Today on Undisclosed Desires, we have our first guest blogger. Sam Cordle is a homeschooled junior who goes to my youth group. I enjoy board games, playing basketball and soccer, and having political debates with him and his brothers. Sam wants to major in political science or pre-law and is considering a bevy of Christian liberal art schools. Sam's favorite Bible passages are Romans 3:24-26 and Colossians 4:5-6. He enjoys books by Jonathan Edwards, C.S. Lewis, Charles Dickens, and Mark Twain and is currently reading Walden by Henry David Thoreau and Animal Farm by George Orwell.
In making a cutting indictment of government injustices, Henry David Thoreau’s tract “Resistance to Civil
Government” highly criticizes government as a whole. As part of his outline of civil disobedience, he calls for citizens to separate themselves from government by taking actions like disobeying laws that connect them to the state. Such opinions raise the important question of the compatibility of these ideas with the American republican form of government. When used as a means to express discontent or protest over government actions, Thoreau’s methodology of civil disobedience can coexist with republicanism, but if taken to an extreme, his political philosophies would undermine any such government. With its focus on representing the people, the republican form of government allows for dissent, but not anarchy.
At its root, the republican form of government in the United States recognizes the supremacy of the people as the source of its power. Throughout his essay, Thoreau strongly emphasizes the opinion of the individual and his or her right to separate from the government. He calls for the state “to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived” (1872). American republican government does recognize the people in this way. As James Madison describes in The Federalist Papers, representation of the people lies at the heart of a republican form of government. Agreeing with the words of the Declaration of Independence, Madison defines a republic as “a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people,” and he proceeds to illustrate how the United States meets this criterion under the Constitution. Because the foundation of both Thoreau’s belief in civil disobedience and American republicanism lies on the opinion and will of individual people, the two can coexist to some extent.
Furthermore, with its focus on representing the people, republicanism fundamentally allows for dissent. In his disobedience to the government, Thoreau purposes to convey disapproval of injustices in the government. He implies that he “[breaks] the law” to “[let] [his] life be a counter friction to stop the machine” of government injustice, instead of “[lending] [himself] to the wrong which [he] [condemns]” (1863). Again in The Federalist Papers, Madison explains how republicanism preserves liberty by not suppressing factions, but only by balancing and controlling their effects, so that destructive anarchy does not reign. Therefore, Thoreau’s basic concept of civil disobedience exhibits compatibility with the republican form of government.
While civil disobedience as protest generally fits with the principle of republicanism, some of Thoreau’s philosophical backing and application of his idea causes conflicts with the republican form of government. Thoreau bases his idea of civil disobedience on the idea of individualism and the principle “[that] government is best which governs least,” which he extrapolates to mean that no government ideally should exist at all, and the government should at least allow people to remain completely aloof from it (1857). If many people widely adopted and applied these ideas, they would likely begin to disobey the government based on whatever standard they wished to hold. When people do whatever they want, with no regard for laws, anarchy can result. Such a situation with no government, and in which each individual person makes his or her laws, obviously opposes any form of republican government.
Thoreau does not immediately call for the abolition of all government, but his ideas can certainly lead to anarchy. Despite his views of the state as an expedient in some areas, he generally perceives the government as a hindrance to justice, as an entity that can be abandoned in protest. However, Thoreau does provide a powerful argument for people to seek right and justice without regard to the cost. If seeking justice requires breaking laws, Thoreau urges this course of action as a means of nonviolent protest consistent with the republican form of government that allows dissent as part of its attempts to represent the people. Later social reformers, such as Martin Luther King Jr., found inspiration for their peaceful protests in Thoreau’s concept of civil disobedience as they challenged the actions but not the form of the government. Despite inconsistencies between the application of Thoreau’s ideas and republicanism, his basic concept of civil disobedience can certainly coexist with the republican form of government in the United States.
No comments:
Post a Comment