Scottish vs. French Enlightenment

One distinction I had not heard of was opened to me when I read an article about the differences between the Scottish-British-American "enlightenment" and the French-German-Continental "enlightenment." Of course, this particular article presents the continentalists in a terrible light, making them responsible for botched revolutions, communism, statism, and totalitarianism in the 19th and 20th centuries. It then purports to show how the modern left wing of American politics draws its inspiration more from the continentalists than from the Anglo-Americans.

Of course, the right wing is supposedly the repository of Anglo-American enlightenment goodness, and the article repeatedly emphasizes the accommodating treatment of religion in politics and society that the Scottish Enlightenment envisioned, along with the moderate social change advocated by most of its key figures. This is all well and good, but of course America was built on a combination of both these two separate but related "enlightenments," and for any given founder we can find references to both. Thus, even if modern conservatives are the inheritors of the Anglo-American enlightenment, that is not to say that they are closer to the vision of the founding.

Hence, we have erstwhile libertarian Thomas Jefferson, who couched so much of his vision for the country in terms familiar to the French Enlightenment, and in particular to thinkers such as Rousseau and Montesquieu. Jefferson famously (and perhaps a bit capriciously) advocated a revolution every generation or so, perhaps with the idea that constitutions would not become stale and valueless. But that is just one case study, and you could do more with different founders.

My general take on this matter is that revisionist historians of a particular political stripe may well think the modern right wing of America draws inspiration from the gentle, reasonable men of David Hume and Adam Smith's calibre. However, that does not make it so -- many modern right wingers draw their inspiration from figures such as Joseph McCarthy, religious leaders, or Ayn Rand. Indeed, oftentimes the first and the last members of that list are quoted directly to support some policy proposal, though libertarians generally use Rand quotes. Both conservatives and libertarians are essentially right wing for most major policy issues, with the liberals rounding out the left wing and quoting intellectuals such as Rawls.

Of course that is where the aforementioned article goes horribly wrong: most modern American liberals do not quote or invoke Marx, Hegel, or Rousseau, though those writers are frequently studied in the academy. Nay, only the far left, marginalized in political discourse, quotes Chomsky, Marx, Derrida, or Sartre to support its policies. This far left is different because there is no far right in this country anymore -- the right wing has incorporated all the radicalism and reactionary ideals of what was once the far right, of what once lost elections (see Goldwater, Barry).

So the left is stratified into pragmatists who draw a lot of inspiration from both enlightenments, and far leftists who are indeed beholden to French and German philosophers -- with all of their nihilism, existentialism, and many other "isms" that dominate many areas of academic study in this age. Meanwhile, the right wing is mostly anti-enlightenment, if anything, with the exception of the more moderate libertarians and some moderate Republicans.

At least that is my contention.