Philosopher and Value Handbook

West Coast Philosopher and Value Handbook, Volume 9 Page 1
WEST COAST DEBATE

PHILOSOPHER AND VALUE HANDBOOK VOLUME 9
American Political Philosophy
Edited by Matt Taylor, Jim Hanson, and Brian Simmonds Written and Researched by Audrey Mink, Brian Ward, Emily Cordo, Jeff Shaw, Keola Whittaker, Matt Stannard, Sarah Stone
PHILOSOPHERS JAMES MADISON ALEXANDER HAMILTON RALPH WALDO EMERSON JOHN DEWEY WOODROW WILSON FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT TOM HAYDEN HOWARD ZINN JOSEPH NYE, JR. RALPH NADER LANI GUINIER THEDA SKOCPOL bell hooks PETER SINGER
Visit West Coast Publishing at: www.wcdebate.com
WEST COAST DEBATE

PHILOSOPHER AND VALUE HANDBOOK VOLUME 9
Edited by Brian Simmonds, Matt Taylor, and Jim Hanson Written and Researched by
Audrey Mink, Brian Ward, Emily Cordo, Jeff Shaw, Keola Whittaker, Matt Stannard, and Sarah Stone
About this Handbook The Philosopher and Value Handbook introduces you to arguments, values and philosophers. This volume focuses on American thinkers in philosophy and political theory who will be useful in Lincoln-Douglas value debates. Each chapter begins with an essay explaining the life, work, and ideas of each thinker. It concludes with evidence quotations that attack and defend the philosopher's ideas. Using the arguments in this Handbook We encourage you to read the briefs you will use. Highlight (underline) the key lines you will use in the evidence. Cut out our evidence, incorporate your and others research and analysis and make new arguments. File the materials so that you can easily retrieve them for debate rounds. Practice reading the evidence outloud. Practice applying the arguments to your opponents positions. Practice defending your arguments in rebuttal speeches. Use West Coast Handbooks as a Beginning We hope you enjoy our handbook and find it useful. In saying this, we want to make a strong statement that we make when we coach and that we believe is vitally important to your success: DO NOT USE THIS HANDBOOK AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR YOUR OWN RESEARCH. Instead, let it serve as a beginning. Let it inform you of important arguments, of how to tag and organize your arguments, and to offer citations for further research. Dont stagnate in briefs--build upon them by doing your own research. Use the essays to brainstorm research areas and use the evidence and bibliographies as a starting point for your exploration. In doing so, youll use our handbook to become a better debater. Photocopying West Coast Handbooks Our policy gives you the freedom to use the handbook for educational purposes without violating the hard work that we put into the handbook. You can photocopy this handbook under the following circumstances: 1. You can make multiple copies of up to five pages of each West Coast handbook for a class handout. 2. You can make multiple copies of briefs that include evidence from this handbook as long as these photocopied briefs are significantly different from the ones in this handbook and include a significant number of pieces of evidence from sources other than a West Coast handbook. You may not electronically share or distribute this handbook with anyone other than those on your team. For other situations, you can also e-mail us at wcdebate@aol.com and seek our consent.
ORDER WEST COAST HANDBOOKS 1. E-mail us at wcdebate@aol.com 2. Visit the West Coast Web Page at www.wcdebate.com
You can also use the Order Form on the last page of this handbook; call us at 888-255-9133; fax us at 877781-5058; or write to West Coast Publishing; PO Box 8066; Fountain Valley CA 92728-8066 Copyright 2002 (minor update, 2003). West Coast Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Visit our web page!
TABLE OF CONTENTS
JAMES MADISON ................................................................................................................................. 5 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................... 10 MADISONS IDEA OF A FEDERAL REPUBLIC MAKES FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE ..................... 11 FEDERALISM IS KEY TO STABLE AND PROSPEROUS GOVERNMENT ........................................ 12 MADISONIAN FEDERALISM IS JUST AN EXCUSE TO CURB REAL DEMOCRACY ...................... 13 MADISON WAS AN ELITIST WHOSE THEORIES FAVORED ONLY RICH LANDOWNERS .......... 14 ALEXANDER HAMILTON................................................................................................................. 15 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................... 19 FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENTS ARE NEEDED ................ 20 HAMILTONS ECONOMIC IDEAS WERE GOOD................................................................................ 21 HAMILTON WAS OPPOSED TO DEMOCRACY.................................................................................. 22 HAMILTON WAS AN ECONOMIC ELITIST ........................................................................................ 23 THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS ................................................................................................................. 24 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................... 29 THE ANTI-FEDERALIST VISION OF SMALLER GOVERNMENT IS SUPERIOR.............................. 30 ANTI-FEDERALISM GIVES RIGHTS AND PREVENTS DISCRIMINATION...................................... 31 AN ANTI-FEDERALIST GOVERNMENT WOULD BE UNSAFE AND INEFFECTIVE....................... 32 FEDERALIST THEORY PROTECTS INDIVIDUAL AND MINORITY RIGHTS .................................. 33 RALPH WALDO EMERSON .............................................................................................................. 34 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................... 39 BEAUTY IS THE HIGHEST VALUE ..................................................................................................... 40 POWER IS DERIVED FROM VIRTUOUS BEHAVIOR......................................................................... 40 MORALITY IS INNATE AND TRANSCENDENT................................................................................. 41 CIVIL LAWS MUST BE A REFLECTION OF TRUE, TRANSCENDENT JUSTICE ............................. 41 EMERSONS PHILOSOPHY LEGITIMIZES RUTHLESS POWER AND COMPETITION.................... 42 EMERSONS PHILOSOPHY IS IRRELEVANT TO EVERYDAY AND POLITICAL LIFE ................... 43 JOHN DEWEY ..................................................................................................................................... 44 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................... 49 TRUTH IS PROGRESSIVE AND EVOLVING ....................................................................................... 50 THERE ARE NO TRANSCENDENT MORAL TRUTHS ........................................................................ 51 DEWEYS PHILOSOPHY IS GENERALLY REMOVED FROM REALITY .......................................... 52 DEWEYS JUSTIFICATIONS FOR DEMOCRACY ARE FLAWED ...................................................... 53 DEWEYS POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IGNORES HUMAN NATURE AND HISTORY ....................... 53 WOODROW WILSON......................................................................................................................... 54 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................... 59 WILSON PROMOTED PROGRESSIVE SOCIAL AGENDAS................................................................ 60 WILSONIAN THOUGHT HELPED CREATE INTERNATIONAL PEACE............................................ 61 WILSON SUPPORTED AMERICAN COLONIALISM AND IMPERIALISM ........................................ 62 WILSONS SOCIAL IDEAS WERENT NOT PROGRESSIVE, BUT REPRESSIVE ............................. 63 FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT .................................................................................................................. 64 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................... 68 FDRS ECONOMIC LEGACY IS CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT .............................................................. 69 FDRS OVERSEAS POLICY WAS EXCELLENT .................................................................................. 70 THE NEW DEAL WAS BAD FOR THE ECONOMY, PROLONGING THE DEPRESSION .................. 71 FDRS ECONOMIC POLICIES WERE NOT TRULY EFFECTIVE ........................................................ 72 TOM HAYDEN..................................................................................................................................... 73 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................... 77 THE 1960s ACTIVISM OF SDS AND HAYDEN WAS POSITIVE......................................................... 78 HAYDENS CRITICS ARE WRONG THE 60s WERENT ABOUT MORAL RELATIVISM .............. 79 HAYDENS POLITICAL AGENDA WAS SECONDARY: HE JUST WANTED TROUBLE ................. 80 HAYDEN SAID HE WANTED PEACE, BUT HE REALLY WANTED VIOLENCE ............................. 81
HOWARD ZINN................................................................................................................................... 82 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................... 87 CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IS JUSTIFIED .................................................................................................. 88 DEMOCRACY DOESNT DELEGITIMIZE CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE .................................................... 89 CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IS UNJUSTIFIED ............................................................................................ 90 NONVIOLENT RESISTANCE FAILS .................................................................................................... 91 JOSEPH NYE, JR. ................................................................................................................................ 92 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................... 96 SOFT POWER AND DEMOCRACY PROMOTION ARE INCREASINGLY KEY ................................. 97 ISOLATION AND CONTAINMENT DONT WORK IN POLICY-MAKING ........................................ 98 NYES NOTION OF SOFT POWER IS WRONG .................................................................................... 99 NYES FOREIGN POLICY THINKING IS FLAWED .......................................................................... 100 RALPH NADER ................................................................................................................................. 101 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................. 106 EGALITARIAN CRITERIA OF JUSTICE IS BEST .............................................................................. 107 GLOBAL FREE TRADE HAS HORRIBLE IMPACTS ......................................................................... 108 NADERS PHILOSOPHY HURTS DEMOCRACY............................................................................... 109 NADERS ANTI-CORPORATE AGENDA IS UNDESIRABLE ........................................................... 110 LANI GUINIER .................................................................................................................................. 111 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................. 116 GUINIERS VIEWS ARENT BAD: THE MEDIA LIES TO US ABOUT THEM ................................. 117 LANI GUINIERS IDEAS ARE GOOD FOR MULTIRACIAL DEMOCRACY .................................... 118 GUINIERS IDEAS WONT HELP SOLVE RACISM OR PROMOTE DEMOCRACY ........................ 119 GUINIERS IDEAS WILL NOT BE EFFECTIVE ................................................................................. 120 THEDA SKOCPOL ............................................................................................................................ 121 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................. 126 SKOCPOLS THEORY OF THE STATE IS GOOD .............................................................................. 127 SKOCPOL'S UNDERSTANDING OF MATERNALISM SHOULD BE ADOPTED ............................. 128 SKOCPOLS THEORY CANNOT CREATE CHANGE ........................................................................ 129 MATERNALISM IS FLAWED ............................................................................................................. 129 MATERNALISM IS BAD FOR WOMEN ............................................................................................. 130 bell hooks............................................................................................................................................. 131 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................. 135 RACISM PERMEATES US CULTURE ................................................................................................ 136 THE INTERSECTIONAL APPROACH IS BEST .................................................................................. 137 HOOKS' CRITICISM IS INEFFECTIVE ............................................................................................... 138 MULTIDIMENSIONALITY IS SUPERIOR TO INTERSECTIONALITY............................................. 139 PETER SINGER ................................................................................................................................. 140 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................. 145 SPECIESISM IS THE NEW RACISM ................................................................................................... 146 REJECTING THE CRITERIA OF RATIONALITY IS BENEFICIAL ................................................... 147 RATIONALITY IS BEST STANDARD ................................................................................................ 148 THE INCLUSION OF ANIMALS AS WORTHY OF EQUALITY IS BAD ........................................... 149
JAMES MADISON
Every academic field has its schemes of classification, and scholarship on the American founding is no different. As a result, James Madison, like the other leading figures of his generation, is often placed into one or another ideological box. It is said that he is a liberal or a republican, a nationalist or an advocate of states rights, a follower of the "court" party or of its "country" rival. There is no denying the usefulness of these labels, and I have gladly availed myself of them on many occasions. But taxonomies seldom do justice to individuals, and this is especially true when dealing with a thinker of Madisons depth.James Madison was a unique member of the group known as the Founding Fathers. Not easily categorizable, Madison was original thinker given to philosophy. Madison didnt adhere devoutly to the party line of any of the three major factions (Federalist, anti-Federalist, or Democratic-Republican) of the time. Though he was a co-author of THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, he often split with co-author Alexander Hamilton on the issues of the day, showing his freedom from dogmatism. As COMMENTARY MAGAZINEs Gary Rosen put it: Every academic field has its schemes of classification, and scholarship on the American founding is no different. As a result, James Madison, like the other leading figures of his generation, is often placed into one or another ideological box. It is said that he is a liberal or a republican, a nationalist or an advocate of states rights, a follower of the "court" party or of its "country" rival. There is no denying the usefulness of these labels, and I have gladly availed myself of them on many occasions. But taxonomies seldom do justice to individuals, and this is especially true when dealing with a thinker of Madisons depth. Most importantly, though: Madison was the smallest U.S. president, standing 5" 4" and weighing about 100 pounds. Interestingly enough, both of his vice presidents passed on in office, including George Clinton, who died in office in 1812. Reports that Madison and Clinton invented The Funk Bomb to contribute to the national defense are unverified. Seriously, though, Madison was an important figure in the early political life of the country. His idea on the separation of church and state, the avoidance of oppression, and the structure of representative government remain influential. Well begin by examining the manner in which Madison busted onto the nation scene in 1780, and then discuss the ideas he brought to the table. THE LIFE OF MADISON It is with this problem that James Madison enters the picture. Madison was much younger than many of the other founders, one of the youngest, in fact. He stepped onto the political scene in 1780, when he served on the Virginia delegation in the Continental Congress. When the Articles of Confederation began to fail, Madison wondered how a more effective national government might take shape. The problem as he saw it was too great a regional identification, which he identified in THE FEDERALIST PAPERS as factionalism. Without a predominant concern for the nation as a whole, as opposed to a myopic concern for individual states and localities, Madison feared no effective national government could be formed. A Constitutional Convention was necessary but not for the reasons you might suspect, reasons of enlightened men crafting a document in the best interests of all. No, Madison scholars agree today what Madison and the boys wanted to do was (in Rosens words) to circumvent the people, even if just temporarily. Indeed, Madison eventually concluded that constitutional conventions were a necessary device for allowing those like himself--those whom he called 'the most enlightened and influential patriots'--to escape from the hold of democratic institutions." The example to follow, he suggests in Federalist 38, was that of ancient lawgivers like Solon and Lycurgus, men of "preeminent wisdom and approved integrity" who nonetheless were compelled to act outside the bounds of regular authority.

