Suchergebnisse

Details conservative philosopher Jaffa's criticisms of the Straussians, of which he is one, specifically, a heterodox or Western Straussian. Discussion opens with Jaffa's confrontation with Eastern Straussians Walter Berns & Thomas Pangle, & considers whether the disagreement between Jaffa & other Straussians amounts to more than a difference of emphasis. At issue is Jaffa's perspective on the tensions between philosophy & politics, which is manifest in how the Straussians understood America, ie, equated here to the city that the philosopher must defend. In the context of exploring how the political or pious is consonant with philosophy, Jaffa's linking of faith to philosophy is addressed in terms of the fundamental debate between reason & revelation. That Jaffa finds agreement between the two is seen as political in nature, & he contends that Strauss saw reason & revelation as united against the atheism & nihilism of modern philosophy & science. Attention turns to Jaffa's embrace of the American Founders' Lockean liberalism, highlighting his interpretation of the natural right of the Declaration & defending the latter against charges that this is practically insufficient or theoretically inconsistent with Leo Strauss's view. 54 References. J. Zendejas

Since the New Deal, the American presidency has been the focal point of demands made upon the central government by all segments of society. Franklin Roosevelt's successors have found themselves in the difficult position of living up to his progressive example. They have found it difficult to serve the multitude of interests in American society through a government naturally bound by a scarcity of resources. As a result, according to some scholars, a successful presidency is now less likely. Contemporary presidents, however, have shown themselves to be unable or unwilling to confront directly the transformation of the presidency effected by FDR. In this article, I investigate the nature of that transformation by comparing the presidencies of Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln. Through this comparison, we see the distinctiveness of what I call the "Caesarean" leadership style adopted by Roosevelt and advocated by his progressive forebears.

THE PROGRESSIVE CRITIQUE OF AMERICAN LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS RESTS UPON A VIEW OF EXECUTIVE POWER DIFFERENT FROM THAT TO THE FOUNDERS. THIS NEW EXECUTIVE POWER IS UNDERSTOOD IN THE LIGHT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDIVIDUALITY IN THE MODERN DEMOCRATIC STATE. WOODROW WILSON'S THEORY OF PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP FOLLOWS FROM THIS VIEW, WITH THE EXECUTIVE'S ROLE UNDERSTOOD AS THE EMBODIMENT OF THE NATIONAL WILL AND AS HEAD OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE NECESSARY TO ANSWER THE DEMANDS OF A NEW OPEN-ENDED INDIVIDUALITY.

Introduction -- Part 1. Nationalism, Republicanism and the first parties -- Immigration, expansion and the mass parties -- Slavery, labor and the new immigration -- Part 2. Parties, progress and closing the open door -- The rise and fall of the New Deal -- Ideological parties and the return of mass immigration -- Multiculturalism and Nationalism: Obama and Trump.

The Progressive Revolution in Politics and Political Science explores the scope, ambition, and effect of the Progressive revolution of a century ago, which relegated the theory and practice of the Founders to an antiquated historical phase. By contrast, our contributors see beyond the horizon of Progressivism to take account of the Founders' moral and political premises and illuminate its effects on our political science and political practice today. It is a study in political philosophy, intellectual history, and current political understanding