LITR 5535: American
Romanticism
Sample Student Research Project, fall 2003
April Davis
LITR 5535
Dr. Craig White
12 November 2003
Transcendentalism and Rebellion: Then and
Now – The politics of revolution
Is the romantic impulse towards rebellion driven by natural human instinct? Perhaps science should study this question a bit more in depth and share its findings with the major governments of the world because it appears as though the impulse towards rebellion is inherent to situations in which the freedoms of the individual are sacrificed to the good of the collective. If indeed rebellion is instinctual, does that mean that the individual is the highest order in natural law and therefore must cast off the oppression of artificial constraints? Throughout history democratic and socialist governments have unflinchingly managed to put the purported ‘good of the group’ in opposition with the rights of individuals; but are the two really in opposition to one another? Is their opposition a natural state, or an artificial one created by those in power? Until these questions are examined and answered rebellion will continue to erupt whenever conditions restrain the growth of the individual. Although the United States was founded upon rebellion, it appears as though that romantic impulse has been successfully crushed by a more realistic acceptance of subjugation in the 21st century. By comparing and contrasting the elements that contributed to rebellion during the age of the Transcendentalists – belief in the individual, recognition of government crimes against the individual, and conditions favorable for reform – with these elements as they exist today, it may be possible to pinpoint why there is no revolution in 21st century America.
Perhaps the single most important factor in the formation of government is whether the creators possess a positive or negative perception of the nature of mankind. An optimistic view of mankind often results in a smaller government in which much of the decision making power is left to the individual. Classical liberalism, as outlined by John Locke, supports individual rights, the right to property, a free market, and a limited government. The objective behind the classical liberal idea of limiting power was to limit collective power in order for humanity to evolve through the evolution of the individual. Many of the founding fathers of the United States, including Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson, adhered to the ideas of classical liberalism. Although their motives are arguable, the founding fathers supported the idea of a small government that did not restrain the rights of the individual or interfere with economics on a small scale.
Members of the Transcendentalist movement such as Emerson and Thoreau, steeped in the classic liberal idea of optimistic individualism, (“American Transcendentalism” 1) utilized its doctrines (including the Declaration of Independence) in protest against a government that not only meddled in the affairs of private citizens, but also endorsed and protected the institution of slavery. Though the Jacksonian Era during which the Transcendentalists movement began was a time of political reform and individual movement westward, many marginalized groups felt that the government was not concerned enough with the rights and freedoms of individuals not participating in westward expansion. Human rights issues such as slavery and women’s suffrage lent themselves to a spirit of revolution while the works of the Transcendentalists articulated the nature of individualism and outlined the rights and freedoms inherent to all.
Emerson defined what was later coined ‘rugged individualism’ in his works through his belief in the individual as perfectible and capable of determining his own fate which was the basis of his argument for individual rebellion against accepted beliefs and behaviors. According to Emerson in “The American Scholar,” “The world is nothing, the man is all…in yourself slumbers the whole of Reason; it is for you to know all, it is for you to dare all” (Emerson 526). This was a valiant call to young American graduates, not yet entirely caught up in the artificial constraints fashioned by the government, to rise up, trust their own instincts and to do what they knew to be right. Emerson accused the United States government of limiting the rights of the individual (particularly in the case of slavery) and therefore overstepping its bounds as a government. This, in the eyes of Emerson was just cause for rebellion.
His optimistic view of mankind as perfectible is further illustrated in “ The American Scholar” when he states, “the soul active seeks absolute truth” (Emerson 517) which he takes further in his analysis of Jesus Christ in “The Divinity School Address” when he states,
“Jesus Christ belonged to the true race of prophets. He saw with open eye the mystery of the soul…he estimated the greatness of man…he saw that God incarnates himself in man…he said ‘I am divine. Through me, God acts; through me, speaks…’ But what a distortion did his doctrine and memory suffer in the same, in the next, and the following ages!” (Emerson 530).
This was a bold indictment of organized religion as it perverts natural law, supports government power, and crushes the individual by reducing spirituality to a set of mindless traditions and rituals.
