Query:
I’ve been reading about the American founding, but the failure to explain what a “republic” is or what “republicanism” is supposed to be is frustrating. Take the late Gordon Wood. He is helpful in other ways, but he writes long chapters on how republican the English were, how the colonists were more so, and how England itself was a highly republican sort of monarchy – and what does this mean?
I make sense of it by distinguishing between the form of government and the societal mores. A country may nominally be a monarchy, but the society is monarchical to the extent its sense of the nation (of its constitution?) is mediated through the monarch. It is "republican" to the extent that sense is independent of the monarch.
In a true monarchy, the king has more power to interpret the constitution, literally and symbolically. His embodiment of the nation counts for more. It makes sense that as common people became more educated, they would have less need of monarchical forms.
This enables me to make sense of claims about American republicanism. Do you think I am on the right track?
Reply:
I do think you’re on the right track. The failure of various writers to explain what they mean by the terms “republic” and “republicanism” has long frustrated me too -- also the terms “democracy” and “democratic,” but that’s a different story.
Writers speak of republics in widely different senses. I used to offer my students a one-size-fits-all definition, that republican government is government without a king, structured in such a way that "the last word" always rests, directly or indirectly, with the whole body of eligible citizens. They -- not a body of nobles, though one might exist -- are where "the buck stops."
By a “king” I mean someone who actually exercises a share in rule. Contemporary England has sometimes been called a “crowned republic” because the king no longer counts for much politically, although he does socially. We seem to be something like an informal monarchy because of the way we treat our presidents.
By “eligible citizens” I meant "citizens eligible to participate in the stage of politics in question.” In ancient republics like Rome, I told them, the body of eligible citizens was given the last word by requiring that every law be submitted for their personal approval at an Assembly of the People. (In practice, of course, the aristocratic Senate manipulated the popular assemblies and most of the time did pretty much as it pleased, although the tribunes were a real check.) Our method has been much less direct. For that reason, Madison and Hamilton used the term “republic” simply for a regime dependent on representation rather than direct popular rule, although I think this is misleading.
I like your distinction between republicanism in the form of government and republicanism in the mores of the society. However, although knowledge of public affairs is important, I wouldn’t necessarily say that how educated the citizens are is the key factor. If they are highly educated, but don’t believe in a common good or don’t have civic virtue, they won’t be able to participate in government in a republican way.
Of course then we have to ask what we mean by civic virtue and the common good. Influenced by Montesquieu, some of the Founders thought civic virtue lay mostly in devotion to the law and willingness to set aside personal interest for the common good. Montesquieu would have had us think of Sparta, in which a woman who was told by a runner that her sons had fallen in battle gave the answer, “Don’t bother me about that. Did we win?”
I am all for civic virtue and the common good, but I think the Spartan view of them was perverse.
Happy semiquincentennial!
NEW STUFF:
Sean McDowell’s interview with me (Dr. McDowell is a professor at Biola University): “Why This Nihilist Professor Couldn’t Escape God.” You can view it either here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w52USVw6t4 or here: https://seanmcdowell.org/blog/why-this-nihilist-professor-couldnt-escape-god-j-budziszewski-testimony.