by Michael Liss
I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. —Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Doctor Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800
To quote the esteemed detective (and Classicist) Lieutenant Columbo, I think you see my problem. Who writes like this? I have spent a great deal of time over the last three months researching and writing about Thomas Jefferson and I do not think I am any closer to understanding the inner Jefferson then the day I started. I need a break. All those books (there are more in another room by other, just as authoritative writers) and every word of original source material I can find in texts and online haven’t shown me what the historian Joseph Ellis asks me to accept as defining qualities: “Jefferson was light, inspiring, optimistic.”
Maybe he was light, inspiring and optimistic. In his personal life melancholy wouldn’t be a description I’d ascribe to him. He certainly loved wine, women, music, good correspondence, and better books. He had a long list of people with whom he communicated, and the ones who were up to it got letters in multiple languages. The missives he and John Adams exchanged, when the two elderly egotists were in the mood, were stuffed with learned allusions. One of Jefferson’s, dated September 21, 1813, included verses that started in Greek and then translated to English, Latin, and French, then finally alit on Italian. You can almost hear the boys getting out their William and Mary and Harvard sweatshirts, dipping their pens in ink, and smirking. And yet, I feel the weight of his words.
During its formative years, America was blessed with several Presidents who were highly gifted. Adams certainly was, as was his son. John Quincy Adams, as was James Madison, but what set Jefferson apart was his unchallengeable status as a Renaissance man. Maybe that’s part of his enduring appeal to the academic community—being smart, talented, and classically educated is cool.
Not cool, the slaves—both the mistress and the rest—and, for many, that’s dispositive. The moral opprobria associated with the institution and the intimate relations with Sally Hemings are great and deserved. Contextualization doesn’t really work when you are talking about actions of this type.
Each person must decide for him or herself whether those are disqualifying at a threshold level. If they are, and you don’t feel the need for Jefferson along with your morning Cornflakes, then move on. But if they are not, if you can deplore the sins while acknowledging complexity and applying nuance, then stay for the ride, read whatever you can find, learn more about the man instead of just the Sphinx. Take the opportunity to look at the rest of Jefferson’s behavior, his actions both in and out of office, and, for a man whose fame is rooted in words, what he said on other issues of importance to the country. That’s where I am right now, and as challenging a read as he can be, I have two more essays blocked out in my head.
Here is why: Because Jefferson, for all his high-minded theories and higher-minded writings, understood the value of politics. And Jefferson, for all his doubts about the wisdom of some of the choices that could be democratically made and the qualifications of those who made them, believed deeply in the rights of the individual over the state, and most deeply in the right to choose leadership through the ballot box. These are great ideas; they are worth preserving; and, most importantly, they are worth fighting for. You can choose for yourself whether they elevate the man or are just not diminished by him, but use them, today, this week, next, or the one after that, by mail, or absentee ballot, or just plain old in-person on Election Day.
Beware, I’m about to talk more about the Midterms, but first, a little ancient history that I’m fairly sure Thomas Jefferson and John Adams might have read in the original.
In 49 BC, the mighty Julius Caesar, once Consul of Rome, then Governor of Gaul and Loin of Beef, was getting a little restless. Gaul had been good to Caesar, and Caesar had done a remarkable job in Gaul, dividing it into three parts, routing the opposition, growing wealthy with semi-legal grift, and thinking ambitious thoughts. Time for a little upward mobility? Let’s face it, Rome was Rome and Gaul, was, well, Gaul.
Caesar’s vast popularity did not go unnoticed back home, where the Roman Senate, when not otherwise trading slaves and concubines, speechifying and indulging themselves, also kept a keen eye on lean and hungry men. As incumbents, they grew concerned about possible “primary” challenges, and so they directed Caesar to resign his command and disband his army. Caesar had his friends in the capital, sent tribunes to discuss things, and tried to take advantage of Rome’s lax campaign finance laws, but his allies were spurned. He would have to heed Rome’s decree, and the Senate charged their leader, Pompey, to enforce the edict, with arms, if necessary.
Ah, opportunities lost. Caesar didn’t get to where he was in life by taking “no” easily. But beyond the logistical issues, he had a symbolic one as well. By ironclad law in the Roman Republic, no General was permitted to enter into Italy proper at the head of his army. All that sun and fun in Gaul put Caesar on the “French” side of the line. Crossing the line, or, more accurately, crossing the shallow Rubicon River, which flowed east from the Apennine Mountains to the Adriatic, would be an irreversible act.
