Suchergebnisse

" Continuing the analysis of contemporary issues through the lens of ancient theories beyond the themes of Enduring Empire and the award-winning On Oligarchy, On Civic Republicanism explores the enduring relevance of the ancient concepts of republicanism and civic virtue to modern questions about political engagement and identity. Examining both ancient and early modern conceptions of civic republicanism, the contributors respond to the work of thinkers ranging from Plato and Aristotle to Machiavelli, Montesquieu, and Wollstonecraft. A testament to the continuing influence of the concept and the ongoing scholarly debate which surrounds it, On Civic Republicanism addresses fundamental questions regarding democratic participation, liberal democracy, and the public good. Its essays speak to the many ways in which the idea of the republic still challenges us today."

McCormick opposes Machiavelli's democratic republicanism and Rousseau's aristocratic republicanism by showing that Machiavelli and Rousseau have a very different view of the republican institutions of Rome. Why does Rousseau's "tale of Rome" differ form Machiavelli's "tale of Rome"? Why does Rousseau repudiate Machiavelli's more democratic reconstruction of the Roman Republic? And more generally, why does Rousseau devote so many pages to the republican institutions of Rome? He is looking at Rome to describe a kind of democracy or a kind of aristocracy?

These are but two of the difficult questions that arise when one examines the claim that crime is a public wrong. I take it, though, that their difficulty is an indication of the importance of thinking through the presuppositions and implications of this conception of crime, not a reason to abandon it. A thorough 'thinking through' is too large and complex a task for this chapter, but it is possible to make a case here for the right way to proceed with such an undertaking. That right way, in my view, is to look to the republican tradition of political thought for guidance in unravelling the problems that surround the analysis and practice of criminal law. In particular, I shall argue that republicanism can help us to understand what 'the public' is, how an action may wrong it, and why some of those wrongs should be designated crimes.

THE AUTHOR ARGUES THAT IN THE MIDDLE AGES MONARCHY AND REPUBLICANISM WERE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE; HIERARCHY AND ORGANICISM WERE NOT SPECIFICALLY CHRISTIAN IDEAS AND SHOULD NOT, THEREFORE, BE SEEN AS THE CHRISTIAN ELEMENT IN REPUBLICAN THOUGHT. ONE SHOULD NOT ASSUME THAT CHRISTIANITY OR ANY OTHER HISTORICAL IDEOLOGY HAS AN ESSENTIAL CORE OF UNCHANGING CHARACTERISTICS.

The strategy of this article is to consider republicanism in contrast with liberalism. We focus on three aspects of this contrast: republicanism's emphasis on 'social goods' under various conceptualizations of that category; republicanism's emphasis on political participation as an essential element of the 'good life'; and republicanism's distinctive understanding of freedom (following the lines developed by Pettit). In each case, we are skeptical that what republicanism offers is superior to the liberal alternative and indicate the grounds for that skepticism.

REPUBLICANISM SEES LIBERTY AS THE SOCIAL STATUS OF A CITIZEN WHO IS RECOGNIZED AND EMPOWERED, EQUALLY WITH OTHERS, BEFORE A SUITABLE RULE OF LAW; IT SEES LIBERTY AS A STATUS THAT IS SECURE ONLY AS FAR AS THE REPUBLIC IS PEOPLED AND RUN BY INDIVIDUALS WHO DISPLAY CIVIC VIRTUE, WHETHER SPONTANEOUSLY OR UNDER WELL DESIGNED INSTITUTIONAL PRESSURES; AND, FINALLY, IT SEES THE DISPENSATION OF LIBERTY AS SOMETHING THAT MAY IN PRINCIPLE REQUIRE A LARGE STATE PRESENCE IN AREAS LIKE EDUCATION, MEDICINE, AND SOCIAL SECURITY. LIBERALISM, IN ITS PURE FORM, PRESENTS LIBERTY AS A CONDITION IDEALLY ENJOYED, OUT OF SOCIETY, WHEN THERE IS NO ONE ELSE AROUND; IT HOLDS THAT, GIVEN THE POSSIBILITY OF INVISIBLE HAND MECHANISMS, CITIZENS AND POLITICIANS NEED NOT BE PUBLIC-SPIRITED FOR LIBERTY TO THRIVE; AND IT INTERPRETS THE DEMANDS OF LIBERTY IN A WAY THAT SUPPORTS A MINIMALIST ASSUMPTION ABOUT HOW GOVERNMENT OUGHT TO BEHAVE.

In this collection of writings, leading historians of political thought and political theorists provide an overview of traditional and contemporary republicanism. The first part of the book presents studies of ancient and modern versions of republicanism in Athenian and Roman political thought, as well as in Machiavelli and Montesquieu. The second part focuses on some of the key questions that confront contemporary thinkers, such as: * What ought one to expect of a good state and civil society? * What are the conditions for deliberative democracy? * What are the theoretical implications of a republican conception of political liberty? The essays in this volume advance the debate over republicanism, through both a rigorous philosophical investigation of republicanism's main sources and careful analysis of its meaning.

Recent scholarship has called attention to the republican dimension of Hans Morgenthau's approach to politics in the postwar era, but the role republicanism played in his thought remains ambiguous. This essay examines that role, and explores its tensions with other aspects of his understanding of politics. It argues that he expanded and deepened his approach to politics as he developed a republican critique of American domestic politics. However, his conception of international politics remained rooted in the reason-of-state tradition, and evinces little evidence of his increasing engagement with republicanism. In this selective use of republicanism, he left its tensions with other aspects of his thinking unresolved, but this usage also suggests his recognition of the inadequacy of the original formulation of his realist approach. In considering what IR theorists today may learn from republicanism, his example is highly instructive in any effort to reconstruct the foundations of realism.

Recent claims that civic republicanism can better address contemporary political problems than either liberalism or communitarianism are generating an intense debate. This is a sharp insight into this debate, confronting normative theory with historical and comparative analysis. It examines whether republican theory can address contemporary political problems in ways that are both valuable and significantly different in practice from liberalism. These expert authors offer contrasting perspectives on issues raised by the contemporary revival of republicanism and adopt a variety of.