American Political Thought

Analysis of Puritanism as a negative or positive influence

This essay will aim to focus on whether puritanism has been a positive or negative influence on American politics. Drawing from the readings and lectures in American political thought this essay will explore a few questions. The patriarchal nature of puritanism and the rise of individual freedoms in American politics, Benjamin Franklin’s view of “virtue” as both constricting and empowering. Whether the puritan sense of virtue is the same as capitalist enrichment according to Weber and according to Ben Franklin. This essay will seek to give analysis of all these questions and get to the crux of whether puritanism has been a positive or negative influence in contemporary American politics.

The idea that American politics is largely influenced by men has its roots in the patriarchal nature of puritan society and is alluded to by John Winthrop in his sermon City Upon a Hill. In this sermon Winthrop states “For this end, we must be knit together, in this work, as one man. We must entertain each other in brotherly affection. We must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of others’ necessities”(Winthrop). This statement conveys perfectly the outlook that men had during this time. Winthrop does not allude to women when talking about unity but uses unity to refer to the Massachusetts Bay Colony as one man. Of course, this could have been referred to as a lady since the ships that led the men from England to the Americas were often referred to as such but when talking about the unity of this new colony women are largely left out. To add to this notion of the patriarchal society, Winthrop in the next section refers to brotherly affection. It is clear, that women were part of the society but in discussing the political nature of the colony they are once again left out. This can be seen widely today where a large portion of the American population is not comfortable with women in positions of power or even the mention of this. This was written in 1630 and it would be a long time until the women’s suffrage movement that women’s concerns were being voiced and talked about in American politics. While this statement is largely male dominated in it’s outlook, when Winthrop discusses helping the society by giving up the flesh nature it applies broadly to citizens across the society. This puritan idea that men and women can give up their own selfish ideals in order to help their fellow men is something that still rings true today in American politics. Often, politicians work with community organizers who are not being paid but take their time out to help the society in ways of advancement for the whole society.

In discussing whether puritanism is a positive or negative influence it is equally important to make note of the rise and fall of what some would call the American empire. In discussing the founding of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, Winthrop gives some tips for success and foreshadows the dangers. Winthrop states “In that we are commanded this day to love the Lord our God, and to love one another, to walk in his ways and to keep his Commandments and his ordinance and his laws, and the articles of our Covenant with Him, that we may live and be multiplied, and that the Lord our God may bless us in the land whither we go to possess it. But if our hearts shall turn away, so that we will not obey, but shall be seduced, and worship other Gods, our pleasure and profits, and serve them; it is propounded unto us this day, we shall surely perish out of the good land whither we pass over this vast sea to possess it.” (Winthrop). This statement summarizes puritanism in its finest. The patriarchal nature is evident when God is referred to as man. This is not stated as possibility but rather as a fact. Moreover, Winthrop draws an interesting parallel between what would allow the colony to thrive and what will cause them to be shunned by God. The unity that Winthrop talks about is evident in American politics when the whole nation eventually comes to be referred to as the “United” States of America. Rather than a few polities that operate independently, the framework of the nation is founded upon cohesion and working cooperatively together. This can be traced to the puritan sense of loving one’s fellow companion as one love’s oneself. A contradiction that can be seen in American politics today is the more liberal nature of this idea of God. Some critics may argue that American politics today has turned to consumerism and materialism where the individual rather than society is elevated. This draws a sharp contrast to the turning one’s back on these vices that the puritan ideals championed. The dual nature of many people cooperatively working together and the rise of individualism is a point of contention in contemporary American politics today.

In a lot of ways Ben Franklin’s virtues can be viewed as empowering. There is a parallel between the biblical commandments Moses decreed and the virtues Ben Franklin instilled in American politics. Ideas such as order, frugality, temperance, and silence lay a basic framework for going about life in a relatively new experiment called the United States. A lot of those “virtues” have stood the test of time and are important factors in the way common Americans and politicians alike shape American discourse.

One of Benjamin Franklins virtues is order. When Franklin discusses order he states “Let all your things have their places; let each part of your business have its time.”(Franklin). This is evident as a positive influence in American political culture today. While most people work Monday through Friday they ultimately have time off on the weekends to decompress from work. There are even times during the year when those in congress have their breaks to vacation. Sometimes contemporary presidents are even criticized for taking to many days off to go on vacation. This should not come as a surprise however, since one of the founding fathers broadly states that there is a time for work and there is a time for play. Alternatively, order as championed by Benjamin Franklin can be viewed as constricting. The nature of opinions in public discourse is often fluid and can take many different forms. To much structure and topics of discussion in American politics may be placed incorrectly in different categories. Today marginalized populations may not feel that the protests or acts of solidarity can be put in “order” because in many ways these movements start with an initial grassroots movement and then are duplicated across many states.

