A Tolerable Anarchy: Rebels, Reactionaries, and the Making of American Freedom

by Jedediah Purdy

In A Tolerable Anarchy , Jedediah Purdy traces the history of the American understanding of freedom, an ideal that has inspired the country’s best—and worst—moments, from independence and emancipation to war and economic uncertainty. Working from portraits of famous American lives, like Frederick Douglas and Ralph Waldo Emerson, Purdy asks crucial questions about our relationship to Does capitalism perfect or destroy freedom? Does freedom mean following tradition, God’s word, or one’s own heart? Can a nation of individuals also be a community of citizens? This is history that speaks plainly to our lives today, urging readers to explore our understanding of our country and ourselves, and a provocative look at one of America’s cherished principles.

Genres: Nonfiction, History, Politics, Philosophy, American History

304 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2009

Reviews

[Nathan Albright · Rating 1 out of 5]

A Tolerable Anarchy: Rebels, Reactionaries, And The Making Of American Freedom, by Jedidiah Purdy

This book is a classic example of the tendency of human beings to want to justify what they are. This book is a self-justification of a corrupt author's vision for America--a vision that includes the celebration of moral decay as well as corrupt, activist government to enforce the author's standards on recalcitrant Americans, and it takes advantage of the paradoxical and complex connections between radical and reactionary currents that have always swirled around the American political experiment. Throughout the book the author celebrates or bemoans (depending on whether they agree with his own worldview) various tendencies about how the American political experience from 1776 onward has been understood and applied by Americans and viewed by Europeans. The author demonstrates his overt political bias by celebrating Wilson, FDR, and LBJ, and showing contempt for Reagan and George W. Bush in particular, and when he states that a case for a political discourse that places honor in political service, he argues that all one needs is competent politicians who are able to harness the desire for the moral equivalent of war to support his romantic view of politics, not recognizing that the last 14 years or so since this book was published in 2009 have demonstrated the absolute moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the sorts of politicians that the author endorses, demonstrating that there is no competence or integrity to be found in our contemporary bureaucratic and political class, and hence no real alternative to a view that sees the efforts to increase the size and power of activist government as a total failure.

This book is made up of eight chapters that, along with an introduction and afterword, are a bit more than 200 short pages. The author begins with an introduction that discusses the sensations of freedom, and it is this vague and suitably protean subjective view of freedom that the author uses to undergird his own solipsistic and subjectivist view of freedom. This is followed by a discussion of the Declarations of Independence and the irony and complexity that has always been involved, from the beginning, in our nation's political culture and founding (1). After this, the author discusses the search for civic dignity (alas, not by giving dignity to his own political opponents) (2). This is followed by a discussion of war and its equivalents, and the vain search that Progressives have had in making service the center of a leftist political culture (3). The author then gets to the crux of the emptiness of contemporary identity and sexual politics, without recognizing the truth of the matter, in his discussion of citizenship, sodomy, and the meaning of life (4). The author then tries to bring back utopianism as something other than an insult for hopelessly unrealistic views of the world that deny fundamental moral and structural realities (5), while attempting the untrue canard that contemporary economics are too complicated to be served by old-fashioned views of negative liberty (6). The author then discusses the supposed value of freedom--focusing on the "freedoms" that are provided by government on their politically supportive dependent classes (7), while also superficially addressing supposed "fragments" of freedom (8), without recognizing the importance of key freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights, for example. The book then ends with an afterword, acknowledgements, notes, bibliographic essay, bibliography, and an index.

This book is a classic example of what goes wrong when an author divorces his attempts to recognize historical and political reality as well as to influence that reality through his own efforts at self-justification and partisan politicking from a sense of absolute standards. The author tries to take advantage of the complexity and paradoxical nature of American political thought to argue for the plausibility of his own worldview and perspective, and then seeks to encourage the political side to win that would best support his worldview, thus demonstrating why it is that people view politics in the contemporary world as being so corrupt and so unworthy of honor and praise to begin with. The author's goal is so obvious and self-serving as to be self-defeating, in that he transparently wants to clothe government with honor and legitimacy in the hope that he and people like him will direct the power of government and have its behavior at least supported or accepted by even those who disagree with it, but the obviousness of his partisanship makes it impossible for those who are opposed to his views to see his efforts at political philosophy to be anything but a mortal threat to freedom and liberty in the face of an increasingly corrupt society and an increasingly tyrannical government that does not deserve our support but rather our contempt, and perhaps even our rebellion.

[Mack · Rating 2 out of 5]

I wanted to like this book more than I ultimately did. It looks, right down to the dust jacket design, like a book I'd really love. Nothing about it is really bad or even totally uninteresting but there's just something about this one that's, bare minimum, less than enthralling. The basic idea is that America's freedom experiment is riddled with inconsistencies but these inconsistencies can lead to progress? At least, that's what I think the main point was. All well and good. I appreciated Purdy's depth of citation here, his use of historical examples and his grasp of political nuance. But his analysis never struck me as particularly enlightening or cohesive. It just seemed like a Jackson Pollack collection of facts smeared together to make SOME point about America. After finishing the book, I'm still not sure what that point was.

