The Scopes trial is one of those events which are held up as decisive moments in our national history, and yet it is also an event whose significance is often less than apparent, even to those who assert its importance. Other than that it somehow relates to the freedom of speech, the right to free inquiry and some sort of vaguely understood struggle between science and religion, those who write and speak about often can't explain why it is important. Considering that the "right" side lost, that laws continued to uphold the "wrong" position, and the same argument has continued in one form even to the present, it seems hard to argue that the case changed the world, or even the nation. Viewed honestly, other than inspiring a play and film which enjoyed widespread popularity, and providing a cause around which certain individuals rallied, the Scopes trial really had little more significance, at least in terms of changing our government and culture, than the Sacco and Vanzetti case, another case many claimed was of deep significance, but which objectively had almost no impact on our nation.

On the other hand, I think there is an interesting aspect of the Scopes trial which has been overlooked for many decades, mostly because the significance is uncomfortable to those who posit the case as some sort of victory for "right thinking" types. You see, those who so ardently praise the Scopes trial tend to see it in terms of a victory of those who "know best" over ignorant rubes who pass state laws which oppose the "right" position.  of course, the states' right position had largely been destroyed by a small event called the Civil War quite some time before, and would become a completely dead issue when it became collateral damage in the civil rights struggle. (Wrongly killed off along with property rights.) What this means is that those who promote the Scopes trial, and see a moral victory in Darrow's struggle with Bryan, tend to be big government statists, those who favor intrusive government which attempts to save us from ourselves, put us on the right course, and generally ensure society runs in the "right" way.

And that is why this case's true significance is so uncomfortable for them. The two protagonists, much as they are posited as opposites, really represent the two forms of statism common at the time, the moralist statism of Bryan, and the modern, agnostic, "scientific" statism of Darrow (mixed perhaps with statist "pragmatism" common to liberal heroes of that era). And that is what make sit so uncomfortable to them. As I wrote before in "The Political Spectrum", in the late 19th century the Democrats underwent a sudden, and dramatic, shift in their beliefs. The Republicans had been, to that point, the statist party. They favored moralizing laws, inflationary currency, protectionist laws, prohibitions on immigration, and most of the positions moderns associate with modern paleo-cons, or, more to the point, we associate with Bryan. Until the 1890's, or thereabout, the Democrats were the opposite. Yes, in the cities they were the party of corrupt machine politics, but nationally, the Democrats were the party of small government, states' rights (to the degree possible after the Civil War), property rights, gold money, immigration, and free enterprise.

That is until the Populist movement, under Bryan, somehow managed to take over some segments of the Democrats. I have never quite understood how this happened, the Republicans seem so much more similar to Bryan's beliefs. But through accidents of geography and history, the Republicans were closed to Bryan. After Reconstruction, the Republicans were persona non grata in the South, and almost as unwelcome in the west. The Republicans were strong in the northeast, their primary base, but in urban areas they were less powerful, thanks to the waves of immigrant which granted the Democrat machines a tremendous advantage.

As Bryan's appeal was primarily to two groups, farmers seeking soft money to escape debt, and farmers and factory workers who imagined protectionist policies would favor their interests, Bryan had no choice but to appeal to the Democrats. While his platform was close to that of the Republicans, and while his main positions, soft money and protectionism, would have also interested the mercantile interests strong in the Republican party (who wrongly assumed protectionism favored their interests as well)  And so, in a manner similar to the way the radicals took over many state Democratic Party offices in the late 1960's, or the segregationists took over others in the 1960's and 1970's, Bryan's followers in the Democratic Party took over local organizations, moving on to state parties, and eventually controlling the bulk of the party.

One can see the inconsistent hold they had in the two presidencies of Grover Cleveland. The last of the old time Democrats, Cleveland managed to get the nomination, but, thanks to the divided party, could not hold on to win reelection. He miraculously won a second nomination, and won the presidency, but he was also fated to be the last of the hard money, free market Democrats.

