About a year and a half ago, a friend gave me a T-shirt with the slogan “Peace - Love - Liberty.” This is also the unfortunate title of a new book by my friend, Tom Palmer. But I can never see this slogan without wincing and thinking, “Pick any two.”
We in the United States have had our experiences with censorship.
At the close of the American Revolution, many hoped that slavery, that embarrassing hypocrisy in a land devoted to freedom, would eventually wither away. As the founders reached retirement age, it seemed to them that slavery was economically unfeasible in the long run, and that all eyes were opening to the Enlightenment principles of equality and freedom.
That optimism proved unfounded, even disingenuous. At the opening of the nineteenth century, several factors, including the invention of the cotton gin, made slavery more economically attractive, and the south’s willingness to defend it became more virulent. By the 1830s, southern intellectuals were promoting a new “positive good school” of slavery: arguing that it was not a scourge, but a benefit to society and even to the slaves themselves. This was not a fringe movement. The Vice President of the United States, John C. Calhoun, was among its most prominent spokesmen.
When I was a junior in college, I sent Harry Jaffa a copy of a paper I’d written in a seminar on the American Revolution. I harshly criticized one of my school’s professors for his rejection of the principles of the Declaration of Independence—so harshly, in fact, that my professor marked me down half a grade for my tone. When I spoke to Jaffa about this on the phone, he was philosophical. “Tim, you and I are gadflies,” he said. “We need bigger and better gadflies.”
I had come to know Jaffa my senior year in high school, when I read his book Original Intent. I had fallen in love with the Constitution and the American founding some years before, and after devouring the writings of Thomas Jefferson and others, picked up a copy of Robert Bork’s Tempting of America. I was knocked backwards—genuinely mortified—that the man many considered the day’s chief conservative intellectual had managed to misunderstand, indeed, to consciously misrepresent, the principles of the American Constitution. When I saw Original Intent advertised as a rebuttal to Bork, I bought and devoured it, and wrote Jaffa a fan letter. He called—no, he had one of his grad students call; Jaffa never phoned or wrote—and invited me to attend a session of the Publius Fellows seminar, not far from my home. I showed up, nervous, in a suit and tie. Jaffa, I knew, was a famous and influential intellectual, author of Barry Goldwater’s famous line “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Jaffa sat at the head of the table in his shorts and polo shirt, before a table of equally timid listeners. I remember little of what followed except that I challenged him sharply on gay rights—one of the many subjects on which we never saw eye to eye.
Jaffa, after all, was not a libertarian. He was a Goldwater Conservative, which comprises a series of beliefs I consider incompatible, but which includes at least the virtue that Jaffa was relentless in defense of the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Like his hero, Abraham Lincoln, Jaffa insisted that we hold firm on these, as with a chain of steel. And he was relentless in their defense, most especially when he detected his allies betraying them.
They often did. Jaffa never ceased to be scandalized by such things as Irving Kristol’s statement that Jefferson never wrote a thing worth reading, or Chief Justice Rehnquist’s claim that the Constitution’s protections for liberty derive their value, not from truth, but merely from the fact that they’d been adopted into the Constitution. Jaffa was a deeply learned man, conversant in Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Shakespeare—if, as Nietzsche said, philology is the art of reading slowly, Jaffa believed the same was true of political philosophy, and he mined these works for the truths they had hidden in their pockets. He knew the abstruse academic debates about their authorship and styles. But he was a passionate man, too: passionate to get at the truth. And in this, he remained always a young man, even in old age. At 80, when I last saw him, he remained still the kind of man who no doubt would have, like a little-known Springfield lawyer, challenged a Senator so respected as to be titled “the little giant” to a series of debates on the meaning of the nation’s first principles. Like Lincoln, he would’ve won those debates, too.
The reason was that Jaffa was in love with the truth. He once quipped that as “philosophy” means “lover of wisdom,” a “professional philosopher” must be a professional lover, or a whore of the intellect. But in his own case, wisdom was not a profession; it was a calling. Thus Jaffa always pictured himself, I think, not as a Socratic gadfly—challenging the Athenians’ deepest beliefs—but as a Lincolnian gadfly, who challenged Americans to rediscover them.
