Kevin McCarthy failed to secure his renomination as Speaker of the House 14 times — the most since before the Civil War —before finally being confirmed on the morning of January 7th. This failure of basic government operations should come as no surprise given the actors leading our political parties.
Childish players like Paul Gosar, who has gleefully paraded around with Holocaust deniers and Nazi sympathizers, Lauren Boebert, who asked Jewish visitors to the U.S. Capitol if they were “doing reconnaissance,” and Matt Gaetz, who, at best, is more of an immature frat boy than he is a congressman, hamper basic government functions and threaten our government’s seriousness. Moreover, McCarthy is no saint himself. His judgment is perhaps compromised by his lengthy business ties and poor handling of the George Santos scandal.
It seems the objective of conservative statesmanship is no longer to lead and govern, but to gain through lucrative media, business, or podcast gigs.
While the Grifter Consortium has rendered the GOP largely useless, the centuries-long history of American conservatism — grounded in principled statesmanship — is only mostly dead>. However, in order to prevent statesmanship from becoming all dead, Republicans must look to history to see how past generations dealt with similarly divisive affairs — particularly to John Quincy Adams, who frequently chose his country over his personal interests.
Quincy considered his 17 year stint in the House of Representatives to be a relaxing retirement — and perhaps it was, after decades of public service, including stints as a diplomat, a senator, president, and secretary of state. Regardless, Quincy used this opportunity to fight for causes that he believed in but had previously felt powerless to champion. Most important among these causes was abolition.
As early as 1820, Quincy wrote in his diary that “it is among the evils of slavery that it taints the very sources of moral principle. It establishes false estimates of virtue and vice: for what can be more false and heartless than this doctrine which makes the first and holiest rights of humanity to depend upon the color of the skin?” By the time he made it to the House of Representatives in 1831, he had become a vicious opponent of the idea that “color operates as a forfeiture of the rights of human nature.”
In spite of his principles, due to the various structural and economic calamities of the end of the Era of Good Feelings, John Quincy Adams had been unable to devote his energy towards the fight for abolition. That changed with the imposition of a gag rule in 1836, which prohibited any discussion of slavery within the House of Representatives. Immediately, the elderly Quincy rose up from his seat and shouted, “Am I gagged or am I not?”
It would have been easy for Quincy, as a somewhat misguided Stoic, to dismiss his initial reaction as a moment of fleeting passion, accept the status quo, and go quietly about the rest of his tenure. But that would not do. Instead, Quincy spent nearly a decade rallying support against the gag rule. He filed hundreds of petitions challenging the measure, took on an immense emotional burden that flared his chronic depression, and received several death threats for his trouble.
However, he persevered, and these efforts came to fruition in 1844 when the gag rule was repealed by a vote of 108-80. When combined with his defense of the 35 survivors of the Amistad slave ship, the picture painted of Quincy is one of a passionate statesman who recognized that politics is innately tied with self-interest, but, especially in his old age, did not allow it to prevent him from doing what is right. His efforts were central to the abolitionist movement that would eventually culminate in the 13th Amendment.
Contemporary conservatives can learn from Quincy’s example. While doing the right thing may not always get you a Fox News job or lucrative consulting positions, it can earn the respect of both your countrymen and your fellow legislators — and if there is any interest in governance at all, that respect is far more valuable than any number of social media likes.
Furthermore, John Quincy Adams exemplifies political action that is above merely pitting ambition against ambition. Though he acknowledged that the human heart is “deceitful” and “wicked,” Quincy maintained, as my friend J. Tyler Syck wrote in The Constitutionalist, “that every human has an obligation to work to rise above our selfish instincts, and in pursuing this impossible quest we will find goodness.”
In other words, it is difficult for a republic like the United States to survive unless there is some interest in virtue. But virtue must be chosen. And even in Washington D.C., which is, in the words of Obi-Wan Kenobi, a “wretched hive of scum and villainy,” one person’s decision to pursue virtue can inspire others to do the same — even subconsciously.
Although I do not expect Republicans to take this message seriously — the temptations of rent-seeking and personal fame will be too strong for most — nevertheless, statesmanship need not die this way. By looking to the past, conservatives can push forward.
He could have emancipated the White House staff, but he didn’t. Tell me more about this noble champion of human equality, hmm?Report
JQ Adams never owned any slaves, nor did the White House, so emancipation was outside his power.Report
The White House had no slaves of its own by the 1820s, though hundreds had worked on the building’s construction itself. Incoming presidents were expected to pay for their own household which, for most, though not JQA, included slaves. It is likely (though not confirmed) that slaves did work in the White House during JQA’s presidency, but they were included within his niece-by-marriage’s estate rather than his own. The claim that JQA never owned a slave seems to be true. He seems to have forced his daughter-in-law to free her slave before marrying his son as well, though that’s speculative.
In any case, as the article addresses, it’s likely that he dismissed slavery’s presence as an ugly, unchangeable reality of politics until he returned to Washington in the 1830s. There’s some hard evidence for this — a few of his diary entries from the period discuss his previous unawareness of how revolting slavery could be.
That said, I acknowledge the heart of your response — that he wasn’t necessarily a noble champion of human rights. But he did take a stand when he didn’t have to. And that’s worth studying.Report
Expanding this more broadly, it is a bad idea to create idols or hearoes out of historical figures, not just because they inevitably have feet of clay, but that it obscures the complexity and difficulty of their choices and our own.
We’ve all seen those fantasy time travel stories where modern people are thrust into the 1960s civil rights battles, or 1930s rise of fascism, and of course the choices are always presented as obvious and easy to make.
But they weren’t, any more than our choices are obvious or easy to make.
When historical figures of good will make mistakes and poor moral choices, its worth reflecting on our own choices and how we might be seen in history.Report
Agreed!
It was not my intention to valorize him excessively. But I do think one example of overcoming legislative nonsense is instructive for overcoming other forms of legislative nonsense — even now.
I love your last sentence there.Report
Oh, so once or twice he acted like the barest basic norm of a human being? That’s great. He should get a nice big cookie for that.
“it’s likely that he dismissed slavery’s presence as an ugly, unchangeable reality of politics until he returned to Washington in the 1830s.”
And how fortunate that he was born a white man and thus had the privilege of doing so.
Sorry (not sorry) but I’m just not convinced that there’s something here worth emulating. “Best chunk of gristle pulled from a pile of garbage” isn’t necessarily something we should want.Report
Man, this cancel culture is really outta control.Report
It’s “accountability culture”.
Does Cancel Culture even exist? Can you provide a single non-nutpicky example of it happening ever?Report
I liked this paper a lot. The chilling effect is real.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00323217211037023Report
Challenging an accepted standard of a time is hard, regardless of who is doing it and what that standard is. Do you think there’s *anything* worth studying and learning from societies with very different norms? if not, is there a point to studying history other than patting ourselves on the back about how much better we are?Report
“Do you think there’s *anything* worth studying and learning from societies with very different norms?”
I think that if we’re going to hold up some guy as being The Guy We Should Look To As An Example then maybe it’s worth thinking about what response we’re likely to get from that.Report
Which is an entirely fair question, but essentially anyone publicly active prior to about 1980 is going to have strikes against them. At what point does the baggage become too much to be worth learning from? If you dismiss JQA, you also have to dismiss George Washington, Tom Paine, Abigail Adams, Mary Wollstonecraft, anyone from Antiquity, etc.
If you’re willing to do that, points for consistency, but it leads to an extremely narrow view of history and learning.Report
If you don’t think slavery and racism are important, then you’re not worth talking to.Report
That is not what I said, but okay. That’s your prerogative.Report
I think there are two necessary conditions to JQ Adams’ example. First, JQ Adams was relatively non-partisan in the sense that he was not a party man, sharing a trait of independence valued by Whigs generally. Northern Democrats were more willing to support repeal of the gag rule as a point of conscience as it wasn’t draped in over partisan policies. Second, the Southern Democrats overplayed their hand by passing an extreme version of the gag rule in 1840. They did not know where the middle was, misunderstanding broad antipathy to abolitionism for support of restrictions on the Constitutional right to petition the government.Report
Yes, that’s good context!
I do think there are a few individuals who would meet the “not a party man” requirement in the contemporary sense. For example, love him or hate him, Chip Roy does what Chip Roy believes is right regardless of the optics or the political consequences. Some of the concessions he managed to get are testament to that, it seems.
And neither party today really understands where the median voter is…on a whole host of issues.Report
IMO neither does the median voter herself.Report
Hah! Very true.Report
Why is it nobody can see what DD’s up to? Maybe if he’d put it in comic sans?Report