Jeffersonianism: A Path out of the Political Divide

To this point, individuals have described the political cleavage in the United States along lines of left-wing and right-wing. These lines are not only cleaved politically – but socially, economically, and culturally as well. Pew Research describes this divide between left and right in the American political system (Republican and Democrat) has been happening for some years now with growing polarization. There is a clear wedge between the two factions and fundamentally see the world and their country in different ways. As a Canadian on the outpost, I am an outside observer on the political milieu present to my southern neighbors and when I hear the narratives discussed outside of vapid circles, I wonder if people are more amalgamated then they think? Perhaps beyond the empty and shallow ideas of ‘woke left’ promotion of ‘anti-racism racism’, or the unfettered ‘RINO neoconservatism’, there might be something more to how Americans can see one another to break this political divide. Thus, the introduction of Jeffersonianism.

As one might have already surmised; Jeffersonianism relates to the philosophy held by or connected to founding father and third President Thomas Jefferson. More succinctly, Jeffersonianism commonly relates to the political philosophy of Jeffersonian Democracy which holds the belief of equal political opportunity in a system that prioritizes the common man with an importance held in honesty and character virtues. Jeffersonian Democracy is a common trait to this day in the United States as it is the preeminent basis for the constitution and the rights that stem from it. A scholar in this field may be bored given they have read extensively on Jefferson; however, lets go deeper beyond definition and observe how practical it is in a twenty-first century America. Perhaps this is the purpose for why Jeffersonian discourse needs to be discussed within common circles through more substantive and effective dialogue to enhance political, social, economic, and cultural factors.

Classical Liberalism

Although Jeffersonians would reflect the contemporary notion of classical liberalism with reference to economic freedom. However, the term classical liberalism with Jeffersonians seem to embrace more of a broader ethos in terms of how individuals live and shape their lives. We can draw from philosophers such as John Locke – arguably the father of classical liberalism – describes the ethos around the natural law of man to be free and autonomous without any state or royal tyranny as discussed in the Two Treatise of Government. This of course is provided to all individuals within a nation and individuals outside of a nation given the universality of classical liberalism. Individuals in a 21^st Century seem to hold these truths as being self-evident; however, some individuals seem lost that this applies outside of their manufactured ideology causing disingenuous debate. A classical liberal approach within a modern culture would accept a diversity of viewpoints accepted, viewed, critiqued, and judged upon towards greater knowledge. One might surmise – from the left or the right – cancel culture is anti-liberal in the classical sense, given it stifles freedom through a cultural hegemon disavowing our natural right to be free from tyranny.

Opposition to Artificial Aristocracy

The issue with modern discourse is that there are gatekeepers who direct the sails of conversation in a modern age. One may view all aristocracy as the privileged few who obtain control in our society such as business, government, and media; however, Thomas Jefferson attempts to split different levels of aristocracy between the natural and the artificial. In his correspondence with John Adams, Jefferson outlines the roles of artificial aristocrats disparaging the meritorious in favor of the material.

“The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendancy. On the question, what is the best provision, you and I differ; but we differ as rational friends, using the free exercise of our own reason, and mutually indulging it’s errors.”

Unfortunately, the classical liberal warning from Jefferson was not heeded given the rise in the artificial aristocracy being especially infectious in our political discourse. Swaths of politicians, legacy media, and corrupt organizations seem to have fostered a path based on legacy and wealth; furthermore, using that legacy and wealth to stifle, subdue, even subvert conversation. None further than to look at the many examples of mainstream media and their ‘ahead of their skis’ approach to journalism in the wake of shootings and COVID-19 coverage.

Republicanism

Republicanism essentially outlines the rules of the game to be played to set the basis for constitutionality from-and-for-the public. These rules follow a natural inclination of rights balanced through the social contract with limited government. One might be able to ask where was republicanism referencing the COVID-19 lockdowns and mandates? It was in October when the W.H.O. suggested that lockdowns and other severe mandates should be a last resort when dealing with a pandemic; thus, clear questions early on should have been discussed. This presents the battle between natural rights and the social contract with: Are the rights being infringed or is public health about the social contract? Are we limiting the pursuit of happiness with virus spread, or is the science on viruses unique, that a virus will spread regardless, and we need our life and liberty to measure our own risk when relating to a pandemic? Republicanism acts as the skeptic in the room, annoying at first – but needed in order to make sure a decision on a policy or mandate is meticulous and comprehensive towards betterment of a free and just society.

Spiritual Autonomy

One of the most interesting – arguably vanguard tenants of Jeffersonianism is the acceptance of anti-clericalism. Anti-clericalism is an opposition to religious authority, not necessarily a removal of religion, rather an acceptance of a diversity of religions in social and political discourse with a key acceptance of separating the church interfering with the laws of the state (see the first clause in the first amendment). This is vanguard given this ideal in Jefferson’s day were a rejection from the Church of England, but a keen acceptance of Episcopal teachings and non-orthodox. In a modern context, this may be one of the most important concepts relating to the political divide. Political discourse through media and other control institutions have turned the conversation away from nuance and towards enemy factions engaging in political jihad against the other faction with zealotry rhetoric. Ones within a certain political faction see the other political faction as an existential threat to the other. Anti-clericalism is a contextual understanding towards freedom, as it provides a freedom from burden of hate and disdain towards our fellow man while holding belief intact. Furthermore, it is this embrace of anti-clericalism that opens us up to the beautification of freedom and acceptance.

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them.

Thomas Jefferson – Letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826

The concept of a Jeffersonian ideal is both impactful and relevant in modern socio-political discourse. I am very proud of the history of my country and the relationship that has formed with our neighbor to the south. But it is within hard times both politically and socially that an outsider like me can look at the history of American founders in awe of the accomplishments they set out for Western ideals of rights and freedoms for humans. One could propose Sir Wilfrid Laurier – seventh Prime Minister of Canada – to reflect classical liberalism and republicanism in a Canadian context but it would not do justice to the original framers of the constitution. I will conclude that Jeffersonianism augers into the sprit of bridging the political divide: freedom, merit, authenticity, diversity of opinion, and questioning being positions that provide the best sense to bridge the political divide towards true healing in a time of strife. I have seen a few modern Jeffersonians engage in the political, social, and cultural realm and I hope more to come out of the woodwork providing a reconfiguration back to discourse that is accepting, expansive, challenging, and ultimately rewarding. One can listen to their words or read their work to understand the dire and principal exigency toward this discourse in order to bring people together with calm and clarity. It is not only mine but a large contingency that this movement continues to grow and garners more acceptance moving forward. Because if anything that the past four – even ten years have taught us, this is greatly needed.