I cannot believe that David R. Williams could be serious in proposing a
link between Thomas Paine and Newt Gingrich in any way other than that
each man recognized the power of transmitting his message by the most
democratic means available. Were Paine alive today, he'd be clawing his
way onto television and setting up his own website and listserv. But an
identity of views with Gingrich? It is to laugh. Paine coupled his
individualism with such proposals as old-age pensions and poor relief to
be adminsitered by government; he also believed in the widest possible
freedom of belief and expression on all matters, both religious and
secular. Also, unlike Gingrich, Paine was an ardent nationalist,
demanding from 1776 through to his death in 1806 a strong American
government. Finally, Paine's ideas were and are substantive; I guess
that David Williams hasn't read TO RENEW AMERICA. (Gingrich is fond of
reminding all that he was once a history professor, but TO RENEW AMERICA
suggests the reasons why he did not get tenure.)
Moreover, Paine supported the Pennyslvania government's systems of wage
and price controls and other interventionist activity of government, as
Foner and John Keane and Jack Fruchtman have shown in their biographies
and monographs.
Mary Schweitzer analogizes Gingrich to Burr. Again, I am astonished by
the linkage and feel that it is unfair ... to Burr. Whatever else Aaron
Burr may have been, and he's far too complex and confusing a figure to
be reduced to any simple generalization, he NEVER presented himself as a
commanding intellectual figure. Indeed, he seems to have been
completely uninterested in the intellectual realm of politics that so
fascinated so many of his leading contemporaries. By contrast, as noted
already, Gingrich insists that he IS a man of ideas, though without much
at all to back that claim up.
This free-form analogizing is the sort of thing that nonhistorians
demand that historians do at the drop of a hat, and it's also the sort
of thing that can damage scholarly credibility.
Regretfully,
Richard B. Bernstein
Adjunct Professor, New York Law School
Daniel M. Lyons Visiting Professor in American History, Brooklyn
College (1997-1998)
Assistant Book Review Editor for Constitutional History, H-Law
<rbernstein@nyls.edu>
I found David Williams' analysis of the connections between Paine and Gingrich fascinating, but I must take issue with his interpretation of Gingrich's agenda as anti-hierarchical and anti-deferential:
In light of Gingrich's hostility to feminism, abortion rights, and affirmative action, he may very well seem like a fellow at home in the eighteenth century, but one can hardly argue that these policy positions are anti-hierarchical or anti-deferential.
Ann M. Little
Department of History
University of Dayton
Thanks to Richard Bernstein for establishing the differences between Paine and Gingrich, which should have been obvious to most scholars of early America. At bottom, Paine was a democrat, identifying with ordinary people, slaves, the poor, and women, while Gingrich and the Republicans strive to restrict the democratic process, whether in seeking to kill any sort of aid to the poor, including free legal services, easy voter registration, or a more accurate census count.
I can think of one possible similarity, however. If poll trends continue and a second coup attempt succeeds (as is rumored), it is possible that Gingrich will end up at the end of life, like Paine who died in America, alone, despised, and unhonored in the country he served. And, also like Paine, Gingrich will probably attract a coterie of hard-core "conservatives" that will keep his memory alive. I would emphasize that GIngrich's fate 20 years hence this is firmly in the realm of conjecture.
E. Wayne Carp Email: carpw@plu.edu
Associate Professor and Chair Phone: 253-535-7345
Department of History Fax: 253-535-8305
Pacific Lutheran University
Tacoma, WA 98447
On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, Richard B. Bernstein wrote:
> I cannot believe that David R. Williams could be serious in proposing
a
> link between Thomas Paine and Newt Gingrich in any way other than
that
> each man recognized the power of transmitting his message by the
most
> democratic means available. Were Paine alive today, he'd be clawing
his
> way onto television and setting up his own website and listserv. But
an
> identity of views with Gingrich? It is to laugh. Paine coupled
his
> individualism with such proposals as old-age pensions and poor relief
to
> be adminsitered by government; he also believed in the widest
possible
> freedom of belief and expression on all matters, both religious
and
> secular. Also, unlike Gingrich, Paine was an ardent nationalist,
> demanding from 1776 through to his death in 1806 a strong
American
> government. Finally, Paine's ideas were and are substantive; I
guess
> that David Williams hasn't read TO RENEW AMERICA. (Gingrich is fond
of
> reminding all that he was once a history professor, but TO RENEW
AMERICA
> suggests the reasons why he did not get tenure.)
