« | Home | »

Playing the Jefferson Card

Tags: | | |

David Brooks professes to know the deep undercurrents of American life, and in his latest column for the New York Times he tries to explain why Jimmy Carter is wrong to say that the rhetorical attacks on Barack Obama are motivated by race:

My impression is that race is largely beside the point. There are other, equally important strains in American history that are far more germane to the current conflicts. For example, for generations schoolchildren studied the long debate between Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians. Hamiltonians stood for urbanism, industrialism and federal power. Jeffersonians were suspicious of urban elites and financial concentration and believed in small-town virtues and limited government. Jefferson advocated ‘a wise and frugal government’ that will keep people from hurting each other, but will otherwise leave them free and ‘shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned’.

How much more pretentious and otherworldly can you get? Must stupidity and aggression always be given their historical due and moral weight? And must they be interpreted through the words of Thomas Jefferson? Moreover, Brooks seems to be saying that it’s fine to be stupid and aggressive as long as you are American, because it fits into a tradition leading all the way back to the beginning of time.

Comments on “Playing the Jefferson Card”

  1. gringo_gus says:

    I would, actually, interpret what is happening to Obama as in the true Jeffersonian tradition – the tradition of saying one thing about liberty, equality, et al, as universals, while acting in completely the opposite way when it comes to black people.

    Hence, Ellis (1997, p. 167) describes the “blazing forges and sweating black boys arranged along an assembly line of hammers and anvils…” in the nail factory Jefferson established on his slave-labor-run Monticello estate. No stand against industrialism, then; plenty of taking “from the mouth of labor…”.

    And, so too, the great American historical tradition, making up things about the past to pretend things that happen now are not what they are.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.


  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • fbkun on Justice for Théo: Polls show that more than half of French police(wo)men vote for the Front National. Quelle surprise...
    • jcscott on The Deep State: How we get rid of Trump is at least as important as whether we get rid of him. The best would be a progressive landslide election in 2020 repudiating ...
    • Oliver Miles on Shambles in Court: A very difficult problem, almost insoluble. Many people are quite unaware of it and just assume that if there is an interpreter there is no problem. I...
    • michael bosley on Arguing with Strangers: Meanwhile, in the UK, cuts in sexual health services are being made by stealth, with hardly any public/political debate. As a report by the Advis...
    • Mat Snow on Not So Innocent: Agreed. But I suspect that when Trump does meet Putin, such pressing issues as international terrorism, nuclear proliferation, drug trafficking and ot...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

Advertisement Advertisement