Search results

Polityka zagraniczna prezydenta Trumpa bywa postrzegana jako część szerszego politycznego przesunięcia, które poważa obecny liberalny ład globalny i większą nadzieję pokłada w państwie narodowym. Wydarzenia takie jak: Brexit, porażka referendalna Matteo Renziego oraz ogólne wzmocnienie się ugrupowań populistycznych są często przytaczanymi przykładami. Politycy opisywani jako populiści bądź też nacjonaliści nadal nie są dominującą siłą w większości krajów rozwiniętych. Jednakże nowy układ polityczny, który wychodzi poza powojenny podział na prawicę i lewicę, jest wyraźnie widoczny. Artykuł proponuje wydzielenie dwóch obozów: globalizmu i lokalizmu (oraz skupienie się zwłaszcza na narodowym lokalizmie). Analizuje również pierwsze lata prezydentury Donalda Trumpa używając do tego narzędzi zaproponowanych przez Harolda Jamesa i Stephena Skowronka. ; President's Trumps international agenda can be viewed as a part of a wider political shift, which undermines the current liberal global order and places more emphasis on the nation state. Events such as Brexit, Matteo Renzi's lost referendum, the general strengthening of far-right and populist parties are often cited in this context. The politicians described as populists or nationalists are still not a dominant force in most of the elections in developed countries. However, a new divide that moves beyond the post-war left-right division can be clearly observed and variously described. This study will propose the notions of two ideological camps: globalism and localism (with a special focus on national-localism). It will also examine the fi rst year of president Trump's presidency using the historical analysis tools proposed by Harold James and Stephen Skowronek.

The paper compares several selected aspects of political culture in the US and in the EU, and presents the fundamental ideas that have led to the emergence of these two federal political bodies, as according to Montesquieu's typology, both the EU and the US are federal republics. The similarities and differences become even more apparent when comparing the Constitution of the United States and the Lisbon Treaty, which is to constitute the constitutional foundation of the European Union. Such a comparison reveals that the EU and the US are divided by a dialectical difference. This means that these two political constructs apply diametrically opposite solutions to essentially similar political problems. Theoreticians continue to discuss which model of federal republic is better, and whether the EU will have to adopt American solutions, or whether the US will europeanize itself. The author attempts to present the arguments of both sides in this discussion. In his opinion, though, either the EU will experience a breakthrough comparable to the Philadelphia Convention, or will face ultimate disintegration.

The paper compares several selected aspects of political culture in the US and in the EU, and presents the fundamental ideas that have led to the emergence of these two federal political bodies, as according to Montesquieu's typology, both the EU and the US are federal republics. The similarities and differences become even more apparent when comparing the Constitution of the United States and the Lisbon Treaty, which is to constitute the constitutional foundation of the European Union. Such a comparison reveals that the EU and the US are divided by a dialectical difference. This means that these two political constructs apply diametrically opposite solutions to essentially similar political problems. Theoreticians continue to discuss which model of federal republic is better, and whether the EU will have to adopt American solutions, or whether the US will europeanize itself. The author attempts to present the arguments of both sides in this discussion. In his opinion, though, either the EU will experience a breakthrough comparable to the Philadelphia Convention, or will face ultimate disintegration. ; The paper compares several selected aspects of political culture in the US and in the EU, and presents the fundamental ideas that have led to the emergence of these two federal political bodies, as according to Montesquieu's typology, both the EU and the US are federal republics. The similarities and differences become even more apparent when comparing the Constitution of the United States and the Lisbon Treaty, which is to constitute the constitutional foundation of the European Union. Such a comparison reveals that the EU and the US are divided by a dialectical difference. This means that these two political constructs apply diametrically opposite solutions to essentially similar political problems. Theoreticians continue to discuss which model of federal republic is better, and whether the EU will have to adopt American solutions, or whether the US will europeanize itself. The author attempts to present the arguments of both sides in this discussion. In his opinion, though, either the EU will experience a breakthrough comparable to the Philadelphia Convention, or will face ultimate disintegration.

