John Lucas, writing for the Evansville Courier Press, asks some questions about the Founding Fathers.
How from such a small pool of people were so many giants produced 250 years ago?
And with so many more to choose from now, why can’t we seem to find people of such stature today?
How did those people — John Adams, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington and many, many less well-remembered delegates to the Congress and constitutional convention — come up with the framework of government that in the main serves us still today?
I think there were some unique qualities about the late 18th century that contributed to the availability of so many great minds. In particular, the Enlightenment philosophies that were prevalent at the time had to help – valuing observed truth over revealed dogma is a mindset that had to have helped. More important, in my opinion, is that society was less stratified when the country was that new: talent could rise to the top more easily. For example, Alexander Hamilton, one of the most important Founders, was a bastard child out of the West Indies who had proven himself in military campaigns and become a close aide to General Washington by the time he was in his early 20s (his exact year of birth is uncertain). While it’s not impossible that such a mongrel would rise so far so fast simply on his own abilities in today’s America, I contend it is a lot more difficult.
America at the time of the Founders was more like a start up company, where good ideas and hard work allow you to rise to the top rapidly. America today is more like a Fortune 500 company where you have to adhere to the established policies and procedures, rise through the ranks, and be good at corporate politics.
Just a theory.
I totally disagree about the relative ease with which one can rise, 1770s vs today.
Even in America at that time, you had apprenticeship as the main path to one’s future. University was reserved for the wealthy (hell- I went to college on the money I made in the summer and on part time jobs).
Oh, and the color of one’s skin was a bit of an issue. You can cite Hamilton’s rise, but no person of African descent was anywhere near leadership. You have heard of Obama, no? :-)
Today, I know a handful of wealthy, self-made individuals. None of them is particularly well-educated. Each has the distinction of doing one thing very well, very doggedly. One is a truck driver. He owns his own truck, and rides it about 16 hours daily. He makes almost a quarter million a year through sheer hustle, delivering stone, topsoil or mulch, or hauling trash. I know another woman who trades in vacuum cleaners. She offers a service that contracts with hotels: on a regular schedule, she sends them a new vacuum cleaners. The hotel sends the old one, and she refurbishes it. Makes more than a million a year. I would argue that it’s actually pretty easy to generate wealth- it’s just that most people aren’t willing to do what it takes to do so, like work 80-90 hours/week without the security of a benefit package, etc.
The only people who get rich in a corporate setting are the CEOs and uppermost management. Why anybody who desires wealth seeks a corporate job is beyond me.
I think in a way all this also explains the difference between now and then. These people value wealth and their effort, but they aren’t intellectually curious in the slightest. There’s no doubt that as time has passed, the great bulk of our population has turned its back on philosophy, on critical thought, and a host of other qualities that defined the Enlightenment, in favor of one grind or another.
Certainly, we have people who are intellectually curious, and are creating vast new knowledge such that we can’t get our arms around it all. But I think that the degree to which so many ordinary, unremarkable people create such good livings for themselves is the degree to which the great brains of our day are obscured. In the age of the Founders, they stood fairly alone in achievement such that you could notice them.
You should read “Just How Stupid Are We?” by Rick Shenkman. (http://www.amazon.com/Just-How-Stupid-Are-We/dp/0465077714) He has a whole chapter on “American Myths” and about how America, being a very new nation, needed to have myths to survive and to bind the people together. We were a nation with ZERO native population (that participated in the government anyway) who were from all over Europe. Instead of a common cultural mythology, we had to create our own immediately – and it was the Founding Fathers.
Like all myths, I think reality has been lost, and if you were to time travel back to 1780 you’d be hard pressed to find the men that you read about in history books. Democracy back then was very, very far from perfect with only rich, white, men being able to partake. If that system existed today, the public would be up in arms. Each of the founding fathers had their own sins and issues as well, and I’m sure that if you yanked out of 1780 and plopped them into the culture of 2008, you’d be shocked.
On the other hand, as the book continues to explain, the American public in general is extremely stupid, and placing the country and democracy in their hands isn’t necessarily a great idea either…
A man like Alexander Hamilton would be ripped apart by the media today…that’s one big difference. Not to mention Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc.
I’m not trying to say that there isn’t opportunity to acquire wealth in the U.S. today. But that’s not quite the same thing as rising to a position with the power to influence the country itself.
There is a lot more inertia now than there was then. Just one data point, I know; but I wonder what percentage of Presidents, Senators, and Representatives have come from well connected families over the past 50 years. And, I wonder how that compares to the first 50 years. (Not that connections were unimportant during the first 50 years — John Quincy Adams leaps immediately to mind.)
I think Mike (as usual) makes some good points. But, I would to expand on a couple of his statements.
First, while Colonial America is not my area of “expertise”, I believe that there were plenty of wealthy, self-made (and perhaps not so well educated) individuals during the pre-Revolutionary period. Then, like now, their pursuit of personal success kept them at a distance from outside activities, like politics. So, most have simply fallen into the cracks when it comes to the historical record.
If anyone has turned their backs on philosophy and critical thought, it is our public education system. Frankly, public education serves as much as a system for producing worker bees, as much as anything else. Rare it must be to find a public high school that teaches philosophy, though I do see more of an effort to include critical thinking now (driven by the global job market as much as anything else). This passes along into our university system as well. American universities which concentrate upon research tend to require a pseudo-microspecialization as a prerequisite to advanced programs. Being an “expert” in a single subtopic of a single subject would hardly seem to be conducive to advancing “Renaissance” thought.
Besides, the Founding Fathers certainly thrived under a different economic and political system from what most of us labor under today. Most likely had sources of income that didn’t require a lot of labor on their own part. Perhaps there was a vital difference in interpersonal relations as well. For all of our technology, we lead somewhat disconnected lives from persons other than our families. Might be different if we could all meet down at a local establishment for a goodly part of the day to discuss philosophy and politics.
At times, I like to think this forum provides at least a pale substitute for such a place.
In the morning-where’s my coffee?
In the afternoon-where’s my lunch?
In the evening-where’s my beer?
You need to be a better “host”;-)
I’m actually pretty good about coffee and beer when folks come to my place. Lunch can be kind of sketchy; particularly depending on how the beer situation plays out.
Well, I’m not much into “virtual” coffee and beer-sorry!
Had a friend in seminary-this was back in the early ’90’s-who wanted to create a “virtual” on-line church. He was even going to have “virtual” on-line communion-where the person raises their own bread and wine as they read the words of institution. Somehow community gets lost there. Even if you’re drinking a beer at the same time I am on-line-something is lost in the translation.
I remember when I was first noodling around the web – in ’96 or so, I suppose – I thought “The First Online Church of Dog” had a certain ring to it. I’m not sure I ever had any real idea about content. “Dog” worked since it was “God” backward and my nickname in undergrad was “Dog.”
Something is definitely lost in the absence of physical presence. I recall a discussion in an Internet class where I suggested that, if nothing else, the potential of getting punched in the nose – even if remote – was an influence on how you interacted with people.
Oh, I agree Doug. When people have the time to interact almost “real-time”, then you get some very interesting exchagnes here.
Still, the “getting punched” factor is almost completely absent on the blogosphere. It would be much more entertaining if we all did a few rounds in Sumo suits, except for Mike who’d like to occasionally bodycheck one or another once in a while on the ice.
Rev AJB said:
I think this is a very valid point… most intelligent people today aren’t remotely interested in getting involved in politics. What a wretched life!