I cannot speak to how tenably he connected all of this to his Straussianism. I have not read enough Strauss to say. But in his best work—his “Equality As A Conservative Principle,” his “False Prophets of American Conservatism,” and, of course, his Crisis of The House Divided—Jaffa came to the defense of the founders, not because they were the founders, but because they were right. “One would start with great confidence that he could convince any sane child that the simpler propositions of Euclid are true,” wrote Lincoln. “But, nevertheless, he would fail, utterly, with one who should deny the definitions and axioms. The principles of Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of free society. And yet they are denied and evaded, with no small show of success.” Those who deny—or ignore—the Declaration’s principles are, Lincoln warned, “the van-guard—the miners, and sappers—of returning despotism.” He was right, and Jaffa knew it. He wouldn’t stop till you knew it, too.
He was often criticized for the harshness of his writing; his opponents usually said this from the mat, while the referee counted down the remaining seconds. I recall one particularly severe, and entertaining, National Review exchange with Bork that ended with bitter accusations. But the reason for his intensity was that Jaffa was right, and about important matters. He was wrong sometimes, and there will be time to debate those things later. The most important thing here is what he was right about. Liberty, he insisted, really is the birthright of every person. The Declaration’s principle of equality really is the sheet anchor of American republicanism. The vindication of the union and the liberation of the slaves really was the destiny of the American nation. Calhoun and his modern admirers really were wrong about the sources of political obligation and the primacy of liberty. The intensity of his writing rose from the crucial importance of the task before him. How could one compromise on the central ideas of the American Constitution?—the central ideas of mankind? Yet many of his fellow conservatives were lightly tossing these ideas overboard in his lifetime. Such ideas, Jaffa thought, were not to be treated as mere academic exercises; they were the staff of life. He fought fiercely for them because he saw how much depended on them. Paine, of whom he was fond, said that we have it in our power to begin the world anew. That is worth more than tenderness to the feelings of misguided friends.
Thus to Jaffa, the ideas of the Gettysburg Address were as alive and as present now as they had been to those who fought over liberty and slavery only fifty years before his birth. The ideas of Paine, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Douglass, were timeless principles, applicable to all men and all times, and seemed to him to sit upon his shoulders as he wrote. He could not bear to see them slighted. He thought they were urgent—and on that, he was, and remains, and always will be, right.
Some years ago, I was on my way to speak at the University of Kansas. It was late, around midnight, and I was roaring down the interstate as the moon rose, huge before me. Somehow I felt around me all the powers of past ages, all the permanent truths that for Jaffa always remained so present. That led me to compose a poem I would like to dedicate to him:
The Valley of Siddim for HVJ
An Indian Summer night, plunging down I-70, the countryside near Lawrence a smear in pale beams, I felt the time beginning to unwind, and saw the Moon, all wreathed in red like magma, uprise as though to pour a fire on the land of silent prairie grasses and the layered dermis of sediments here and there incised, that flaked the centuries patiently to dust while I raced by.
Oh, the majesty of that crimson! It seemed less like light than judgment. It glared from mists in starlessness, in static air, where all was still —except a shock of white when predatory wings snapped and with a muffled shriek vanished again in stealth. Meanwhile, trees dropped ragged leaves, revealing skinny claws; Others, scarlet-stained, only shivered in a wind that converged from all around toward the unrelenting light that once stared down on Quantrill, on Beecher’s men, and Brown; that haloed roaring prophets, and shone in lithic eyes aiming over rifle stocks.
Suddenly the blackness swallowed up that moon, and I knew that I was going back, back through testaments of ancient blood, past Zoar, past Admah, past Zeboiim, and as I searched the dismal sky, I heard from veiny, tangled creeks that loomed beside the road, the groaning ghosts of millions, all their destinies flaring up to some unheard-of crossroads, then flying past in blackness; my wheels now were of caissons careening over hillsides toward the burning cities obscured on the horizon. I thought of wrath unpent, of unsanctified defiance, of the verdict deserved, foretold, and disbelieved. And then I thought of Abraham, who asked, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?”