Thoreau also subscribed to the idea of the individual as perfectible. In “Resistance to Civil Government” he questions the idea of man as imperfectible and corrupt with “why has every man a conscience, then?…Must every citizen…resign his conscience to the legislator?” (Thoreau 838). Thoreau believed that the individual was the highest power and possessed the capability of making moral distinctions. It was the government that was responsible for corrupting and perverting the individual. He asserts, “The character inherent in American people has done all that has been accomplished, and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way,” (Thoreau 840). Thoreau used the following analogy to illustrate his view of the government’s effect on the individual, “If a plant cannot live according to its nature, it dies; and so a man,” (Thoreau 847).
Not all people that lived during the age of the Transcendentalists subscribed to the idea of the individual as inherently good and perfectible. Many cynics, Mellville and Hawthorne for example, felt that human nature was inherently dark and perverse. Certainly the issue of slavery lent itself to the idea of man as corrupt. While slaveholders saw the African race as inferior, animal-like and ultimately imperfectible, those in opposition to slavery could argue at the corruptness and imperfectibility of the slaveholders themselves. Likewise women, who had been subjugated by men throughout the ages, certainly had doubts as to the inherent goodness of their oppressors. However, it may be argued that these subjugated groups could not see objectively from behind the walls of their respective prisons to the greater evil fostering the corruption of man.
Interestingly, in subsequent centuries many thinkers have continued to adhere to the transcendental idea of man as the highest power and inherently good. Following the works of the Transcendentalists, John Stuart Mill refashioned the idea of the intrinsic value of the individual in his Utilitarianism. Ayn Rand advocates individual freedom in her Objectivism. Current political parties such as the Libertarian Party and the Natural Law Party appeal to the idea of the individual as capable of attaining enlightenment and engaging in self-rule with minimal outside government intervention.
Unfortunately, in the current capitalist system the value of the individual is often negatively redefined as individual in relation to economic worth as popular culture embraces and rewards the pursuit of material wealth. Oscar Wilde put the conundrum succinctly when he said that capitalism misleads people into valuing having over being (Weinstein 220). The current perverted state of individualism cannot or does not attempt to justify rebellion and instead relies on the negative view of human nature as greedy, lawless and immoral in order to justify its apathy. Further confounding the problem, the classical liberalism of old has been shelved in favor of a more socialist liberalism that has been utilized by politicians to justify more government intervention in private affairs. The government’s perversion of the term liberal, in an attempt to justify big government, negates the inherent good of the individual by assuming that the strong will prey on the weak, thus necessitating government mediation in which government officials attempt to redistribute wealth and create equality by limiting the personal and economic freedoms of some individuals. In exchange for giving up some personal freedoms and agreeing to limits on individual potential, the strong get economic protection from the government as well. Therefore both the weak and the strong support government and not only do not support rebellion but fear it. Just as in the age of Thoreau, “they cannot spare the protection of the existing government, and they dread the consequences of disobedience to it to their property and families” (Thoreau 846) and so they submit to it.
