Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

THE GREAT DIVIDE [puritan v agrarian republicans]
Bernard Levine Website ^ | Bernard Devine

Posted on 05/26/2006 9:26:32 AM PDT by tpaine

THE GREAT DIVIDE

Ever since its first European settlements, in the early 1600s, America developed as two completely different republics.

We have been politically divided ever since, and will always remain so. This is because our two founding republican traditions are both opposite and irreconcilable.

On one side of the divide were the agrarian republicans like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. They gave us the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, with their foundation stones of equal creation, personal freedom, and the inalienable rights of every citizen. Theirs was a republic of innate virtue, where crime and vice were nothing more than aberrations. An individual's misbehavior was only of concern to the State when other citizens had been harmed by it.

On the other side of the divide were the puritanical republicans like the autocratic clergyman, Cotton Mather. These men believed all citizens to be innate sinners, irresistibly driven to dastardly deeds unless rigidly restrained by the State.

Their puritan republic, their City of God, was like a brittle chain, which a single weak link would sunder. In their world, even the slightest mis-step from pious purity had to be prevented at all cost.

Countless detailed laws and regulations were devised, and then constantly revised, in order to eliminate every possibility of straying.

To the true puritan -- whether pious Christian, secular humanist, or leveling socialist -- notions of rights and responsibilities are meaningless. All that matters is the prevention of sin. No form of prior restraint can be too severe, if it advances this fundamental goal.

WHY THEY DO IT

The puritanical impulse is a deep one. We all have it. It is founded in the fear that other people's freedom of action is a threat to our own safety, our own sanctity. It is the impulse to make the other fellow toe the mark. The puritan knows that his own motives are good, but he does not trust yours.

By regulating every detail of everyone else's life, he believes he can prevent crime before it happens. This is so much neater and safer than waiting to punish actual crimes after the fact.

The puritan impulse is the wish to make all risk disappear. This seems much more direct than learning how to manage or avoid risk, and much less demanding than arming oneself to defend against risk. The puritan, like the primitive shaman, seeks to make everything right in the world by magical words of command. Has it ever worked? Can it ever work? Look at the record -- it has never been successful. Puritanism is, at bottom, simple tyranny, and tyranny is doomed to failure. But puritanism's unbroken record of failure will not stop people from trying again and again. Every new generation is born with faith in the power of magic words -- written laws -- to prevent sin.


TOPICS: Religion
KEYWORDS: christianvote; cottonmather; founders; gop; jamesmadison; puritans; republicans; ruralvote; thomasjefferson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last
"-- On one side of the divide were the agrarian republicans like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

On the other side of the divide were the puritanical republicans. These men believed all citizens to be innate sinners, irresistibly driven to dastardly deeds unless rigidly restrained by the State.

The puritanical impulse is a deep one. We all have it. The puritan knows that his own motives are good, but he does not trust yours. --"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The prohibitionist mentality, nailed.

1 posted on 05/26/2006 9:26:33 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Seems too simplistic. There is every shade of opinion between puritanism and libertarianism. And if you look at Jefferson's and Madison's presidencies, you will see they fell into that grey area between.


2 posted on 05/26/2006 9:32:08 AM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
The puritanical authoritarian wing of the Republican party is one of the reasons I don't consider myself a Republican. The wacky peaceniks and open borders wing of the libertarian party keeps me away from that label.

I consider myself an Anti-Democrat. I have a simple rule; I vote for the least evil bastard opposing the democrats, provided he has a chance to win.

3 posted on 05/26/2006 9:38:41 AM PDT by shempy (EABOF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Don't like the terminology.

I look at our popular culture, the homosexual agenda, the crisis in schools, the rate of illegitmate births, and I have a hard time thinking that our morals are too strict and that Puritans are hurting the country.

I look at the growth of government, the endless redtape, the faceless bureaucrats, the environmental regualtions, and the tort situation, and I think: Yeah, micro-management by the Nanny State is a real problem.

But blaming this on a Puritan Republic doesn't make me think that the Democrats are the problem. And I know they are.

