John Patrick Diggins disappointed HBO John Adams series skirted debates about the Constitution
... The political chronology of Adams's life requires that Part 4 of the series proceed from the end of the Revolution and the peace treaty to his stay in England and then Washington's inauguration. But given the amount of time spent on the Declaration, the Constitution gets rather lost in the story, and it is the latter document that shaped American history. Now while it is true that Adams was in London and had no direct hand in drafting the Constitution, he was at the same time writing volumes to defend its formation as well as those of the state constitutions. Why was this necessary? Because many French philosophers, once they saw what America was up to, accused the colonists of still emulating the parliamentary system of government and dividing power rather than unifying it in a single national assembly. Adams's three-volume A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America and his provocative "Discourse on Davila" make him, I believe, America's greatest political philosopher. I realize, of course, that such theoretical matters cannot be readily dealt with in television series, but just let me mention three reasons why Adams deserves more recognition than he has ever received, now as well as then.
First, Adams was the only one of all the founders to grasp that in America the most important political institution would be the executive branch of government. The status of the Supreme Court remained vague, and other founders followed the British Whig theory that made Parliament or Congress the sovereign source of authority.
Second, Adams was the only one who recognized that, as America developed, the forces of society would become more important than the institutions of government--a point later emphasized by Tocqueville upon his visit to America. This meant that the American people would be moved more by wealth and power than by virtue and honor.
Third, Adams predicted the outcome of the French Revolution even before it broke out in 1789. Here he was, three years ahead of Edmund Burke, whose "Reflections on the French Revolution" came out in 1782, as France enters the stage of terror. Jefferson and Adams's opponents were completely naïve about events in France, convinced that it was following the American Revolution rather than drastically departing from it.
I mention these matters in praise of Adams because he has been regarded as a poor president, one who couldn't even get himself reelected. But we should know by now that for a president to be reelected requires not the art of leadership but the politics of deception and the delusion that a change in party is a change in substance....
Read entire article at New Republic
First, Adams was the only one of all the founders to grasp that in America the most important political institution would be the executive branch of government. The status of the Supreme Court remained vague, and other founders followed the British Whig theory that made Parliament or Congress the sovereign source of authority.
Second, Adams was the only one who recognized that, as America developed, the forces of society would become more important than the institutions of government--a point later emphasized by Tocqueville upon his visit to America. This meant that the American people would be moved more by wealth and power than by virtue and honor.
Third, Adams predicted the outcome of the French Revolution even before it broke out in 1789. Here he was, three years ahead of Edmund Burke, whose "Reflections on the French Revolution" came out in 1782, as France enters the stage of terror. Jefferson and Adams's opponents were completely naïve about events in France, convinced that it was following the American Revolution rather than drastically departing from it.
I mention these matters in praise of Adams because he has been regarded as a poor president, one who couldn't even get himself reelected. But we should know by now that for a president to be reelected requires not the art of leadership but the politics of deception and the delusion that a change in party is a change in substance....