Restoration of the Republic: The Jeffersonian Ideal in 21st-Century America

Rating:
Summary: A Call for a return to Democratic-Republicanism
Review: Gary Hart's "Restoration of the Republic" is a fantastic call
for the modern American Empire to return to it's democratic republican roots. By examining Thomas Jefferson's ward republics
and their classical republican ideal we see how they could work for modern America. Jefferson's wards would be the focus of government for the everyday citizen. Care of the poor, militia duty, jury selection, and public education would be just a few of the duties of these "little republics". Hart shows how Jefferson's wards could help restore civic participation by allowing the average citizen to be intimately involved with the basic duties of government that effect his or her life. This books is a clarion call to arms for a revival of the classical republican spirit where not only our rights but our duties are cherished. Overall a great read and a must buy.

Rating:
Summary: The Responsibility of Informed Participation
Review: In his new book, Restoration of the Republic: The Jeffersonian Ideal in the 21st Century (Oxford University Press, 2002) former U.S. Senator Gary Hart examines Thomas Jefferson's vision of free society. The result is the most timely and relevant treatment of that vision ever published. For Jefferson, free society is about more than just citizen rights. It is about the responsibilities that accompany those rights - the responsibility of informed participation.

As America debates the troubling aftermath of 9/11, Hart succeeds in identifying what has been called "the revolutionary tradition and its lost treasure" - the town meeting system of self-government - and the failure to incorporate this system into our constitutional framework. This failure was a direct result of Shays Rebellion in 1786, an event which caused fears of anarchy and violence. In response to those fears, the United States adopted an elaborate check and balance scheme based on representation.

Hart's book focuses on this tragic oversight in our political development and re-establishes Jefferson as the primary exponent for a public space where the voice of the whole people can be, as Jefferson said, "fairly, fully, and peacefully expressed, discussed, and decided by the common reason of society." Jefferson believed that violence could be avoided by creating, along with public education, a place for a redress of grievances. A place, he thought, where citizens could be "participator[s] in the government of affairs, not merely at an election one day in the year, but every day."

Jefferson's vision of republican government has profound implications for the 21st century. Hart deserves high praise for identifying and bringing focus to the central legacy of Thomas Jefferson.

Sydney N. Stokes, Jr.
Chairman

Rating:
Summary: Is America A Republic?
Review: In this book Gary Hart looks at the problems facing America, asking if the corruption in our government may mean we no longer are a true Republic, and offers solutions. Originally a book that was to focus on placing greater control in the hands of 'ward republics' or divisions created below the county level, it mentions some issues concerning the militia and defending America. With September 11th, Hart went back to re-write some portions of the book to increase the emphasis on defending America. Overall, his research on Jefferson (who originally proposed these ward republics) and the issues of Jeffersonianism throughout American history would be enough to buy the book. His proposals for the 21st Century are just extra, but are not fleshed out enough to warrent a five.

Rating:
Summary: Misunderstanding Jefferson
Review: Restoration of the Republic: The Jeffersonian Ideal in 21st-Century America written as a doctoral thesis by Gary Hart.The book in a nutshell is about bringing to light a long-neglected aspect of Thomas Jefferson's political philosphy... "the ward republic."

Thomas Jefferson proposed that a layer of American government composed of elementary, pure or ward republics should provide the foundation upon which individual State republics and the federated republic would be based. His proposal was heavily influenced both by classic republican theories of civic virtue and citizen participation and by the belief that local public affairs were best managed locally. His views, explicated most thoroughly following his retirement from public office, were not considered during the Constitutional debates and were thus neither explicitly accepted nor rejected during America's founding era.

Federalist proponents of the new Constitution, principally Jefferson's ally James Madison, argued for a Constitutional structure based upon a federal republic whose allocation of power among branches of government would check and balance each other, a republic strong enough to unite the various States and sufficiently consolidated as a national government to resist local factions and interests. Whereas Madison saw citizens as fractious, potentially oppressive, and neither enlightened for self-government. Madison saw democracy as a door through which chaos might enter; Jefferson saw it as the only means by which to prevent ownership of government by "interests" and the resulting citizen alienation from government.

With this in mind, Hart brings these views to mind as he discusses current economic globalization and the evolving of Nation-States, Republicanism, and Original objections to small republics in the light of the twenty-first-century realities.