> Moreover, Paine supported the Pennyslvania government's systems of
wage
> and price controls and other interventionist activity of government,
as
> Foner and John Keane and Jack Fruchtman have shown in their
biographies
> and monographs.
> Mary Schweitzer analogizes Gingrich to Burr. Again, I am astonished
by
> the linkage and feel that it is unfair ... to Burr. Whatever else
Aaron
> Burr may have been, and he's far too complex and confusing a figure
to
> be reduced to any simple generalization, he NEVER presented
himself as a
> commanding intellectual figure. Indeed, he seems to have been
> completely uninterested in the intellectual realm of politics that
so
> fascinated so many of his leading contemporaries. By contrast, as
noted
> already, Gingrich insists that he IS a man of ideas, though without
much
> at all to back that claim up.
> This free-form analogizing is the sort of thing that
nonhistorians
> demand that historians do at the drop of a hat, and it's also the
sort
> of thing that can damage scholarly credibility.
> Regretfully,
> Richard B. Bernstein
> Adjunct Professor, New York Law School
> Daniel M. Lyons Visiting Professor in American History, Brooklyn
> College (1997-1998)
> Assistant Book Review Editor for Constitutional History, H-Law
> <rbernstein@nyls.edu>
> In light of Gingrich's hostility to feminism, abortion rights,
and
> affirmative action, he may very well seem like a fellow at home in
the
> eighteenth century, but one can hardly argue that these policy
> positions are anti-hierarchical or anti-deferential.
>
> Ann M. Little
> Department of History
> University of Dayton
Interesting distinction here. Actually, affirmative action and feminism both have become movements advocating the state step in to prevent injustice. One needs to separate ends and means. Gingrich's opposition to both, as I understand it, is based on a reluctance to let the state decide such matters but to leave it up to the market place and the random forces of the give and take of life. IN that sense, these positions are quite consistent with an eighteenth-century anti-state, anti-hierarchy position. Do we get to equality and fraternity by the state ordering it to be so? Or do we get there by evolution? As Americans, conservatives and liberals share similar visions of the end but have different means of getting there.
Abortion is a more interesting problem. It is one in which a true
libertarian ought to be willing to let people decide for themselves. But,
as you say, Gingrich and company seem to be more than willing to let the
state make the decision for the individual here. It is inconsistent with
his general philosophy. I never argued that the man was a model of
philosophical consistency. THis is political. One can see in the
Republican Party a nice split bewteen the libertarians (gingrich and
Forbes et al) and the statists like Buchanan who want to impose their
morality on everyone else from the top down. It is a real division within
the GOP. But to hold the GOP coalition together each has to accept some of
the positions on the other side. THe debate over the internet was a good
example. Gingrich was against censorship. Buchanan was for it.
-Dave WIlliams gmu
On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, E. Wayne Carp wrote:
> Thanks to Richard Bernstein for establishing the differences between
Paine
> and Gingrich, which should have been obvious to most scholars of
early
> America. At bottom, Paine was a democrat, identifying with
ordinary
> people, slaves, the poor, and women, while Gingrich and the
Republicans
> strive to restrict the democratic process, whether in seeking to kill
any
> sort of aid to the poor, including free legal services, easy
voter
> registration, or a more accurate census count.
Both Bernstein and Carp make a similar theoretical mistake. THey retreat from the discussion of the historical transformation and transmission of ideas to a discussion of intentionality. Hence, Paine and Gingrich can't be the same because Paine was a good guy who did it for good reasons and Gingrich as a bad guy who does his thing for evil reasons.
This is ahistorical.