4 posted on 05/26/2006 9:45:38 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Never question Bruce Dickinson!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

I thought it shows well the great divide between republican forms of government. One based on liberty, the other based on tradition.


5 posted on 05/26/2006 9:52:32 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: shempy
The puritanical authoritarian wing of the Republican party is one of the reasons I don't consider myself a Republican.
I consider myself an Anti-Democrat. I have a simple rule; I vote for the least evil bastard opposing the democrats, provided he has a chance to win.

Unfortunately, evil, puritanical bastards get elected no matter what voting tactics we use.
Opposition to their prohibitional policies, ALL the time, year in year out, is the only way to fight them.

6 posted on 05/26/2006 10:03:57 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

It's a good illustration of that. But the bottom line is that few politicians, or citizens for that matter, subscribe to either in its purest form.


7 posted on 05/26/2006 10:04:41 AM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Don't like the terminology.

Think of it as 'constitutionalists vs prohibitionists'..

I look at our popular culture, the homosexual agenda, the crisis in schools, the rate of illegitmate births, and I have a hard time thinking that our morals are too strict and that Puritans are hurting the country.

Restoring our Constitution vs enacting more 'laws', -- petty prohibitive laws that encourage even more disobedience, -- that is our choice.

I look at the growth of government, the endless redtape, the faceless bureaucrats, the environmental regualtions, and the tort situation, and I think: Yeah, micro-management by the Nanny State is a real problem. But blaming this on a Puritan Republic doesn't make me think that the Democrats are the problem. And I know they are.

Prohibitions -- and the scofflaws who ignore them are the real problem. We've raised a nation of petty crooks who ignore laws on a daily basis.. -- 'Everybody does it'.

8 posted on 05/26/2006 10:24:11 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pissant
I thought it shows well the great divide between republican forms of government. One based on liberty, the other based on tradition.

It's a good illustration of that. But the bottom line is that few politicians, or citizens for that matter, subscribe to either in its purest form.

I see far to many politicians pandering to the puritan prohibitionists. This country is awash in really bad law. -- Laws that are tearing apart the republic.

9 posted on 05/26/2006 10:39:27 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

This analysis is absolute crap.


10 posted on 05/26/2006 10:43:33 AM PDT by DesScorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

There is probably 50% of the laws that are needless and/or unconstitutional and/or counterproductive. But I would not put modern liberalism as puritanism, rather its socialism or collectivism. Which is even worse.


11 posted on 05/26/2006 10:57:54 AM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
That is an interesting point of view, but I don't think it holds up. When the "puritans" saw national power within their grasp they sought to use it to impose their views on others. When they realized that they couldn't have it, they more or less decided to take care of their own affairs at home themselves.

Similarly when "agrarians" saw power as something that others could wield over them, they sought to break up centralized power. But when they thought that they could exercise that power themselves they were a lot less decentralist. There aren't two kinds of human nature, only one.

There's a polarity in US politics between New England and the South: they usually end up in opposing parties and are often on different sides of the issues. But it's not as though Vermont or New Hampshire is any less agrarian or more puritan in some absolute sense than Virginia or the Carolinas. A lot of the animosity is sheer cussedness.

The other problem with such analyses is that they presume that the "puritans" or "centralists" always won and that things would have been better off if they'd lost. To complete the analysis, you'd have to look at countries where the "agrarians" or "decentralizers" won. You may find as many problems there as in the places where the "centralizers" prevailed.

12 posted on 05/26/2006 11:13:06 AM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesScorp

Thank you for your admission.


13 posted on 05/26/2006 12:09:35 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Yep, far too often the frustrated republican puritan reneges, and joins forces with socialists, -- resulting in the worst of all political movements; -- authoritarian socialism.
14 posted on 05/26/2006 12:21:47 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

I would be willing to bet, however, that the puritan republicans as you call them, by and large are the most resistant to passing freedom-sapping laws out of any other political species. It is the socialist leaning moderates in the GOP that are the ones most likely to side with authoritarian socialism. Yes, there is a smattering of libertarians, Ron Paul comes to mind. But the Reagan Revolution was largely advanced by the Christian Right.