I found the book to be well-written and the prose foundational at first, then later making cogent sense as he tries to bring Jefferson's ideas into the twenty-first-century. This book does as follows: brings consideration of the revolutionary economic, social, and political changes in the twenty-first century; an examination of whether America in the twenty-first century is an authentic republic; consideration of the objections to small-scale republicanism during the founding-era debate and discussions of the impact of these new realities on early objections to small-scale republicanism; a concluding discussion of the relevance of radical democratic republican ideals to America in the current age.

This is a thoughtful and provocative book and makes a persuasive argument for Jeffersonian principles.

Rating:
Summary: Good Try --- But No Cigar
Review: Takes a shot at explaining what it is to be an American, but, does only a so-so job. Good try -- but no cigar. If you're really interested in the answers, let me recommend the only one I have ever read that gives them and explains them. I suggest you read "West Point: Character Leadership Education, A Book Developed From The Readings And Writings Of Thomas Jefferson", by Remick.

Rating:
Summary: Looking Back To Jeffersons' Ideas Is A Good Thing To Do Now!
Review: The author, The Honorable Gary Hart, Former Senator and Presidential Candidate continues to contribute to the public debate on American policies, principles and institutions in this new book. Choosing Jefferson, as the subject to foster new debates for a new direction of America in this new century is both wise and insightful and a trademark of Senator Hart's visions.

The book outlines some interesting ideas of how America can improve the lot of its citizens and protect them without giving up individual freedoms that make life worthwhile for all. It is calling upon the consolidation of local government, which is badly needed at least in states with elderly populations.

The fact is taxes which Jefferson opposed is really hurting our elderly on fixed income, remove businesses to global tax havens and in the end burden more than help like any Ponzi scheme. Yet, due to communities and school districts refusing to merge we are forced to have High Schools and Police Forces paid by wasted tax dollars that consolidation would reduce except for community pride.

Upon finishing the book, I disagree with Gary Hart's conclusions and proposals in some places. I think Jefferson would be appalled that our Public Schools with such heavy funding cannot educate our students that the Republic is dependent upon to foster good government. I think Jefferson would be especially disappointed in the School Districts dominated by Democrats not just in urban areas but many suburbs as well. Jefferson founded the Democratic Party and would expect it to produce for the common citizens rather benefit an economic elite whether they are unions, teachers or administrators. He would call upon these elites to change policies for all and not stop change.

Jefferson was an activist of knowing a Democracy run by emotions of the time causing mob rule needed a Republic run by cooler heads with separations of power to keep all tyranny in check. Yet, the great weight of federal funding is like opium now because states and local communities cannot survive without it. Jefferson would not appreciate this result, in my opinion. I do believe he would have caused local communities to make the hard choices for consolidation instead of opting to raise taxes to fund obsolete government because someone wants their son to play football from the school they graduated.

Furthermore, we are going to a global economy of 24-hour service. Yet, our schools have but one school day instead of 3 shifts that could accommodate more students with more teachers without increase funding for building and maintenance. Teacher Unions prefer the current system devised on an agricultural based economy because they get 3 months off every year. I say, still give them 3 months off, but consolidation and adding 2 to 3 shifts dividing students will lower class size, increase money towards teachers and remove heavy debt of non-educational expenses.

Additionally, America is funding huge Airlines and Airports that in the end actually decrease travel and tourism and waste oil resources. We need a Maglev trains that cost as much as one highway that can be connected from major Airports for security purposes and will alleviate the 1 to 2 hour flights that costs the most in money and congestion. Every homeland but America is pursuing this technology, in Jefferson time, America pursued new technology to foster a new nation.

The author points out Jefferson welcomed ideas but advocated they should not be patented for fear of restrictions of public debate. He would be the first to advocate a large investment "Public Water Pipeline System" that could be built over and under along our major highways like the Alaskan Pipeline. We would then be able to pump water from areas were flooding occur to areas subject to drought out west and charge a small costs over a large period of time. A few could go through a National Forest to act as firewalls once in awhile. This would reduce drought disaster costs and insurance flood costs too.

This is how Jefferson thought, using ideas of common sense to meet challenges for the future. He knew a few with big ideas can help the many without losing individual freedoms. This is what Gary Hart as sparked by this book but so far few flames of have been created.

