Comments on: Founders’ Fight Club Books: Federalists v. Republicans

By: Notable New Books I Read in 2012, pt. 1 » Postmodern Conservative | A First Things Blog

Sat, 19 Jan 2013 17:39:16 +0000

[...] usual Brookhiser virtue of a short biography. I talked about a few of its other virtues in my Founder’s Fight Club post. What I appreciate most is the way a sense of Madison’s fine-toothed political [...]

By: Joseph R. Stromberg

Joseph R. Stromberg — Tue, 01 May 2012 05:34:35 +0000

It is hard to think that the convention arrived at anything *providentially.* You might ask Mitt. He believes in that sort of thing in the Great Nation of Futility. (Sorry, I’m a bit irritable, having noticed a few more amendments going down the drain lately.)

By: James Madison Keeps It Real On Nullification | Virginia News Press | Virginia Breaking News Headlines | Virginia News Directory

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:32:36 +0000

[...] this guy named Pete Spiliakos says we haven’t been totally unchanging on nullification and [...]

By: James Madison Keeps It Real On Nullification » Postmodern Conservative | A First Things Blog

Sun, 29 Apr 2012 15:10:19 +0000

[...] this guy named Pete Spiliakos says I haven’t been totally consistent on nullification and [...]

By: John Presnall

John Presnall — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 05:30:16 +0000

The Bessette and Pitney text is great, and while I can use that book for my own class, I have to persuade others to use it. I have been trying to get it as a common text, but the quantitative and the (literally) Marxists in my department like any version to typical Harold Lasswell, or even Michael Parenti version of politics.

Since our community college department goes with common texts, I lose in favor of Bessette and Pitney. I also liked the Landy and Milkis text, as well as the Wilson and DiIulio texts. My favorite is still the Ceaser, Bessette, Thurow, et al., text, but it is out of print.

So I use some lame text that i don’t even read, and teach politiccal science from the appendices and detailed handouts I provide.

So basically I have written my own text book, and i provide it for my students.

Is it better than Bessette and Pitney’s? I can’t say, but while I emphasize the notion of “delibertation” I surely also point out the limitations to it. I also assign Harvey Mansfield’s Jefferson Lecture about thumos and the limitations to logos giving reasons for thumos, and why thumos ought to be listened to nonetheless.

By: Carl Eric Scott

Carl Eric Scott — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:35:12 +0000

Somehow I forgot that the first rule of “Commando” is:

The Laws of Germany!

Man, how can I even hope to figure out things like the consistent political philosophy of James Madison if I forget crucial facts like that!

By: Pete Spiliakos

Pete Spiliakos — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 01:17:26 +0000

Carl, if you take into account that Madison could be rhetorically cunning (though perhaps not always as precise as he might always have wished in retrospect) and the changing political contexts, you can sometimes see deeper continuities in some of Madison’s statements. The tensions between the Virginia Resolution and Notes on Nullification don’t entirely go away, but they shrink. I’m thinking of a Madison “keeping it real” explanation of the two statements when I have a little more time.

By: Brad

Brad — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:43:21 +0000

Carl, it almost goes without saying, and I should have made this clear earlier, that it would be hard to find a better introduction to early American Political Thought than the one you have provided.

By: Carl Eric Scott

Carl Eric Scott — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:29:13 +0000

Brad, you’re right, one must get more foundational still, and CJ Wolfe has the right idea:

First rule, is: be nice to Mommy.

Second rule, is: don’t listen to commies.

Third rule, is: eat kosher salami

Those are the principles of “Commando,” in case you didn’t misspend your youth on too many rock songs.

But more seriously, Brad, I think there can be a case for morphing the Founders together in the way T. West does in the chapters on family and property. That is, I think there is are legitimate ways of doing “stage one” or 100-level Founder-ism, and West’s is one of them. But some clues need to be given the student that divides were there, and eventually one needs to move to the more advanced levels.

I’m glad you like the Bessette/Pitney text also. I do not see saving the three-branches chapters for the latter third of the book as a major problem–one can get around it by not discussing the LONG Civil Liberties and Civil Rights until after you’ve done the Judiciary chapter. They could cut some of the deliberation discussions–just gets too repetitive and long.

As for your other concerns, the course does get more theoretical/foundational, and I’m with you on the hostility toward Jeffersonian/Randolphian level states rights. I’m 80-90% with Hamilton on these debates, FYI.

By: Brad

Brad — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:30:25 +0000

Carl, were I spiteful student who had just completed your course, I might write in my evaluation that all that impressive reading you put us through seems a tad too survey-ish or historically abstract for those of us who heard you were a genuine liberal education man. How compelling is it, in other words, given the foundational changes in American political thought since the founding, to learn about the intricacies of Jefferson and the Antifeds’ disagreements with Hamilton/Feds over the Bank and executive power? Interesting stuff to say the least, but perhaps you could say more in future classes (or in this post) about why T. West would lump all the Founders together in his chapters on the family and property when comparing it to the political thought of contemporary liberalism? And what about Bessette and Pitney’s decision to wait until the final chapters of their textbook to discuss the Constitution’s institutions? Is this reflective of an Antifederalist or rather apolitical bias operating beneath what is otherwise a refreshingly constitutional (and constitutionally accurate) Am. gov textbook? And aren’t you being a bit harsh on Madison and Hamilton’s view of states rights given what that doctrine morphed into thanks to Calhoun (as Madison is obviously concerned about in his Virginia Report) and later with the centralization of admin authority? Or did you have us read all that stuff, Dr. Scott, because these original disputes are reflective of the kind of deeper theoretical problems that grip the nation today?