Many proponents of individualism and minimal government, including Transcendentalists such as Thoreau and Emerson, recognize three types of crimes perpetrated by the government against the individual. Their first argument is that big government undermines the growth of the individual. According to Thoreau, the government makes it impossible to live honestly and comfortably because doing what is expedient, convenient, and in one’s own self interest at the expense of one’s conscience is a form of enslavement (Boland 7). Emerson and Thoreau categorize this process of undermining individual growth into three parts – dividing, diverting, and subduing. Emerson describes the process of division in “The American Scholar,” “Man…is all. Man is priest, and scholar, and statesman, and producer, and soldier. In the divided or social state, these functions are parceled out to individuals…The state of society is one in which the members have suffered amputation from the trunk…” (Emerson 515). Thoreau takes this idea and articulates how it leads to diversion from individual growth. In “Walden” Thoreau asserts, ”men have become tools of their tools” (Thoreau 856) devoting much of their life to labor in order to satisfy commercially constructed wants and never achieving any higher intellectual or spiritual abilities (Boland 7). Therefore, according to Thoreau, the “mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation” and are the slave drivers of themselves (Thoreau 856). Emerson explains how this dividing and diverting accomplishes the pacification or subduing of the masses when he states in “Politics,” “wild liberty develops iron conscience. Want of liberty, by strengthening law and decorum, stupefies conscience” (Emerson 5). Thoreau offers further explanation in “Resistance” when he explains that government tends to corrupt and subdue rather than respect individuals. Citizens are responsible for this because most men “ serve the state…not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies…” and of those purported to served the states on an intellectual level, “rarely make any moral distinctions,…[thus] are as likely to serve the Devil, without intending it, as God” (Thoreau 839). According to professor Joseph Boland, Thoreau then goes further to attack the reduction of religion to a set of empty formalities in order to complement the preoccupation with material gain. This illustrates how mere convenience is enough to persuade people to abide by unjust laws (Boland 8). All of this is a strong indictment of the government as it prevents the individual from recognizing its full potential.
Emerson and Thoreau’s charges against the government still hold true today. The 20th century saw the growth of the United States government into an empire of Roman proportions. How does a government of such a vast and diversified group of people claim the right to legislate individual morals and restrict personal freedoms? Two decades of United States government expansion proceeded quietly after World War II until civil rights issues and Vietnam erupted in the 1950’s and 60’s, and individuals finally began to realize that the constitutional amendments prohibiting slavery and granting women suffrage as well as the New Deal economic welfare programs had done very little to secure the actual freedoms and rights of the individual. It appeared as though the government had simply pacified the masses with laws that affected no fundamental change in the anti-individualist culture. These groups, while now ‘equal’ in the eyes of the law, suffered at the hands of a culture shaped by a government that did not value individuals beyond their economic worth.
Unfortunately the marginalized groups of the 1950’s, 60’s, and 70’s unwittingly allowed their single-issue movements to divert them from the fundamental problem of a government that promotes hostility towards nonconformity and individuality. By asking for government intervention and protection on their behalf rather than questioning the legitimacy of the government under which such conditions not only existed, but flourished, these groups paved the way for more government involvement in personal issues under the guise of “leveling the playing field” or “protecting minority rights” which created a climate in which individuals and groups were pitted against one another. It seems ironic that the marginalized groups would request the assistance of socialist programs to aid their cause, but at the same time did not attempt to overthrow the government, possibly out of fear of its being replaced with a socialist or communist government.
Author and historian James Weinstein explores the attitudes and ideologies that spawned the revolts of the 1960’s and 70’s. Students and intellectuals were major figures in the move towards a more individual friendly society that recognized “human potential for self-cultivation, self-direction, and self-understanding and creativity” reminiscent of the ideas of the Transcendentalists (Weinstein 185). In the 60’s students protested against being made into “cogs in the machine” or being trained to produce in the government and business sectors. When Berkeley deigned that students could not engage in political activities on school grounds student Mario Savio led the subsequent movement to protect “the right to participate in democratic society and express individuality.” According to Savio, “ the university [Berkeley] had become a gigantic bureaucracy that was part and parcel of this particular stage in the history of American society …it now served the needs of American industry; it is a factory that turns out a certain product needed by industry and government an unthinking and unquestioning cog in the vast bureaucratic machine,” (Weinstein 185). Today many groups are still fighting against the government push to annihilate the rights of the individual.
According to Emerson, Thoreau, and later revolutionaries in addition to
stunting the growth of the individual the government is also guilty of upholding
artificial or man made law over natural law.