Frugality is another one of Benjamin Franklins virtues that can be considered as both empowering and constricting. When Franklin discusses frugality he writes “Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself”(Franklin). This is empowering because in many ways Franklin is conveying that one should save. Saving is a great way to create insulation against future unforeseen occurrences and is widespread in the mentality of Americans. In some ways however, this can be viewed as constricting because many households live paycheck to paycheck and while he is giving advice, the very nature of those unforeseen occurrences may lead some Americans to wonder how they can save. It is mostly empowering in that it follows the golden rule that one should treat others the way they would like to be treated. One could argue that While Franklin lays a basic framework for spending, people are presumably working for their wage so they should be able to spend as frivolously as they would like as long as they are not impeding others to do the same. The framework he lays in the virtue of order, brilliantly foreshadows people’s wasteful spending and in anticipation of this gives a cure. If Americans are frugal and are saving for a rainy day they will be able to help themselves as well as others when the time comes.

Temperance is another virtue embraced by Franklin. Franklin states of the virtue of temperance “Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation”(Franklin). This virtue is very much empowering because Franklin is essentially saying do not do anything to excess. While some enjoyment of the immediate pleasures of man may be necessary it is not required that overconsumption becomes a habit. Temperance and moderation go hand in hand because for Franklin being as sharp as possible and in a state of equilibrium is the best route for both the individual and the larger American society.

Silence is a very important virtue that Franklin conveys in his thirteen virtues. Franklin says of silence “Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid trifling conversation”(Franklin). This is an important virtue since Franklin was one of the founding fathers of the United States. To get matters done Franklin realized that he would need to listen to his colleagues. Silence allowed for him and the other founding fathers to get critical matters accomplished especially when time was of the essence. In the United States, silence is also one of the rights of citizens when they are being detained by the authorities. The authorities with the passing of the Miranda Rights are required to explain to individuals that they have the right to remain silent. Long before the Miranda rights became standard protocol, Franklin was championing the virtue of silence. Furthermore, Franklin alludes to “trifling conversation” this most likely meant gossip and other petty talk. This would be an important factor since because the United States was founded on the collective and not individuals while some may have had their disagreements Franklin viewed petty talk and gossip as a distraction to the necessities that required establishing a sovereign and working country.

In discussing whether puritan thought has been a negative or positive influence on American politics it is imperative to discuss individual freedoms while also taking into account whether the puritan sense of virtue is the same as capital enrichment according to Max Weber.

Individual freedoms in the United States is often viewed through the eyes of capitalism. Of this philosophy Max weber wrote “Thus the capitalism of today, which has come to dominate economic life, educates and selects the economic subjects which it needs through a process of economic survival of the fittest.” (Weber). This Darwinian concept is evident all throughout the American economic system. Numerous business ventures are formed but only one out of five business ventures in contemporary America succeed. Through a process of evolution only those business ventures with the necessary backing and correct structures for procuring capital succeed. This is very similar to the puritan work ethic since puritans felt that they were called by God to reach salvation. They did not ultimately believe that all people would reach heaven or paradise but they did believe that doing good works would get one closer to that aim on judgement day. The selectivity by which the puritans viewed themselves as elevated, is a presumption that puritans would be successful in cultivating a prosperous nation while other sects would not be. The spirit of capitalism rampant in the puritans, allowed them to say that any among them could become destined for achieving their religious and economic goals so long as they followed the guidelines of the church.

The goal of puritanism it should be noted was not to make money or acquire wealth. Puritans converged with capitalism because of a need to please god, if anything churches were places where people could escape work. Since church sermons are usually on Sunday and during that time everyone was required to go to church this event is not in alignment with the capitalistic producing machine. To this end Weber stated “The thought of the pious boredom of paradise has little attraction for their active natures; religion appears to them as a means of drawing people away from labor in this world.”(Weber). Here one witnesses the contradictory nature of the religion of Puritanism and the necessity of capital. While the Puritans economic means for producing capital is capitalism their ideals of religion are the opposite. This contradictory nature foreshadows the separation of church and state in American politics.

Individuals and puritanism also do not coincide with each other. The individual is placed on the back burner where as God and the betterment of one’s fellow man is elevated. The rationalization of using reason to acquire what one desires is the only reason that these ideas can be reconciled. Of the rationalization of puritanism and capitalism, Weber makes an interesting conclusion. Weber states “In the process Protestantism would only have to be considered in so far as it had formed a stage prior to the development of a purely rationalistic philosophy.”(Weber). Weber is arguing that like evolution Protestantism is an outdated philosophy and is only utilized because it came before capitalism. In the new philosophy of capitalism, individuals are forced to labor or they will not be able to survive. The theory in Protestant philosophy is that one should work because that would be doing the greater good in God’s eyes. In the Bible that the puritans followed there is a verse that states “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you: that if any would not work, neither should he eat.” ( 2 Thessalonians 3:10). It is evident to any rational person that individual freedoms can be found in working. Since man is capable of working, if the scripture of the Bible holds true then man will also be able to eat. He can therefore decide his own fate by working.

This essay has drawn from reading and lectures in American Political thought to get to the crux of whether puritanism has been a positive or negative influence in American politics. The argument that this paper makes is that the effect has been neither good nor bad but rather it has been neutral. From the City Upon a Hill by John Winthrop to the virtues championed by Ben Franklin and further the analysis of Max Weber on The Spirit of Capitalism and the Protestant Work Ethic one sees a symbiosis of ideas in American politics. This synergy of ideas has allowed the individual to participate in a democracy that respects their individual freedoms but also allows for cooperation among the larger collective.