What do you think?
Rate this book
Common Sense Nation: Unlocking the Forgotten Power of the American Idea
“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.”
We have heard and read this sentence all our lives. It is perfectly familiar. But if we pause long enough to ask ourselves why Jefferson wrote it in exactly this way, questions quickly arise.
Jefferson chose to use rather special and very precise terms. He did not simply claim that we have these rights; he claimed they are unalienable. Why “unalienable”? Unalienable, of course, means not alienable. Why was the distinction between alienable and unalienable rights so important to the Founders that it made its way into the Declaration? For that matter, where did it come from? You might almost get the impression that the Founders’ examination of our rights had focused on alienable versus unalienable rights—and you would be correct.
In addition, the Declaration does not simply claim that these are truths; it claims they are self-evident truths. Why “self-evident”? The Declaration’s special claim about its truths, it turns out, is the result of those same deliberations as a result of which, in the words of George Washington, “the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined than at any former period.”
If a friendly visitor from another country sat you down and asked you with sincere interest why the Declaration highlights these very special terms, could you answer them clearly and accurately and with confidence? Would you like to be able to?
We have heard and read this sentence all our lives. It is perfectly familiar. But if we pause long enough to ask ourselves why Jefferson wrote it in exactly this way, questions quickly arise.
Jefferson chose to use rather special and very precise terms. He did not simply claim that we have these rights; he claimed they are unalienable. Why “unalienable”? Unalienable, of course, means not alienable. Why was the distinction between alienable and unalienable rights so important to the Founders that it made its way into the Declaration? For that matter, where did it come from? You might almost get the impression that the Founders’ examination of our rights had focused on alienable versus unalienable rights—and you would be correct.
In addition, the Declaration does not simply claim that these are truths; it claims they are self-evident truths. Why “self-evident”? The Declaration’s special claim about its truths, it turns out, is the result of those same deliberations as a result of which, in the words of George Washington, “the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined than at any former period.”
If a friendly visitor from another country sat you down and asked you with sincere interest why the Declaration highlights these very special terms, could you answer them clearly and accurately and with confidence? Would you like to be able to?
- GenresNonfiction
232 pages, Hardcover
First published October 1, 2015
22 people are currently reading
56 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
June 10, 2016
Curry has a good sense of where he wants to go, but he's not the best at getting there. His prose sags, his diction is juvenile at times, his points obscured unnecessarily. But I still value his work. His point is to demonstrate the background for the "self-evident truths" and "unalienable rights" embedded in our founding documents. He points to Scottish Common Sense Realism as the font of these beliefs. This is sometimes called the "Scottish Enlightenment," and should NOT be confused with the "French Enlightenment." In other words, in with Reid and Smith and out with Voltaire and Rousseau.
Curry discusses the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers. He shows how these understanding of our rights are based not in what the state deigns to grant but in what can be apprehended by "common sense" of the natural human condition. This is not to say that man's sense is perfect (he even briefly mentions the doctrine of total depravity). But the Founders did understand that governing authorities are to protect, not grant (let alone usurp), these rights (hence the Ninth Amendment).
Subsequent chapters discuss the affronts of progressivism and the total about-face of the definition of "liberalism" in American politics. A discussion on religious freedom is far too short. A short chapter on postmodernism is helpful, but by this points the chapters seem like an ad hoc hodgepodge added to the meaty discussions of the founding documents. Nevertheless, good stuff to think through. You certainly won't get it from your Howard Zinnian history teacher or professor.
Curry discusses the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers. He shows how these understanding of our rights are based not in what the state deigns to grant but in what can be apprehended by "common sense" of the natural human condition. This is not to say that man's sense is perfect (he even briefly mentions the doctrine of total depravity). But the Founders did understand that governing authorities are to protect, not grant (let alone usurp), these rights (hence the Ninth Amendment).
Subsequent chapters discuss the affronts of progressivism and the total about-face of the definition of "liberalism" in American politics. A discussion on religious freedom is far too short. A short chapter on postmodernism is helpful, but by this points the chapters seem like an ad hoc hodgepodge added to the meaty discussions of the founding documents. Nevertheless, good stuff to think through. You certainly won't get it from your Howard Zinnian history teacher or professor.
June 23, 2023
Robert Curry’s “Common Sense Nation” is a concise and intelligent examination of the founding documents that have guided the American project. With clarity, Curry explores the textual record and recovers the influences that informed the Founders.
The author argues that the influence of the 18th-century Scottish Enlightenment on men like Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison was decisive in forming the understanding these men shared with respect to their views about man, nature, and society. Curry revisits the teaching of the great 18th century Scottish philosophers Francis Hutcheson, Adam Smith, and Thomas Reid, along with the Scottish clergyman John Witherspoon, who immigrated to America, at the behest of Benjamin Rush, and served as president of Princeton University.
