James Madison and the Future of Limited Government

Rating:
Summary: Classical Liberals Unite!
Review: As a classical liberal my beliefs have become an anachronism in America. I belong to a philosophical social club so small that when books like this come along we are given hope that the masses will wake up to the tyranny. Alas, hope is quickly dashed upon the realization that the Fabian socialists have dumbed down the masses over the last forty years to the point that the arguments presented in this book are far beyond most Americans' comprehension, let alone their ability to affect change.

Nonetheless, this is an outstanding group of expertly written essays that are well presented by editor John Samples. Samples also writes one of the essays and an excellent introduction. Some of the topics presented are: Federalism, abuse of the general welfare clause, multiculturalism, democracy, and the essence of representative government, pure democracy, rule of law, and foreign policy. Using historical documents each author is able to help us understand the brilliant mind of Madison and that the abuses of government we are experiencing were foreseen not just by the Anti-Federalists but by Madison as well. These brave men gave us a system that, while less then perfect, is the most advanced in human history.

However, as the editor notes, there is an implicit understanding for this design to work. That understanding is that there is virtue among us. Madison once asked, 'is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks -no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea.' Do Americans possess enough virtue to maintain a limited government? To do so we need to be well educated, remain skeptical of government, and act on that skepticism. We must reject statements from family and friends like "they should do something about that." No they shouldn't, we should. Keep the government out of it.

I, like one of the contributing authors James Buchanan, am less optimistic about our future. I think the socialists are winning and have created a society where individual liberty has been cast aside as an old conservative idea and replaced with an environment "where everyone seeks to take wealth from someone else." Sadly I have tended to give up on the dream that liberty, free thought, speech, and economic markets can once again be a reality in America. I vote now for total gridlock so as to hopefully stop all new legislation, taxes, and pork.

This wonderful book renews my love of our experiment even if it has gone awry. It offers me solace in these tough times of ever increasing government abuse. This book has renewed my vigor to keep up the fight for what is right and not just settle for government gridlock.

Rating:
Summary: Classical Liberals Unite!
Review: As a classical liberal my beliefs have become an anachronism in America. I belong to a philosophical social club so small that when books like this come along we are given hope that the masses will wake up to the tyranny. Alas, hope is quickly dashed upon the realization that the Fabian socialists have dumbed down the masses over the last forty years to the point that the arguments presented in this book are far beyond most Americans' comprehension, let alone their ability to affect change.

Nonetheless, this is an outstanding group of expertly written essays that are well presented by editor John Samples. Samples also writes one of the essays and an excellent introduction. Some of the topics presented are: Federalism, abuse of the general welfare clause, multiculturalism, democracy, and the essence of representative government, pure democracy, rule of law, and foreign policy. Using historical documents each author is able to help us understand the brilliant mind of Madison and that the abuses of government we are experiencing were foreseen not just by the Anti-Federalists but by Madison as well. These brave men gave us a system that, while less then perfect, is the most advanced in human history.

However, as the editor notes, there is an implicit understanding for this design to work. That understanding is that there is virtue among us. Madison once asked, 'is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks -no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea.' Do Americans possess enough virtue to maintain a limited government? To do so we need to be well educated, remain skeptical of government, and act on that skepticism. We must reject statements from family and friends like "they should do something about that." No they shouldn't, we should. Keep the government out of it.

I, like one of the contributing authors James Buchanan, am less optimistic about our future. I think the socialists are winning and have created a society where individual liberty has been cast aside as an old conservative idea and replaced with an environment "where everyone seeks to take wealth from someone else." Sadly I have tended to give up on the dream that liberty, free thought, speech, and economic markets can once again be a reality in America. I vote now for total gridlock so as to hopefully stop all new legislation, taxes, and pork.

This wonderful book renews my love of our experiment even if it has gone awry. It offers me solace in these tough times of ever increasing government abuse. This book has renewed my vigor to keep up the fight for what is right and not just settle for government gridlock.

Rating:
Summary: Doesn't Quite Do It For Me.
Review: Let me start by saying that I am a libertarian, firmly committed to most of the ideas represented in this book. In a way, then, it feels strange to have come away from this book with the dry feeling that I did. Here's why I did.

First, on television and radio, I am always skeptical of endorsement deals. "Hi, I'm [insert hot-shot sports star] and I use [insert hot-shot product]. You should too." Well, this book is what i call a 'political endorsement' book of the type where the endorser, Madison, is conveniently dead. "Madison believed [insert policy]. Therefore you should too."

Now, I guess that the title of the book alone should've indicated to me that this was what to expect,and i guess in some sense I did. With essay titles like, "Madison and Multi-culturalism," one expects that the goal is to take Madison's writings and apply them to contemporary situations. Maybe i just didn't expect so much of the, "...since Madison said x, x must be right," bit.

Before I go into my one MAJOR problem with the book, I did give it 3 out of 5 stars. Here's why. Whereas about half of the essays are 'endorsement deal' essays, about half are legitimately not. Of course, as the book is on Madison, they might mention him in passing, but most of the 'non-endorsement deal' essays do something like this: "Madison thought x to be a problem. I think x is a problem too. I will argue my own case and I might mention Madison only in passing." The best essays in the book (about a good half of them) do exactly this. They argue on their, not Madison's, merits.

The only thing funny about that is that for all practical purposes, those essays needn't be in a book on Madison at all. In fact, if one took the 'endorsement deal' essays out of the book and left only the others, one could safely take Madison's name from the title. In fairness, my simultaneous criticism of 'endorsement deal' essays relying too much, and other essays relying not enough, on Madison, seem to have me wanting it both ways. I guess I wanted (a) a book that was more about history and less about polemical advocacy; and (b) just a little bit more substance than "Madison believed it, therefore, so should we."

Now for my big criticism. A few authors claim for Madison views seemingly more extreme than Madison seemed to hold. Some authors say that Madison was a big defender of laissez-faire. I've read much Madison and i've yet to see the essay he wrote on private economic activity. Sure, he writes on strictly limiting the NATIONAL govt.'s powers, but he, as Jefferson, believed in things like public education, wrote nasty words about the unequal relationship of creditors and debtors, and generally did not write against states ability to regulate economic behavior. Was Madison a federalist? Yes. Did he believe in limited government? On the NATIONAL level, yes. Does that mean he supported laiseez-faire economics? Not exactly. And the CATO writers did a poor job showing he did. They do things like point to Madison's position on contracts BETWEEN THE STATES or his non-interventionist approach to dealing with other nations and jump to the conclusion that he supported free-market economics. They must do better than that.

Lest I get on too much of a diatribe, I have to say that, for all that, the book was decent. I gave it three stars for the 'non-endorsement deal' essays, and as they are about half of the book, the book is worth getting. I simply expected better for the other half.