According to Emerson in “Self Reliance,” “Society never advances. It recedes as fast on one side as it gains on the other…Society acquires new arts and loses old instincts” (Emerson 553). As industrial society propels itself forward, sacrificing the nature of the individual and circumventing natural law, the evolution of mankind stagnates. Natural law cannot be subordinated to artificial law without disastrous consequences. In “Politics” Emerson states, “absolute right is the first governor, or, every government is and impure theocracy” (Emerson 5). This is to remind the people that government is merely a social contract agreed to by man. “Society is a joint stock company in which the members agree for the better securing of its bread to surrender the liberty and culture of the eater” (Emerson 541). Joseph Boland articulates Thoreau’s argument as, “conscience over law and justice over expediency. If government is basically a social agreement, then how can it claim any pre-eminent moral authority? How can citizens possibly be justified in submitting to its laws when those laws conflict with higher principles?” (Boland 8). Furthermore, how can a social contract justify the subjugation of men? According to Emerson in “Politics,” “whenever I find my dominion over myself not sufficient for me and undertake the direction of him [my neighbor] also, I overstep the truth, and come into false relations to him…if I put myself in the place of my child…I look over into his plot, and, guessing how it is with him, ordain this or that, he will never obey me. This is the history of governments,” (Emerson 5). The construction of a social contract that allows for groups to subjugate individuals runs contrary to natural law.
Today the inconsistencies between natural and manmade law are still evident. Citizens today are rarely allowed to make even the most basic of personal choices. Laws today dictate what drugs may be (and should be) ingested, when a seatbelt must be worn, what additives are put in drinking water, what time certain individuals will go to bed, require insurance, do not recognize oral agreements or contracts, discourage self representation in court, mandate attendance in government educational institutions, prohibit certain sex acts, mandate when men must register with selective service, provide minimal building codes for private homes and enact hundreds of other prohibitions and requirements. Though many of these restrictions are purported to ‘protect’ individuals, in actuality they take the ability to reason away from the individual. It seems slightly irrational for the government to enact any legislation regarding personal choice in as long as the choice does not hurt or infringe upon other individuals. According to Dr. John Hagelin of the Natural Law Party, “ human consciousness, at its deepest level, and the unified field which underlies the whole of Nature, are one and the same. This means that human awareness, fully expanded, naturally comprehends the ultimate unity underlying all of humanity…” (Hagelin 1).
The government subversion of natural law creates the ideal climate for the final crime to be committed against the individual; that of pitting individuals against each other. Emerson and Thoreau examine this crime from the aspects of dehumanization as it encourages competition and conformity as it devalues individual thought. Recalling Emerson’s claim in “The American Scholar” that government “amputates men at the trunk” and distributes the roles of thinker, judge, worker, etc. among men, it stands to reason that because men are amputated they forge an identity based on whatever function has been parceled out to them (Emerson 519). Furthermore, men view each other in this same way, failing to recognize not only the potential of the individual, but the unity of mankind. Therefore, “practical men sneer at speculative men” not seeing that which exists in one exists in all (Emerson 486). Emerson further speculates, “all science has one aim and that is to define nature. We are now so far from the truth that religious leaders dispute and hate each other, speculative men are esteemed unsound and frivolous” (Emerson 486). This amputation of men dehumanizes them, not only in their own eyes but in each other’s eyes as well. It is through want of what they cannot have and emptiness of purpose that competition erupts.
According to Emerson, conformity pits men against one another and “ for nonconformity the world whips you with its displeasure,” (Emerson 543). After the value of individual thought is cheapened, individuals beat each other into submission while the political parties, “reap the rewards of the docility and zeal of the masses which they direct…” (Emerson 4). Thoreau reasons that when men assert that it is one’s duty to submit to the government, then those who refuse to do so are labeled as enemy resistance. In this way the majority is taught not to value the ideas of the minority. This, according to Thoreau, is the same mentality that led to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ (Thoreau 840).
The fact that Transcendentalism was often dismissed as “escapist and reactionary individualism” and criticized by socialists and Marxists, illustrates the success of the government in creating a system in which nonconformity and individual thought are not valued (Capper 518). During the revolutions of the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s fringe groups often found themselves pitted against mainstream America. Weinstein examines this phenomena beginning after World War II with the government creation of ‘suburban life’ as an attempt to put women back into the home in order to free up jobs for returning male soldiers (Weinstein 195). This marked the beginning of the age of ‘self-fulfillment through consumption’ and it became necessary for the government to promote consumer culture in order to sell all of the goods being produced after the war (Weinstein 195). Any group perceived to be a threat to this new status quo, ie: the poor, minorities, feminists, became villainized as enemies of working class whites. Because it is so easy to use the weak as scapegoats for society’s ills, the practice continues to this very day.
