I’m reading Sean Wilentz’s The Rise of American Democracy. I’m only about 1/4 of the way through, so on page 200 or so. I’m not surprised by the narrative so far, the rise of mass democratic populism and the fading away of the partisans of the original oligarchic republic vision as the Age of Jackson dawns. But there are a few details which are striking in a contemporary context. New England was the last redoubt of the Federalist vision of hierarchical conservatism, from limited white male suffrage to established churches. Additionally, the rise to the fore of what during the Enlightenment would be termed “Enthusiasm” is notable, as democratic politics turns into a quadrennial performance. In religious terms there was an alliance at both ends of the theological spectrum; Free Thinkers & Deists in Philadelphia made common cause with Baptist “Back Country” farmers and nominally Episcopalian “Low Country” planters against the urbane Congregationalist ascendancy of New England. The historical reality of the rise of democratic populism, and something of an amnesia about the nature of the republic during its early years (when democracy was something of a term of insult), leads to the peculiarities of the American Right, which is in many measures a descendant of classical liberalism.
-
Archives
- August 2019
- July 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
-
Meta
Sounds interesting! Added to my Amazon shopping cart. Based upon your description, it ties in with my notion that religious populism has more generally been tied to the political left. I’m interested in reading what Wilentz has to say on the topic.
Also rec’d David Walker Howe’s “What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848” which covers roughly the same time period but takes focuses more heavily on the role of religion and spirituality and its effect on 19th Century America. Don’t get me wrong, both books (I read Wilentz) are outstanding but the point of view is quite different. Howe takes a much dimmer view on the administrations of Jackson and Polk whereas Wilentz seems to admire both presidents quite a bit.
William Jennings Bryan of Dayton, TN trial fame was a progressive.
Gaylord, that’s the next book on my list! Thank for the confirmation.
William Jennings Bryan of Dayton, TN trial fame was a progressive.
Yes, but his opposition to evolutionary biology was in large part driven by the fact that it was being used against the lower classes in eugenics programs. Additionally, Bryan wasn’t an Orthodox Young Earth Creationist even….
Based upon your description, it ties in with my notion that religious populism has more generally been tied to the political left.
Hm. Depends on what you mean by “Left” and “Right,” but the social science seems to suggest that an association between religious populism and conservatism is a feature of the last few generations. During the 1950s there wasn’t much of a gap between the mainstream political Left and Right on social issues.
Reynolds’ “Waking Giant: America in the Age of Jackson” is another new book that covers the same time period.
@David Hume
I’m not trying to derail this thread… (re)reading a short book by Morton Keller called “America’s Three Regimes: A New Political History” which is interesting because it attempts (in 300 pages) to encapsulate the political/social/economic/party changes from the 1700’s to the 2000’s. It’s an interesting little book and worth the quick read for the perspective of how these changes took place and how they relate to each other. Good book to read after Wilentz or Howe… Keller, to me, injects less (he has less pages to work with) of his own partisan views than either Wilentz or Howe does in their (excellent) books.
The validity of the idea that religious populism is more of a left-wing than right-wing trend over time is, I think, dependent on which religious demographic you are talking about, and which culture. Look at Catholicism, for example. Franco’s Spain certainly had religious populism and that populism supported the right-wing government. If one looks at the United States during the same time period (the late 1930’s through 1970’s), Catholic populists tended to support the political left. It was only with the rise of abortion as a judicial and political issue that populist Catholicism began to move in a politically conservative direction. Not that there weren’t Catholic right-wingers around before Roe v. Wade, but the Catholic population as a whole wasn’t really conservative.
Mark, yes, let’s focus on the United States. I’m generally inclined to not focus too much on Catholics because they’ve become part of the cultural mainstream only in the past 100 years (especially after World War II). That reduce’s the sample size.
Yes, but his opposition to evolutionary biology was in large part driven by the fact that it was being used against the lower classes in eugenics programs. Additionally, Bryan wasn’t an Orthodox Young Earth Creationist even….
All true, but my point is that fundamentalist religious enthusiasm has not always been seen as “conservative” in nature, which I think you were driving at in your original post. Even Bryan’s enthusiasm for prohibition was seen as “progressive” at the time. Compare that to how it would be viewed now: as something dreadfully Falwellian.
fundamentalist religious enthusiasm has not always been seen as “conservative” in nature
Sure. And the term “Fundamentalist” is of course an anachronism; the Fundamentals weren’t published until the early 20th century. But the key point is that some readers and critics who like to declare that Southern evangelicalism has always been the redoubt of American conservatism are displaying either their ignorance or their lack of any nuance.
Ah, I see what you’re getting at. Sorry.
Might I suggest that perhaps, when discussing religion in public life, that “left and right” are not always helpful categories. Again, let me use Catholic as an example (because it is the religious tradition I am most familiar with when it comes to this topic). Until recently, Catholic social teaching has been overwhelmingly statist in its orientation, regardless of the left or the right. In some cultures — Spain & Argentina come to mind — this has lead to a close allegiance between the Church and right-wing or conservative political ideologies, particularly in light of the rise of communism in the 1920’s.
In America, this statist orientation, combined with the historically immigrant roots of most Catholics, largely lead until the 1970’s to a strong identification of Catholicism and the Democratic Party. Again, it isn’t necessarily the idea of “left” or “right” that is operative here, it is the statist orientation of Catholicism, combined with Catholic efforts to find political movements that were willing to work with them to further a Catholic presence in the public square. So, in 1930’s Spain, faced with hostile Marxists and anarchists who sought to destroy it, the Church happily sided with Franco’s vision of a statist right-wing authoritarian government. In America, faced with nativist hostility and a need to find stability in a new country, Catholics turned to the Democratic Party.
Of course things have changed since the 1960’s for a variety of reasons. Vatican II’s decree on religious liberty decisively moved Catholicism away from “altar and throne” political theory. Roe v. Wade undermined the American Catholic identification with the left and the Democratic Party. Catholic writers with a libertarian streak (like the late W.F. Buckley of blessed memory) also helped to move at least some aspects of Catholic thought away from statism. John Paul II’s economic encyclicals also helped enormously by beginning to recognize the value of free enterprise and the limited state.
All that said, though, I think that the standard Catholic approach to politics, of both left and right, is very comfortable with statist solutions to political and social problems. I don’t think it is leftist ideology or liberalism — it is a statist instinct in Catholic thought that manifests itself in current political contexts, but which is far, far, far older…Maybe stretching back to Constintine.
I’m not a Catholic, but maybe Catholic statism comes from the fact that the Catholic Church is itself a large institution, and the only extant one that dates back to the time of Christ…?
Mark in Spokane, I would offer this: Protestant groups are subject to greater centrifugal forces than Catholicism. Rather than Catholic statism, I would say that Protestantism simply spans a far wider range of conditions, from anarchic-libertarian-utopianism (e.g., the Diggers I believe?) all the way to Social Gospel & Christian Socialism.
The time of Constantine, at least. The idea of a unified christian church, under the primacy of the bishop of Rome, prior to then is a pious fiction promulgated with no little self interest by church historians.