The distinguishing Scottish belief in innate human faculties capable of producing what they termed “common sense realism” and a “moral sense,” differentiated their Enlightenment from the French and British variants. Curry argues that such theorizing was foundational to the American Enlightenment, and is manifest in the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers. The Scottish moral sense, a proposition specifically developed by Hutcheson, allowed man to instinctively discern right conduct. Thus, the Scots adhered to the notion that man can wade through the vagaries of time, space and events, and still manage to apprehend truth and justice. And, by referencing his knowledge of pleasure and pain, man is capable of feeling sympathy, and formulating a system of morals. In short, these concomitant beliefs foster the necessary conditions for human flourishing, without which no political community could exist. With our common sense realism, along with our moral sense, we are able to make rational judgments on matters requiring knowledge and action. Thus, Curry argues that the Scots definitively refuted John Locke’s epistemology and ethics, and created a more rational basis for the liberal state-a republic such as the one advanced by the champions of the American enterprise.
For the most part, Curry is judicious when discussing the twentieth century derailment of the Founder's consensus. After highlighting the Hegelian origins of Pragmatic theory and Progressive politics; namely, Wilsonianism, Curry follows this line of thinking to its logical conclusion: the cul de sac of post-modernism. Common sense realism cannot abide the progressive dream of an administrative state directed by philosopher kings, much less a society committed to the force and fraud that would constitute post-modern governance.
Curry, the assiduous scholar, relates the self-contradictory claims posited by the post-modernists. He cites Stephen Hicks’s “Explaining Post-Modernism,” and points to the absurdity that would follow therefrom should a society embrace such principles.
In sum, Hicks’s compendium is dispositive:
*All cultures are equally deserving of affirmation, but Western culture is deleterious to our planet.
*All values are relative; however, racism and sexism can be denounced with metaphysical certitude.
*Technology is an unmitigated evil, but it is unfair that the West monopolizes so much technical know-how.
*Tolerance is a good-but when views are expressed that rebut the post-modern elite, they deserve to be censored.
Clearly, these are claims- some of which are fundamental tenets of the present day Democratic party- that run counter to the truths espoused by the Founders. If enacted, they would, undoubtedly, produce the requisite chaos to foment societal collapse.
Curry’s book is an excellent primer for the reader who wishes to rediscover the American idea, and preserve the American project.
The author argues that the influence of the 18th-century Scottish Enlightenment on men like Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison was decisive in forming the understanding these men shared with respect to their views about man, nature, and society. Curry revisits the teaching of the great 18th century Scottish philosophers Francis Hutcheson, Adam Smith, and Thomas Reid, along with the Scottish clergyman John Witherspoon, who immigrated to America, at the behest of Benjamin Rush, and served as president of Princeton University.
The distinguishing Scottish belief in innate human faculties capable of producing what they termed “common sense realism” and a “moral sense,” differentiated their Enlightenment from the French and British variants. Curry argues that such theorizing was foundational to the American Enlightenment, and is manifest in the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers. The Scottish moral sense, a proposition specifically developed by Hutcheson, allowed man to instinctively discern right conduct. Thus, the Scots adhered to the notion that man can wade through the vagaries of time, space and events, and still manage to apprehend truth and justice. And, by referencing his knowledge of pleasure and pain, man is capable of feeling sympathy, and formulating a system of morals. In short, these concomitant beliefs foster the necessary conditions for human flourishing, without which no political community could exist. With our common sense realism, along with our moral sense, we are able to make rational judgments on matters requiring knowledge and action. Thus, Curry argues that the Scots definitively refuted John Locke’s epistemology and ethics, and created a more rational basis for the liberal state-a republic such as the one advanced by the champions of the American enterprise.
For the most part, Curry is judicious when discussing the twentieth century derailment of the Founder's consensus. After highlighting the Hegelian origins of Pragmatic theory and Progressive politics; namely, Wilsonianism, Curry follows this line of thinking to its logical conclusion: the cul de sac of post-modernism. Common sense realism cannot abide the progressive dream of an administrative state directed by philosopher kings, much less a society committed to the force and fraud that would constitute post-modern governance.
Curry, the assiduous scholar, relates the self-contradictory claims posited by the post-modernists. He cites Stephen Hicks’s “Explaining Post-Modernism,” and points to the absurdity that would follow therefrom should a society embrace such principles.
In sum, Hicks’s compendium is dispositive:
*All cultures are equally deserving of affirmation, but Western culture is deleterious to our planet.
*All values are relative; however, racism and sexism can be denounced with metaphysical certitude.
*Technology is an unmitigated evil, but it is unfair that the West monopolizes so much technical know-how.
*Tolerance is a good-but when views are expressed that rebut the post-modern elite, they deserve to be censored.
Clearly, these are claims- some of which are fundamental tenets of the present day Democratic party- that run counter to the truths espoused by the Founders. If enacted, they would, undoubtedly, produce the requisite chaos to foment societal collapse.
Curry’s book is an excellent primer for the reader who wishes to rediscover the American idea, and preserve the American project.
February 16, 2022
Very odd book. Repeats points and quotes, very loose structure. Could’ve used the help of a good editor. The first half about the Scottish Enlightenment’s impact on the American Founding was provocative but not rich enough. The second half on Progressivism and modern politics was a collection of tired cliches.
February 14, 2017
Fantastic book.
If you want to understand about the ideas and ideals that led to the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, you could do much worse than starting with this book.
If you want to understand about the ideas and ideals that led to the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, you could do much worse than starting with this book.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews