To: koan who wrote (77432 ) 4/9/2008 7:58:03 AM From: Oblomov Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 116555 Commager was right- the institutions were too messy for even a monomaniacal scoundrel like Nixon to take over. I don't mean that there is a public school dogma in the strict sense that a Catholic school has a dogma. It's more subtle and pervasive than that. It's a set of unquestioned assumptions that underlay the whole enterprise. Just as a Catholic school would never question the goodness of Catholicism, a public school will never question the rightness of the American civic mythology, whatever it is at the time. What you describe as the broad arc of history is a good example of this dogma: Whiggish history, the idea that history progresses and that human civilization has "evolved". Democracy was not an invention of the French or Scottish Enlightenment thinkers. They were familiar with the ancient Greek experiment. Like Aristotle, they viewed democracy as a corrupted form of timocracy (what the Romans later called a republic- theirs too fell). BTW- I consider The Republic essential reading, too. The founders of the US were also alarmed by the revolution in France (as was Burke), and the Constitution they wrote was informed by their desire to limit democracy in favor of minority rights and individual liberty. Oddly enough, when Tocqueville visited the US, he observed that democracy in the US had far greater potential to produce mediocrity than mob rule. What was unique about the late enlightenment was its success in advocating individual liberty, not democracy. At one point, as much as 25% of the South and 10% of the North was in servitude (either as chattel or by contract). A third of Russia was living in some sort of servitude- in fact, the word "slave" comes from the name of the ethnic group, Slav. Slavery was a feature of ordinary life in ancient Greece and Rome. But that changed starting in the late eighteenth century. Perhaps what we experienced was just an unusual period - perhaps people become eager again for the unfreedom but security of servitude. We did begin heading down that road nearly 100 years ago, under Wilson, and have continued down that road, albeit slowly. I hope that this reverses, and that freedom is "rediscovered", but (against the Whig view of history) I see the same themes emerge today as in the past. Is progress possible? Maybe, but I won't count on it.