I would and do argue for the hell of it, but not in this case. Jefferson is put on a pedastal far too much for any human being, joining the ranks of George Washington, both Roosevelt's, etc. etc. People are just human - they may have been exceptionally bright, but to think they are "better" than any one of us is silly. He had good ideas, he had bad ones, and he could have had a skewed interpretation of the world just like any one of us.Kmarion wrote:
I could show you much more kid but by your admission you'd argue just for the hell of it. He wasn't so naive as to think that the natural banding together of people was avoidable. His point was to keep an eye on it (the tree of liberty must be.. yadada". He himself banded together to fight the federalist and Madison (who was pushing for a Federal bank at the time). The common sense example was to counter your inaccurate remark about him being "extreme". His extremism was limited to taking on the crown. Thomas Jefferson was very progressive. If you had extended your education beyond quotes you would know that. He was talking about abolishing slavery from the get go. It was his moderation that kept him from pushing the issue. You also miss Jefferson's real vision of agrarian society. The impact of needing an entire nation to take to the field and start to build would certainly not make sense in today political atmosphere. That is what I meant by historical context. His political philosophies preceded the industrial revolution. But you know that "..and yes I'm speaking in hindsight".Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Well that's what I was saying, they said it, but in all reality can a republic exist without political factions? Human beings band together in groups for mutual protection. You're fighting human nature to get away from it, even if it would be to move to an ideal.Kmarion wrote:
They specifically warned us about hitching up to these political factions.
That's not extreme.. that's just common sense.
His writings included not only his words but what the people around him were saying.. good stuff.
agrarian society right.. you'll want to apply historical context to that one. The foundation of Jeffersonian ideals is sound.
You should show me something that isn't just common sense if you want to show how smart he is.
In historical context he was very wrong, no matter which way you look at it. Food is still food across the ages, and the idea of industry and the service sector, though far more primitive at the time, still existed. If I remember correctly he liked agriculture because it afforded individual reliability and independence, which would have fundamentally changed our core values as a nation. Progressiveness and American ingenuity as we know it today just would not be the same. The Civil War may not have been fought, we wouldn't be on top of the world technologically or militarily, honestly not even close. Maybe that sounds like not such a bad thing, but to be perfectly honest I think these are the only things that have kept the nation together over our very brief history. Most foreign nations have a very extensive history to anchor them, but that is one thing we don't have. The trials and tribulations we have gone through as a nation are what have brought us together, particularly foreign and domestic wars, and without them we would be crumbling. Who gives a shit about the flag when everyone is at home farming, 10 miles away from the next person who doesn't give a shit about the flag?
and yes I'm speaking in hindsight, but we don't give a pass to the guy at the U.S. patent office who said there was nothing else to invent do we?
Things could have very well remained "Jeffersonian" if our ancestors followed in his footsteps and heeded his ideology. More common sense knowledge for you to amuse yourself with --> that doesn't mean verbatim.
Extremism and progressivism are not mutually exclusive, quite the opposite in fact, as you should appreciate in the context of economic shifts. His views seem rather extreme on the issue of the power divided between varying levels of government, though granted that was at a time when there was no precedence. If it was strictly him in charge of the development of this nation in its first 50 years, things would be radically different, and not for the better. I do not believe he would have taken power in such a way even had it been available to him, but the point is his ideas are not the end all be all of representative democracy, or even the conservative branch thereof.
His moderation kept him from pursuing his goals? That is quite, quite the euphemism. Much more like his inability in the face of so much resistance, forcing him to choose his battles. That was the smart thing to do, and no one should think he was not politically savvy, but to call every issue he either did not have enough drive or influence to have his way on a victory for moderation is absurd.
He had no vision. Washington made several key precedents and gave very specific pieces of advice in his Farewell Address. Jefferson on the other hand was living completely in his day, analyzing the problems encountered and what they were going through to find the best immediate circumstance. I think he did a very fine job of that, and had he not been a major factor in acquiring things like a Bill of Rights, then we would be in a much worse position than we are in today. Look at how much trouble we have securing our freedoms as it is. But he was not looking to the future, he was looking squarely at what had been major problems with England, and at the English government.
For example, immediately following the ratification of the Constitution, an agrarian society would have done just fine, arguably even ideal. More raw exports, expanding to the south and west, getting war debts paid off with little start up capital, all held together by a fresh sense of independence. But what on earth would ever have made him think a primarily agrarian society would be a good idea when there had not been a truly successful one in the past, especially moving into the future? He realized that the common defense must be provided for (the tree of liberty must be.. yadada), but it is fundamentally more difficult to raise an army in such a society, especially quickly. Things are more spread out, population count is lower, materials are harder to transport. Look at the Civil War. Yes it was post Industrial Revolution, but the new technologies only exacerbated the fundamental problem. How do you maintain a sense of national pride? At the time there was more state pride than national pride, but without decently large centers of population you can't maintain even that much. Just who was he looking at when he thought of this? Greeks? No. Romans? No. Byzantines? No. Anglos? First time they were really successful is when the British empire was based primarily on conquest. The closest I can think of is China. Yeah, that turned out real well. Even in historical context the problems associated with a rural society were well known.
We could have remained Jeffersonian, and to some degree it wouldn't have been such a bad thing (despite the fact that some of his best ideas were this common sense stuff you keep talking about). It doesn't mean that all of his ideals were gold, or even the larger ones.