Today government continues to pit individuals against one another in more and more creative ways. The current administration has seen fit to use terrorism as an excuse for increased militarization as well as limited personal freedoms. In the words of our president, “you’re either with us or against us.” The USA Patriot Act, also known as ‘Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism’, broadens the scope of terrorism to include ‘domestic terrorism’ providing potential justification for government aggression against anti-Bush activists (Moore 1). Title II Sections 201–216 of the act allow for ‘enhanced surveillance procedures,’ which includes delaying warrants for wiretaps, seizure of voice–mail messages without a warrant, and roving surveillance authority. Title V allows for the Attorney General and Secretary of state to ‘pay rewards’ in order to combat terrorism. It is not much of a conjecture to see how the enticement of ‘rewards’ may lead neighbor to turn against neighbor. Many people do not realize that personal freedoms are being sacrificed due to the government’s success in re-directing fears to outside forces such as terrorism. Of course, not everyone has been taken in by the government’s display of power. Historian Gore Vidal expresses concern about the fact that the United States has constantly had an ‘enemy of the month’ ever since World War II (Vidal 2). It is this constant warfare and globalization that protects corporations and promotes terrorism. Vidal and others try to educate the public about the government’s crimes in spite of the risk of being labeled ‘public enemy number one.’ In the words of Ghandi, “the U.S. is no friend of democracy beyond its borders. Your wars never ensure safety for democracy because America’s capitalist owners could not sustain their overseas holdings except by violence,” (Weinstein 213). Martin Luther King concurs that the American government is “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” (Weinstein 213).
Once the potential of the individual has been established and the crimes against the individual have been exposed, under what conditions may a successful rebellion emerge? Perhaps the most important condition is the political climate in which the revolution grows. During the time that Transcendentalist movement began, the political climate was ripe for revolution. Jackson’s administration gained support for its reform of many institutions; however, its imperialistic quest westward as well as its disregard for many subjugated groups (mainly slaves and women) alienated some groups. Also impeding his appeal was his tendency towards ‘iron fisted’ rule, earning him the nickname “King Andrew.” Furthermore, slavery provided a very visible and undeniable case of government supported evil. Thoreau stated, ”I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave’s government also…” (Thoreau 841). And according to professor Joseph Borland, “…revelations of growing stresses and contradictions within and among the ideologies through which right and justice were defined and existing forms of power (that is, power over) were legitimated in early nineteenth century America…(Boland 8). The voices of dissent came together to influence the future of their country and society. Both the nature of the administration as well as the undeniable evil of slavery served to foster a climate of rebellion that grew over a thirty-year period and later spawned the Civil War.
The Jackson and Bush
administrations share both similarities as well as differences. Today’s Bush
Era of corporations and involvement in scandal does not coalesce with
Jackson’s reform of such entities. However, the current administration does
share two major characteristics with the Jacksonian administration :
imperialism and strong government intervention. Globalization and
imperialism throughout the world has spawned an age of terrorism and hatred.
Though the current administration may claim to support minimal government, its
legislation, which expands government to support corporations and limit personal
freedoms under the guise of ‘fighting terrorism’, proves otherwise. Today,
by combating problems by increasing government, big government is set up as a
remedy for society’s ills. Unlike Jacksonian times, dissent is now redirected
away from rebellion as Democrats and Liberals reassure would be revolutionaries
that the government can protect the personal and economic freedoms of the
individual through more laws and bureaucracy. Furthermore, terrorism as an
outside threat redirects public concern away from the injustices perpetuated by
the government. Without recognition
of the fundamental flaws in American culture there is little hope for individual
growth, let alone rebellion.
