This is a really good bit of info, but I think you (and perhaps Meade) misread and mis-apply the Jeffersonian perspective. Jefferson was almost a proto-Nitzschean figure. A polymath who was wealthy beyond belief and talented at everything. It's probably better to think of him as a late 18th century Elon Musk.
He was against expansive government and foreign involvement. But he was very much for egalitarian government (vastly expanding the franchise) and an expansive active society and an "aristocracy of talent". He was in a real sense a forerunner of social activism in that he was a veritable proponent of rebellion, even for stupid causes. The is also Jefferson:
"And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?"
In practice, his government was most noted for
1) Louisiana Purchase, a massive expansion of the US,
2) The First Barbary War, which, in a somewhat confused manner, could also be our first undeclared war, as Jefferson sent the first batch of ships with the orders to not cross the war but to basically "use judgement" in how far to respond if attacked.
3) The Embargo Act, which was a general ban on American trade with warring France and England. It's worth noting that this was both his major failure and major departure from his long career as a proponent of individual liberty. As such, to me it underscores the depth of his moralizing (individuals should do the right thing, and in this case the federal government should enforce it).
Today, Jefferson is probably most thought of as the massive hypocrite who owned a bunch of slaves (and fathered some) while writing the Declaration of Independence. If we look past the hypocrisy of his time though, it's pretty consistent. Jefferson thought it appropriate for individuals to do things that states should not.
Moving forward to our time, I don't think that this Jefferson, the author of a paean to rebellion who sought a federal ban on trade, would be troubled at all by individuals and private businesses refusing to trade with a country out of a moral belief. Rather, I think it would fit right in to his basic perception of the world that individuals should have the right to do so. When the state does compel people, it might be ok if it's the morally correct thing (as in the Embargo act).
What seems most literally Wilsonian to me about this war is the ritual shunning of Russians with no direct complicity in it because of their refusal to denounce Putin or his actions. As much as I think those Russians are wrong, it is terribly wrong also for them to be fired or sanctioned over their views. Unfortunately it is common for this to happen in war, and that is what is so literally Wilsonian: the same and worse happened to Germans, German sympathizers, and war opponents generally during WWI. So far the "and worse" has not come to pass this time, which we may take as progress-- but who knows what would happen if the US were more directly involved?
I think mask mandates are fine when conditions are such that they area a cost-effective way of preventing the wearer to transmit Covid to others. I have never considered the right to infect other people with disease (more applicable to vaccinations than masks) as among my rights.
Because I don’t’ think pronouns are important I’m in favor of everybody using the ones they want for themselves and that it’s good manners others to go along with their (often silly, in my opinion) preferences.
I want the energy that reduces net CO2 emissions at least cost but am not much concerned with its color. (I think a tax on net CO2 emissions would result in some "drilling" for fossil fuels offset by CO2 sequestration.)
David Hackett Fisher's narrative is a neat story, and I can see why people are drawn to the poetry of it, perhaps it was even true to some extent for some of the country's history, but I'm doubtful that it actually explains modern American political fault lines. Appalachian voters don't even seem more individual-freedom oriented than the average American. Nor does it make sense to describe people who want to decriminalize heroin as puritans. I see little evidence that modern-day political tribes are descended, in any meaningful sense, from the groups Fisher describes. It seems the evidence that modern-day progressives, for example, are in some 'spiritual' sense the descendants of the puritans is merely that, well, they're kind of puritanical, but that's just a tautology.
There's actually another American split that predates Puritans & Scotch-Irish: Puritans and Cavaliers, which stems from the English Civil War. Puritans leaving England, particularly after the restoration, settled in the northern colonies while the Cavaliers, supporters of the Stuart monarchy and Anglicans, settled in the South. Southern culture derived from aristocratic Cavalier roots. Puritans became more commercially active while Cavaliers were largely agricultural. You can see much of the Civil War divide in the cultural split of Puritan & Cavalier.
David Reynolds' recent biography of Lincoln ("Abe") has a good discussion of this cultural divide. Reynolds bio seeks to place in Lincoln in his cultural milieu. Lincoln has both Puritan & Cavalier forbears.
This is a really good bit of info, but I think you (and perhaps Meade) misread and mis-apply the Jeffersonian perspective. Jefferson was almost a proto-Nitzschean figure. A polymath who was wealthy beyond belief and talented at everything. It's probably better to think of him as a late 18th century Elon Musk.