Artykuł opisuje metodologiczne podejścia Erica Voegelina oraz Leo Straussa w zakresie studiów nad historią myśli politycznej, zwłaszcza zaś historią zachodniej myśli politycznej. Artykuł stawia tezę, iż obaj myśliciele oddalają się od głównego nurtu metodologicznego, który jest obecnie reprezentowany przede wszystkim przez przedstawicieli kontekstualizmu. W swoich poszukiwaniach obaj podążają jednak zupełnie odmiennymi drogami. Voegelin skupia się na badaniu symboli politycznych i ich zakorzenienia w metafizycznych doświadczeniach ludzi je tworzących. Strauss natomiast bada raczej odwieczne pytania filozofii, stosuje też pojęcie klasycznej dyskursywnej racjonalności jako kryterium oceny odpowiedzi na kluczowe zagadnienia filozoficzne. Obaj myśliciele różnią się też w sposobie postrzegania roli filozofa polityki. Dla Voegelina miałby on/ona konserwować lub współtworzyć swego rodzaju wiary polityczne. Dla Straussa zaś filozof to nauczyciel politycznie rozwiniętej młodzieży, a przede wszystkim obrońca samej filozofii, jako najszlachetniejszej formy działalności umysłowej. W końcowej części artykuł opisuje znaczenie obu autorów dla współczesnej myśli politycznej. ; The paper summarizes the nature of Eric Voegelin's and Leo Strauss's methodological approaches to the study of the history of political thought, in particular, the Western political thought. The paper concludes that in both cases the thinkers stray away from the mainstream, which is currently represented by contextualism. However, in their dissenting voices both authors take very different routes. Voegelin focuses on political symbols which are grounded in the metaphysical experience of their creators, and Strauss focuses on the perennial question of philosophy and classical, discursive rationality as the criterion of philosophical inquiry. They also differ in their opinions on the role of the political philosopher. For Voegelin, the philosopher is a defender or a co-creator of political creeds. For Strauss s/he is mainly the educator of politically savvy youths and, above all, the defender of philosophy as the most noble pursuit of the mind. The paper concludes by pointing out the importance and prominence of both thinkers.

The paper summarizes the nature of Eric Voegelin's and Leo Strauss's methodological approaches to the study of the history of political thought, in particular, the Western political thought. The paper concludes that in both cases the thinkers stray away from the mainstream, which is currently represented by contextualism. However, in their dissenting voices both authors take very different routes. Voegelin focuses on political symbols which are grounded in the metaphysical experience of their creators, and Strauss focuses on the perennial question of philosophy and classical, discursive rationality as the criterion of philosophical inquiry. They also differ in their opinions on the role of the political philosopher. For Voegelin, the philosopher is a defender or a co-creator of political creeds. For Strauss s/he is mainly the educator of politically savvy youths and, above all, the defender of philosophy as the most noble pursuit of the mind. The paper concludes by pointing out the importance and prominence of both thinkers. ; Artykuł opisuje metodologiczne podejścia Erica Voegelina oraz Leo Straussa w zakresie studiów nad historią myśli politycznej, zwłaszcza zaś historią zachodniej myśli politycznej. Artykuł stawia tezę, iż obaj myśliciele oddalają się od głównego nurtu metodologicznego, który jest obecnie reprezentowany przede wszystkim przez przedstawicieli kontekstualizmu. W swoich poszukiwaniach obaj podążają jednak zupełnie odmiennymi drogami. Voegelin skupia się na badaniu symboli politycznych i ich zakorzenienia w metafizycznych doświadczeniach ludzi je tworzących. Strauss natomiast bada raczej odwieczne pytania filozofii, stosuje też pojęcie klasycznej dyskursywnej racjonalności jako kryterium oceny odpowiedzi na kluczowe zagadnienia filozoficzne. Obaj myśliciele różnią się też w sposobie postrzegania roli filozofa polityki. Dla Voegelina miałby on/ona konserwować lub współtworzyć swego rodzaju wiary polityczne. Dla Straussa zaś filozof to nauczyciel politycznie rozwiniętej młodzieży, a przede wszystkim obrońca samej filozofii, jako najszlachetniejszej formy działalności umysłowej. W końcowej części artykuł opisuje znaczenie obu autorów dla współczesnej myśli politycznej.

The purpose of this article is to capture one of the key features of the political thought that developed in the United States of America. Assuming that the USA's political culture is indeed exceptional, the author attempts to find the common denominator that would reflect the singularity of the American political mind. The author states that such a feature is the radical anti-historicality of the American mode of thinking about politics. It is a phenomenon that is deeply-rooted in the political and spiritual past of the United States and seems to be crucial because it never developed to such an extent in other traditions. Furthermore, even today to a large extent it defines both the American left and right. It is also very much present in academic discussion as well as in ordinary political activities. By anti-historicality the author means the rejection of the thesis that politics within a given society depends on that society's past experience. The phenomenon defies simple normative assessments. On the one hand, it protects American politics from the perils of radical historicism; on the other hand, it hinders the USA's contacts with other political bodies. However, the author concludes that understanding American anti-historicality is crucial when entering into any relations with the USA.

The paper compares several selected aspects of political culture in the US and in the EU, and presents the fundamental ideas that have led to the emergence of these two federal political bodies, as according to Montesquieu's typology, both the EU and the US are federal republics. The similarities and differences become even more apparent when comparing the Constitution of the United States and the Lisbon Treaty, which is to constitute the constitutional foundation of the European Union. Such a comparison reveals that the EU and the US are divided by a dialectical difference. This means that these two political constructs apply diametrically opposite solutions to essentially similar political problems. Theoreticians continue to discuss which model of federal republic is better, and whether the EU will have to adopt American solutions, or whether the US will europeanize itself. The author attempts to present the arguments of both sides in this discussion. In his opinion, though, either the EU will experience a breakthrough comparable to the Philadelphia Convention, or will face ultimate disintegration.