15 posted on 05/26/2006 12:30:53 PM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: x
That is an interesting point of view, but I don't think it holds up. When the "puritans" saw national power within their grasp they sought to use it to impose their views on others.
When they realized that they couldn't have it, they more or less decided to take care of their own affairs at home themselves.

True, in that the Constitution stopped their impositions for the first hundred years, but in the last hundred or so I think they've been winning.. Prohibitive laws on practically everything have multiplied everywhere, both nationally & in home states/localities..

Similarly when "agrarians" saw power as something that others could wield over them, they sought to break up centralized power. But when they thought that they could exercise that power themselves they were a lot less decentralist. There aren't two kinds of human nature, only one.

Yep, as the author said: "-- The puritanical impulse is a deep one. We all have it. --"

There's a polarity in US politics between New England and the South: they usually end up in opposing parties and are often on different sides of the issues. But it's not as though Vermont or New Hampshire is any less agrarian or more puritan in some absolute sense than Virginia or the Carolinas. A lot of the animosity is sheer cussedness.
The other problem with such analyses is that they presume that the "puritans" or "centralists" always won and that things would have been better off if they'd lost. To complete the analysis, you'd have to look at countries where the "agrarians" or "decentralizers" won. You may find as many problems there as in the places where the "centralizers" prevailed.

I don't think there are any such countries. -- Italy might be close just on the basis of political anarchy. Do they have 'problems'?

16 posted on 05/26/2006 12:56:46 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: pissant
I would be willing to bet, however, that the puritan republicans as you call them, by and large are the most resistant to passing freedom-sapping laws out of any other political species.

The author sees the constitutionally aligned "agrarian" republican as most resistant. - 'Puritans' as prone to the prohibitionist fallacies of control.

It is the socialist leaning moderates in the GOP that are the ones most likely to side with authoritarian socialism.

True. Todays 'neo-conservatives' are a prime example.

Yes, there is a smattering of libertarians, Ron Paul comes to mind. But the Reagan Revolution was largely advanced by the Christian Right.

Right thinking Christians realize [or should] that a prohibitive government is their worse enemy:

"-- The puritan, like the primitive shaman, seeks to make everything right in the world by magical words of command. Has it ever worked? Can it ever work? Look at the record -- it has never been successful.
Puritanism is, at bottom, simple tyranny, and tyranny is doomed to failure. --"

17 posted on 05/26/2006 1:38:51 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Prohibitions against murdering babies and of removing God out of the pledge, perhaps, but not prohibitions of speech, religion, assembly, and pursuit of happiness.

It is the RINOS that like affirmative action, diversity training, socialized medicine, etc etc. They are as "puritan" as my big toe.

Neo con is lousy term and defines very few people. Supposedly Bush is a Neo-con. He comes from a long family history in the GOP, and he is more conservative than his family. People call Rumsfeld a neo-con. The guy is older than anyone who calls him that and has been a GOP fixture since before the term was invented. It's a phony term used by those who think somehow we should mind our own business in the world, as if that is even a remote possibility.


18 posted on 05/26/2006 2:03:25 PM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: pissant
It is the socialist leaning moderates in the GOP that are the ones most likely to side with authoritarian socialism.
Yes, there is a smattering of libertarians, Ron Paul comes to mind. But the Reagan Revolution was largely advanced by the Christian Right.

Right thinking Christians realize [or should] that a prohibitive government is their worse enemy.

Prohibitions against murdering babies and of removing God out of the pledge, perhaps, but not prohibitions of speech, religion, assembly, and pursuit of happiness.

Yep, our Constitution forbids governments from infringing on our rights of speech, religion, assembly, and pursuit of happiness. -- Right thinking Christians should support those 'Laws of the Land'.

It is the RINOS that like affirmative action, diversity training, socialized medicine, etc etc. They are as "puritan" as my big toe.

In effect with such programs they are mandating how you will live. -- I see it as just another form of secular Puritanism.

19 posted on 05/26/2006 3:16:36 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

I agree with all the statements in your last post.


20 posted on 05/26/2006 3:19:23 PM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson