Jim Stanton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.
|
| Jim Stanton | |
| Occupation | composer and writer |
|---|---|
| Political party | Independent |
Jim Stanton, composer and writer:
Contents |
[edit] Musician
Stanton was a drummer with the Tommy Dorsey Orchestra in the mid-1960's, and Co-led his own group, Dialogue, in the 1970's.
[edit] Composer and playwright
Stanton wrote a two-person play, Chatoyant, in 1977, opening and performing it in the Philadelphia area (with music played by Terry Gross on Fresh Air). Stanton composed sound and score for an original production of Shakespeare's The Tempest in 1980 (People's Light and Theatre Company, Malvern, PA).
[edit] Politics
Stanton wrote many articles for the Philadelphia Weekly (Welcomat) and various national publications on politics and history ('1982 to '1984).
In 1984 he began an article on conservatism for the Philadelphia Weekly, which soon became a long work on not only the history of conservatism but also its often despised rival, liberalism. His view was that the historical term "conservatism"--and so, long before political concepts--was simply a way of describing the way things were at a given point, and the attendant methods of keeping this status quo. After much research especially of the cultures of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Rome he came to the view that conservatism and "human nature" were inextricably linked.
That is to say, liberalism did not exist in the ancient world! Meaning it was a creature of the modern world, the post-Renaissance, post-Enlightenment world. But given our contemporary prejudices, the only way to fairly know this is to go over the ancient cultures with a fine tooth comb.
The original idea of this newspaper article [1] was to give a better understanding of what a Republican/conservative was in the modern world. But there simply wasn't enough contemporary information available to make an evenhanded judgment. Thus, there was no choice but to go back, one generation at first, then two and more, to try and get a handle on the historical flow. Although there was interesting material along the way, the first significant stopping point was the America of the Independence period through the end of that century--i.e., the 1770's through 1800. There we find four who stand out from the rest: John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. These, by and large, are to be given credit for the USA's intellectual heritage. It is widely known that Hamilton and Madison were responsible--via The Federalist Papers, arguing ratification for the Constitution in New York State--for propagating concepts central to the American system.
It is not widely known that Jefferson was an integral part of Madison's putting forward the original amendments to the Constitution. What is hardly known at all is Adams's contribution. John Adams is the only one, not only of the four but of this period as a whole, who systemically studied the historical worth of ancient governments; that is, the way man governed himself. It should be stated here that with these four men we also have classic studies in human nature (more in a moment). Adams's studies brought him to the conclusion that the most successful societies were those that recognized governmentally the three powers in human interaction--the one, the few, the many. More, to a higher degree successful were those that placed these powers in equipoise. Specifically for Adams, this translated into the President (the one), the Senate (the few), the House of Representatives (the many). Now Jefferson wanted as weak an executive as possible. Hamilton wanted as strong an executive as possible. Madison, in many ways Jefferson's public voice, pushed forth the latter's beliefs and, to a lesser extent, his own. (In fairness, Madison worked tirelessly to have the Constitution passed in a form agreeable to the consensus.) Adams was thus left alone to argue for his strongly-held belief in the equipoise of the powers. In the day-to-day workings of government, equipoise had a particular meaning: The many checked the one; the few checked the many; the one checked the few, and so on. That is, one of the powers must never hold sway over the other.
Where Jefferson had Madison as his agent, Adams had no such help. For one, he was not in the country much of the time (in France and then England as America's plenipotentiary); for another, his fierce independence fairly excluded any individual in whom he could trust. Adams's ideas largely--one can't be sure exactly how--made their way through the cacophony of the Constitutional period to become part of America's governing system.
What must be understood are the fundamental differences between these four strong-willed men. Hamilton was born on the Caribbean island of Nevis and because of this believed, probably without merit, that he had to overcompensate in almost everything he did. This made him an on-again, off-again thorn in the side of everyone (except, crucially George Washington). On the plus side of this temperamental ledger was that he sustained an enormous energy almost to the end. An investigation of Hamilton's life and career yields information about a certain conservative type that is of almost unprecedented validity. First, the importance of belief. There is nothing rational here. It is deeply held, impassioned, all encompassing, a complete giving over to it. Second, the importance of strength; strength in private life, strength in public life. Hamilton constantly complained about Jefferson's "womanly" attachment to France, that France was an "effeminate" country. And we must always keep in mind that Hamilton was a very aggressive conservative. He wanted an active executive, an executive that would consult Congress only as a last resort. Hamilton's most moderate period was during the ratification of the Constitution. His views often appeared to mesh with those of Madison--but we must deep in mind that his job as he saw it then was to get the document approved, to get the country up and running. He would push his more aggressive views when the country was on a more even keel.
[edit] References
- The Main Point, Bryn Mawr, PA, Music Performing Club, 1974-'77.
- The Edie Huggins Show, WCAU-TV, Philadelphia (1974); WMMR-FM,
- Philadelphia/The Gene Shay Show, 1974-'75;
- The Philadelphia Inquirer, Jack Lloyd et al, 1974-'76;
- The Philadelphia Bulletin, Joe Adcock et al 1977 (paper defunct, 1982);
- Fresh Air with Terry Gross, 12/'77 ;
- KYW-TV/Bob Bradley, 12/'77;
- Philadelphia Weekly (Welcomat), 45 articles and op-eds (1982-'84) http://www.danrottenberg.com/danrottenberg/id14.html 3 examples: (1) Deja Vu: From Galileo to Jefferson, (6/29/'83); (2) AIDS, (7/27/'83); (3) After Burford: Saving the Environment, (3/16/'83);
- The National Leader, national tabloid: a series of articles (1983);
- The Philadelphia Inquirer, op-ed on James G. Watt, the secretary of interior (1983).
- Political-Writings-of-John-Adams/George-W-Carey/e/9780895262929
- ^ Philadelphia Weekly 9/1984