Here is something unreal, something you cannot feel or taste or hear or smell or lock away or sell; something you cannot save, cannot even have or hold. Oh, the old know its sweetness. They've told you often how quick it's gone, how desperately they long to have it back again. You've heard the tales of men braving distant seas or vicious enemies for its sake. You know well enough its worth; can tell its cost, and how it lasts forever, and just how fast it's lost. You know there's nothing you wouldn't trade for this nothing once again. Now, here: You see it's disappeared. Cherish it, my dear.
I adore Wallace, whose common sense, powerful, principled analysis, and skilled writing make his arguments vivid and persuasive. He cuts through the bull, in other words. This book is really his brief summation of his whole career. There's little here you wouldn't get from his other books, but it's all in one place , in a brisk little book that's almost completely persuasive.
I speak to you with the voice as of one risen from the dead.... [C]ould the sepulchre unbar its gates, and open to me a passage to this desk...I would repeat the question...“Why are you assembled in this place”?—and one of you would answer me for all, —Because the Declaration of Independence, with the voice of an angel from heaven, “put to his mouth the sounding alchemy,” and proclaimed universal emancipation upon earth! It is not the separation of your forefathers from their kindred race, beyond the Atlantic tide. It is not the union of thirteen British Colonies into one People and the entrance of that People upon the theatre, where kingdoms, and empires, and nations are the persons of the drama. It is not that this is the birth-day of the North American Union, the last and noblest offspring of time. It is that the first words uttered by the Genius of our country, in announcing his existence to the world of mankind, was,—Freedom to the slave! Liberty to the captives! Redemption! redemption forever to the race of man, from the yoke of oppression! It is not the work of a day; it is not the labour of an age; it is not the consummation of a century, that we are assembled to commemorate. It is the emancipation of our race. It is the emancipation of man from the thraldom of man!
My friend Joshua Thompson points out,apropos of a recent Onion bit, that the cost of California's "high speed rail" project (which is actually no longer a high-speed train, but just an ordinary train) is so high that it really would be cheaper to fly everyone in California to Japan to ride real high-speed rail from Tokyo to Kyoto...and then fly them back again.
Note that this is based on the $91.4 billion price tag that the government itself admits to. Actual costs are, of course, likely to be much, much higher.
$91.4 billion is a lot. For example, California's farms produce about 38.8 billion eggs per year. In other words, all the chickens in America's third largest state produce about a third as many eggs in an entire year as the Browndoggle train is supposed to cost. According to the government's estimate. Or how about this. There are about 87 million cows in the United States. So...that's roughly one one-thousandth of the number of dollars that'll be poured into the Browndoggle. According to the government.
A plane ticket from San Francisco to LA is, what, $150 - $250? So $91.4 bil is about 365,600,000 plane tickets, or about a dozen or so round trips for every single Californian, man, woman, and child...or a train.
Which, of course, would take longer than a plane flight, even if it were high-speed.
Which it's not gonna be.
If it's ever built.
But it'll pay for itself? Of course, if that were true, then it wouldn't be necessary for the government to force us to pay for it. Airlines pay for themselves (for the most part). That's why the government didn't build the airlines. (We're putting bailouts aside for the moment.) Automobiles pay for themselves. That's why car makers operate their businesses selling cars to people who voluntarily buy them. The train, on the other hand--we're being forced to buy. Why? Because we aren't willing to pay for it voluntarily. Because we don't want it.
I’m putting together my annual list of books to read. I rarely, if ever, actually stick to these lists; I get sidetracked like a dog smelling flowers by the side of the road. But it’s still a worthwhile exercise. I’m usually pretty good at the beginning of the year, at least. Anyway, I’d like to get recommendations: is there some book you particularly enjoyed, or thought I would enjoy, or hope will change my mind—or whatever it might be? Please email, comment, tweet, etc.
This is my personal blog. The opinions expressed here are my own, and in no way represent those of the staff, management, or clients of the Pacific Legal Foundation, the Cato Institute, or the McGeorge School of Law.