Why Cicero?

2008-01-06
By

Progressive education, the liberal-socialist tool of choice for brainwashing young minds, has left recent generations in ignorance of the great Roman statesman’s role in the structure of our own government.

Gary Galles’s post on the Mises blog, Cicero on Justice, Law and Liberty, reminds us that today’s students will hardly ever learn what was essential fare in our schools from earliest days until the 1930s.

Underlying the legacy of Cicero is the concept of natural law, which tells us that everything in our world is part of a grand design in which everything and every creature has a highest purpose that reflects its true essence. In humans, that essence is the soul and its quest for truth and justice within the intelligent world design.

To take a near at hand example of natural law, our Declaration of Independence asserts:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Writing to Richard Henry Lee in 1825, Jefferson said of his authorship of the Declaration of Independence, the essential thing was,

Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject…it was intended to be an expression of the American mind…All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversations, in letters, printed essays, or the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc.

A classical education – in ancient Greece, Rome, and later in England – always included the study of rhetoric: the ability to think logically and clearly and to express those thoughts with compelling eloquence. Cicero’s orations were among the works most often studied. As late as the 1930s most American high school texts still incorporated Cicero’s works, which formed the minds of students around the loftiest ideals of virtue, expressed with clarity and grace long since lost to American experience.

Why are Cicero’s orations and dialogues no longer known to American students?

John Dewey, the leading liberal intellectual of the first half of the 20th century, was also the degrading transformer of American education. His Democracy and Education (1916) expressed the view that education should not teach specific things, but that children should be immersed in experiences that would create an allegiance to the group and prepare them for the collectivized, secular world of socialism. History, Dewey wrote, had no place in a modern school curriculum.

Going whole hog in Reconstruction in Philosophy (1920), Dewey argued that society ought to scrap all ideas of religion, morality, and philosophy prior to the atheistic materialism of socialism and Dewey’s own brand of moral relativism, the philosophy of Pragmatism.

The Russian Communist Revolution (1917) was taking place in this same period, and Dewey, along with his Columbia University Teachers’ College confreres, was much taken with the Soviet educational system. The Soviets expressed Dewey’s conceptions somewhat more brutally than did Dewey:

We must hate — hatred is the basis of Communism. Children must be taught to hate their parents if they are not Communists. V. I. Lenin — speech to the Commissars of Education, Moscow, 1923.

Obviously, Cicero could not be permitted to remain in the school curriculum. He was a believer in the Stoic system of natural law in human affairs, the same conception of natural law that underlay John Locke’s famous justification for ousting autocratic King James II. Locke in 1689 had argued that, by arbitrarily abrogating the rights of individuals to life, liberty, and property, James II had broken the natural law compact with his people and thereby forfeited the legitimacy of his reign.

This was, in 1776, exactly the same argument employed by the colonists to confront George III’s taxation without representation. Hence Jefferson’s reference to “harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversations, in letters, printed essays, or the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc..”

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776

http://www.thomasbrewton.com/

Email comments to viewfrom1776@thomasbrewton.com

71 views

  • http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com Roger Knight

    And when a judge denies to any party beforee him the rights set forth in the Constitution, he forfeits his right and authrity to serve as a judge.

    They say there is no excuse for domestic violence. Domestic violence was once the term for violence of the people within a nation against each other or against the government, or that of the government against the people.

    As violating the rights set forth in the Constitution is thus domestic violence, then there is no excuse for violating the Constitution.

    While the Constitution does not say anything about abortion, it certainly prohibits slavery, involuntary servitude, deprivation of liberty and property without due process of law which is at least a requirement for a finding of wrongdoing on the part of the person to be deprived, bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and a number of other explicit prohibitions that the judges and legislators honor in the breach.

  • Artfldgr

    yes roger… but socialists find all that very bad for their worship of constant change… they find merit bad, because its a point to oust power… and the find this stuff bad, because its a merit way to oust power..

    the point is that communism finds such thigns inconvenient… since they come from the otehr side of the problem.

    americans generally accept that the liberty of one is all important… so its better that 10 dishonest men go free, rather than one honest one be imprisoned.

    communism is the opposite… which its better to imprison 9 innocent people, so that no dishonest man goes free…

    but that makes EVERYONE dishonest…. which is why it degrades always to the point of torture and death…

    it ALWAYS does… its only time… time till the state takes over the actions of buisness and then forbids competition by force… (like sweden forcing companies to comply to some arbitrary gender rule… later it will be an arbitrary race rule, and an arbitrary age rule, and an arbitrary obese rule… so companies will now close. )

    the state only has power to prevent… to hobble… to force to stop… its the only force it has… and so it has to hobble one to let another go forward, to which it then hobbles anotehr to make it fair… to which it then hobbles anotehr to meet some goal.

    the point being the state ends up acting like the person trying to balance a table by cutting a bit off, but NEVER using a ruler…

    eventually when there are no legs (procrustean), the table is level… but its also useless as a table.

    same thing.

    meanwhile… the productivity of capitalism is in direct opposition to that sicne capitalism CAN promote something wihtout suppressing something else.

    the natural withering of something unused is not the same as a gun to your head telling you you shouldnt use it.

    this is why the state hates this… capitalism and distributed computing of individuals can do what the state cant…. and in this the state actually falls short of god… since it implies that god already gave us what the state cant give… and to think of the state as provider, is to be provided force… for nothing else is in the states perview… the state cant increase productivity without shifting… while as is evident, capitalism results in productivity in which all ships rise…

    false productivity, an illusion of the state…

    real productivity, the promise of capitalism…

    even socialists loosen up to make progress with capitalism… then think they can stop it and sit pretty…. but it all declined as nothing lasts forever, and newer things need to replace old.

    the planned economy cant juggle the math… it makes astronomical look like 1+1…

    but politicians arent savvy this way… we dont pick them for that anymore.

    we gave up our state when we stopped giving to individuals and gave to parties… americans vote was not in the ballot box… that was an americans tie breaker….. the vote was in the pocket book…. someone did awful… and they got no money, and there was no run off..

    today… someone is awful, but the party likes them, and so the monies given to the parties are used to prop up something. sugh giving disconnects the people from the state…

    ergo ipso facto… we are as close to communist as you can get wihtout eradicating fascism… and free market capitalism is on the otehr side of fascism…

    see it changing for the better any time soon?

    not wihout a war that exposes commnism for wht it is… and reminds us what we will lose.. (unless we are in the elite clique)

  • GreatMRNI

    Great Article Thomas, well said.






Search