The rest, as they say, is history. Caesar and his boys crossed, he defeated Pompey and chased him to Egypt, where Pompey was killed and where Caesar had a little R&R (and a child) with Cleopatra. He returned to Rome to the shrieking delight of the masses (the aristocrats weren’t so sure) and, in a final blow to the Republic, was made Emperor for Life. Which, if you are a reader of history, or Shakespeare, or both, you know wasn’t for all that much longer. About a year later, his once-rivals Cassius and Brutus invited him to a chinwag at the Pompey Theatre (omen, anyone?), and his Emperor-ness came to a crashing end.
What has this got to do with anything? Here is where I make another one of those awkward transitions to make a point: there is a disturbingly high chance that we will soon hear the “Crossing the Rubicon” analogy, and more than once.
Democrats, beware, November could be the cruelest month. Even if not the smallest bit of “Gamesmanship” comes into play, all your hopes and dreams might still be evanescent. Polling methodology hasn’t always caught up with secular changes in the electorate, and maybe doesn’t reflect the voting public—there could easily be more Republicans than you think. Trump wants to and will be front and center in this nationalized election, and he’s not going down without every “strategy” being used. He should never be underestimated–he has immense talent. Republicans have an enormous money advantage, which has just been leveraged with the unique, and counsel-blessed idea that the Treasury is available to pay for “public service” announcements. Then there is the torrent of cash from the tech bros and multi-multi-multi billionaires. Some of those folks control media platforms with vast reach. And let’s not forget SCOTUS. And Tom Homan’s ICE. And Kash Patel’s FBI. And, the Insurrection Act. And, to get wilder, a Hegseth-led “peacekeeping force” deployed in key Blue battlegrounds.
There are a lot of Democrats who think that just raising these issues are, in themselves, an answer to them—that Americans will reject Republicans just on the rumor of “a whiff of grapeshot.” It won’t work that way. Nor will “holding people accountable” with promises of investigations and impeachments. The country wants people who can govern competently and make their lives better, a lot more than it wants trials. That may be particularly true with Trump, where the saturation point seems almost infinite. In short, complaining isn’t enough. The voters respect competence, and that includes competent ways of combatting dirty tricks. Democrats need to be ready for them, and to show that readiness to the voters.
Republicans, also beware. Just about every non-partisan analysis shows you have problems. Trump insists on having the microphone and the checkbook. Some of your candidates look flakier than would be prudent, and this is an election cycle where being rational might actually matter in some races. Not every voter will buy the idea that Republicans will save the country from Socialism—or Communism—because not every voter believes that every Democratic candidate is a Socialist or Communist. This might be shocking to you after years of drinking the Kool-Aid, but your bad numbers are earned, and not just for Iran. Yes, you have assets. Yes, you will have cash. Yes, all of the resources of the federal government are behind you, but in the ballot box, where it matters, voters still choose. What many of them are seeing right now is unattractive, and worse, bumbling.
Independents, what an opportunity. You have the chance to pick between the imperfect choices on the ballot, unencumbered by excess party loyalty, and this time your choice may be decisive. It is precisely for moments like this that you use the legacy you were given. Pick your future.
There’s a month left. The trends favor Democrats, but institutional forces and money strongly back Republicans. An electorate displeased will make its will known, but with gerrymandering and increasing partisanship, the number of truly in-play races will be smaller, and smaller leads buttressed with big campaign donations from people who spend for a return on equity could carry the day. That may be the biggest issue for both parties. They are counting on their strengths, not realizing that a lot of the public are dual haters. Both sides may focus on the gigantic Stay Puft Marshmallow Man in their midst without realizing that a handful of seats may be unexpectedly available and could be had with just a little more attention.
In a letter dated September 6, 1789, Thomas Jefferson, then in Paris and in the middle of a literal Revolution, suggested to James Madison that “[e]very constitution then, & every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years.”
That’s a bit extreme for my tastes, but consider some of his reasoning: “Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents.”
Sounds somewhat…modern? And if you think that way—that government as presently constituted no longer seems to answer to your needs, then consider a change. Cross the Rubicon, and give someone different a chance.
How will we know if that moment has come (especially if it’s not on Election Day)? The Roman historian Suetonius wrote that, as Caesar led his army across the river, he reportedly said, “The die is cast.”
Gambles are scary.
I hope to be back with more on Tom in the first week in November. Here are the two previous articles. Jefferson Expresses His Mind (On Slavery)
If you’d like the names/authors of the (tomes) on the table, leave a comment, or contact me directly.
Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.