Two professors debated the proper role of government in a free republic at an event hosted by the Van Andel Graduate School of Statesmanship on Jan. 20.

Thomas West, professor of politics, presented his book “The Political Theory of the American Founding: Natural Rights, Public Policy, and the Moral Conditions of Freedom.” 

In his book, West argues that natural rights defined the founding fathers’ political views.

“They always had a coherent understanding of politics, and the things that are often called ‘extraneous’ were, from the Founders’ point of view, elements that were supportive of their overall understanding of what government is for–namely, protecting life, liberty, and property,” West said.

C. Bradley Thompson, professor of political science at Clemson University, discussed his book, “America’s Revolutionary Mind: A Moral History of the American Revolution and the Declaration That Defined It.”

Thompson’s book reinterprets the American Revolution as a moral revolution defined in the Declaration of Independence.

According to West, many scholars believe the Founders’ political views were a blend of various traditions.

“Thompson tacitly accepts the amalgam thesis, like every other scholar, in which the Founders’ concerns with moral character and marriage are explained as extraneous to the Natural Rights Theory,” West said.

Thompson said he believed in the merits of a “night-watchman state,” wherein the government had almost no place in the lives of its citizens except for issues of security.

According to West, the Founders did not believe a night-watchman state would suffice to maintain the republic. They predicted it would fail at supporting traditional morals, such as religious piety and the nuclear family, which were crucial to society.

West said Thompson’s theory appears enticing but fails in application.

“Thompson’s method is to downplay his libertarianism unless pressed. The book has the same character,” West said.“Everything moral is correct, but there is no discussion of any of the most controversial consequences of the principles he describes.” 

Freshman Josephine Nolen said she found the discussion both thought-provoking and inspiring. 

“I really appreciated the honest and respectful dialogue between academics who are clearly passionate about the subject,” Nolen said.