Brimming

After a quick four day hiatus in Niagara Falls (for a July 4th wedding), I am back and faced with a blog backlog. Let's clean off my desk, ok?

A nice article in the Boston Globe magazine about academic superstars and how they are being wooed by competing departments; historian Niall Ferguson is prominently mentioned (one of Doc's favorites, to my blog compatriots' chagrin I am sure -- my review of his Empire is coming soon). Isn't this what "we" all aspire to? Publishing important books and articles, getting noticed and appreciated, and then, out of the blue, comes messages (back-channel, mind you) that XYZ University wonders if you'd be interested in joining their department...XYZ's History Chair makes a point of talking with you at a conference, asking you about how you like where you are and if you'd ever consider leaving...mysterious Christmas cards from XYZs Dean of Liberal Arts...and then phone calls with offers (higher salary, money for travel, an apartment, fewer classes)...ah, the dreams!

Great article by Mark Steyn exposing Howard Dean and Vermont for what they are: a province of Canada. I should know. I lived there for four years. Nothing both takes your breath away and makes you laugh like Burlington. To quote Steyn: In electoral terms, Vermont is a polarising state. It’s the Hillary Rodham Clinton of states. It’s not like Kentucky or New Mexico or a gazillion others you’ve no particular view on. To most people in Bush-voting states, Vermont is a province of Canada and, unlike the kinky maple fetishist Paul Robinson and his commissioning editors at The Spectator, they don’t mean that in a good way. Neither do I.

Regarding the post on Lincoln, the Declaration, and the Calhounians, I am mixed. Lincoln certainly regarded the Declaration in mystical terms and saw it, more than the Constitution, as America's founding document. But the Declaration (a thoroughly contextual document, rather than a timeless one -- the bulk of it is a list of supposed grievances, not a philosophy of life) is all sail and no anchor, all justice and no domestic tranquility. You need the Preamble and its list of purposes, none more important than the others, to make life livable, a fact abolitionists too seldom understood. I also think of antebellum politicians in two broad varieties: ends men and means men. Ends men have justice, salvation, and heaven squarely in their eyes, and with such absolute good with them, they cannot fail; opposition be damned, even if it means thousands die for it. Means men say, "justice is indeed what we are aiming for, but how you get it matters." If it doesn't matter, then why have federalism, elections, and constitutions? Wouldn't a theocracy be better suited, where men who know what justice is rule for us. If democracy means anything, certainly we must be debating and deciding what justice is. So while I thoroughly agree with Lincoln's sentiments, I cringe at his ends philosophy. I want justice too, but I want it done in the right way, not at any cost. Process matters.

Calhoun is indeed a radical, and his divination in some conservative circles perplexes me. Here we have a brilliant man, a truly American political philosopher, suggesting all sorts of peculiar constitutional innovations to pervert majority will (and certainly we cannot understand Calhoun's minoritarian philosophy without reference to the protection of slavery -- let us not be silly) -- dual presidencies, concurrent majorities, secession, interposition, nullification. There is no reverence for the Philadelphia Constitution here, no respect for the intelligence of America's fathers, no veneration of Madison, Hamilton, and Jay -- it is rewriting the Constitution to suit South Carolina. What is conservative in that? Look to the Federalist Papers and Webster instead for your conservative bearings, not JCC.

That's it for now -- I need a breather.