Responding to my eulogy of Harry Jaffa (“Harry Jaffa redefined political philosophy,” Jan. 22), Sarah Albers discovered pagan worship in her midst (“Jaffa is no deity,” Jan. 29). I am just glad I wasn’t accused of breaking the Second Commandment (“Thou shalt have no other gods before me”)! But all joking aside, Albers’ first instinct on the meaning of the salvation metaphor I appropriated from Jaffa was correct: First reading Jaffa brought me salvation of the mind, not the soul. In describing Jaffa’s effect on my life, overshooting one’s intended target is sometimes better than undershooting it.
But this is not quite what drew her ire. She instead criticizes the idea that transhistorical principles of right, accessible by man through reason, can exist independently of contextual manifestation. Albers believes only a god can discern these principles apart from the “intricate web of theoretical give-and-take.”
Albers correctly argues that Jaffa worked to reorient the American mind to the natural right and natural law principles of the Declaration of Independence, and that some conservatives of that time (and today) understood those principles to be dangerous. But this overlooks the important distinction between American conservatism and that of other nations: Seemingly paradoxically, American conservatism seeks to conserve revolutionary principles. The principles of the American Revolution, as Lincoln argued, are “applicable to all men and all times.” For example, the principle of equality holds true regardless of current popular opinions. Men are always equal in their natural rights and, because they have reason, cannot be ruled without consent. These truths do not depend on time or place. Albers’ aside that Jaffa’s “perception” of those principles changed between Crisis and A New Birth of Freedom is correct, but that does not mean the principles themselves changed. As Aristotle asserts in Nicomachean Ethics, certain things, e.g., adultery and murder, are always wrong, however one performs them, independent of “context.”
Albers’ contention that “an abstract truth has no effective content unless borne out through time and within society” approaches what is arguably political philosophy’s core: Statesmanship, the work of applying principle to practice to achieve an end in actual circumstances. For example, the Founders made compromises with slavery in the Constitution (one could argue too many) in the short-term that set the stage for slavery’s ultimate demise. But these concessions were only justified because the Constitution rested upon the Declaration’s principles. Though the principle of equality remained unchanged, prudence determined how to secure it given public opinion and other factors. By founding the Union on the equality of all men, the Founders needed to make some temporary concessions to achieve a lasting good. In other words, perfection should not be the enemy of the good.
I hope I have made a good attempt at answering Albers’ questions. Any misrepresentations are my own fault; I would encourage Albers to correct anything I said. Jaffa would have certainly appreciated that his legacy has caused reflections on the kinds of deep and important questions which animated his life’s work.
– Mike Sabo