[Jay Wright · Rating 3 out of 5]

I purchased this book because it looked like an interesting read. I must say that it was interesting. The book reveals why the liberals believe that freedom is not in danger in America. I found the forward to be fascinating and his sources were good. Then, he moves to the declarations of independence. Okay, I could buy it., but his reliance on Ante-bellum America is flawed. In the chapter "The Search for Civic Dignity" is frankly putrid. Dignity is defined as "the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect." This is not a quality that is granted by government, but is seized by the individual. It is funny that the author repeatedly refers to Frederick Douglass when he in fact could care nothing for how others defined him. He defined himself! I find it interesting that this work rarely quotes MLK. He also told those around him that the law and peoples opinions would not bind him. He quotes Woodrow Wilson, a man that lied, obtained reelection, led us to an unnecessary war and was so hated by the public that another Democrat was not elected President for 12 years. In this Chapter, he begins to go astray. Really, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and finally Lyndon Johnson's Great Society that went down in flames because the Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon era lead to the deaths of 68,000 Americans. Yes let's give dignity by letting boys die in the rice paddies of South Vietnam. Johnson is the best of them. At least he worked with Congress to work towards equality of opportunity. Finally he quotes that figure we all know and love as Hillary Rodham (now Clinton). The Chapter on the Supreme Court is a good overview as to how "we need to do the right Thing." He believes that need to grant the liberties in the Declaration of Independence. Well first, no, the Declaration of Independence has never been codified as the law of the land. The author believes that you can ignore the law of the land to protect the liberty to pursue happiness. I agree with much of what he says about gay rights etc., but they should not be achieved by judicial legislation. When you play scrabble, the game has rules. The founders developed a rule book. It is called the Constitution (with amendments). By being able to change it at will, that will pave the way for others to change it latter. Like Kennedy did with a gap of only 17 years with the sodomy law.
America's freedom is hard to define. It is ridiculous to insure the salary of people that take chances. First, America, as the author will admit, is built on people that take risks. He proposes that we insure those who take risks (BS). If this is true they don't deserve the reward. Perhaps, the freedom to fail (even epically) is America's greatest freedom. I can join the gold rush to California. I can play the lottery. If my name is Ned Flanders, I can build a Left Hand Emporium. Perhaps, the author should look at the anti-federalists. Records show that they held the majority in 1787 and were outmaneuvered.
Finally, he ties all this together to make an argument to take drastic measures to curb global warming. Screw that, I want a 1968 Camaro, dual carburetor, 427 Cubic inches American vehicle. I want to drive it at 120 mph. I then want a whiskey with a beer chaser, a 24 ounce steak and tell those hypocrites they can kiss my-----.I suppose I don't give a hoot about this whining for a dignity and fairness for all. Grab hold of dignity. You may fail, but you will hold your head up. Remember, if you give something to someone, it comes from somewhere (or someone). We gained our freedom because we couldn't stand a small tax. This guys misses the boat, but his views are educational. The Intellectual elite which so loves telling us how to live can live in his ivory tower. Nothing is free, get a life!

[Gina Scioscia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really enjoyed this title! Ostensibly, its about the history of the American Revolution and creation of the constitution, yet it's more about the meaning and uniqueness of freedom as an ideal, which all too often we take for granted or cover with patriotic platitudes.
Purdy shows how that freedom is not ensconced in government documents, but is a constantly changing idea whose limits are expanding. He cites Frederick Douglass as an example of an individual who took the failures of American freedom as a starting point for understanding the constitution as a living document that would someday include all Americans. We, as citizens and individuals, should think upon freedom as a "braid of aspirations, disappointment, and change, that combines loss and progress, and that success is not a perfect resting point but a direction." My emphasis.
A wonderfully engaging and well written book.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

I gave this book 4 stars because I couldn't give it fractions above 3 stars. It was better than average but not quite mind blowing. So, I rounded up.

The content is good and it's well written and easy to follow. There's just something missing. I can't really put my finger on it. I guess maybe it's that it's not really saying anything I haven't read before in much more in depth books on the philosophy of freedom. So maybe it's one of those books that is really good to read if you are just starting to get interested in political philosophy but one you can probably pass up if you're already pretty well versed.

Still it was an easy read and I definitely don't feel like I wasted my time reading it.

[Ryan Darnell · Rating 4 out of 5]

I haven't been intellectually challenged like this in a while. Purdy's nuanced and delicate writing covers the uniqueness of American freedom as part aberration, part sublimation. The complexity of the American zeitgeist is something that I've believed in for a long time and "A Tolerable Anarchy" seems to galvanize and deepen my understanding.