In addition to political climate, the people’s recognition of government as an impermanent, man-made entity whose function should be to protect the individual is another prerequisite to a spirit of rebellion. In this light, it becomes obvious that when the government no longer serves this purpose reform or revolution becomes a necessity. With the American Revolution less than 100 years old, people during the age of the Transcendentalists recognized that governments could be removed when they failed to serve their purpose. Emerson and Thoreau successfully paralleled their arguments against the government with those used by the Declaration of Independence to justify revolt against England. Emerson implores, “Are our methods now so excellent that all competition is hopeless?” (Emerson 5). Thoreau reminds the people that “no way of thinking or doing, however ancient, can be trusted without proof…what old people say you cannot do you try and find that you can,” (Thoreau 856). The implication is that the government enacts rules as to what the individual can and cannot do. These are not natural or permanent rules, only rules used to achieve an end. “All men recognize the right of revolution the right to refuse allegiance when the government’s tyranny or inefficiency are unendurable,” (Thoreau 840). Emerson illustrates the idea of the impermanency of government through an analogy. In “Politics” he observes how young citizens see the government and its institutions as a tree with roots, but the old statesman knows that society is fluid and there are no roots at all (Emerson 1). He solidifies his case with,
“In dealing with the State, we ought to remember that its institution are not aboriginal, though they existed before we were born; that they are not superior to the citizen: that every one of them was once the act of a single man: every law and usage was a man’s expedient to meet a particular case: that they all are imitable, all alterable, we may make as good; we may make better…Every actual State is corrupt. Good men must not obey the laws too well,”(Emerson 3).
Through the years, the idea of changing the underlying ideology of the government has grown more and more remote. Thoreau’s predictions have been realized, “they will wait, well disposed, for others to remedy the evil, that they may no longer have it to regret” (Thoreau 842). That may well be an optimistic take on the situation, considering that many refuse to recognize ‘the evil’ let alone take steps to remedy it. Which leads to Thoreau’s next observation that many are “more interested in commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity,” (Thoreau 842). Of course, that is right where the government wants people to be, acting out their parts as producers and consumers in the American machine. The illusion of bipartisanship is no illusion; according to Gore Vidal, ”We have one party. We have the party of essentially corporate America,” (Vidal 10). A lack of ideological dissent between parties stunts progress. Reform parties recognize the need for change but have not been able to garner enough support to challenge our current political institution.
Once the political climate is favorable and the people recognize the government as impermanent, the final condition necessary for a successful revolution is a strong political/intellectual community with unified ideas for reform. The Transcendentalist concept of individual freedom intersected with the three main interests of antebellum reform: moral law, individual rights, and human sympathy (Capper 536).
In the words of author Staughton Lynd, “the transcendentalists… produced a political ideology that counterposed personal integrity to utilitarian compromise, creative associationism to static social contracts, and joyful labor and human growth to economic exploitation and commodity fetishism” (Capper 528). In plain terms, the Transcendentalists offered feasible alternatives to the existing social and political structures. In addition, the Transcendentalist explained the dissolution of traditional authority as part the “natural conditions of a capitalist society in the state of rapid economic and geographical expansion” (Capper 529). Transcendentalism offered a response to these conditions: if man was not to be governed, he must be taught to govern himself and his awakened conscience would take the place of external authority (Capper 529).
Because of their belief in the higher power within man, Emerson and Thoreau believed in a minimal government leaving the individual “free even from the definition of freedom” (Emerson 522). According to Emerson in “Politics” the way to fix the abuse of formal government is through the growth of the individual conscience recalling that the state exists to educate the wise man, and once the wise man appears, the state is no longer necessary (Emerson 6). Thoreau echoed Emerson’s call for a minimal government with “That government is best which governs least…that government is best which governs not at all and when men are prepared for it that will be the kind of government which they will have” (Thoreau 837). He further expounds, “there will never be a free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as the highest and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly (Thoreau 837). Both men believed that once the constraints of government were removed, the individual would be free to pursue enlightenment. Thoreau advocated passive resistance in order to undermine the authority of the government. “Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support, are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform” (Thoreau 842). “Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?” (Thoreau 843).
