The Political Mind
The science and psychology of politics
Navigation
  • About
  • Mind&Politics
  • G Scott Blakley
  • I. A. Grea
You are here: Home › Commentary › Pangle on the Constitution
← What is Conservatism? Take One
Politics, Economics, and Sacredness →

Pangle on the Constitution

March 15, 2012 | Filed under: Commentary and tagged with: anti-federalist, federalist, living document, Montesquieu, past as guide, Thomas Pangle

I’ve been listening to Thomas Pangle’s course Great Debates: Advocates and Opponents of the American Constitution, part of the Great Courses at the Teaching Company. I had the great privilege, as an impressionable freshman, of taking Professor Pangle’s course on the History of Political Philosophy, studying Plato, Aristotle, and Machiavelli, among others. It had a tremendous influence on my intellectual development.

I’m only on the second of 12 lectures, and I’m sure I’ll have more to write about as the course goes on. So far already, though, there are two points that have struck me, particularly in light of modern-day politics. In describing the debates between the federalists and the anti-federalists, professor Pangle notes that the anti-federalists opposed the Constitution, and criticized its proponents, in part because the Constitution and its proponents’ arguments diverged from the classical notion of what a republic should be. The federalists, however, took this criticism as a complement, noting that earlier, classical republics had many flaws, and taking great pride in their innovativeness.

In many walks of political life today, we see a similar dialectic playing out. As an example, there are those who believe in a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, and those who believe it is a living document. The former belief is not just conservative politics, it is a conservative world view. Edmund Burke talks of the appreciation we should show for “prescription, prejudice, and dutiful obedience.” The past has proven itself, and we should let it be our guide. The moderns, not having proven themselves, should not be trusted, and we should defer to the ancients.

The federalists then, and more generally liberals today, believe that they should be in charge of their lives. To defer to old, dead men seems a losing proposition. So the federalists were proud to be innovators, taking charge of their own lives, as those who believe in the Constitution as a living document believe they should reinterpret the Constitution in light of modern events, and take responsibility for the rules they make for our society.

A second point from Professor Pangle’s course comes from his discussion of Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws. In contrast to the classical notions that a republic should be led by those of superior virtue who have as their task to raise the virtue of all of society, Montesquieu argues for a more democratic republic, where the representatives are much like the people they represent, in wealth, in education, and in culture. Unexpectedly, perhaps, it is the Republicans who seem to follow Montesquieu–people voted for Bush because he was the one they most wanted to have a beer with. Democrats, on the other hand, seem more likely to defend placing people of superior intellect and talent in political office–they would like the smartest person to be president, not necessarily the most likable.

I look forward to listening to more of the course, and reporting back as it raises thoughts and ideas.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Related

Did you like this article? Share it with your friends!

Tweet

Written by Jacob Jefferson Jakes

← What is Conservatism? Take One
Politics, Economics, and Sacredness →

RSS Jonathan Haidt

  • Why The Righteous Mind may be the best common reading for incoming college students February 19, 2017 Jonathan Haidt

RSS George Lakoff

RSS Corey Robin

Jacob Jefferson Jakes

The Political Mind

  • View Jacob-Jefferson-Jakes-127488407357719’s profile on Facebook
  • View JacobJJakes’s profile on Twitter
  • View 118350928673473455810’s profile on Google+

Mind&Politics

  • View mindandpolitics’s profile on Facebook
  • View mindandpolitics’s profile on Twitter
  • View 107647165319384338834’s profile on Google+

Recent Posts

  • The Truth Behind the Curtain: Ken Ham, Antonin Scalia, and Milton Friedman find it February 20, 2017
  • “I Support Trump” July 31, 2016
  • GOP Media Warfare, Hierarchy, and Agriculture November 28, 2015
  • To the Heart of an Idea, Conservative and Liberal October 25, 2015
  • State Sovereignty and Constitutionally-limited Government September 7, 2015
  • “…of the United States…”: Creating a Nation July 27, 2014
  • I Would Not Throw the Fat Man Off the Bridge and onto the Trolley Tracks July 13, 2014
  • Shit Happens and Big Data July 12, 2014
  • Wittgenstein, Identity-Protection Cognition, and Understanding Rather than Persuading June 1, 2014
  • What if Piketty is Right? April 27, 2014

Recent Comments

    Archives

    Meta

    • Log in
    • Entries feed
    • Comments feed
    • WordPress.org

    Categories

    Tags

    1% abortion Adam Smith anti-federalist Articles of Confederation climate change conservatism conservative conservative boredom conservative enthusiasm constitution Daniel Kahneman David Brooks democracy Edmund Burke Elvin Lim federalist federal taxes gay rights George Lakoff hobby lobby income inequality Jonathan Haidt karma liberal libertarians Mitt Romney moral politics natural law neoconservatives Newt GIngrich nurturant parent Occupy Wall Street Patrick Allitt pro-life racism robert reich strict father strict father model tax policy tax quintiles Tea Party The Lovers Quarrel Thomas Pangle virtue of muddling through

    © 2025 The Political Mind

    Powered by Esplanade Theme by One Designs and WordPress