This is a good read to recall where our political base came from such ideas in practice and where we need to restore such idea thinking for our future.

Rating:
Summary: Disappointed
Review: This book appeared to be fashionable because it was authored by the name, Gary Hart. Having read just about everything on Thomas Jefferson, I rushed out to get this one. After reading it, I was disappointed. It was long on explaining Mr.Hart's personal opinions and short on explaining Thomas Jefferson's philosophy behind his idea of "ward republics". I have to tell you, I got more information and enjoyment out of another book about Jefferson's philosophy, including a section on ward republics, that pre-dates this book that I read a couple of years ago called "West Point: Character Leadership...Thomas Jefferson" by Norman Thomas Remick.

Rating:
Summary: Misunderstanding Jefferson
Review: This book should be called "misunderstanding Thomas Jefferson". Its interpretation of Jefferson's political philosophy is weak and highly speculative. One has to read everything that Jefferson himself read and wrote, philosophically, to understand him. The author looked at a narrow slice of Jefferson (ward republics) out of context with Jefferson's world view.

Rating:
Summary: Local Control: Yes; Most Everything Else: No
Review: Written originally as a doctoral thesis paper, Gary Hart's "Restoration of the Republic: The Jeffersonian Ideal in 21st-Century America" delves into Thomas Jefferson's idea for local governance known as the local, authentic, or ward republic. Jefferson visualized the ward republic as a small political unit where the local citizenry would contribute to the governance of the ward. Jefferson believed active participation by the citizenry would act as a deterrent to the tyrannical tendencies of large, centralized governments.

While Jefferson's concept of local republican government was never even discussed at the Constitutional Conventions, it is very unlikely, given the state of the American republic at the time of the debates, that it would have been adopted. Hart here revisits Jefferson's model in light of the new realities of the American republic and decides that it is time to give it a try.

Hart's main assertion for the need to implement the ward republic is the presumption of corruption of the state and national governments by special interests. He cites as his primary evidence the drop off in the percentage of citizens voting. However, Hart provides no evidence that this is in fact the reason why fewer people now vote. A far more plausible reason to me is the lack of choice available in any political contest.

The two main parties, the Demicans and Republicrats if you will, have blurred almost all distinctions between themselves in their quest for power. The only differences they have maintained are the ones most important to certain single-issue blocs that provide key support come election day (e.g. abortion). It is this lack of choice and the stacking of the deck against third parties that, to me, is by far the biggest turn off in American politics today. The two main parties have chosen power over principle not because of special interests but because of their own lust for dominance.

Hart's faulty basis aside, we do need more local control of such issues as education. The federal governmental bureaucracy has proven itself incapable of providing for local issues in American society. This is not from any sinister efforts to undermine local communities but because bureaucracies are inherently inefficient and more interested in protecting their turf than in completing their mission.

While I agree with Hart that greater local control over local issues is desirable, I do disagree with him in the manner that it should be done and in the programs to implement. The ward republic is not the best means to achieve proper government. Hart incorrectly couches the argument as Jeffersonian populism versus Hamiltonian aristocracy. This is not an issue of trusting the people but in deciding who is better equipped to handle the decision-making process. The reason we elect representatives is because there are people within any community who are natural leaders who will take over control of any organization. This would happen at the local republican level also. It is better for the people not inclined to do so to elect the people who are and to keep a watchful eye on them. As the saying goes, "Put all your eggs in one basket and watch that basket."

I also vehemently disagree with Hart's misinterpretation of the rights versus duties argument. I do not necessarily disagree with his sentiment but in his characterization of America. Hart seems to think that America is Balkanizing before our very eyes; but, the facts do not support this. There are far more Americans giving far greater dollars and time to all sorts of community programs than ever before. The American people are as interested in the health and well-being of their communities as ever. The idea of a majority of Americans running behind gated communities is simply laughable.

American communities do need and deserve a greater say in how their tax dollars are spent. The main reason why there is such an anti-tax disposition in America is not because Americans are averse to paying taxes per se, but because they don't like to see their hard earned money wasted on, well, government waste. It is not taxes we don't like but the way they are spent. Perhaps Americans can put tax dollars to better use via local control. I certainly don't think that we'd do any worse than the federal government.