In any case, however he rose to power, Bryan was the face of the new Democrats in the early 20th century. And for a very short time the two parties were almost indistinguishable, except for slight differences in rhetoric and geographical origins. Of course, over time, the Republicans saw the birth of the reform movement, as well as the Bull Moose movement, which focused on anti-trust agitation and other populist moves, while the Democrats saw a gradual fragmentation between the moralist, religious populists and the more agnostic, "scientific" populists and socialists, the precursors of modern liberals.

And it is that struggle which is seen in the Scopes trial. The struggle between statist Christians and statist agnostics, between old time populists and modern liberals and socialists. In other words, it is not, as it has been presented, a struggle between freedom and oppression, but a struggle between two pressure groups to see who would have the right to force their vision upon the nation.

And that is what makes a deep analysis uncomfortable for modern thinkers. Themselves strong believers in liberalism, most proponents of the significance of the Scopes trial still like to think they advocate intellectual freedom, and that liberalism is not inconsistent with personal liberty. But in the Scopes trial, if it is viewed honestly, they must confess that the entire struggle is nothing more than a wrestling match over who will set the agenda. There is no freedom there,  only a choice of rulers.

Some will point to incidental details to argue I am wrong. They will declare Scopes was not forcing a vision on anyone, nor was Darrow. Scopes was simply teaching what he thought true, and Darrow was fighting for the right of all teachers to speak their minds.

A moment's thought will show the lie of this position.

Suppose Scopes had not been teaching evolution, but had instead been teaching the racial theories of the Nazis, or arguing for royalism. Suppose he had been teaching any number of hateful doctrines. Would Darrow have defended him? No, of course not. The whole case was not about Scopes' freedom, but about evolution, about the forcing of "modern" ideas on the peons, rather than the old fashioned religious ideas.

You can see the lie one other way. Takes Darrow's position at face value. Imagine public school teachers were granted full freedom of conscience. They could never be fired for their views. So the teacher who argues the NAMBLA party line, or who promotes cannibalism or human sacrifice can never be let go. Nor can the man who teaches his subject incorrectly, who ardently thinks 2+2 is 9. So long as he believes it, it is acceptable. That is the logical outcome of Darrow's supposed position, total chaos.

No, Darrow was fighting not for freedom, but for freedom for a view he supported, and nothing more.

The problem, of course, is one I discussed before ("Reforming Education", "You Don't Drown in a Glass of Water - Vouchers Revisited", "Why Vouchers are not the Answer", "Never Ascribe To Evil, A Discussion of Education"). So long as the state controls education, so long as education is compulsory and state run, the content of education will be a political issue, as it verges on indoctrination. With the state involved, providing a single position, or even a slate of "accepted" positions, there will always be dispute over what is and is not allowed, and there will be strife. Only when education is private will the issue be resolved, as parents and schools will be left with the choice in their hands.

But, of course, that was unacceptable to both Darrow and Bryan, and is to modern liberals. They all believe there is a single right way, a right position, and so they see no problem with forcing children to learn that singular proper way to think. In fact, were education private, they would still feel the need for state regulation, lest the students "not be properly educated." ("The Right Way", "The Danger Inherent in Banning "Bad Ideas"", "Deadly Cynicism", "Liberalism, Its Origins and Consequences - Preface", "Contradictory World Views" , "The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism", "Moral For Me, But Not For Thee")The belief in a single right way makes that inevitable. Only once one accepts there are many ways to do things, and that nothing is necessarily right about the way one chooses, will he truly be able to understand the need to allow others their freedom.

But freedom is not a major interest for modern liberals, nor was it for Darrow or Bryan. What is interesting, in fact, is how little distance separated Darrow (and his modern fans) and Bryan. They may have differed in the sources they claimed for their revelations, and may have had different ideas about what was the "right way" to do things, but in all the big matters, on the main points, in terms of their approach to politics, culture, society in general, they were almost identical.

And recognizing that is difficult for modern fans of Darrow. Which is why their praise for the Scopes trial tends to be a bit vague, and skirts around several issues which seem to demand attention. But who can blame them? It is hard to claim to be the defenders of intellectual freedom while promoting an all powerful state saving us from ourselves.

