the principles [“the moral law”] by which this autonomy is to be guided … remain the same. And the ground of that autonomy is still the revelation and the reason that are our inheritance .....”.
“The new order of the ages is radically novel in its solution of the political problem within the framework of a cosmopolitan, monotheistic universe. It is radically traditional in its conception of the ends, whether of reason or of revelation, to be served by that order.”
We “are faced with an unprecedented threat to the survival of biblical religion, of autonomous human reason, and to ... political freedom.”
"It is important to understand why the threat to one of these [revealed religion and reason] is also the threat to all [citizens]."
“It is above all important to understand why this threat is ... an internal one, ... sapping our ancient faith, both in God and in ourselves.
“The decline of the West is the paramount reality facing us today. Perhaps our most immediate danger comes from the historical pessimism of those who counsel us that this is inevitable and that nothing can be done by taking thought. But this danger is itself a danger only if we believe it. It is precisely by taking thought that this superstition [historical pessimism] can be dispelled and, with it, the unreasoning fears that it breeds.”
"A blessing is ... a good whose possession... belongs properly only to those who deserve it.”
Gentle Researcher, do we, and our posterity, deserve to live in a republic governed by reasonable people and rational laws?