[Stefanie · Rating 3 out of 5]

I picked this plain, little book up because it had come up as an item to weed during the recent collection development overview being done at the Medfield Library. However, when I looked more closely at the book I was intrigued by the questions that the author was trying to ask. Being a relatively moral person, I thought I'd give this book a new lease on life and check it out rather than just withdraw it and keep it for myself, now I am very glad that I did.

Purdy starts by analyzing the ideals of the new American republic from the two viewpoints of British politicians of the time, Samuel Johnson and Edmund Burke. As a student of American history I am familiar with looking at the language of the Declaration and the Constitution, and the idea of "what it means to be an American" since my thesis was on another facet of precisely this subject. However, Purdy presents his question in a different way, "what does it mean to be free?" I would guess initially that most people would see this to be a concept that goes hand in hand, but at several times in our history the case has not been so. What it meant to be free or an American if you are a woman, a slave, a homosexual, or a business owner did not necessarily come out to the same answer. If one aspect of your liberty is compromised does that mean you are less American than some who benefit from the full spectrum of Constitutional liberties? Purdy is asking this as a political scientist and I do not believe that he is questioning how people feel individually as Americans but as political beings in a free market.

The book is brief enough to be interesting and offer charming insights into different historical time periods where meanings were changing. I also enjoyed that every hypothetical scenario featured a "she" instead of a more masculine "he" or impersonal "they". Like If Walls Could Talk, the book hits the high points but doesn't mire the average reader down in tons of theory. Obviously more Democratic than Republican, this is still a relevant thesis in the current political climate, and definitely a good read if you want to inform yourself on some of the basic tenants that Americans live their lives by.

[Bob Reutenauer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Purdy essays in Atlantic, Dissent, maybe a few other places like this have been of interest to me over the years. He burst on the political/cultural criticism scene a decade or more ago as a genius homeschooled kid from Carolina hill country (or close by.) He took aim at the prevalence of a mainstream form of "irony" that suffused the culture he found when he made his way out of the woods with his handmade banjo into Duke/Yale legal studies. I didn't understand then or remember now what the argument about irony was about.. and in this book I don't have a real grip on the "tolerable anarchy" of his title. His early discussion of Edmund Burke and Samuel Johnson on the American Revolution was fantastic. Likewise his treatment of Adam Smith is very strong at drawing the connection between the Smith popularized by Wealth of Nations and the less known Smith of the Scottish Enlightenment and his Theory of Moral Sentiments. This first third of the book is well worth the price of admission.

[Bookmarks Magazine · Rating 4 out of 5]

What all critics appreciated about A Tolerable Anarchy was the rich intellectual history Purdy has constructed; more than one reviewer compared the book to a college course with a very engaging professor. But they were less certain about whether Purdy had reliably proved his particular thesis. In the New York Times Book Review, Gary Hart, the former senator and presidential candidate, compared Purdy's book to Alan Wolfe's recent title The Future of Liberalism and found the former the equivalent of a course for sophomores and the latter the equivalent of a course for seniors. Hart wrote that he did not intend this to be a criticism, but it was not quite praise, either. Nevertheless, Hart and others strongly endorsed the book, particularly the sections that try to reconcile American individualism with environmentalism.

This is an excerpt from a review published in Bookmarks magazine.

[Emmett · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've really like Purdy since I read For Common Things about five years ago. He's the type of writer that I wished wrote, blogged and talked more. He has a very clear way of looking at things.

This book didn't disappoint. It was harder to get through than I remember his other works (most likely because I had to put it down every few minutes because I have kids now).

Purdy does an excellent job connecting the different tangents he picks up through American history and brings them solidy up to the present day. In this book he does the best job bringing his arguments forward to his conclusion.

Also, here's a video of him doing a talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_oIii...

[Daniel Cunningham · Rating 4 out of 5]

Deserving of a re-read. Purdy always manages to render, with much more clarity and breadth, many of my own thoughts. I will say this book left me a tiny bit confused at the end, as it became more prescriptive --in a very gentle way-- than descriptive. I guess I was just not expecting that, and it seemed a bit of a sudden turn.

That said, when all is said in done, he made a strong case for addressing issues of today with a wide open mind and great respect. As always with Purdy, a good read; better yet, something worth rereading.

[Kathryn · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a book about how people of different eras interrupted the word freedom in their literature and lives. I was interested in these different historical interpretations and felt the book quite interesting until the final chapter. This chapter dealt with climate change and how we could approach the problem.

[Bear · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well written and erudite. The author makes syllogistic points concisely and eloquently. The digression into the climate change in the last chapter felt a bit out of place in comparison with the other topics in the book; the argument, however, was sound.

[Jay]

too many big words. i don't even know what "tolerable" means.

[Jesse · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nothing new