Is there a unified plan for reform in the 21st century? Unfortunately, would be revolutionaries are scattered across a multitude of party lines and ideologies. One of the main problems facing revolutionaries is getting the word out to others. This problem has been somewhat alleviated with the advent of the internet; nevertheless, it is difficult to compete with the highly visible campaigns of the established regime. In light of the current state of our society Gore Vidal states, “it is time for me to take political action. I think that anybody who has the position, has a platform, must do so” (Vidal 1). He advocates the pamphlet as a tool to inform the masses and encourage reform.
Many groups have many different plans for reform. Third parties such as the Natural Law Party and the Libertarian Party outline plans for reform that support a minimal government and enhanced individual freedoms. Robert Nozick, a proponent of Minarchism, believes that Libertarianism is “often too allowing of vested interests” and favors the night watchman state with limited functions of protecting all citizens against violence, theft and fraud, enforcement of contracts, and basic infrastructure (Nozick 2). Other third parties such as the Green Party as well as independents offer their own solutions to society’s ills. And of course there are the Marxists mourning a dead Communism and the Socialists advocating more government intervention. Populists such as Michael Moore and ‘anarchists’ such as Noam Chomsky attempt to rally the masses against government injustices. And what about the Democratic Party? Can it be salvaged and used as a tool for reform? Weinstein’s plan essentially calls for leftist reformers to infiltrate the Democratic Party, much as radical Christians have infiltrated the Republican Party. Once in power reform will begin with cutting the defense budget and radically reforming our education system in an attempt to create a more enlightened society. However, until all of the voices of dissent can agree on a plan for reform, a revolution is highly unlikely.
Is it possible to pinpoint why there is no revolution against a corrupt government in America today? When contrasting today’s situation with that of the Transcendentalists it becomes apparent that revolution is improbable because of the following obstacles: an overall negative concept of the individual, failure to recognize government’s infringement upon individuals, acceptance of man-made law over natural law, individuals pitted against each other, a hostile political climate, acceptance of government ideology as permanent truth, and no unified plan for reform. Perhaps the romantic impulse towards rebellion has died a painful death under the iron foot of realism. What is realism if not an acceptance of what is purported to be reality? Whether or not romantic ideals of rebellion against man-made law or realistic ideals of acceptance of man-made law prevail is ultimately up to the individual. Make a choice.
Works Cited
“American Transcendentalism (1835-1882).”
Boland, Joseph. “U.S. Political Thought : Lecture 8.” 24, October 1995. http://darkwing.uoregon.edu
Capper, Charles. “A Little Beyond”: The Problem of the Transcendentalist Movement in American History. The Journal of American History. Vol. 85, No. 2. September 1998.
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. “Essays, Second Series [1844]: Politics.” American Transcendentalism Web. 7 November 2003. www.vcu.edu/engweb/transcendentalism/authors
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. “Self Reliance.” The Norton Anthology of American Literature. Nina Baym ed. Shorter 6th ed. NY: Norton, 2003, 539-555.
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. “The Divinity School Address.” The Norton Anthology of American Literature. Nina Baym ed. Shorter 6th ed. NY: Norton, 2003, 527-538.
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. “The American Scholar.” The Norton Anthology of American Literature. Nina Baym ed. Shorter 6th ed. NY: Norton, 2003, 514-526.
“Minarchism.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 2003.
Moore, Micheal. “A Michael Moore.com guide to the USA Patriot Act.” 19 November 2003. www.michaelmoore.com
“Robert Nozick.” The Public Philosopher. www.geocities.com
Thoreau, Henry David. “Resistance to Civil Government.” The Norton Anthology of American Literature. Nina Baym ed. Shorter 6th ed. NY: Norton, 2003, 837-852.
Vidal, Gore. “The Erosion of the American Dream: Interview with Gore Vidal.” Dateline, SBS TV, Australia. 12 March 2003. www.ratical.org/ratville
Weinstein, James. The Long Detour: The History and Future of the American Left. Boulder: Westview Books, 2003.