Max, she's amazing. I teach a lot of the same ideas in my civics class, but I'm absolutely making this required reading for my students. They need to hear it from someone other than me. Thanks.
The philosophical problem underlying federal expansion is a shift from local practices to universal rights. that begins with Locke and Jefferson, picks up speed with Mill, and we're still coasting on the postmodernists Nitro injection in the 60's. That universalizing principle is built into Enlightenment liberalism, which means the only way to escape it is to leave the Enlightenment framework. This was Deneen's case in Why Liberalism Failed. This is why I am a postliberal politically.
I'm reading a really interesting book right now called The Devil's Best Trick, about the changing definitions of Satan over the centuries. My current chapter talks about Voltaire and Diderot's claim that moral limits are inherently unjust, that nothing should be prohibited on moral grounds alone. This prefigures Mill and is likely where he got his theories from. What makes the chapter interesting is that the author (Randall Sullivan) spends a number of pages talking about the Marquis de Sade. It sounds weird in a philosophy book, but he summarizes it as "de Sade simply took the others to their logical conclusion, and it appalled them. Voltaire and Diderot looked into the abyss briefly, de Sade plunged in head first and never looked up." I teach philosophy, but I had never considered de Sade in this way. I think there's really something there. It's not a stretch to look at Pride parades and the celebration of all kinds of sexual deviancy and think of de Sade.
I think the power getting pushed to the federal government has also had the effect of pushing any political activity by normal people past the point where they could have any meaningful input on the process. I was recently having a discussion with someone about a contentious political issue and I kept coming back to "what are you doing about it, here in this town?" The answer was of course nothing (not that I'm any better), but I don't think anyone had framed it like that to them before.
Thanks Max and Nicole! Very interesting read. I think she is right - the Constitution would never have been ratified if the states thought they could never leave. This country would be so different (and I hope vibrant) if powers not specifically delegated had been retained by the states.
Max, she's amazing. I teach a lot of the same ideas in my civics class, but I'm absolutely making this required reading for my students. They need to hear it from someone other than me. Thanks.
The philosophical problem underlying federal expansion is a shift from local practices to universal rights. that begins with Locke and Jefferson, picks up speed with Mill, and we're still coasting on the postmodernists Nitro injection in the 60's. That universalizing principle is built into Enlightenment liberalism, which means the only way to escape it is to leave the Enlightenment framework. This was Deneen's case in Why Liberalism Failed. This is why I am a postliberal politically.
I'm reading a really interesting book right now called The Devil's Best Trick, about the changing definitions of Satan over the centuries. My current chapter talks about Voltaire and Diderot's claim that moral limits are inherently unjust, that nothing should be prohibited on moral grounds alone. This prefigures Mill and is likely where he got his theories from. What makes the chapter interesting is that the author (Randall Sullivan) spends a number of pages talking about the Marquis de Sade. It sounds weird in a philosophy book, but he summarizes it as "de Sade simply took the others to their logical conclusion, and it appalled them. Voltaire and Diderot looked into the abyss briefly, de Sade plunged in head first and never looked up." I teach philosophy, but I had never considered de Sade in this way. I think there's really something there. It's not a stretch to look at Pride parades and the celebration of all kinds of sexual deviancy and think of de Sade.
Let us know what your students think of it!
I think the power getting pushed to the federal government has also had the effect of pushing any political activity by normal people past the point where they could have any meaningful input on the process. I was recently having a discussion with someone about a contentious political issue and I kept coming back to "what are you doing about it, here in this town?" The answer was of course nothing (not that I'm any better), but I don't think anyone had framed it like that to them before.
Thanks Max and Nicole! Very interesting read. I think she is right - the Constitution would never have been ratified if the states thought they could never leave. This country would be so different (and I hope vibrant) if powers not specifically delegated had been retained by the states.