POSTSCRIPT

As I have several times stated in passing that protectionism and inflation do not truly help any group, but only offer an apparent benefit, which is offset by far greater costs, I feel I should offer some proof. So for those who are interested, my writing on the topics can be found in "Monetary Issues Made Simple Part I", "Monetary Issues Made Simple Part II", "The Inflation Engine", "Inflation and Uncertainty", "Bad Economics Part 7 ", "Bad Economics Part 8", "Why Gold?", ""What Is Money?" and "What Is A Dollar? " for inflation and ""Fair Trade"","Exploited Labor", "Protectionism Right and Left", "Free Trade, Employment, Outsourcing, and Protectionism", "Unfair Advantage and Foreign Trade", "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, and More Jobs", "Bad Economics Part 6", "Clarfiying My Argument", "Production and Consumption ", "Capitalism and Its Consequences ", "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is, Or The Logical Implications of Price Gouging Laws ", "Moral For Me, But Not For Thee ", "Defending Freedom? " and "Clarifying a Reality of Capitalism" for protectionism.

POSTSCRIPT II

For some time I have been meaning to write a longer post analyzing the seemingly contradictory position of the left as champions of free speech and societal freedom, as well as general promoters of what would once have been called licentious behavior, while simultaneously promoting authoritarian government. Nor is it that abstract a problem, as their economic theories, taken to their logical conclusion, produced the hardly free societies of the USSR, Cuba, China, Romania, Cambodia and others, none of which are noted for social freedoms, progressive ideas or freewheeling lifestyles.

It is largely an historical accident, the fact that artists and other bohemian types latched on to the socialist agenda, at the same time they were struggling with certain restrictive social mores. As a result, the left, for a time, held contradictory views, arguing for freedom in one respect, while arguing freedom was dangerous in another. (Eg. You should be free to say anything you wanted in your play, but could be told exactly what to say in your advertisement. Or, even more peculiarly, you should be free to say anything you wanted in your political manifesto, but were to be limited in what you could say about specific political candidates and parties near election time.)

Of course, the left has gradually begun to adopt a more consistent position, as "political correctness", "hate speech" prohibitions on religious displays, tighter controls over content of school curricula and other restraint move the liberals away from their nominal respect for freedom, but it is still interesting to look at how they ended up with such a contradictory platform, and how the inexorable logic of their totalitarian beliefs eventually began to eliminate their supposed respect for freedom.

It is even more interesting as many nominal conservatives hold equally contradictory positions, arguing for freedom "with exceptions" or for "sensible regulations". So perhaps examining this history of liberalism's dalliance with freedom will help show conservatives how their inconsistent beliefs endanger their freedoms, and maybe manage to convince a few that "freedom with limits" is the same as no freedom at all.

So, there may be a second essay forthcoming on that topic. As I wrote so much here I don't know how much more I will have to say, but we will see. It still interests me, and there are still plenty of examples, as well as many specific details about the ways in which the logic of one's beliefs finds expression that may be worth examining. So likely the post will be written. Though, as I have gotten behind on "Liberalism, Its Origins and Consequences" it may be a while.

POSTSCRIPT III

I posted a comment about this article on the "Band of Bloggers" page on Facebook -- which I heartily recommend for any Facebook users -- and it made a point I did not mention in this article, but which I think is worth repeating here:

Sadly, we had no real pro-freedom governments from Grover Cleveland's second term ending in 1897 and Ronald Reagan's first term starting in 1981. Nearly a century of government by lesser or greater champions of big government. Even more depressing, we haven't had another since Reagan left office in 1989. Will it be another 84 year dry spell? Is the next one slated for 2073?

I omitted the early part of the post, describing this article, but I think the part I did include is worth considering. How long before we get a government which realizes government is not the solution to every problem? That it is not a sin to say "we are not supposed to use government to do that?"

Correction (06/09/2010): As my father in law gained what fame he had from his biography of the man, you would think I could remember how to spell William Jennings Bryan's name. However, the correct spelling is one of those facts, like the second "I" in missile or the fact that "hilarious" has only one "L", that always eludes me. And so I want to apologize for repeatedly misspelling the man's name. I have corrected it where I could, but have no found all I am sure. (Even more annoying, since the internet is full of common misspellings, trying to confirm a spelling online is futile, as you are as likely to find a mistake as the correct spelling.)