Customer Reviews

If Men Were Angels: James Madison and the Heartless Empire of Reason

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

This work is truly goundbreaking. The comparison of the liberal/commercial views of James Madison with the radical democratic views of his close friend, Thomas Jefferson are truly enlightening. Matthews shows how Madison was closer to Hamilton than to Jefferson in political philosophy. Madison was obsessed with balance, and order in the liberal tradition. Jefferson,on the other hand, had a vision of radical democracy in the republic. Ward republics, and local democracy were infused into Jefferson's thought. Madison was more concerned with balancing the interests of society and controlling "factions". He viewed government from a more Hobbsian view than other Jeffersonians.Madison was far less trusting of human nature and more concerned with "stability" in society than with experiments in government. This book goes against the grain of current scholarship which unites Jefferson and Madison in philosophy when in fact in many ways they were poles apart. A great book.

I would recommend that anyone looking to understand James Madison reads his actual writings. The Federalist Papers may be a somewhat difficult read, due to the archaic English, but they completely demolish any theory of a James Madison that wants a powerful central government. Better yet, The Original Argument: The Federalists' Case for the Constitution, Adapted for the 21st Century has updated the language for an easier read. The title of the book even references such a quote, although it does not give full context. Just for those interested, the full quote is below:

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."

The author is right about one thing, and one thing only. Madison was a consistent liberal. However, only in the 19th century definition of that word, which meant a very limited and constrained government, and a maximum of personal liberty. The belief that government power and personal liberty are not at odds is something only an irrational person could possibly believe.

Only a professor writing for a university press could get a book this poor published. Matthews views are on the most extreme fringes of revisionist interpretations of American history, and may be summarized as follows: Thomas Jefferson was idealistic and good, James Madison was materialistic and bad. If you are inclined to think that this is an exaggeration, I will quote 4 sentences from the very last page of this book (consistent with Amazon.com's guidelines, I am limited to only 4 sentences of quotations): "It was Madison, not Jefferson, who designed the system. Madison's...dream has, as he knew it would, turned into a nightmare for increasing numbers of marginalized Americans. Instead of the chance to pursue happiness, they have neither the opportunity, the hope, nor even the illusion of either. America....has metamorphosed into an intriguing Orwellian-Kafkaesque labyrinth, where a few Ks still search for the reality behind the ideological myth, while the rich find meaning in each of their possessions." If you think that this makes sense, if you believe that this even remotely resembles the vision of James Madison, one of the fathers of our nation and its greatest expert on the American Constitution he did so much to create, then this is your kind of book. If not, I recommend that you save your money and order other books of real value on the life and works of Madison.

This book is a must read for any enthusiast of American Political Theory.

If Men Were Angels is as "poor" a book as reviewer "Joseph (see more about me) Schulman" thinks, why is it that Gordon Wood gave it a favorable review in the New York Review of Books? Moreover, it received praise from several leading historians including Jack Greene and Forrest McDonald. Perhaps open minded readers might come to different conclusions about this book.

Matthew specializes in pseudohistory books for New York's limousine liberal crowd. This book is a downright distortive pseudohistory that dwells on one Madison quote and inteprets Madison's whole political philosophy as some proto-authoritarian republican advocating a strong central government and "Machiavellian" politics to maintain "stability." The author essentially muddles his own socialistic, authoritarian philosophy on politics with that of James Madison. He tries to reintepret the history of the Presidency of Madison along these lines.