The ideas they both are identified with were revolutionary in 1775 and conservative in 1997. It should not be that hard to see that a man wanting change in one era might in fact have helped set into motion concepts which 220 years later another man clung to for conservative reasons.
-Dave WIlliams gmu
Regrettably, and I say this regretfully as well, David R. Williams is incorrect. The ideas that Paine is identified with were revolutionary in 1776 (not 1775) and in 1997, and far from conservative in 1997. These include (i) the need for popular sovereignty, (ii) the need for government accountability, (iii) the need for society to provide for its poor and aged through the means of government, and (iv) the need for international organizations to keep world peace from being threatened by spasms of national sovereignty. When Paine said that government is the badge of lost innocence, we should remember that he was writing about government as he knew it in 1776 -- government as a system built around monarchy, which he regarded as illegitimate. Perhaps what really divides Mr. Williams and myself is that he regards Speaker Gingrich as a serious historical and political thinker, and I regard that claim as inherently suspect.
Richard B. Bernstein
Adjunct Professor, New York Law School
Daniel M. Lyons Visiting Professor in American History, Brooklyn
College/CUNY (1997-1998)
Assistant Book Review Editor for Constitutional History, H-LAW
<rbernstein@nyls.edu>
> monarchy, which he regarded as illegitimate. Perhaps what really
> divides Mr. Williams and myself is that he regards Speaker Gingrich
as a
> serious historical and political thinker, and I regard that claim
as
> inherently suspect.
> Richard B. Bernstein
> Adjunct Professor, New York Law School
What really divides us that you are reacting to newt gingrich both
personally and politically and not historically. I am no Republican, but
even Republican ideas are ideas and have historical origins. Every human
being has ideas which have historically constituted origins, and
every person takes him or herself "seriously." Your
attitude is similar to those intellectual historians who used to argue
that only "intellectuals" had ideas.
I would go further and say that the ideas of the uneducated and
simplistic are more important determiners of history than those of the
"serious historical and political thinkers."
-Dave WIlliams gmu
>> monarchy, which he regarded as illegitimate. Perhaps what
really
>> divides Mr. Williams and myself is that he regards Speaker
Gingrich as a
>> serious historical and political thinker, and I regard that claim
as
>> inherently suspect.
>> Richard B. Bernstein
>> Adjunct Professor, New York Law School
>
> What really divides us that you are reacting to newt gingrich
both
>personally and politically and not historically. I am no Republican,
but
>even Republican ideas are ideas and have historical origins. Every
human
>being has ideas which have historically constituted origins, and
>every person takes him or herself "seriously." Your
>attitude is similar to those intellectual historians who used to
argue
>that only "intellectuals" had ideas.
> I would go further and say that the ideas of the uneducated and
>simplistic are more important determiners of history than those of
the
>"serious historical and political thinkers."
>-Dave WIlliams gmu
I am inclined to side with Dave Williams here, and to add that Richard Bernstein's reaction to Gingrich is eerily similar to the reaction of many "serious" intellectuals of Paine's day who dismissed him as a dangerous demagogue. John Adams, for example, called Common Sense "a poor, ignorant, malicious, short-sighted, crapulous mass."
Eric Hinderaker tel: (801)581-5195
University of Utah fax: (801)585-3510
Department of History ehinderaker@lrc.hum.utah.edu
380 S 1400 E Rm 211
Salt Lake City UT 84112-0311
Richard Bernstein made an important point at the beginning of this discussion that was ignored. He said that to know whether something was radical or conservative one had to pay attention to the historical context of the thought or event. Although it seems simple enough, Dave Williams consistently ignores this sage advice in his dogged assertion that Paine and Gingrich shared the same ideas. Williams can make this argument about the similarity of Paine and Gingrich's ideas because he adheres to an older, and now pretty much discredited, tradition of intellectual history -- exemplified by David Lovejoy's _The Great Chain of Being_ -- that ignores the historical context of ideas. Instead, intellectual historians today are, for the most part, all contextualists -- they try to understand what people thought in the past in the context of their times. What this means in practice is that words and concepts that meant one thing in the eighteenth century can mean another in the twentieth. Although this should be fairly obvious to any practicing historian, Williams wants to persist in believing that because both Paine and Gingrich shared a belief in laissez-faire economics they are of the same political ilk. If one contextualizes their thought, however, it clear that Paine and Gingrich are diametrically opposite in the constituents they represent and in their beliefs of what constitutes a good society.
In short, it isn't that Dave Williams is wrong about the shared beliefs of Paine and Gingrich. It's that identifying those shared beliefs tells us nothing that is historically worthwhile.
E. Wayne Carp
Pacific Lutheran University
On Sun, 19 Oct 1997, E. Wayne Carp wrote:
> whether something was radical or conservative one had to pay
> attention to the historical context of the thought or event.
> Although it seems simple enough, Dave Williams consistently
> ignores this sage advice in his dogged assertion that Paine and
> Gingrich shared the same ideas.
Well, at least we have gotten beyond the assertion that the only thing Paine and GIngrich had in common were that both were white males.
Carp is simply carping here. I do claim they share the same ideas; I NEVER said that Gingrich was therefore radical or Paine therefore conservative. I have said from the start that ideas which are radical in one century are conservative in the next. Why is that so bothersome?
Williams can make this argument
> about the similarity of Paine and Gingrich's ideas because he
> adheres to an older, and now pretty much discredited, tradition
> of intellectual history -- exemplified by David Lovejoy's _The
> Great Chain of Being_ -- that ignores the historical context of
> ideas. Instead, intellectual historians today are, for the most
> part, all contextualists -- they try to understand what people
> thought in the past in the context of their times. What this
> means in practice is that words and concepts that meant one thing
> in the eighteenth century can mean another in the twentieth.
I'd be the last to deny this. But to contextualize to the point where
each age is cut off entirely from its own past or our present is to deny
that there are continuities in history. Either extreme is ridiculous.
Historians today also study the rise and fall of paradigms. THe same
paradigm that arose for radical reasons in the 1770s can well be shown to
have been stale and discredited by the 1990s. But it behooves us as
historians to acknowledge that these are the same paradigm. All you folks
are saying is that these two guys in different eras had different
motivations for believing in the same economic ideas. That may be so, but
it does not change the fact that these are the same ideas.
You may not like Gingrich. I don't either. But as historians, we have
an obligation to try to undestand him. And if you cannot see that he
believes that he is defending the American revolutionary tradition of
Which Paine is a spokesman, you
cannot possibly understand him or his attraction to many many americans.
-Dave WIlliams gmu
I lurk on this list, for the most part, but Wayne Carp should know better. It is Arthur Lovejoy-- not David Lovejoy-who wrote The Great Chain of Being and "discredited" is a pretty strong word. Lovejoy was a much better intellectual historian than Carp gives him credit for being when he compares Lovejoy (maybe he DOES mean David Lovejoy) to David Williams!
Douglas Greenberg
President and Director
Chicago Historical Society
1601 N. Clark
Chicago 60614
douglasg@chicagohs.org
(312) 642 5035 x200 (v)
(312} 266 2977 (f)
CHS on the Web at www.chicagohs.org
-----Original Message-----
From: E. Wayne Carp [SMTP:carpw@plu.edu]
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 1997 10:44 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list H-OIEAHC
Subject: Paine, Gingrich, and the AR
Richard Bernstein made an important point at the beginning of this discussion that was ignored. He said that to know whether something was radical or conservative one had to pay attention to the historical context of the thought or event. Although it seems simple enough, Dave Williams consistently ignores this sage advice in his dogged assertion that Paine and Gingrich shared the same ideas. Williams can make this argument about the similarity of Paine and Gingrich's ideas because he adheres to an older, and now pretty much discredited, tradition of intellectual history -- exemplified by David Lovejoy's _The Great Chain of Being_ -- that ignores the historical context of ideas. Instead, intellectual historians today are, for the most part, all contextualists -- they try to understand what people thought in the past in the context of their times. What this means in practice is that words and concepts that meant one thing in the eighteenth century can mean another in the twentieth. Although this should be fairly obvious to any practicing historian, Williams wants to persist in believing that because both Paine and Gingrich shared a belief in laissez-faire economics they are of the same political ilk. If one contextualizes their thought, however, it clear that Paine and Gingrich are diametrically opposite in the constituents they represent and in their beliefs of what constitutes a good society.
In short, it isn't that Dave Williams is wrong about the shared beliefs of Paine and Gingrich. It's that identifying those shared beliefs tells us nothing that is historically worthwhile.
E. Wayne Carp
Pacific Lutheran University
Thanks to Doug Greenberg for the correction of Arthur Lovejoy's name. I thought it looked funny, but I was too lazy to check it. And, of course, I didn't mean to say that Lovejoy wasn't a superb historian, but that his approach to writing intellectual history has been discredited. I will stand by that.
E. Wayne Carp
Pacific Lutheran University
On Mon, 20 Oct 1997, Greenberg, Douglas wrote:
> I lurk on this list, for the most part, but Wayne Carp should
know
> better. It is Arthur Lovejoy-- not David Lovejoy-who wrote The
Great
> Chain of Being and "discredited" is a pretty strong word. Lovejoy was
a
> much better intellectual historian than Carp gives him credit for
being
> when he compares Lovejoy (maybe he DOES mean David Lovejoy) to
David
> Williams!
>
> Douglas Greenberg
> President and Director
> Chicago Historical Society
> 1601 N. Clark
> Chicago 60614
>
> douglasg@chicagohs.org
> (312) 642 5035 x200 (v)
> (312} 266 2977 (f)
> CHS on the Web at www.chicagohs.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: E. Wayne Carp [SMTP:carpw@plu.edu]
> Sent: Sunday, October 19, 1997 10:44 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list H-OIEAHC
> Subject: Paine, Gingrich, and the AR
>
> Richard Bernstein made an important point at the beginning
> of this discussion that was ignored. He said that to know
> whether something was radical or conservative one had to pay
> attention to the historical context of the thought or event.
> Although it seems simple enough, Dave Williams consistently
> ignores this sage advice in his dogged assertion that Paine and
> Gingrich shared the same ideas. Williams can make this argument
> about the similarity of Paine and Gingrich's ideas because he
> adheres to an older, and now pretty much discredited, tradition
> of intellectual history -- exemplified by David Lovejoy's _The
> Great Chain of Being_ -- that ignores the historical context of
> ideas. Instead, intellectual historians today are, for the most
> part, all contextualists -- they try to understand what people
> thought in the past in the context of their times. What this
> means in practice is that words and concepts that meant one thing
> in the eighteenth century can mean another in the twentieth.
> Although this should be fairly obvious to any practicing
> historian, Williams wants to persist in believing that because
> both Paine and Gingrich shared a belief in laissez-faire
> economics they are of the same political ilk. If one
> contextualizes their thought, however, it clear that Paine and
> Gingrich are diametrically opposite in the constituents they
> represent and in their beliefs of what constitutes a good
society.
>
> In short, it isn't that Dave Williams is wrong about the
> shared beliefs of Paine and Gingrich. It's that identifying
> those shared beliefs tells us nothing that is historically
> worthwhile.
>
> E. Wayne Carp
> Pacific Lutheran University
>... now pretty much discredited, tradition
>of intellectual history -- exemplified by David Lovejoy's _The
>Great Chain of Being_ -- that ignores the historical context of
>ideas.
>
>E. Wayne Carp
>Pacific Lutheran University
Wayne Carp may be right about the "discredited tradition" of the history of ideas represented by Lovejoy, but let's not discredit David Lovejoy quite yet. A.O.Lovejoy was the author of , and there may yet be some value in thinking about the timeless aspect of ideas, i.e. ideas never really "go away" in the sense that persons and institutions do, even if they take on very different kinds of significance as they are articulated in different historical contexts. Which is not to say that I don't agree with his point about Paine and Gingrich.
Frank Shuffelton
University of Rochester