He was against expansive government and foreign involvement. But he was very much for egalitarian government (vastly expanding the franchise) and an expansive active society and an "aristocracy of talent". He was in a real sense a forerunner of social activism in that he was a veritable proponent of rebellion, even for stupid causes. The is also Jefferson:
"And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?"
In practice, his government was most noted for
1) Louisiana Purchase, a massive expansion of the US,
2) The First Barbary War, which, in a somewhat confused manner, could also be our first undeclared war, as Jefferson sent the first batch of ships with the orders to not cross the war but to basically "use judgement" in how far to respond if attacked.
3) The Embargo Act, which was a general ban on American trade with warring France and England. It's worth noting that this was both his major failure and major departure from his long career as a proponent of individual liberty. As such, to me it underscores the depth of his moralizing (individuals should do the right thing, and in this case the federal government should enforce it).
Today, Jefferson is probably most thought of as the massive hypocrite who owned a bunch of slaves (and fathered some) while writing the Declaration of Independence. If we look past the hypocrisy of his time though, it's pretty consistent. Jefferson thought it appropriate for individuals to do things that states should not.
Moving forward to our time, I don't think that this Jefferson, the author of a paean to rebellion who sought a federal ban on trade, would be troubled at all by individuals and private businesses refusing to trade with a country out of a moral belief. Rather, I think it would fit right in to his basic perception of the world that individuals should have the right to do so. When the state does compel people, it might be ok if it's the morally correct thing (as in the Embargo act).
What seems most literally Wilsonian to me about this war is the ritual shunning of Russians with no direct complicity in it because of their refusal to denounce Putin or his actions. As much as I think those Russians are wrong, it is terribly wrong also for them to be fired or sanctioned over their views. Unfortunately it is common for this to happen in war, and that is what is so literally Wilsonian: the same and worse happened to Germans, German sympathizers, and war opponents generally during WWI. So far the "and worse" has not come to pass this time, which we may take as progress-- but who knows what would happen if the US were more directly involved?
I guess I must be a Scotch-Puritan. 😊
I think mask mandates are fine when conditions are such that they area a cost-effective way of preventing the wearer to transmit Covid to others. I have never considered the right to infect other people with disease (more applicable to vaccinations than masks) as among my rights.
Because I don’t’ think pronouns are important I’m in favor of everybody using the ones they want for themselves and that it’s good manners others to go along with their (often silly, in my opinion) preferences.
I want the energy that reduces net CO2 emissions at least cost but am not much concerned with its color. (I think a tax on net CO2 emissions would result in some "drilling" for fossil fuels offset by CO2 sequestration.)
David Hackett Fisher's narrative is a neat story, and I can see why people are drawn to the poetry of it, perhaps it was even true to some extent for some of the country's history, but I'm doubtful that it actually explains modern American political fault lines. Appalachian voters don't even seem more individual-freedom oriented than the average American. Nor does it make sense to describe people who want to decriminalize heroin as puritans. I see little evidence that modern-day political tribes are descended, in any meaningful sense, from the groups Fisher describes. It seems the evidence that modern-day progressives, for example, are in some 'spiritual' sense the descendants of the puritans is merely that, well, they're kind of puritanical, but that's just a tautology.
There's actually another American split that predates Puritans & Scotch-Irish: Puritans and Cavaliers, which stems from the English Civil War. Puritans leaving England, particularly after the restoration, settled in the northern colonies while the Cavaliers, supporters of the Stuart monarchy and Anglicans, settled in the South. Southern culture derived from aristocratic Cavalier roots. Puritans became more commercially active while Cavaliers were largely agricultural. You can see much of the Civil War divide in the cultural split of Puritan & Cavalier.
David Reynolds' recent biography of Lincoln ("Abe") has a good discussion of this cultural divide. Reynolds bio seeks to place in Lincoln in his cultural milieu. Lincoln has both Puritan & Cavalier forbears.
AS DESCRIBED, a Jeffersonian is just a Jacksonian in nicer, more traditional clothing.
BUT, as MikeDC notes above, an ACTUAL Jeffersonian serves partially as a go-between the ideas of Hamilton and Wilson.
Splits are useful analytic devives. But pushing them too far produces stunted thinking, a good bit of which seems to have shown up in this post.
Also, how would you plot Wilson, Hamilton, Jackson and Jefferson on the 3 axes? Do you more or less agree with:
Jefferson, Hamilton < Less / Traditionalism / More > Jackson, Wilson
Jackson, Hamilton < Less / Sympathy / More > Jefferson, Wilson
Jackson, Wilson < Less / Freedom / More > Jackson, Jefferson, Hamilton