Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Those who have followed me for any amount of time are aware that one
of my academic interests is the comparison between Thomas Jefferson
and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. It was one of the themes of my
dissertation, and I maintain that it‘s an important point to
consider. Jefferson is often paired with Locke, especially by the likes of
Louis Hartz, whose The Liberal Tradition in America has had a great
influence on the way we view Jefferson and the founding era. Others
have noted the similarity between Jefferson and the Scottish
Enlightenment writers. But few have really seen the connection to
Rousseau, a connection that I deem to be very important, because this
Jefferson-Rousseau strand of thought is one that continues to be a
dominant influence on America. Over the next few posts I plan on
taking a closer look at this connection, as well as a broader
examination of Thomas Jefferson‘s political thought in
general. Considering my series of posts on the Federalists Papers, I
believe it is useful to compare Jefferson‘s thought to that of the
Framers of the Constitution.
It rests now with ourselves alone to enjoy in peace and concord the
blessings of self-government, so long denied to mankind: to shew by
example the sufficiency of human reason for the care of human affairs
and the will of the majority, the Natural law of every society, is the only
sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes
err. But it‘s errors are honest, solitary and short-lived. —Let us then,
my dear friends, for ever bow down to the general reason of the
society.[1]
Not only does Jefferson think highly of man‘s ability to reason, but he
also believes that the human mind is susceptible to much
improvement. Writing to William Green Munford, he states that he is
―among those who think well of the human character generally. I
consider man as formed for society, and endowed by nature with those
dispositions which fit him for society. I believe also, with Condorcet, as
mentioned in your letter, that his mind is perfectible to a degree of
which we cannot as yet form any conception.‖[2] Later on in life, he
backs away somewhat from the claim that the mind is ―perfectible.‖ He
writes that, ―although I do not, with some enthusiasts, believe that the
human condition will ever advance to such a state of perfection as that
there shall no longer be pain or vice in the world, yet I believe it is
susceptible of much improvement, and most of all, in matters of
government and religion; and that the diffusion of knowledge among
the people is to be the instrument by which it is to be effected.‖[3]
Compare this with Rousseau‘s comments on the general will and what
may cause it to err:
Both theorists posit that individuals need the proper space in order to
deliberate, and fear that organized interest groups will prevent the
proper form of dispassionate deliberation to occur. Rousseau‘s
denunciation of all partial associations and his call for their removal is
echoed years later when Jefferson writes that he considers political
parties as ―the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not
go to heaven with a party, I would not go there at all.‖[10] These
associations have many baleful affects, not the least of which is their
tendency to divide citizens‘ loyalties and color their decision
making. Individual people possess enough common sense that the act
of deliberation can only have a negative influence upon them.
Jefferson believes that the moral sense natural to man because he was
formed for society. This innate moral sense given to humans allows
them to adduce right and wrong through their own reason. Man is
naturally formed for society, and no law is needed to make man more
virtuous. As Claes Ryn writes, Jefferson‘s describes the moral sense ―as
a spontaneous force, an ‗instinct‘ which puts man on the moral
course.‖ Ryn adds, ―Knowingly or unknowingly echoing Rousseau, he
describes it as a pleasurable feeling of benevolence towards others
which ‗prompts us irresistibly to feel and succor their distresses.‖[11]
These good acts give us pleasure, but how happens it that they give us
pleasure? Because nature hath implanted in our breasts a love of
others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct, in short, which
prompts us irresistibly to feel and to succor their distresses, and
protests against the language of Helvetius, ―what other motive than
self-interest could determine a man to generous actions? It is as
impossible for him to love what is good for the sake of good, as to love
evil for the sake of evil.‖ The Creator would have been a bungling artist,
had he intended man for a social animal, without planting in him social
dispositions. It is true they are not planted in every man, because there
is no rule without exceptions; but it is false reasoning which converts
exceptions into general rules.[14]
that action by the citizens in person, in affairs within their reach and
competence, and in all others by representatives, chosen immediately,
and removable by themselves, constitutes the essence of a republic;
that all governments are more or less republican in proportion enters
more or less into their composition; and that a government by
representation is capable of extension over a greater surface of our
country than one of any other form.[16]
Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea, I would say,
purely and simply, it means a government by its citizens in mass,
acting directly and personally, according to rules established by the
majority; and that every government is more or less republican, in
proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of
the direct action if its citizens. Such a government is evidently
restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt it if it
would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England
township. The first shade from this pure element, which, like that of
pure vital air, cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of
government, being divided, should be exercised each by
representatives chosen pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should
render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This
I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic, which is
practicable on a large scale of country or population.[17]
The ideal republic then is one where the populace acts on its own
behalf; however, it is not reasonable to expect such a pure republic to
exist on a large scale. Representation is especially crucial in a large
country. But representation is a departure from the ideal. ―The further
the departure from direct and constant control by the citizens, the less
has the government of the ingredient of republicanism.‖[18] Jefferson
laments the need to mitigate to any extent the ability of citizens to act
in person, for they should have as much power as is feasible.
Jefferson‘s preference for direct citizen control causes him to prefer the
larger legislative assemblies. ―The purest republican feature in the
government of our own State, is the House of Representatives. The
Senate is equally so the first year, less the second, and so on. The
Executive still less, because not chosen by the people directly. The
Judiciary seriously anti-republican, because for life; and the national
arm wielded, as you observe, by military leaders irresponsible but to
themselves.‖[19]
the whole body of the nation is the sovereign legislative, judiciary, and
executive power for itself. The inconvenience of meeting to exercise
these powers in person, and their inaptitude to exercise them, induce
them to appoint special organs to declare their legislative will, to judge
& to execute it. It is the will of the nation which makes the law
obligatory; it is their will which creates or annihilates the organ which
is to declare & announce it.[20]
That‘s it for a look at their views on human nature and democracy. The
next time we‘ll examine the concept of spontaneity and the ―will of the
moment.‖
[19] Ibid.
[20] Jefferson to Edmund Randolph, Monticello, 18 August, 1799,
in Jefferson Writings, 1067.
FONTE:
https://almostchosenpeople.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/jefferson-
and-rousseau-on-democracy/
https://almostchosenpeople.wordpress.com/author/donaldrmcclarey/