Paradoxical as it may sound, Madison seems to have concluded that America would get a sound, republican Constitution only by means of an aristocratic coup of sorts writes Rosen a charge that Madisons critics then and now would jump all over. Lets not belabor the point. Lets just say it worked and move on. Well examine the criticisms of Madison below. MADISON ON THE POLITICAL SYSTEM As an author of THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, Madison is famous for his advocacy of a federal system with checks and balances to provide stability and satisfy most all interest groups. As a philosophically inclined individual, he had ideas about what the ideal state would look like. As a skillful politician, he was able to get what he wanted for that state. Madison is famous for having sought to avoid "the tyranny of the majority." He did so through placing both substantive and procedural limits on democratic majority rule of the country. This includes the existence of the electoral college and the bicameral legislature system, where the House of Representatives is thought to represent the masses and the Senate the landed elite. While he was hardly alone in this viewpoint Hamilton was another who worried about the majority of people rallying against the few who were elected to govern them Madison put the most effort into thinking about the philosophical implications. Madison's theory of representative democracy appealed to "the principle of reciprocity as a means of dealing with the unwashed heathen masses pillaging the rich. (Sorry, getting ahead of myself but I couldnt help it.) What does the principle of reciprocity say? Lets get into that when we discuss the notion of majority tyranny itself before getting into what Madison thought that this condition might cause. MADISON ON THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY Madison worried about the overarching power of a powerful mass of people, especially if that mass had coincident interests. The idea is that they might use their power to stifle the rights of others. In organizing a republican democracy, one must take care to build in safeguards against this. The safeguards are based on what Madison termed the principle of reciprocity. Reciprocity is the notion that what one group does to another is reciprocal what goes around comes around. What might that mean? Well, the majority is inherently self-interested. People will vote to actualize their own wants, needs and desires. This might cause problems where the majority runs roughshod over the rights of the minority hence, Tyranny of the Majority. But heres where Madisons principle of reciprocity comes in: the majority might be self-interested, but they arent blind. The majority voting bloc is probably not going to be together in unanimity until the end of time. Thus, the self-interested majority worries that the minority may attract defectors from the majority and become the next governing majority itself. Hence, the majority will look to the long-term. Majority group members will worry that the minority may attract defectors from the majority group. Either they will become the next majority, and hence have the power to govern, or will merely have the power to make life miserable for the people who made their lives miserable over the past however many years. This does happen in politics all the time, after all. You often see a good soldier get rewarded with a plum position when his or her party takes power, even though that person is unqualified and unworthy of the job, like John Ashcroft.
So winning candidates dont have to ONLY pay attention to the majority. Theyll be voting on tons of issues (road building bills, organic food labeling laws, minority preference laws) that may either alienate their political support base or attract minority members. The politician always has to be on the lookout just ask Bill Clinton, who betrayed his core constituency with Republican style policies to the tune of sweet re-election. Again, this is part of the logic of the federal system. Power is to be kept as separated as possible among interest groups and even elected officials. If power is temporary and fluid, then the potential for abuse is minimized. Speaking of potential for abuse, a prominent issue in public life then as now was the role of religion. Was the church a positive or a pernicious influence? How best to adapt to its power? The answers to these questions led to the modern notion of two separate spheres for church and state, and Madison had a key role to play in it all. MADISON ON RELIGION Madison had serious doubts about the role religion played in public life. While his father was an Episcopalian, he kept his religious beliefs largely private. In a memorandum entitled "Vices of the Political System" (1787) he express skepticism that religion could prevent oppression under a system of republican governance. Could it "be a sufficient restraint? It is not pretended to be such on men individually considered. Will its effects be greater on them considered in an aggregate view? Quite the reverse." Madison wrote. He consistently repeated these views in speeches of the time, including one given at the Federal Convention on June 6, 1787, where he argued that there was "little to be expected" from religion in a positive way. Indeed, he warned that it might become "a motive to persecution and oppression." In the most famous of THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, Number 10, published November 22, 1787, he wrote "that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals and lose their efficiency in proportion to the number combined together." Even Jefferson, who warned of the deadly nature of a priest-ridden culture, wasnt as pessimistic about the social utility of the church. This helps to explain his support for what we today call the separation of church and state. In fact, he believed that separating the two institutions served religion best as well. The church, Madison reasoned, did best when it was unencumbered from the mandates of a state apparatus. This viewpoint manifested itself in 1784-85, as Madison consistently rejected tax support for religious institutions. He wrote in a pamphlet called MEMORIAL AND REMONSTRANCE a defense of these decisions. The document, written in June 1785, is celebrated by Madisons acolytes as "the most powerful defense of religious liberty ever written in America." The debate raged on, with Jefferson and Madison on one side (though they split on many other issues, with Jefferson considering Madison an aristocrat) and men like Patrick Henry and his supporters on the other. The struggle continues to this day. CRITICS OF MADISON People who criticize Madison (and generally Hamilton) do so on one basis: that he was an elitist who was interested in preserving the rights of wealthy white landowners and not much of anybody else. Their charges have serious merit. Even Madisons own words at the time provide a pretty damning indictment. Knowing that most Americans didnt support granting the delegates to the Constitutional Convention the power to make a new government, he had this to say:

We ought to consider what [is] right & necessary in itself for the attainment of a proper Government. A plan adjusted to this idea will recommend itself. . . . All the most enlightened and respectable citizens will be its advocates. Should we fall short of the necessary and proper point, this influential class of citizens will be turned against the plan, and little support in opposition to them can be gained to it from the unreflecting multitude. This "unreflecting multitude was, in Madisons view, the mass of American people. When Madison said tyranny of the majority, he meant that the majority of Americans (still rural farmers, not particularly wealthy) might gang up and plunder the rich. Madison wanted to deliver power into the hands of a better sort of people the rich, the powerful, the people Jefferson feared and mistrusted. Perhaps the defining quotation from this period and this viewpoint comes from John Jay, the third author of THE FEDERALIST PAPERS: the people who own the country ought to govern it. Jefferson was a staunch critic of this viewpoint, and attacked both Madison and Hamilton for it. Jeffersons first principles included the idea that government was only just with the consent of the governed, and that bypassing that consent was unjust. Jefferson wrote a letter to Madison in 1789 as Jefferson was preparing to return to the United States after four years as ambassador to France. Jefferson asked his colleague "Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another?" He concluded, having witnessed the first events of the French Revolution, that "no such obligation can be so transmitted." Jefferson would fight Madison on many policies over which they differed based on these principles, including the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which Jefferson (and every sane person) thought were unconstitutional. Jefferson said that if the federal government was to violate its own laws, the people possessed a "natural right" to reject the acts, which should be declared "void and of no force. Jefferson also battled with Madison and Hamilton over the implied powers doctrine, which John Marshalls Supreme Court seemed destined to enforce. Jefferson believed that the federal government ought only have the powers expressly granted by the people, while this doctrine effectively gave the governing bodies power to do whatever they thought was best. Madison replies? In order to promote stability of government, the people must not be allowed or required to challenge every decision made by the better class of men ruling them. His final shot at Jefferson, and the summation of his argument, is contained in FEDERALIST PAPER NUMBER 49: As every appeal to the people would carry an implication of some defect in the government, frequent appeals would in great measure deprive the government of that veneration, which time bestows on everything, and without which perhaps the wisest and freest governments would not possess the requisite stability. If it be true that all governments rest on opinion, it is no less true that the strength of opinion in each individual, and its practical influence on his conduct, depend much on the number which he supposes to have entertained the same opinion. The reason of man, like man himself is timid and cautious, when left alone; and acquires firmness and confidence, in proportion to the number with which it is associated. When the examples, which fortify opinion, are antient as well as numerous, they are known to have a double effect. In a nation of philosophers, this consideration ought to be disregarded. A reverence for the laws, would be sufficiently inculcated by the voice of an enlightened reason. But a nation of philosophers is as little to be expected as the philosophical race of kings wished for by Plato. And in every other nation, the most rational government will not find it a superfluous advantage, to have the prejudices of the community on its side. In order to stay away from factionalism and prevent the people from losing faith in government, Madison reasoned, the government must continue to go about its business as usual. IN CONCLUSION

James Madison should be known for a lot more than being a short guy who had a wife named Dolley. The youngest of the founding fathers, he had more influence than most any of them even Jefferson, whose populist ideas lost out in the long run to Madisons aristocratic notions. His FEDERALIST PAPERS are the most philosophical, the most based in a sense of ethics, and the most passionately argued. Even if you disagree with their ultimate conclusions, theyre worth checking out.We ought to consider what [is] right & necessary in itself for the attainment of a proper Government. A plan adjusted to this idea will recommend itself. . . . All the most enlightened and respectable citizens will be its advocates. Should we fall short of the necessary and proper point, this influential class of citizens will be turned against the plan, and little support in opposition to them can be gained to it from the unreflecting multitude. As every appeal to the people would carry an implication of some defect in the government, frequent appeals would in great measure deprive the government of that veneration, which time bestows on everything, and without which perhaps the wisest and freest governments would not possess the requisite stability. If it be true that all governments rest on opinion, it is no less true that the strength of opinion in each individual, and its practical influence on his conduct, depend much on the number which he supposes to have entertained the same opinion. The reason of man, like man himself is timid and cautious, when left alone; and acquires firmness and confidence, in proportion to the number with which it is associated. When the examples, which fortify opinion, are antient as well as numerous, they are known to have a double effect. In a nation of philosophers, this consideration ought to be disregarded. A reverence for the laws, would be sufficiently inculcated by the voice of an enlightened reason. But a nation of philosophers is as little to be expected as the philosophical race of kings wished for by Plato. And in every other nation, the most rational government will not find it a superfluous advantage, to have the prejudices of the community on its side.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Banning, Lance. University of Kentucky, James Madison: Federalist, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS JAMES MADISON COMMEMORATION SYMPOSIUM, March 16, 2001, http://www.loc.gov/loc/madison/symposium.html and http://www.loc.gov/loc/madison/banning-paper.html. Banning, Lancej. THE SACRED FIRE OF LIBERTY: JAMES MADISON AND THE CREATION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC, 1780-l792: Ithaca, N.Y., 1995. Beard, Charles historian, FRAMING THE CONSTITUTION, 1912. Brant, Irving. THE LIFE OF JAMES MADISON: Indianapolis, 1941-61. Chomsky, Noam. Professor of Linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Z MAGAZINE, June 1997. Hutson, James. Library of Congress, "James Madison and the Social Utility of Religion: Risks vs. Rewards," LIBRARY OF CONGRESS JAMES MADISON COMMEMORATION SYMPOSIUM, March 16, 2001, http://www.loc.gov/loc/madison/symposium.html and http://www.loc.gov/loc/madison/hutson-paper.html. Madison, James, under the name Publius, FEDERALIST PAPER No. 10, November 22, 1787, http://federalistpapers.com/federalist10.html. All of Madisons FEDERALIST PAPERS are available at http://federalistpapers.com. Mattern, David. James Madison's "Advice to My Country" (Charlottesville, Va., 1997). Matthews, Richard K. IF MEN WERE ANGELS: JAMES MADISON AND THE HEARTLESS EMPIRE OF REASON: Lawrence, Kans., 1995. Meyers, Marvin, ed., THE MIND OF THE FOUNDER: SOURCES OF THE POLITICAL THOUGHT OF JAMES MADISON, Hanover, N.H., 1981. Rosen, Gary. COMMENTARY MAGAZINE, Was James Madison an Original Thinker? LIBRARY OF CONGRESS JAMES MADISON COMMEMORATION SYMPOSIUM, March 16, 2001, http://www.loc.gov/loc/madison/symposium.html and http://www.loc.gov/loc/madison/hutson-paper.html and http://www.loc.gov/loc/madison/rosen-paper.html. Samples, John. director of the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute, CATO DAILY COMMENTARY, November 15, 2000, http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-15-00.html, accessed April 22, 2002. Smith, James Morton, ed., THE REPUBLIC OF LETTERS: THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN JEFFERSON AND MADISON, 1776-1826: New York, 1995.

MADISONS IDEA OF A FEDERAL REPUBLIC MAKES FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE 1. MADISONS IDEA OF A FEDERAL REPUBLIC IS THE BEST GOVERNMENTAL POLICY John Samples, director of the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute, CATO DAILY COMMENTARY, November 15, 2000, p. np, http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-15-00.html, accessed April 22, 2002. However the election turns out, proponents of pure democracy will call for the abolition of the Electoral College. Washington's newest celebrity, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, is the latest convert to this cause. Some will say Ms. Clinton opposes the Electoral College only because Al Gore might lose the presidency despite getting a plurality of the popular vote. I give Ms. Clinton more credit than that. Her opposition to the Electoral College is entirely in step with her underlying philosophy of government: centralizing liberalism. But that philosophy contravenes the spirit of our Constitution as expressed by its primary author, James Madison. We should stick with Madison's idea of a federal republic and preserve the Electoral College. 2. A FEDERAL REPUBLIC CONTROLS FACTIONALISM AND VIOLENCE James Madison, FEDERALIST PAPER No. 10, November 22, 1787, p. np, http://federalistpapers.com/federalist10.html, accessed April 22, 2002. Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations. By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. 3. THE FEDERAL WILL IS MANIFESTED BY THE AMERICAN ELECTORAL COLLEGE John Samples, director of the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute, CATO DAILY COMMENTARY, November 15, 2000, http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-15-00.html, accessed April 22, 2002. What about the Electoral College? Madison thought it embodied the "federal will" of the nation. By that he meant that the Electoral College included both the will of the nation as expressed in the popular vote and the will of the states in a federal system (every state large or small gets two electors). As Madison knew, this amalgamation gave small and medium-sized states more leverage in presidential elections than they would have in a popular vote. He found that fair given the influence of large states in other areas.

FEDERALISM IS KEY TO STABLE AND PROSPEROUS GOVERNMENT 1. MADISONIAN FEDERALISM SOLVES FOR BETTER DEMOCRACY John Samples, director of the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute, CATO DAILY COMMENTARY, November 15, 2000, p. np, http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-15-00.html, accessed April 22, 2002. Madison's point about federalism is also well taken. The Founders feared the arbitrary exercise of political power, and they hoped strong states would limit an expansive central government. If we abolish the Electoral College, we will make it harder for the states to provide this essential defense of liberty. And we will do so just as bold policy successes in the states have shown the value of these "laboratories of democracy." 2. BECAUSE THE ENLIGHTENED WONT ALWAYS RULE, FEDERALISM IS BEST James Madison, FEDERALIST PAPER No. 10, November 22, 1787, p. np, http://federalistpapers.com/federalist10.html, accessed April 22, 2002. It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole. The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS. 3. PURE DEMOCRACY WOULD BE DIVISIVE AND FRACTIOUS: FEDERALISM IS BETTER James Madison, FEDERALIST PAPER No. 10, November 22, 1787, p. np, http://federalistpapers.com/federalist10.html, accessed April 22, 2002. From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. 4. A FEDERAL REPUBLIC IS MUCH BETTER THAN A DEMOCRACY James Madison, FEDERALIST PAPER No. 10, November 22, 1787, p. np, http://federalistpapers.com/federalist10.html, accessed April 22, 2002. Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage. In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.

MADISONIAN FEDERALISM IS JUST AN EXCUSE TO CURB REAL DEMOCRACY 1. MADISON WANTED ARISTOCRACY, NOT DEMOCRACY Charles Beard, historian, FRAMING THE CONSTITUTION, 1912, p. 31. Governor Morris wanted to check the "precipitancy, changeableness, and excess" of the representatives of the people by the ability and virtue of men" of great and established property -- aristocracy; men who from pride will support consistency and permanency...Such an aristocratic body will keep down the turbulence of democracy." While these extreme doctrines were somewhat counterbalanced by the democratic principles of Mr. Wilson, who urged that "the government ought to possess, not only first, the force, but second, the mind or sense of the people at large," Madison doubtless summed up in a brief sentence the general opinion of the convention when he said that to secure private rights against minority factions, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and form of popular government, was the great object to which their inquiries had been directed. 2. MADISONS VIEW PROTECTED PROPERTY, NOT PEOPLE Charles Beard, historian, FRAMING THE CONSTITUTION, 1912, p. 31. They were anxious above everything else to safeguard the rights of private property against any leveling tendencies on the part of the propertyless masses. Governor Morris, in speaking on the problem of apportioning representatives, correctly stated the sound historical fact when he declared: "Life and liberty were generally said to be of more value than property. An accurate view of the matter, nevertheless, would prove that property was the main object of society...If property, then was the main object of government, certainly it ought to be one measure of the influence due to those who were to be affected by the government." Mr. King also agreed that "property was the primary object of society," and Mr. Madison warned the convention that in framing a system which they wished to last for ages they must not lose sight of the changes which the ages would produce in the forms and distribution of property. In advocating a long term in order to give independence and firmness to the Senate, he described these impending changes: "An increase in the population will of necessity increase the proportion of those who will labor under all the hardships of life and secretly sigh for a more equitable distribution of its blessings. These may in time outnumber those who are placed above the feelings of indigence. According to the equal laws of suffrage, the power will slide into the hands of the former. No agrarian attempts have yet been made in this country, but symptoms of a levelling spirit, as we have understood have sufficiently appeared, in a certain quarter, to give notice of the future danger." And again, in support of the argument for a property qualification on voters, Madison urged: "In future times, a great majority of the people will not only be without land, but without any other sort of property. These will either combine, under the influence of their common situation, -- in which case the rights of property and the public liberty will not be secure in their hands, -- or, what is more probable, they will become the tools of opulence and ambition; in which case there will be equal danger on another side." 3. MADISON ADMITTED FAVORING INEQUALITY Charles Beard, historian, FRAMING THE CONSTITUTION, 1912, p. 31. In the tenth number of The Federalist, Mr. Madison argued in a philosophic vein in support of the proposition that it was necessary to base the political system on the actual conditions of "natural inequality." Uniformity of interests throughout the state, he contended, was impossible on account of the diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originated; the protection of these faculties was the first object of government; from the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately resulted; from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors ensued a division of society into different interests and parties; the unequal distribution of wealth inevitably led to a clash of interests in which the majority was liable to carry out its policies at the expense of the minority; hence, he added, in concluding this splendid piece of logic, "the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered by their number and local situation unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression"; and in his opinion, it was the great merit of the newly framed Constitution that it secured the rights of the minority against "the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."

MADISON WAS AN ELITIST WHOSE THEORIES FAVORED ONLY RICH LANDOWNERS 1. MADISON WANTED TO PROTECT THE RICH MINORITY AGAINST THE MAJORITY Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics at the Massachussets Institute of Technology, Z MAGAZINE, June 1997, p. 8. Furthermore, the leading Framer of the constitutional system was an astute and lucid political thinker, James Madison, whose views largely prevailed. In the debates on the Constitution, Madison pointed out that in England, if elections ``were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place,'' giving land to the landless. The system that he and his associates were designing must prevent such injustice, he urged, and ``secure the permanent interests of the country,'' which are property rights. It is the responsibility of government, Madison declared, ``to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.'' To achieve this goal, political power must rest in the hands of ``the wealth of the nation,'' men who would ``sympathize sufficiently'' with property rights and ``be safe depositories of power over them,'' while the rest are marginalized and fragmented, offered only limited public participation in the political arena. 2. A CONSENSUS OF MADISONIAN SCHOLARS AGREES HE WAS AN ELITIST Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics at the Massachussets Institute of Technology, Z MAGAZINE, June 1997, p. 8. Among Madisonian scholars, there is a consensus that ``The Constitution was intrinsically an aristocratic document designed to check the democratic tendencies of the period,'' delivering power to a ``better sort'' of people and excluding ``those who were not rich, well born, or prominent from exercising political power.'' These conclusions are often qualified by the observation that Madison, and the constitutional system generally, sought to balance the rights of persons against the rights of property. But the formulation is misleading. Property has no rights. In both principle and practice, the phrase ``rights of property'' means the right to property, typically material property, a personal right which must be privileged above all others, and is crucially different from others in that one person's possession of such rights deprives another of them. When the facts are stated clearly, we can appreciate the force of the doctrine that ``the people who own the country ought to govern it,'' ``one of [the] favorite maxims'' of Madison's influential colleague John Jay, his biographer observes. 3. CAPITALISM HAS SIGNIFICANTLY ALTERED THE WAY WE SHOULD SEE MADISON Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics at the Massachussets Institute of Technology, Z MAGAZINE, June 1997, p. 8. One may argue, as some historians do, that these principles lost their force as the national territory was conquered and settled, the native population driven out or exterminated. Whatever one's assessment of those years, by the late 19th century the founding doctrines took on a new and much more oppressive form. When Madison spoke of ``rights of persons,'' he meant humans. But the growth of the industrial economy, and the rise of corporate forms of economic enterprise, led to a completely new meaning of the term. In a current official document, ```Person' is broadly defined to include any individual, branch, partnership, associated group, association, estate, trust, corporation or other organization (whether or not organized under the laws of any State), or any government entity,'' a concept that doubtless would have shocked Madison and others with intellectual roots in the Enlightenment and classical liberalism -- pre-capitalist, and anti-capitalist in spirit.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON
Alexander Hamilton is probably best known as one of the authors of THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, an influential series of pamphlets arguing for a federal constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation. Either that, or the fact that he was killed by political rival Aaron Burr in a duel. Either way, he was an influential figure in the early days of this country who is too often overlooked today. THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, which Hamilton published (along with John Jay and James Madison) under the name Publius, were extremely important during the early days of the United States. In those papers, Hamilton first began to press the ideas that became extremely important in the formulation of the union he believed in a strong central government and a strong national bank, opinions that broke strongly from one notable politician of the era Thomas Jefferson, an anti-federalist who would scrap mightily over those issues with Hamilton throughout their lives. But of all the political ideas and economic philosophy that Hamilton offered to the world, he also offered a life of tragedy, rebuke and scandal. Much of this is forgotten today. Lets start the process of remembrance with an exploration of his life, then his ideas. THE LIFE OF HAMILTON Hamilton started his career with military action during the revolt against British colonialism. He served as a Lieutenant Colonel under George Washington for four years during the Revolutionary War. After Washington died, the leadership of the Federalist Party split between Hamilton and John Adams. After Adams was elected President, Hamilton constantly rebuked him in public, talked to cabinet members in attempts to undermine Adamss policy, and generally made himself a pain. One of those actions was to inflame Hamiltons feud with Aaron Burr as well. Shortly before the presidential election of 1800, Hamilton wrote a scathing letter attacking Adams. Due to Hamiltons inside connections, the letter contained some confidential cabinet information. While Hamilton intended to closely control distribution of his missive, his political rival Aaron Burr secured a copy for himself. Burr then PUBLISHED a copy of it, making it available to the general public, blackening Hamtilons eye and ratcheting up tension between Hamilton and Adams not to mention Hamilton and Burr. Hamilton was politically active throughout his life, famously serving as a delegate at the Constitutional Convention and encouraging the advance of federal power. He was the only delegate from New York to support the ratification of the constitution but he did so vociferously, making one legendary speech where he attacked the states rights ideas of William Paterson. Hamilton cited the British government as the best model for the new government -- an aristocratic, coercive, centralized union that would be a representative republic. This model would have devices that would protect class and property interests. He would hold to this model in large measure for all his life. When the Constitutional Convention was convened, Hamilton signed the new American Constitution for his state. HIS IDEAS Hamilton, as an aristocrat, was vocally against states rights. He saw centralization of authority as necessary to protect essential functions. This is one of many issues that he and Thomas Jefferson would clash on. While Jefferson was not necessarily a states rights proponent in the way we understand these terms today, he did argue that the American government was being divided into a struggle between the aristocrats who fear and mistrust the people and the democrats who trust the people and consider them the most trustworthy repository of the national interest.

As labels of the day went, Jefferson was considered a Democratic-Republican, shortened to Republican. He wanted to protect the working classes against what he saw as the onset of aristocracy and monarchy, the legacy of Britain. Hamilton was the Federalists Federalist. As early as 1776, he suggested the direct collection of federal taxes by federal agents a fairly radical stance in such an anti-tax climate. In 1781 he promoted the idea that a nonexcessive public debt would be a good thing. Because he advocated the constitutional doctrines of liberal construction, "implied powers," and the "general welfare," one could think of him as one of the first big government liberals. These ideas were later codified in the decisions of Supreme Court Justice John Marshall. These doctrines meant that even if a role for the federal government was not explicitly stated, it could be interpreted under on of the more broad clauses of the constitution such as the clause that says its the job of the national government to promote the general welfare. This kind of liberal constructionism is deeply at odds with what is called strict constructionism, which argues that the federal government only gets to do what the constitution EXPLICITLY says it gets to do. Hamiltons interpretation opens up the federal governments role considerably, allowing it to do things that many of the anti-Federalists opposed. They probably would not have agreed to the constitution if they had known some of the things he had in mind. One of Hamiltons lasting legacies is the creation of a national bank. This was also one of the most controversial agendas he advanced. Jefferson, who always mistrusted the financier set (and the federal government), was a vocal opponent of the national bank. Madison (with strict constructionist logic) claimed that the national bank was unconstitutional since the constitution did not explicitly approve such an institution. Even then-President George Washington, Hamiltons staunch ally, opposed the project and intended to veto the bill. Hamilton had to work magic in the form of his now famous Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bank in order to convince his longtime friend. The Opinion sees Hamilton flesh out his view of the implied powers of the constitution. Hamiltons logic: "[the government has] a right to employ all the means requisite, and fairly applicable to the attainment of the ends of such power; and which are not precluded by restrictions & exceptions specified in the constitution; or not immoral, or not contrary to the essential ends of political society." Ironically, Hamiltons basic argument is a qualified version of one used by Madison himself in the Federalist, (no. 44) that "wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it is included." Washington passed the Bank Bill in February of 1791. This is perhaps the most concrete consequence of Hamiltons idea of implied powers. HAMILTONS ECONOMIC IDEAS His economic ideas were no less radical, impressive or important. His REPORT ON MANUFACTURERS (1791) was the first major departure from Adam Smiths WEALTH OF NATIONS (1776). The document argued for a system of protective duties designed to promote the interests of American businessmen and manufacturers. Today, we would call this viewpoint protectionism. Because Hamiltons economic ideas were so influential, they became relatively widespread in the early days of the United States. The Swiss economic historian Paul Bairoch (in his book ECONOMICS AND WORLD HISTORY) has argued that this shows America does not have its roots in so-called free trade, as is often claimed. In fact, he claims, America probably would not have successfully industrialized at all if not for Hamiltonian policies of protective tariffs, duties and other legislation designed to shelter fledgling industries.

Jefferson hated these economic ideas, confronting Washington with a list of 21 objections to Hamiltons proposed policies. Jefferson decried Hamiltons desire to increase the public debt, disputed the geographical distribution of the benefits (Jefferson thought farmers would get screwed, which the urban elite would benefit), and many other things. Perhaps his sternest rebuke to Hamilton came based on Jeffersons moral objections investment speculation. Jefferson considered rich men who used their capital to invest in enterprises not their own (who we might today call venture capitalists) to be the lowest forms of life on earth, saying this behavior nourishes in our citizens vice & idleness instead of industry & morality." Hamiltons ideas seemed to Jefferson to be a lot closer to King George III than to any American thinker, accusing him of engaging in a monarchical conspiracy. Hamiltons response: "It is a strange perversion of ideas, and as novel as it is extraordinary, that men should be deemed corrupt & criminal for becoming proprietors in the funds of their Country." For those of you that dont speak Old Uptight American, heres a translation: yeah, my friends and I are rich. And were just going to get richer as the country grows, so get over it. If some farmers lose out on their land and enterprises so that my friends and I can run the country, thats a price Im willing to pay. There are a lot of Hamiltonians still around in American politics, as should be clear. HAMILTONS OPPRESSIVE IDEAS Hamiltons notion of a strong national government did err on the side of oppression at times. This is best evidenced by his warm support for the final form of the Alien and Sedition Laws of 1798. These acts made illegal the publication of "any false, scandalous and malicious writing." Such publications were made high misdemeanors, punishable by fine and imprisonment. These laws were mostly used to silence dissent. Twenty-five men were arrested and their newspapers forced to shut down as a result of this legislation including Benjamin Franklin's grandson, Benjamin Franklin Bache, editor of the Philadelphia DemocratRepublican Aurora. (When Jefferson was elected, he pardoned all of those convicted, as much due to his belief in free speech as to his desire to stick his thumb in Hamiltons eye.) Hamilton constantly disputed Jeffersons claim that the general public should control government. "Men," he said, "are reasoning rather than reasonable animals." He referred (in his last letter on politics) to democracy as a disease, saying that "a clear sacrifice of great positive advantages, without any counterbalancing good; administering no relief to our real disease, which is democracy, the poison of which, by a subdivision, will only be more concentrated in each part, and consequently the more virulent." This shows his opinion of the average American, compared to Jeffersons continued desire to trust the public. Even sometime allies recognized the elitist tendency in Hamilton. Perhaps the most balanced view came from Madison, his customary colleague. Madisons final assessment of Hamilton was written in 1831: "That he possessed intellectual powers of the first order, and the moral qualities of integrity and honor in a captivating degree, has been awarded him by a suffrage now universal. If his theory of government deviated from the republican standard he had the candour to avow it, and the greater merit of co-operating faithfully in maturing and supporting a system which was not his choice." Again, the translation from Old Uptight American: Hamilton preferred a more robust, more centralized government. At least he admitted it and didn't overtly destabilize the government. I know he was smart, and everyone else knew it too. His morals -- well, at least he had SOME integrity and honor about him. Allegedly. More on that in our final section. DENOUMENT We know about the scandal that ended up killing Hamilton. Aaron Burr had been a political rival of Hamiltons since at least 1777, when Burr sent a contemptuous letter to Washington about Hamilton, then his closest aide. That culminated in the elections season of 1804, where Hamilton repeatedly ripped Burr in public speeches.

But he crossed the line when he said (at an event attended by a Burr supporter, and by the press), that though he held "despicable" opinions of Burr, he had more dirt on him that he wouldnt dish just yet. A journalist reported to the country that Hamilton "could detail . . . a still more despicable opinion" of Burr. And, in Sports Center parlance, it was on. Burr challenged Hamilton to a duel and killed him. Some Hamilton apologists insist that, though he showed up to the duel and took a pistol, he did not intend to fire at Burr. But the Burr scandal wasnt the only hot water Hamilton found himself embroiled in. It wasnt even the juiciest. That happened in 1792, when Hamilton headed up the Treasury Department. Three congressmen -- James Monroe, Abraham Venable, and Frederick Muhlenberg thought they had found evidence that Hamilton was misappropriating government funds. James Reynolds, a shady character currently in jail, was bragging that Hamilton had given him money out of the treasury to play the stock market. Reynolds had evidence, too. That money had changed hands. Monroe et. al. went to Hamilton's office to confront him. Thats when it got weird. Hamilton admitted he had given James Reynolds money -- but he said it was his own money, not the government's. And the money wasnt for speculation (though that is apparently how Reynolds used it proving Jeffersons maxim about the moral character of speculators), but a BRIBE. Hamilton was having an affair Hamilton with Reynolds' wife, Maria. When Reynolds found out he demanded satisfaction - money. It gets better. Reynolds said that Hamilton could continue the affair so long as the money kept coming. As historian Lisa Marie de Carolis noted, Mr. Reynolds was a clever pimp who was now harboring some very destructive information on one of the highest officials in the country. Amazingly, the three congressmen were satisfied by Hamiltons explanation, and agreed to keep it quiet. They apparently did, until July 1797, when a pamphlet was published with the allegations. At that point, the public could be kept in the dark no longer. CONCLUSION When you learn about the so-called Founding Fathers in school, you get the impression that they were these morally upstanding men of a bygone era where honor was protected at all costs. As I hope this essay makes clear, it just aint so and its somewhat comforting that the politicians of days past were just as sleazy, greedy, and sexually predatory as the ones we see today. One could make a strong case for Hamilton as the Bill Clinton of his day: both were extremely intelligent, motivated, natural politicians; Hamilton was technically born illegitimate, while Clinton was the child of a single mother; both saw their records tarnished by stunning sex scandals; and while Clinton merely threatened to bash William Safire in the nose, Hamilton actually followed through with physical violence against a political rival. Hamiltons note to his wife, written directly before the duel with Burr, is the final record from his life: "If it had been possible for me to have avoided the interview, my love for you and my precious children would have been alone a decisive motive. But it was not possible, without sacrifices which would have rendered me unworthy of your esteem. ...Adieu best of wives and best of Women." No word on whether he penned a similar missive to James Reynolds wife.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Beard, Charles. historian, FRAMING THE CONSTITUTION, 1912. Brookhiser, Richard. senior editor, NATIONAL REVIEW, ALEXANDER HAMILTON, AMERICAN, New York: The Free Press, 1999. de Carolis, Lisa Marie, Department of Alfa-informatica, University of Groningen, A Biography of Alexander Hamilton, 1997, http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/B/hamilton/hamil00.htm, accessed May 1,2002. Chomsky, Noam. Professor of Linguistics at the Massachussets Institute of Technology, Mellon Lecture, Loyola University, Chicago, October 19, 1994 http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/talks/9410-education.html, accessed April 29, 2002. Chomsky, Noam. Professor of Linguistics at the Massachussets Institute of Technology, Z MAGAZINE, January 1995, p. 13. Cooke, Jacob E. ed., THE REPORTS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, New York: Harper & Row, 1964. Cooke, Jacob E. ALEXANDER HAMILTON, New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1982. Elkins, Stanley and Eric McKitrick, THE AGE OF FEDERALISM, New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Frisch, Morton J. ALEXANDER HAMILTON AND THE POLITICAL ORDER, Lanham/New York/London: University Press of America, 1991. Frisch, Morton J. ed. SELECTED WRITINGS AND SPEECHES OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, Washington/London: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1985. Miller, John C. ALEXANDER HAMILTON: PORTRAIT IN PARADOX, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959. Stourzh, Gerald. ALEXANDER HAMILTON AND THE IDEA OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1970. Syrett, Harold C. ed., THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1961--79.

FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENTS ARE NEEDED 1. STRONG NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS ARE NEEDED BECAUSE HUMANS ARE VINDICTIVE Alexander Hamilton, FEDERALIST PAPER # 6, For the Independent Journal, November 14, 1787, p. np, http://federalistpapers.com/federalist6.html, accessed May 2, 2002. A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages. 2. BECAUSE THE WORLD ISNT PERFECT, WE NEED A STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT Alexander Hamilton, FEDERALIST PAPER # 6, For the Independent Journal, November 14, 1787, p. np, http://federalistpapers.com/federalist6.html, accessed May 2, 2002. From this summary of what has taken place in other countries, whose situations have borne the nearest resemblance to our own, what reason can we have to confide in those reveries which would seduce us into an expectation of peace and cordiality between the members of the present confederacy, in a state of separation? Have we not already seen enough of the fallacy and extravagance of those idle theories which have amused us with promises of an exemption from the imperfections, weaknesses and evils incident to society in every shape? 3. UNION IS THE ANTIDOTE TO HOSTILITY BETWEEN NATIONS Alexander Hamilton, FEDERALIST PAPER # 6, For the Independent Journal, November 14, 1787, p. np, http://federalistpapers.com/federalist6.html, accessed May 2, 2002. So far is the general sense of mankind from corresponding with the tenets of those who endeavor to lull asleep our apprehensions of discord and hostility between the States, in the event of disunion, that it has from long observation of the progress of society become a sort of axiom in politics, that vicinity or nearness of situation, constitutes nations natural enemies. An intelligent writer expresses himself on this subject to this effect: "NEIGHBORING NATIONS (says he) are naturally enemies of each other unless their common weakness forces them to league in a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC, and their constitution prevents the differences that neighborhood occasions, extinguishing that secret jealousy which disposes all states to aggrandize themselves at the expense of their neighbors." 4. TERRITORIAL DISPUTES CAUSE STRIFE: STRONG NATIONAL GOVERNMENT IS NEEDED Alexander Hamilton, FEDERALIST PAPER # 7, For the Independent Journal, November 15, 1787, http://federalistpapers.com/federalist7.html, accessed May 2, 2002. Territorial disputes have at all times been found one of the most fertile sources of hostility among nations. Perhaps the greatest proportion of wars that have desolated the earth have sprung from this origin. This cause would exist among us in full force. We have a vast tract of unsettled territory within the boundaries of the United States. There still are discordant and undecided claims between several of them, and the dissolution of the Union would lay a foundation for similar claims between them all. It is well known that they have heretofore had serious and animated discussion concerning the rights to the lands which were ungranted at the time of the Revolution, and which usually went under the name of crown lands. The States within the limits of whose colonial governments they were comprised have claimed them as their property, the others have contended that the rights of the crown in this article devolved upon the Union; especially as to all that part of the Western territory which, either by actual possession, or through the submission of the Indian proprietors, was subjected to the jurisdiction of the king of Great Britain, till it was relinquished in the treaty of peace. This, it has been said, was at all events an acquisition to the Confederacy by compact with a foreign power. It has been the prudent policy of Congress to appease this controversy, by prevailing upon the States to make cessions to the United States for the benefit of the whole. This has been so far accomplished as, under a continuation of the Union, to afford a decided prospect of an amicable termination of the dispute. A dismemberment of the Confederacy, however, would revive this dispute, and would create others on the same subject.

HAMILTONS ECONOMIC IDEAS WERE GOOD 1. HAMILTON BELIEVED IN EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY, NOT FORCED EQUITY David Upham, Department of Politics, University of Dallas, "The Primacy of Property Rights and the American Founding," Independent Institute Website, 1997, p. np, http://www.independent.org/tii/students/GarveyEssay97Upham.html, accessed May 1, 2002. The Founders attachment to economic freedom was in no way, in their understanding, opposed to the principle of equality. As Lincoln repeatedly emphasized, the equality proclaimed in the Declaration is not an equality in all respects. The "authors of that notable instrument...did not mean to say all were equal in...intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctiveness, in what respects they did considered all men created equalequal in certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This they said and this meant." Moreover, not only did the Founders understanding of equality not include all kinds of equality (such as the equality of economic condition championed by the Progressives), their conception of human equality necessarily excluded equality of condition. They believed that everyone had an equal right to exercise his individual abilities to acquire property, abilities which were by nature unequal, and that the equal right to employ unequal talents would necessarily lead to economic inequality. As Alexander Hamilton stated in the constitutional convention: "It is certainly true that nothing like an equality of property existed: that an inequality would exist as long as liberty existed, and that it would unavoidably result from that very liberty itself." 2. HAMILTONS SUPPORT OF THE WEALTHY DIDNT INTEND TO CREATE ARISTOCRACY Lisa Marie de Carolis, Department of Alfa-informatica, University of Groningen, A Biography of Alexander Hamilton, 1997, http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/B/hamilton/hamil00.htm, accessed May 1,2002. This was Hamilton's most controversial position about which he was quite frank, and which would incite fierce protest on the part of those who feared that Hamilton aimed to create an aristocracy. Hamilton was, as usual, simply drawing on realities that he felt, although not necessarily equitable, would benefit the nation as a whole in the long run. Securing the support of the wealthy was only a first step in his complete economic picture. The accumulation of wealth was not Hamilton's goal; he wanted to encourage the use of private wealth for beneficial enterprises. Hamilton envisioned a strong economy in which everyone could participate and profit. Landed wealth, represented by the Virginia opposition, was limiting and limited; whereas paper wealth was fluid, and opened up wider vistas in international trade and domestic industrialization. Industry would diversify labor, thus creating more jobs and income sources for a burgeoning population. Hamilton's vision was dynamic and made use of all the possibilities of a young nation with unlimited resources and boundless potential. 3. HAMILTONS NATIONAL BANK WAS AN ENGINE OF PROSPERITY Lisa Marie de Carolis, Department of Alfa-informatica, University of Groningen, A Biography of Alexander Hamilton, 1997, http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/B/hamilton/hamil00.htm, accessed May 1,2002. The bank proposed by Hamilton would be a national institution run by a private board of directors. Private ownership, Hamilton reasoned, would prevent the corruption which might result if the bank were run by government officials as was the Bank of England. He explained: "The keen, steady, and, as it were, magnetic sense, of their own interest, as proprietors, in the Directors of a Bank, pointing invariably to its true pole, the prosperity of the institution . . ." Hamilton explained that a national bank would provide a safe depository for government funds, regulate banking practices around the country, provide a uniform currency, provide capital for investments and industry, and loan the government money in times of emergency. Hamilton saw it as no less than an engine of national prosperity and a necessary ancillary to his overall plan.

HAMILTON WAS OPPOSED TO DEMOCRACY 1. HAMILTON BELIEVED DEMOCRACY WAS A GREAT BEAST, COMMON PEOPLE A MENACE Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics at the Massachussets Institute of Technology, Mellon Lecture, Loyola University, Chicago, October 19, 1994, p. np, http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/talks/9410education.html, accessed April 29, 2002. Eighty years earlier Alexander Hamilton had put it clearly. He said there was the idea that your people are a great beast and that the real disease is democracy. That's Hamilton. These ideas have become ever more entrenched in educated circles, as Jefferson's fears and Bakunin's predictions were increasingly realised. The basic attitudes coming into this century were expressed very clearly by Woodrow Wilson's Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, attitudes that led to Wilson's Red Scare, as it was called, which destroyed labour and independent thought for a decade. Lansing warned of the danger of allowing the "ignorant and incapable mass of humanity" to become "dominant in the earth," or even influential, as he believed the Bolsheviks intended. That's the hysterical and utterly erroneous reaction that's pretty standard among people who feel that their power is threatened. 2. HAMILTON SOUGHT TO PRESERVE THE POWER OF THE RICH Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics at MIT, Z MAGAZINE, January 1995, p. 13. Restating the Doctrine without equivocation, the masters have long sought to contain popular struggles to expand the range of meaningful democracy and human rights, but now perceive that they can do better. They feel, perhaps rightly, that they can dismantle the social contract that has been in some measure achieved, rolling back the threat posed by the "great beast" that keeps trying "to plunder the rich" (Alexander Hamilton and John Foster Dulles, speaking for a host of others). The architects of policy can move on to establish a utopia of the masters based on the values of greed and power, in which privilege is enhanced by state power and the general population lack rights apart from what they can salvage on a (highly flexible) labor market. 3. HAMILTON THOUGHT THE WELL BORN SHOULD RUN THE COUNTRY Charles Beard, historian, FRAMING THE CONSTITUTION, 1912, p. 31. Indeed, every page of the laconic record of the proceedings of the convention, preserved to posterity by Mr. Madison, shows conclusively that the members of that assembly were not seeking to realize any fine notions about democracy and equality, but were striving with all the resources of political wisdom at their command to set up a system of government that would be stable and efficient, safeguarded on the one hand against the possibilities of despotism and on the other against the onslaught of majorities. In the mind of Mr. Gerry, the evils they had experienced flowed "from the excess of democracy," and he confessed that while he was still republican, he "had been taught by experience the danger of the levelling spirit." Mr. Randolph, in offering to the consideration of the convention his plan of government, observed "that the general object was to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that, in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy; that some check therefore was to be sought for against this tendency of our governments; and that a good Senate seemed most likely to answer the purpose." Mr. Hamilton, in advocating a life term for Senators, urged that "all communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well born and the other the mass of the people who seldom judge or determine right." 4. HAMILTON FEARED DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics at the Massachussets Institute of Technology, Z MAGAZINE, January 1995, p. 13. It therefore became necessary to renew with much greater intensity the constant campaign to tame and cage that "great beast," as Alexander Hamilton termed the "people" with horror and indignation as he was laying the foundations for state-guided industrial democracy. The beast may not yet be tamed, but it is being caged; sometimes quite literally, sometimes in chains of dogma and deceit, an important victory. We may recall, in passing, that fear of democracy and freedom has always been one of the factors motivating the terror and sometimes outright aggression undertaken to eliminate "rotten apples" that might "spoil the barrel" and "viruses" that might "infect others," in the terminology favored by leading planners -- the main concern, of course, being independence, whatever cast it takes.

HAMILTON WAS AN ECONOMIC ELITIST 1. HAMILTON IGNORED HUMES WARNINGS ABOUT THE SYSTEM HE FAVORED Lisa Marie de Carolis, Department of Alfa-informatica, University of Groningen, A Biography of Alexander Hamilton, 1997, p. np, http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/B/hamilton/hamil00.htm, accessed May 1, 2002. Hume in particular was cautionary about the British system, but pointed out some advantages to a credit-based economy. Securities, Hume observed, provide ready capital with the value and function of specie, the availability of which enables merchants to engage in more extensive trade enterprises, which in turn makes commodities cheaper and easier to procure, and thus helps spread "arts and industry throughout the whole society." Landed wealth, Hume contended, makes "country gentlemen" out of wealthy merchants; whereas paper capital fosters a more international mentality, and a more diverse economy. However, Hume emphasized the many evils of a credit-based economy, warning that a funded debt necessitates oppressive taxes to pay the interest, creates dangerous disparities in wealth, indebts the nation to foreign powers, and renders the stock holders largely idle and useless for everything but playing the market. Hume felt that the evils greatly outweighed the advantages. Hamilton dismissed Hume's warnings and instead focused on the positive aspects of national credit; the continuing vitality of the British economy was enough to prove the efficacy of their system. Hamilton based his program primarily on the British model, with variations more suited to the United States' unique characteristics. Public credit was to become the pillar of Hamilton's fiscal reform package, the "invigorating principle" which would infuse the United States with the energy and international respectability he had envisioned. 2. HAMILTONS GOVERNMENT IDEAS FOCUSED ON PROTECTING THE RICH Charles Beard, historian, FRAMING THE CONSTITUTION, 1912, p. 31. Nevertheless, by the system of checks and balances placed in the government, the convention safeguarded the interests of property against attacks by majorities. The House of Representatives, Mr. Hamilton pointed out, "was so formed as to render it particularly the guardian of the poorer orders of citizens," while the Senate was to preserve the rights of property and the interests of the minority against the demands of the majority. In the tenth number of The Federalist, Mr. Madison argued in a philosophic vein in support of the proposition that it was necessary to base the political system on the actual conditions of "natural inequality." Uniformity of interests throughout the state, he contended, was impossible on account of the diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originated; the protection of these faculties was the first object of government; from the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately resulted; from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors ensued a division of society into different interests and parties; the unequal distribution of wealth inevitably led to a clash of interests in which the majority was liable to carry out its policies at the expense of the minority; hence, he added, in concluding this splendid piece of logic, "the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered by their number and local situation unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression"; and in his opinion, it was the great merit of the newly framed Constitution that it secured the rights of the minority against "the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." 3. HAMILTON RELIED ON THE WEALTHY ALLYING THEMSELVES WITH STATE POWER Lisa Marie de Carolis, Department of Alfa-informatica, University of Groningen, A Biography of Alexander Hamilton, 1997, p. np, http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/B/hamilton/hamil00.htm, accessed May 1, 2002. In order to stimulate the economy, Hamilton needed big investors. The support and capital of the nation's wealthiest citizens would provide the foundation and security of his system. He wrote in 1780: "The only plan that can preserve the currency is one that will make it to the immediate interest of the monied men to cooperate with the government in its support. ...No plan could succeed which does not unite the interest and credit of rich individuals with that of the state."
THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS
Perhaps the greatest question that American political theory has struggled with is to what extent the power of the federal government should be limited. There have been a variety of different approaches to that question over the years, with that of the Anti-Federalists being one of the most extreme. Given their position in history as one of the main political groups at the time of the crafting of the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists are no mere moment in history, but instead have had a profound influence upon the entirety of American politics. This essay will explore the context surrounding the Anti-Federalists, some of the major figures behind the movement, and the various potential pros and cons to such a political system. HISTORICAL CONTEXT The driving issues in early American political theory arose as a response to the treatment of the original colonies by Great Britain. The American Revolution came about for a myriad of reasons, all connected to the desire to have independence from the tyrannical rule of the British monarchy. Therefore the issue of liberty was foremost in the minds of Americans when considering how to craft a government of their own. The first attempt was guided by the Articles of Confederation, which established a very limited central government with strong powers left to the individual states. The Confederation could not collect taxes, regulate commerce, or a great many other things that are matter of course for the federal government today. Moreover, amending the Articles required unanimity among the states. Viewing these and many other aspects of the Articles as deep flaws, many called for some kind of reform. During the time of various Constitutional Conventions, a great deal of writing was done by various political figures that advocated different positions on what direction the country ought to take. Although far from universally read at the time the pamphlets were mostly published in New York a group of 85 documents which came to be known as the Federalist Papers came to be the most famous articulation of Federalist views. These papers, written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pseudonym Publius, advocated a much stronger central government than what the Articles provided. This federalist camp by and large supported the proposed Constitution that was being debated at the Conventions. The inability of the federal government to take care of a lot of problems, notably the Shays Rebellion that occurred in Massachusetts for half a year before it could be quelled, seemed to the Federalists a clear signal that a new Constitution was needed. Although the new Constitution was passed largely the way that the Federalists hoped it would be, support for it was by no means unanimous. The contingent of people who felt that the proposed Constitution had too strong of a Central government were known as the Anti-Federalists. Contemporary readers might feel as if these terms are backwards, given that in todays lexicon federalism refers to the doctrine that the federal government should not encroach upon the proper powers of the states. However, it is important to keep in mind that terminology changes, and back at the time of the signing of the Constitution the Anti-Federalists were those opposed to it on the grounds that it gave too much power to the federal government. They felt that the essence of democracy could only be carried out on a small scale, the benefits of which were lost in such a massive government. Anti-federalists, therefore, supported a more direct democracy, as opposed to the republican government that connected to the citizens only via mediating representatives. Anti-Federalist differ from the Federalist Papers in a few significant ways. First, the Anti-Federalists were not as organized in their publications; there is not an established number to each document or speech that constituted Anti-Federalist contributions to the political debate. Secondly, the identity of the authors of the Anti-Federalist papers is not always known. Even though the Federalist Papers bore the same pen name, who did which paper (Hamilton, Jay, or Madison) is well documented. The Anti-Federalists also used pseudonyms borrowed from past figures from Rome (as well as other names), but it is not always conclusive which actual person lies behind what name. This is partially due to the less organized nature of the Anti-Federalists, and partially to the fact that history has not glorified their accomplishments as it has the Federalists.

WHO THEY WERE While the issue of which Anti-Federalist authors were behind the works of pseudonyms such as Brutus, Old Whig, or Federal Farmer may be an ongoing debate, some of the more important figures in the theory are well known. One such person is Patrick Henry. While his famous quotation in which he prefers liberty to life became one of the central rallying cries of the Revolution, Henry did not support the Constitution that was eventually passed in 1787. Henry associated the Federalist supporters with the kind of aristocracy that the Revolutionary War was meant to free America from. The inclusion of a Bill of Rights into the Constitution is owed in part to Patrick Henry; while he never supported the Constitution, one of his greatest criticisms of it was the lack of any explicit limitations upon the powers of the federal government, which the Bill of Rights provided (to some extent). While the Bill of Rights was not included in the initial signing of the Constitution, it was promised to be included by Congress shortly thereafter. Another prominent Anti-Federalist was George Clinton. No, not the one in the Funkadelic Parliament. George Clinton was the first governor of New York during the ratification of the Constitution, and later would become Vice President for both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Clinton authored some of the Anti-Federalist papers that were published under the name Cato. Clinton did his best to block ratification of the Constitution, but when it was approved by the requisite nine states at the Convention in his very own state, Clinton acquiesced. Ironically he ended up Vice-President to Madison, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers. Clinton despised Madison, but took the post after his own Presidential ambitions were dashed. There are a great many other important Anti-Federalist thinkers: James Winthrop, Samuel Bryan, Richard Henry Lee, Robert Yates, and others. While of course they all had minor differences, the thread running through them all was a mistrust of too massive a government. THE CASE FOR THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS So what is it that is positive about the theory of Anti-Federalism? The primary emphasis is upon promoting liberty and freedom. But what liberties are being shoved aside in the current system? The premise behind AntiFederalism goes deeper than knee-jerk mistrust of the federal government. To understand Anti-Federalists merely in terms of modern-day states-rights discourse would be in a sense misleading; while they share some of the same beliefs, Anti-Federalism is an entirely different view of what government means than is considered in contemporary political discourse. The first major premise in Anti-Federalism is that true government is only possible on a small scale. When the words big or small are used to describe governments today, it is typically meant to designate the bureaucracy, or amount of control, that the government has. And it is true that Anti-Federalists would argue for a less massive government, but they would also stress that said governing body has to be concerned with a vastly smaller area than the US currently is. This is because when a regime is in control over a large enough populace, direct democracy becomes simply unfeasible. Today what we have is a republic, where representatives are elected with the supposed task of voicing the opinions of all of the people in Congress. There would be no way for common individuals to stroll onto the floor of Capitol Hill any time they wished and have a real voice in crafting national legislation. Direct democracy of that sort is appealing to Anti-Federalists because it makes up for the myriad of shortcomings in the current system of representation. For one, there is no way for Representatives to actually know the desires of the people they are voting for. The closest way to understanding the will of the electorate polling is remarkably inaccurate, and only samples a small part of the population. Even were polling perfectly accurate, the problem of majority tyranny arises. Especially given the USs self-proclaimed status as a melting pot of races, cultures, ideas, and so on, it becomes all the more difficult for any group to get the policy they want. Since potential actions to be taken by Congress are almost never a black and white issue, there are a host of different possible options to be argued for. This ensures that oftentimes the majority opinion does not even constitute over half of the population, making most of the peoples wishes going unheeded. This is democracy at its most tenuous.

Part of the problem stems from the type of people that are going to be the Representatives in a large republic. The Anti-Federalists argued that a result of that type of government would be that only the elite would have the capability to run for office. To achieve enough public recognition to get elected, one would have to not be tied to any sort of private concerns that would distract from that goal. No one struggling to earn enough money to survive, let alone the middle class who spend a great deal of time working to (for example) put their kids through college, have the time and resources to become a serious politician. This problem has gotten even more out of control given the importance of self-advertisement during campaigns. The current controversy over money spent in campaigns is telling. But even if stringent campaign finance reform measures were to pass, there would still be cultural and economic barriers that would make it extremely difficult for anyone but the elite class to realize the goal of playing a role in the public sector. Therefore, the type of person who is elected into office will never be the same type of person that she or he is supposed to represent. While it is certainly possible for a person of a different station to understand the situation of a common person, this is often not the case. How can a rich white Senator born into privilege know how difficult it is to be poor? It becomes difficult for any interest aside from the elites to be advanced in government. Indeed, many Anti-Federalists charged that it was elite interests that motivated the structure of the government set up in the Constitution. But even if all of the things above were not true, and Senators and Representatives were somehow able to represent the wishes of their constituents completely accurately, Anti-Federalists would still have a large problem with the massive republic that we live in today. The difference lies in the fact that our conception of politics is as a means to an end. In other words, people tend to be only concerned with issues such as representation insofar as they get what they want. Provided that a Senator votes the way someone theoretically would want them to, the political sphere and ones own relationship to it can be safely ignored. AntiFederalists, on the other hand, find that situation lacking, precisely because they see participation in politics as an end to itself. Christopher Duncan explains why it is that Anti-Federalists place intrinsic value upon direct democracy. The reason for this is because, interestingly enough, Anti-Federalism dovetails nicely with one of the main tenets of Hannah Arendts belief on the nature of politics. Arendt, an important political theorist from this century, contends that the highest form of human existence lies in the participation in politics. She draws upon Greek culture in her book THE HUMAN CONDITION to explain the various degrees of human activity. The lowest is that of labor, whereby one toils to take care of private necessities, such as food and shelter. The next highest is work, which encompasses crafts, the arts, and similar pursuits. There is the possibility of public appreciation of work, but it is often still private in nature. Finally, the highest type of human activity is what Arendt says the Greeks considered true action: politics. Once all private demands are met, then one can spend their time caring for the polis (city). The ancient Greeks despised labor, and therefore used slavery to divest themselves of the need to do tasks that they consider menial. Therefore the most glory came from being an honored statesman in the city-state. This is not to suggest that the Anti-Federalists merely wanted to copy the Greeks, but instead that understanding the rationale behind the Greek priority of action in the public realm sheds light on why AntiFederalists find value in pure democracy. In fact, many of the Anti-Federalists papers make explicit reference to Greek and Roman societies before they developed strong tyrannical central governments as being ideals insofar as democracy is concerned. Anti-Federalists desired the smaller town-hall type governments were individual could have a say and come to some consensus about issues that affected them and their town. Only that way can the desire to life a public life, and therefore be happy and free, be achieved. THE CASE AGAINST THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS As pretty of a picture of an idyllic small town democracy this paints, one can readily find fault with such a small-scale system of government. The same problems that were apparent at the time of the Articles of the Confederation are still present in a system that devolves a great deal of authority. First and foremost is a problem with security from threats both internal and external. The incapability of internal uprisings and the like to be dealt with a weak central government was arguably shown back as early as Shays Rebellion. What is to stop one state from deciding to use aggressive force against another to take, say, some economic resources? Threats from other countries are even more frightening. Even if every state kept standing militias, it would seem difficult to coordinate efforts, and without a strong federal ability to tax, there is no way a national army

could be built and maintained that would comport to the standards necessary to be competitive. A strong central government seems to be a prerequisite of peace and order. Even if there is some sacrifice of liberties in order to make those things possible, is it not obvious that life and peace are more important? Being free from ones own government is hardly a concern when another country is invading. In addition to security, economic prosperity seems to be a direct result of a strong federal government. Given how complex the economic system is today, there are a variety of important tasks that can only be performed by the national government that seem integral to maintaining a healthy economy. Having a national bank system, issuing bonds, the Federal Reserve all are functions that are distinctly national in character. None could be performed during the Articles of Confederation. A thriving economy is a necessary condition for a lot of other things, such as funding of the sciences and arts. Would the technological and cultural progress that has been made in the past two hundred years be possible in a country with decentralized governments? Yet another goal that has become of more importance in recent years that seems impractical without a strong central government is the protection of the environment. While the Anti-Federalists sought to organize small like-minded communities, environmental theory has taught that those situations are dangerous given the transitory nature of pollution. The negative effects of industry in one county or state could most directly affect another area completely, with those citizens lacking any method of recourse. Environmental disputes were not much of a problem back in colonial times when the majority of the United States had yet to even be charted by European settlers, but it is a huge issue now. Strict laws governing the states are needed to keep them accountable for their environmental damage. One of the revolutions in the past hundred years has been the increasing role of the federal government as the protector of individual rights from state discrimination. This picture of rights flips on its head the problem envisioned by the Anti-Federalists of a tyrannical national government. The most famous example of this comes with the controversy concerning segregation in the South. Until the Supreme Court decision of Brown versus the Board of Education of Topeka, schools wouldnt allow blacks the same educational opportunities. This case was but the most visible of a massive effort by the federal government to outlaw a host of racist policies held by many States. These protections against discrimination apply to sexism and other forms of oppression through the Equal Protection amendment. By passing amendments that protect rights not merely through limiting the power of the federal government but instead positively restricting certain behavior of the states and local governments, a brand new turn is taken in the relationship between individuals, rights, and the government. There might not be any way to have stopped that discrimination throughout the country in the system promoted by the Anti-Federalists. While the fundamental motivation for the Anti-Federalists was the protection of liberty through democracy, it is very possible that their mistrust of a strong central government was not merely reactionary fear stemming from their dealings with Great Britain. Many authors claim that the federal government has proven to be selflimiting in such a fashion so as to avoid the pitfalls the Anti-Federalists predicted. Power over such things as taxation has certainly not spiraled into overwhelming tyranny. Nor is there a complete disregard for the rights and powers of the states even within this system. The 50 states retain a massive amount of control over criminal laws, internal commerce, and so forth. Few would call the powers that the federal government claims right to now tyrannical by any means. RESPONSES TO SOME OF THE ATTACKS ON THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS While this list of problems might seem difficult for the Anti-Federalists to overcome, hope is not lost yet. Many authors specifically respond to some of these criticisms and explain why they might not seem as problematic as they seem. With regard to the security issue, one might question the incentive for other countries to attack the United States if it were more decentralized. Countries dont just go around attacking each other for land nowadays; wars tend to start due to tensions over disagreements. In that sense there likelihood of an attack against the US might decrease; countries would no longer have cause to resent the US throwing its superpower weight around world affairs. As for internal problems, it is natural that uprisings like the Shays Rebellion would occur during a countrys birth pangs, but there is less reason to believe such events would be a matter of course without a powerful federal government.

Issues such as the environment and minority rights could be dealt with in a collective fashion. Just because power would be devolved to a large degree does not mean that national laws would not work pending the acceptance of the majority of states. Given the swing in opinion towards protecting the environment and ending discrimination, it is logical that even without things like strong Supreme Court decisions it is still plausible that those problems would be voluntary dealt with by the states. It is certain that the country would be less economically prosperous if it had developed more along AntiFederalist lines, but economic might is not necessarily the highest aim for a country. Money alone cannot produce happiness, and it can even create tensions in a society where the wealth is increasingly becoming concentrated in a small percentage of the population. As the lower class gets larger and poorer, it is natural to question just how successful the country is economically, no matter what the Gross Domestic Product statistics say. Participation in a public democracy, as Hannah Arendt suspects, can be much more fundamental to human happiness than amassing material wealth. Perhaps the widespread depression exhibited in American society today is a result of the alienation felt towards ones fellow humans. The Federalist model did establish an effective system for pursuing ones private wishes, but those are nothing more than glorified necessities taken too far. True happiness is found in ones civic existence, and therefore in direct democracy. CONCLUSION Anti-Federalism, as a political theory taken in general, has many potential benefits and downfalls. The most skillful use of it will be to argue for a particular type of democracy that actually involves people, instead of merely a republic where no ones interests but the very powerful are furthered. It can be used in its specific historical context to criticize or justify the Constitution, or to help argue for or against other political objectives that would affect the balance of power between the people and their state, local, federal governments. One thing that is important to keep in mind for the purpose of utilizing this theory in a debate round is that one does not necessarily have to advocate every thing that the Anti-Federalists would. Instead, its principles of maintaining a genuine democracy can be utilized to argue in favor of smaller changes, such as greater states rights in a particular area. Even if the federal government has not proven to turn into a tyranny, there is little denying that politics in this country has become an affair of the rich and elite, excluding most people from participating in it in any meaningful way. Moreover, no political system is wholly comprised of one ideology or another; the Constitution may have been promoted mainly by Federalists, but its inclusion of a Bill of Rights, as well as a few other modifications to it are distinctly Anti-Federalist in nature. The American political tradition has always been a product of the dialectic of both of those movements. Truly understanding the various twists and turns of American politics requires a grasp upon its roots in both the Federalist as well as Anti-Federalist traditions. Both theories have strong advantages and disadvantages that can be used to shed light on a variety of political issues in our own day and age.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackerman, Bruce. WE THE PEOPLE: FOUNDATIONS, Harvard University Press, 1992. Arendt, Hannah. THE HUMAN CONDITION, University of Chicago Press, 1958. Bailyn, Bernard. THE DEBATE ON THE CONSTITUTION: FEDERALIST AND ANTIFEDERALIST SPEECHES, ARTICLES, AND LETTERS DURING THE STRUGGLE OVER RATIFICATION, Library of America, 1993. Berns, Walter. TAKING THE CONSTITUTION SERIOUSLY. Simon & Schuster, 1987. Dolbeare, Kenneth. DIRECTIONS IN AMERICAN POLITICAL THOUGHT. John Wiley & Sons, inc. 1969. Dry, Murray, and Storing, Herbert. THE COMPLETE ANTI-FEDERALIST, University of Chicago Press, 1981. Duncan, Christopher. THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS AND EARLY AMERICAN POLITICAL THOUGHT. Northern Illinois University Press, 1995. Hoffer, Robert. A POLITICS OF TENSION: THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION AND AMERICAN POLITICAL IDEAS, University of Colorado Press, 1992. Ketcham, Ralph. THE ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPERS AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION DEBATES, Penguin, 1986. Sinopoli, Richard. FROM MANY, ONE: READINGS IN AMERICAN POLITICAL AND SOCIAL THOUGHT, Georgetown Press, 1997. Storing, Herbert. WHAT THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS WERE FOR, University of Chicago Press, 1981. Wood, Gordon. THE RADICALISM OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. Alfred Knopf, 1992.

THE ANTI-FEDERALIST VISION OF SMALLER GOVERNMENT IS SUPERIOR 1. IT IS EMPIRICALLY SHOWN THAT ONLY SMALL GOVERNMENTS AVOID CORRUPTION Brutus, Anti-Federalist Writer, FROM MANY, ONE: READINGS IN AMERICAN POLITICAL AND SOCIAL THOUGHT, 1997, p. 37. In a large republic there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too great to be placed in any single subject; he has interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, great and glorious, by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country. In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents. In a small one, the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course are less protected. History furnishes no example of a free republic, any thing like the extent of the United States. The Grecian republics were of small extent; so also was that of the Romans. Both of these, it is true, in process of time, extended their conquests over large territories of country; and the consequence was, that their governments were changed from that of free governments to those of the most tyrannical that ever existed in the world. 2. GOVERNMENTS THAT RULE OVER SIMILAR PEOPLE OPERATE MORE EFFICIENTLY Brutus, Anti-Federalist Writer, FROM MANY, ONE: READINGS IN AMERICAN POLITICAL AND SOCIAL THOUGHT, 1997, p. 38. In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other. This will retard the operations of government, and prevent such conclusions as will promote the public good. If we apply this remark to the condition of the United States, we shall be convinced that it forbids that we should be one government. The United States includes a variety of climates. The productions of the different parts of the union are very variant, and their interests, of consequence, diverse. Their manners and habits differ as much as their climates and productions; and their sentiments are by no means coincident. The laws and customs of the several states are, in many respects, very diverse, and in some opposite; each would be in favor of its own interests and customs, and, of consequence, a legislature, formed of representatives from the respective parts, would not be too numerous to act with any care or decision, but would be composed of such heterogenous and discordant principles, as would constantly be contending with each other. 3. SMALLER SCALE POLITICS ALLOW FOR HAPPINESS VIA A GENUINE PUBLIC SPHERE Christopher Duncan, Professor of Political Science, THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS AND EARLY AMERICAN POLITICAL THOUGHT, 1995, p. 170-171. The question the Anti-Federalists worried about was not how we organize our polity for order and greatness but how we organize our polity for public happiness and political salvation. Agrippas claims that freedom is necessary for industry and that in absolute governments, the people, be the climate what it may be, are in general lazy, cowardly, turbulent, and vicious to an extreme are but his way of saying that without the sense of attachment and empowerment that comes with public participation, there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no happiness. This is the theoretical thread that ties AntiFederalist thought together. It is the notion that the Constitution as a centralizing, ultimately disempowering, document will leave them bereft of their power to save themselves, that it will ultimately, in the words of Hannah Arendt, banish the citizens from the public realm into the privacy of their households, and demand of them that they mind their own private business. This would certainly be a torturous existence for a people who believed their individual chance for redemption was tied intimately to their shared public life. Self-government for the Anti-Federalists was not just a mechanistic device to ensure the safety of their fortunes, it was an opportunity to transform themselves and expand their circle of concerns while encouraging others to do the same. Political participation for the Anti-Federalists became an end to be pursued as well as a means.

ANTI-FEDERALISM GIVES RIGHTS AND PREVENTS DISCRIMINATION 1. ONLY SMALLER LIMITED GOVERNMENTS ALLOW LIBERTY Cato, Anti-Federalist Writer, FROM MANY, ONE: READINGS IN AMERICAN POLITICAL AND SOCIAL THOUGHT, 1997, p. 42. From this picture, what can you promise yourselves, on the score of consolidation of the United States, into one governmentimpracticability in the just exercise of ityour freedom insecureeven this form of government limited in its continuancethe employments of your country disposed of to the opulent, to whose contumely you will continually be an objectyou must risque much, by indispensably placing trusts of the greatest magnitude, into the hands of individuals, whose ambition for power, and aggrandizement, will oppress and grind youwhere, from the vast extent of your territory, and the complication of interests, the science of government will become intricate and perplexed, and too mysterious for you to understand, and observe; and by which you are to be conducted into a monarchy, either limited or despotic; the latter, Mr. Locke remarks, is a government derived from neither nature, nor compact. Political liberty, the great Montesquieu again observes, consists in security, or at least in the opinion we have of security; and this security therefore, or the opinion, is best obtained in moderate governments, where the mildness of the laws, and the equality of the manners, beget a confidence in the people, which produces this security, or the opinion. This moderation in governments, depends in a great measure on their limits, connected with their political distribution. 2. ANTI-FEDERALISM STOPS RACIAL DISCRIMINATION James Etienne Viator, Associate Professor of Law, Loyola University New Orleans School of Law, LOYOLA JOURNAL OF PUBLIC INTEREST LAW, Spring, 2000, p. 37-8. Furthermore, the phenomenon of white bloc voting makes race-conscious districting a properly narrow means to further the "compelling interest" in full freedom for black Americans -- the compelling interest of solving racial problems through representation in Congress by those who share a commitment to this unique interest in political liberty on account of their membership in the historically "raced" community. Using an innovative mixture of campaign news stories and public opinion surveys of voters, Keith Reeves demonstrated the continued presence of bigoted attitudes among white voters, which results in the continuing existence of white bloc voting; and this racially biased voting excludes blacks from the fair and equal representation recommended both by the Anti-Federalists and Section 2 of the VRA. It is this stubborn persistence of racially polarized voting that confirms the enduring wisdom of and necessity for the Anti-Federalist view that representatives should be "made of the same stuff collectively as their constituents." Thus, shared racial experience and the legacy of white hostility and bigotry constitute the compelling reason for majority-black districts as a necessary means to effectuate the Anti-Federalist insight that in order to guarantee liberty "like best represents like." ONLY ANTI-FEDERALIST POLITICS ALLOW TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE MULTIPLICITY OF INTERESTS Christopher Duncan, Professor of Political Science, THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS AND EARLY AMERICAN POLITICAL THOUGHT, 1995, p. 78. In other words, they have agreed to protect each other from external dangers to their collectivenot individualliberties, and to work together, not on questions of the general welfare but on questions of mutual and general welfare. If that latter clause is read correctly, it should be clear that there was no such thing as the general welfare of the country; rather, there was a series of particular welfares that could only be considered general when in fact the question at issue was one of mutual concern as determined by the state itself. The distinction here is once again of critical importance from a theoretical perspective, in that under the Articles of Confederation there was no truth or Platonic form, that transcended the local community and its own particular determinations about right and wrong, useful or not, other than those basic natural laws (but these, too, were open to a good deal of relative interpretation). Communal welfare and justice were both the products of local political conversations, and any attempt to conflate the judgments of those independent entities had to be agreed to by them and the like associations involved in order to be legitimate. Thus the mode of operation was consensual rather than majoritarian or adversarial, which accounts for the nine-vote decisionmaking threshold and the provisions for unanimity with regard to amendment that marked the Articles.

AN ANTI-FEDERALIST GOVERNMENT WOULD BE UNSAFE AND INEFFECTIVE 1. AN ANTI-FEDERALIST SYSTEM WOULD BE VULNERABLE TO FOREIGN ATTACK Robert Webking, Assistant Professor of Political Science, The Federalist: Government Power and Individual Rights, THE CONSTITUTIONAL POLITY, 1983, p. 9. The first of the advantages is the increased safety from foreign attack that comes with Union. Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention that of providing for their safety seems to be the first. Other nations must be prevented from having just causes for warring with the Americans and they must also be discouraged from attacking injustly on the pretext of trumped up charges. With the Union the Americans will be less likely to present just causes for war to foreign nations because there will be a single interpretation of the law of nations and of treaties. That single interpretation will not be dominated by the unjust desires of any part of the Union. Moreover, should the national government provide a just cause for war to a foreign nation it is far more likely that the dispute will be settled without recourse to war with one large nation than it would be with several smaller confederacies. Publius notes the reality that acknowledgements, explanations, and compensations are often accepted as satisfactory from a strong united nation when they would not be accepted from a weaker power. 2. THE ORDER THAT COMES FROM A FEDERALIST GOVERNMENT OUTWEIGHS LIBERTY Thomas E. Baker, Director of the Constitutional Resource Center, BYU JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW, 1999, p. 76. In any civilized society the most important task is achieving a proper balance between freedom and order. In wartime, reason and history both suggest that this balance shifts to some degree in favor of order - in favor of the government's ability to deal with conditions that threaten the national well-being. It simply cannot be said, therefore, that in every conflict between individual liberty and governmental authority the former should prevail. And if we feel free to criticize court decisions that curtail civil liberty, we must also feel free to look critically at decisions favorable to civil liberty. To conclude his historical exegesis, the Chief Justice brings us back one last time to Lincoln's dilemma to ask and answer rhetorically, "Should he, to paraphrase his own words, have risked losing the Union that gave life to the Constitution because that charter denied him the necessary authority to preserve the Union? Cast in these terms, it is difficult to quarrel with his decision." 3. ADVANCES IN CULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY MAKE ANTI-FEDERALISM IMPRACTICAL Larry D. Kramer , Professor of Law, New York University Law School, COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW, January, 2000, p. 291-292. The specific limits of federal power envisaged by the Founders in 1789 are gone, and any effort to roll back federal power to what it meant at the Founding would be foolish as well as utterly impractical. Even the harshest critics of New Deal jurisprudence acknowledge that changes in society, culture, and the economy require a different kind of national authority today, both practically and as an interpretive matter. Hence, notwithstanding any purported claims of fidelity to original intent, the limits on Congress proposed by today's advocates of judicially-enforced federalism in fact look nothing like any limits that existed when the Constitution was adopted. The question thus becomes, which process should determine the appropriate revised allocation of authority between the federal government and the states: constitutional politics or judicial edict? Mesmerized by the mantra "our Federal government is one of limited powers," the Justices assume that it necessarily falls on them to define new limits - some limits, any limits, even if those limits bear no resemblance to anything imagined by the Founders or observed in the past. But imposing novel judiciallydefined limits just for the sake of having judicially-defined limits is an ill-conceived formalism. In a world of global markets and cultural, economic, and political interdependency, the proper reach of federal power is necessarily fluid, and it may well be that it is best defined through politics. Certainly, as we have seen, this is more consistent with the original design than the Court's new made-up limits-for-the-sake-of-limits. Embracing the hurly-burly of politics while paying attention to how states protect themselves in that domain is a much "truer" interpretation of our Constitution.

FEDERALIST THEORY PROTECTS INDIVIDUAL AND MINORITY RIGHTS 1. STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IS SELF-RESTRAINING Larry D. Kramer , Professor of Law, New York University Law School, COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW, January, 2000, p. 252-3. North Carolina lawyer-planter Archibald Maclaine, writing as Publicola, made the charge of Anti-Federalist duplicity even more explicitly: I find some people are so strangely infatuated, as to think that Congress can, and therefore will, usurp powers not given them by the states, and do any thing, however oppressive and tyrannical. I know no good grounds for such a supposition, but this, that the legislative and judicial powers of the state have too often stepped over the bounds prescribed for them by the constitution; and yet, strange to tell, few of those, whose arguments I am now considering, think such measures censurable - The conclusion to be drawn here is obvious - The objectors hope to enjoy the same latitude of doing evil with impunity, and they are fearful of being restricted, if an efficient government takes place. 2. A FEDERALIST GOVERNMENT ENSURES PROSPERITY AND INCLUSION OF MINORITIES Robert Webking, Assistant Professor of Political Science, The Federalist: Government Power and Individual Rights, THE CONSTITUTIONAL POLITY, 1983, p. 7-8. Publius original argument about how a people can secure the advantage and avoid the disadvantage of majority rule rests upon a distinction between species of popular government. In a pure democracy, where people gather to rule themselves directly, he writes, the danger of majority faction is unavoidable. Such a form of government can exist with only a small territory, and in a small community it is virtually certain that there will be a majority with the same partial interest. In a republic, however, the problem can be avoided. The difference between a pure democracy and a republic is that in the latter the people do not rule directly, but through representatives. Representation yields a number of happy advantages for Publius, but the decisive one is size. A republic can be very much larger than a pure democracy, and because it is larger it can include a great variety of people with many different kinds of economic activities and, hence, a multiplicity of interests. The existence of many distinct interests means the existence of many interest groups or factions. The existence of many factions rather than merely two makes it likely that there will be no majority faction. All factions will be minority factions and each faction will be prevented from using the government unjustly by the fact of majority rule. Extend the sphere, Publius writes, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens. 3. A FEDERALIST THEORY OF LEGAL RIGHTS STOPS DISCRIMINATION Daan Braveman, Dean and Professor of Law, Syracuse University College of Law, THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, February, 2002, p. 619. Perhaps the most significant breakthrough in the transformation process occurred in Brown v. Board of Education. In striking down state segregation, the Supreme Court dramatically altered the relations between the states and the national government, and made the federal courts the primary guardians of federal rights. In the years following Brown, the lower federal courts became the litigation forum for state school segregation cases, as well as actions challenging a wide range of other state activities, including zoning, reapportionment, police misconduct, and prison conditions. Notably, Brown was not decided in isolation but rather at a time when the world outside the courtroom was changing dramatically. The other branches of the federal government had a national and international agenda, which included the expansion of federal rights and a federal interest in protecting those rights from state deprivation. "A new spirit of nationalism" replaced the isolationism of the turn of the century and, as Judge Gibbons stated: "In the global village, deference to local solutions for problems that transcend local interests is a quaint anachronism." By the 1960s, the structure envisioned during Reconstruction was firmly established. Individuals had federal rights, federal remedies, and a federal forum to challenge state conduct that violated federal law.
RALPH WALDO EMERSON

"It is one soul that animates all men." -Ralph Waldo Emerson INTRODUCTION Ralph Waldo Emerson surely epitomizes the uniqueness of 19th century American philosophy. Emerging at a time when American thought was struggling to forge its own identity, reflective of both the optimism and the cynicism of the American political experience, Emersons transcendentalism is a spiritual and philosophical reflection of his time. But it is also an inspiring statement of the universality of human experience. By painting humans with broad brushstrokes as half-animal and half-divine, and by attempting to chronicle humanitys relation to the absolute, Emerson is the American Hegel. Emersons work included poetry and personal essays as well as philosophy, and there is a heavy religious element in all of his writing. Nevertheless, his work contains important implications for political philosophy. In this essay I will attempt to explain his philosophy as a whole, but I will also pay special attention to the political implications of Emersons work, along with the way in which these political elements can be used in value debate. EMERSONS LIFE AND TIMES Ralph Waldo Emerson was born in Boston, Massachusetts in 1803, into a family whose male members were typically clergymen. He studied divinity at Harvard. Well-educated and taught to embrace open-mindedness as well as religion, Emerson was ordained a Unitarian minister in 1929. He was a good speaker, delivered a good sermon or two, but something was missing. He would begin his sermons with words from the Bible, but would gradually find himself discussing the unfathomable ideals found in nature, or abstract philosophy. He had problems trying to find his way back into the Bible to close the speeches. Although some of his parishioners liked his style, others did not. Stumbling for appropriate words at the bedside of a dying veteran of the American Revolution, the dying man reportedly told Emerson: Young man, if you dont know your business, you had better go home (www.litkicks.com). Although he had entered into the ministry with high hopes (and Unitarianism has always been a liberal and progressive religion, even back then), Emerson resigned from ministry and journeyed to England in 1832 following the death of his first wife, Ellen Tucker. She had died of tuberculosis after they had been married only eighteen months. This broke Emersons heart and caused a deep spiritual crisis. His time in England was spent cultivating friendships and intellectual associations with people like William Wordsworth, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, John Stuart Mill, and Thomas Carlyle. Needless to say, by the time he returned to America, Emerson had a newfound optimism, as well as a greater understanding of philosophy. He returned to America in 1834, but tragedy would strike at his optimism once again. That same year, Ralph Waldos brother Edward died. To make matters worse, his brother Charles died in 1836. Emerson would be a haunted man the rest of his days. His writings and lectures contained dark clouds even in his most arduous attempts to celebrate the glory of humanity. By the time Charles had died, Emerson had remarried (his second wife was named Lydia Jackson), settled in Concord, and begun to publish essays about the human spirit, freedom and independence, and the undesirability of following tradition. Among these early essays was one of his greatest, Self-Reliance, a polemic about the necessity of complete individual freedom (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/ihas/poet/emerson.html, www.litkicks.com). Emerson co-founded a journal, and collected a group of fellow writers (both male and female; like his friend John Stuart Mill, Emerson believed in womens emancipation), and started a tradition known as the New England Transcendentalists. Expanding outside that small circle of colleagues, Emerson discovered one of the most influential thinkers of the 19th century, when he met and wrote a letter of recommendation for Henry David Thoreau. Two decades later, Emerson would again contribute to the intellectual history of America by promoting the work of poet Walt Whitman. Along the way, he promoted Buddhism and other eastern religions, opposed slavery, fought for womens equality, and remained a dedicated, if cynical, proponent of democracy.
Ralph Waldo Emerson died of pneumonia on April 27, 1882. His life had never been as peaceful and content as his privileged New England upbringing might have predicted; he lost a spouse, two brothers, a child, he had his house burn down, and lived through the Civil War. But he remained, at least in principle, optimistic about humanity, who he saw as intrinsically tied to the transcendent and divine. This mystical trust in human transcendence led many of Emersons contemporaries to view him less as a philosopher than a divine seer of sorts. Philosophers usually seek some kind of analytic understanding. Emerson, in contrast, seemed to de-value understanding in favor of heavenly emotions. In this sense, he was even more a mystic than Plato. As George Santayana characterizes him: Similarly, Emerson had a habit of characterizing important figures of his time as somehow transcendent, removed from day-to-day history, even as they sought to reform the conditions of the time. He held Daniel Webster in such high esteem for Websters opposition to slavery that he identified Webster as representative of the American continent (Thomas J. Brown, LAW AND SOCIAL INQUIRY, Spring, 2000, p. 669). This paradoxical figure would influence a certain strain of American thought well into the 20th century. Emerson was the first major thinker in America to offer up non-Western, non-linear thinking as an alternative to the dry, academic science of modernist philosophy. He influenced Henry David Thoreau and, in doing so, inspired civil disobedience advocates from Ghandi to Martin Luther King. And his marriage of philosophy, theology and poetry brought romanticism to America, a continent perhaps more ready for it that Europe had ever been. Today, however, it is impossible to systematize or categorize Emersons thinking. Even to call it transcendentalism seems a stretch, since -isms are usually systems, and Emerson was as anti-systemic as they come. However, certain major themes stand out in his writings, and have great potential for debates over morality, values, and politics. EMERSONS IDEAS "Whosoever would be a man, must be a nonconformist...A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...To be great is to be misunderstood." In this section I will argue that it is possible to trace several complimentary (if sometimes contradictory) ideas in Emersons writings. I will describe his Platonic conception of spirit as primary and matter as secondary; his differences from Plato (especially in Emersons faith in humanity and democracy); and his mystical vision of feeling or mood over logic as the basis of human understanding. To understand transcendentalism, one must first and foremost understand its derivation from Platonism. Plato, one of the most influential thinkers in the history of Western civilization, was the first major figure to posit a distinction between spirit and matter. Plato believed that the realm of "being" was absolute, unchanging, immaterial, and incorruptible, while the realm of "becoming," where matter, people and history existed, was a degraded and corrupt reflection of "being." Things changed, living entities died, and perfection was unattainable. Plato envisioned a realm of "perfect forms," where the things and ideas we contemplate exist in a state of unchanging consistency. Ordinary humans could contemplate this world of spirit provided they shed their worldly concerns and concentrate only on philosophical ideals. But humans could never really reach such a world; they could only contemplate it.

Emerson's transcendentalism was an optimistic version of Plato's distinction between spirit and matter, being and becoming. Although, as we shall see, Emerson did not believe history or human interaction were irrelevant, he did believe that a mystical spirit-reality existed and was the true inspiration for human greatness. It is instructive to note that Emerson differed from Plato in a few important ways: 1. As mentioned, Plato rejected human matters, history, politics and the like, as corruptible facets of the realm of becoming. Emerson, on the other hand, believed it impossible "to extricate oneself from the questions in which your age is involved. 2. It was fortunate that Emerson believed history and human interaction were important, because, unlike Plato, Emerson believed human beings and human endeavors were innately good. This was reflected in Emersons faith in democracy, a system of government Plato categorically rejected. 3. Whereas Plato ultimately appealed to reason and a kind of logic to govern philosophical thought, Emerson and the other transcendentalists turned toward the mystical world of the Romantics. Emerson put forth a mystical sense of "vision," including emotions such as love, as the basis of genuine knowledge. I wish to concentrate on this last point a little more. Emerson trusted instinct and emotion, which he saw as our connection to the divine, more than he trusted logic and analytic thought. He wrote: "Our spontaneous action is always the best. You cannot, with your best deliberation and heed, come so close to any question as your spontaneous glance shall bring you, whilst you rise from your bed, or walk abroad in the morning after meditating the matter before sleep on the previous night" (Emerson, "Intellect"). This way of thinking has been called Emersons epistemology of moods. Like the German and British Romantics, Emerson believed that it was possible to think too much, and in doing so lose the spontaneous connection to creation and nature that Romantics saw as vital to a higher kind of understanding. Emersons "epistemology of moods" is an attempt to construct a framework for encompassing what might otherwise seem contradictory outlooks, viewpoints, or doctrines. Emerson really means to "accept," as he puts it, "the clangor and jangle of contrary tendencies" (CW3: 36). He means to be irresponsible to all that holds him back from his self-development. That is why, at the end of "Circles," he writes that he is "only an experimenterwith no Past at my back" (CW2: 188). In the world of flux that he depicts in that essay, there is nothing stable to be responsible to: "every moment is new; the past is always swallowed and forgotten, the coming only is sacred" (CW2: 189) (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/emerson/). In other words, higher understanding, based more on feeling than analysis, transcends the old Aristotelian maxim that things cannot be both true and false. Like Hegel, Emerson believed contradictory premises were simply stepping-stones to a higher, comprehensive understanding. This serves as a useful transition into Emersons belief in the connectedness of all creatures and things. Since that connectedness is more real than the analytic separateness of individual thinking, it would make sense that a transcendentalist would value the spirit of emotion more than the analysis of individual thoughts. After all, Emerson viewed emotion as the emanation of the divine, and in turn viewed the divine as an aggregate reflection of all creatures and things. He was very close, in this respect, to being a pantheist. Transcendentalism, as its name implies, holds that all living creatures and things of the earth are united as something mystically higher and more whole than the sum of their parts. Emerson combined this idea of the essential unity of all things and creatures with a belief in the innate goodness of humanity. Like many of transcendentalism's central themes, the notion of a "unitary soul" uniting all humankind seems more "Eastern" than "Western." But the idea that we are all joined by one common soul has immediate and important political implications that give a strong metaphysical basis to the American political ideal of equality. This is apparent in Emerson's position against slavery.

For Emerson, democracy, however imperfect, was a method by which human beings could serve as "lenses through which we read our own minds." Like friendship and reading, democracy offered a variation of the process by which other individuals act as "lenses through which we read our own minds." As each person searches for the perfectly fitted lens, "the otherest," some geniuses manage to serve large groups because they 'stand for facts, and for thoughts.' (Thomas J. Brown, LAW AND SOCIAL INQUIRY, Spring, 2000, p. 669). Emerson refused to see distinctions based on skin color or national origin as being more important than the common humanity that unites Black and white, or other distinct groups. This, of course, explains his opposition to slavery and his position in favor of womens emancipation. There are two more important political implications found in Emerson. First, since governments are not the ultimate source of morality, morality is more important than obeying the law. In his essay Self-Reliance, Emerson argues that Nature reveals moral truth. In The American Scholar he argues that institutions and books do not reveal truth as well as can be revealed through our personal relationships with the divine mediated, presumably, through Nature. Because of this, Emerson was a strong supporter of civil disobedience against unjust laws. Second, self-reliance is valuable to Emerson because he sees power as something that makes us human, and dependence on others as a natural indictment of that power. This obsession with power has long been a rallying point against Emerson. Because he held an almost Nietzschian awe of power, critics sometimes contend that he glosses over many injustices that are on par with slavery, such as rapid industrialization or capitalist exploitation. OBJECTIONS TO EMERSON As already noted, critics fault Emerson on two levels: Inconsistency and lack of coherent foundation: Emerson was as much a mystic and poet as he was a philosopher. Some critics, George Santayana among them, doubt that its even proper to call Emerson a philosopher. Those arguing against Emerson can gain a great deal of ground by citing the numerous instances where his thoughts lead to mystical pronouncements instead of solid and warranted conclusions. Obsession with power: As much as Emerson extolled the sins of slavery and patriarchy, he also extolled the virtues of capitalism, the necessity of self-reliance, and the power of individual action. This is another instance of the inconsistency cited earlier, but it also reflects Emersons desire to be a truly American thinker at a time when Americans were confronting and conquering the frontier. The problem is that Emerson never really comes to terms with how his pronouncements on power (Life is a search after power, he declared) problematized his political stance against oppression. Implications for Debate First, Emersons philosophy strongly supports civil disobedience and the refusal to follow unjust laws. This is the most well-known of Emersons philosophies, and it inspired Henry David Thoreaus entire essay Civil Disobedience. Emersons embrace of civil disobedience comes from two areas of his philosophy: antimajoritarianism, and the notion of morality transcending states and governments Second, Emersons philosophy makes a very optimistic statement about human nature. Insofar as human beings embrace their connection to transcendent, divine virtue (which Emerson also calls beauty), they will perform virtuously. This is true of every human being. In this way, Emerson is part Plato (humans must understand the transcendent world in order to be good) and part Aristotle (humans must actually practice virtuous behavior to be in tune with the divine).

Although critics accuse Emerson of justifying evil, exploitative systems (such as ruthless capitalism), it may be reasonably replied that Emerson simply believes seemingly miserable situations (such as poverty) will ultimately culminate in human growth and transcendence. In this way, Emerson is like John Stuart Mill (who believed capitalism would evolve into a just economic system) or G.W.F. Hegel (who believed all bad states of affairs would transcend into good things). Third, Emerson takes virtuous behavior to be among the highest ethical goods, because it is a reflection of transcendent beauty and goodness. This may be among Emersons most Platonic philosophical notions. It serves as an intrinsic justification for moral behavior. It may even be an alternative to deontological or utilitarian modes of ethics. These ethical codes arguably allow one to escape from various moral responsibilities by assigning greater and lesser values to respective moral commands. For example, deontological ethics mandates the disregard of consequences, while utilitarian ethics mandates an exclusive focus on consequences. Transcendentalist ethics, on the other hand, would probably call for a unity of intentions and consequences, since all phenomena and actions are linked in some way. Debaters interested in incorporating Emerson into their arguments should be cautioned that he is far from a systematic thinker. As noted above, his stance often seems anti-foundationalist and anti-analytic, meaning that there will be a certain awkwardness involved in using his ideas for the sometimes-binaristic world of debate. However, Emersons eloquence, his optimism about humanity and democracy, and his powerful statements against human bondage and majoritarianism, compensate for his imperfect attempt to do justice to the paradoxical nature of human existence.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, Gay Wilson. RALPH WALDO EMERSON: A BIOGRAPHY (New York: Viking Press, 1981). Emerson, Ralph Waldo. A YANKEE IN CANADA, WITH ANTI-SLAVERY AND REFORM PAPERS (Boston, Ticknor and Fields, 1866). Emerson, Ralph Waldo. EMERSON ON EDUCATION: SELECTIONS (New York: Teachers College Press, 1966). Emerson, Ralph Waldo. FORTUNE OF THE REPUBLIC (Boston: Hougton, Osgood and Company, 1878). Emerson, Ralph Waldo. INDIAN SUPERSTITION (Hanover, N.H.: Friends of the Dartmouth Library, 1954). Emerson, Ralph Waldo. NAPOLEAN, OR THE MAN OF THE WORLD (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1947) Emerson, Ralph Waldo. NATURAL HISTORY OF INTELLECT, AND OTHER PAPERS (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1900). THE EARLY LECTURES OF RALPH WALDO EMERSON (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959). Emerson, Ralph Waldo. THE CONDUCT OF LIFE: NINE ESSAYS ON FATE, POWER, WEALTH (New York: Scott-Thaw, 1903). Gougeon, Len and Myerson, Joel, eds. EMERSONS ANTISLAVERY WRITINGS (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995). Haight, Gordon Sherman, ed. THE BEST OF RALPH WALDO EMERSON: ESSAYS, POEMS, ADDRESSES (New York: W. J. Black, 1941). Huggard, William Allen. EMERSON AND THE PROBLEM OF WAR AND PEACE (Iowa City: The University Press, 1938). Konvitz, Milton R. and Whicher, Stephen E., eds. EMERSON: A COLLECTION OF CRITICAL ESSAYS (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1978). McGiffert, Arthur Cushman Jr., ed. YOUNG EMERSON SPEAKS: UNPUBLISHED DISCOURSES ON MANY SUBJECTS (Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press, 1968). Porte, Joel. REPRESENTATIVE MAN: RALPH WALDO EMERSON IN HIS TIME (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978). Robinson, David. APOSTLE OF CULTURE: EMERSON AS PREACHER AND LECTURER (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982). Sealts Jr., Merton M. and Ferguson, Alfred R., eds. EMERSONS NATURE: ORIGIN, GROWTH, MEANING (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1969). Smith, Susan Sutton, ed. THE TOPICAL NOTEBOOKS OF RALPH WALDO EMERSON (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1990)

BEAUTY IS THE HIGHEST VALUE 1. BEAUTY IS THE ULTIMATE END OF THE UNIVERSE AND ALL ACTIVITY Ralph Waldo Emerson, American transcendentalist philosopher, EMERSON ON TRANSCENDENTALISM, 1986, p. 15. The world thus exists to the soul to satisfy the desire of beauty. This element I call an ultimate end. No reason can be asked or given why the soul seeks beauty. Beauty, in its largest and profoundest sense, is one expression for the universe. God is the all-fair. Truth, and goodness, and beauty, are but different faces of the same All. 2. VIRTUOUS ACTS ARE BEAUTIFUL AND EXPRESSES THE RATIONALITY OF THE UNIVERSE Ralph Waldo Emerson, American transcendentalist philosopher, EMERSON ON TRANSCENDENTALISM, 1986, p. 12. The presence of a higher, namely, of the spiritual element is essential to its perfection. The high and divine beauty which can be loved without effeminacy, is that which is found in combination with the human will. Beauty is the mark God sets upon virtue. Every natural action is graceful. Every heroic act is also decent, and causes the place and the bystanders to shine. We are taught by great actions that the universe is the property of every individual in it. Every rational creature has all nature for his dowry and estate. It is his, if he will. He may divest himself of it; he may creep into a corner, and abdicate his kingdom, as most men do, but he is entitled to the world by his constitution. POWER IS DERIVED FROM VIRTUOUS BEHAVIOR 1. WE DERIVE POWER FROM BEING VIRTUOUS AND HONEST Ralph Waldo Emerson, American transcendentalist philosopher, EMERSONS PROSE AND POETRY, 2000, p. 15. One measure of a mans character is his effect upon his fellow-men. And any one who will steadily observe his own experience will I think become convinced, that every false word he has uttered, that it to say, every departure from his own convictions, out of deference to others has been a sacrifice of a certain amount of his power over other men. For every man knows whether he has been accustomed to receive truth or falsehood valuable opinions or foolish talkingfrom his brother, and this knowledge must inevitably determine his respect. 2. VIRTUOUS ACTS PLACE US IN UNISON WITH THE POWER OF NATURE Ralph Waldo Emerson, American transcendentalist philosopher, EMERSON ON TRANSCENDENTALISM, 1986, p. 13. In private places, among sordid objects, an act of truth or heroism seems at once to draw to itself the sky as its temple, the sun as its candle. Nature stretches out her arms to embrace man, only let his thoughts be of equal greatness. Willingly does she follow his steps with the rose and the violet, and bend her lines of grandeur and grace to the decoration of her darling child. Only let his thoughts be of equal scope, and the frame will suit the picture. A virtuous man is in unison with her works, and makes the central figure of the visible sphere. Homer, Pindar, Socrates, Phocion, associate themselves fitly in our memory with the geography and climate of Greece. The visible heavens and earth sympathize with Jesus. And in common life whosoever has seen a person of powerful character and happy genius will have remarked how easily he took all things along with him,--the persons, the opinions, and the day, and nature became ancillary to a man.

MORALITY IS INNATE AND TRANSCENDENT 1. THE TRUE SOURCE OF MORALITY IS IN THE UNWRITTEN LAWS OF HUMANITYS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UNIVERSE AND EACH OTHER Ralph Waldo Emerson, American transcendentalist philosopher, EMERSON ON TRANSCENDENTALISM, 1986, pp. 72-73. The sentiment of virtue is a reverence and delight in the presence of certain divine laws. It perceives that this homely game of life we play, covers, under what seem foolish details, principles that astonish. The child amidst his baubles is learning the action of light, motion, gravity, muscular force; and in the game of human life, love, fear, justice, appetite, man, and God, interact. These laws refuse to be adequately stated. They will not be written out on paper, or spoken by the tongue. They elude our persevering thought; yet we read them hourly in each others faces, in each others actions, in our own remorse. 2. TRANSCENDENT MORAL LAWS EXIST IN HUMAN INTUITION Ralph Waldo Emerson, American transcendentalist philosopher, EMERSON ON TRANSCENDENTALISM, 1986, p. 73. The intuition of the moral sentiment is an insight of the perfection of the laws of the soul. These laws execute themselves. They are out of time, out of space, and not subject to circumstance. Thus in the soul of man there is a justice whose retributions are instant and entire. He who does a good deed is instantly ennobled. CIVIL LAWS MUST BE A REFLECTION OF TRUE, TRANSCENDENT JUSTICE 1. LAWS WITHOUT TRANSCENDENT JUSTICE ARE USELESS Ralph Waldo Emerson, American transcendentalist philosopher, EMERSONS PROSE AND POETRY, 2000, p. 361. I question the value of our civilization, when I see that the public mind has never less hold of the strongest of all truths. The sense of injustice is blunted, a sure sign of the shallowness of our intellect. I cannot accept the railroad and the telegraph in exchange for reason and clarity. It is not skill in iron locomotives that marks so fine civility as the jealousy of liberty. I cannot think the most judicious tubing a compensation for metaphysical debility. What is the use of admirable law-forms and political forms, if a hurricane of party feeling and a combination of monied interests can beat them to the ground? What is the use of courts, if judges only quote authorities, and no judge exerts original jurisdiction, or recurs to first principles? What is the use of a Federal Bench, if its opinions are the political breath of the hour? And what is the use of constitutions, if all the guarantees provided by the jealousy of ages for the protection of liberty are made of no effect, when a bad act of Congress finds a willing commissioner? 2. WE HAVE A DUTY TO BREAK IMMORAL LAWS Ralph Waldo Emerson, American transcendentalist philosopher, EMERSONS PROSE AND POETRY, 2000, p. 362. An immoral law makes it a mans duty to break it, at every hazard. For virtue is the very self of every man. It is therefore a principle of law, that an immoral contract is void, and that an immoral statute is void, for, as laws do not make right, but are simply declatory of a right which already existed, it is not to be presumed that they can so stultify themselves as to command injustice.

EMERSONS PHILOSOPHY LEGITIMIZES RUTHLESS POWER AND COMPETITION 1. EMERSON SAW CAPITALIST IMPERIALISM AS THE UNFOLDING OF DIVINE WILL Robert Milder, Professor of English at Washington University of Saint Louis, THE CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO RALPH WALDO EMERSON, 1999, p. 68. Emerson was not co-opted by liberal capitalism so much as he hastened to join it, since aligning himself with the divinely empowered forces of the age was always the condition for a living philosophy. The Young American (1844)Emersons battle cry for the new era of industrial expansion and manifest destiny, as his editors call itis therefore less an apology for Laissez-faire capitalism than an attempt like Henry Adamss sixty years later to plot the lines of force that were remaking contemporary society. The difference is that where Adams the ironist would dwell on multiplicity and a vertiginous acceleration of energies without immanent purpose or foreseeable end, Emerson the seeker of unity is at pains to assimilate the new forces to a cosmic and social teleologyto survey history for the perspective of the over-god of the Channing ode and, in doing so, marry Right to Might. 2. EMERSON GLORIFIED POWER AND ELITISM Daniel Aron, philosopher, EMERSON: A COLLECTION OF CRITICAL ESSAYS, 1962, p. 90. Emersons respect for power and its achievements is even more glowingly expressed in two others essays, Power and Wealth. Here he reiterates his preference for the bruisers and pirates, the men of the right Caesarian pattern who transcend the pettiness of talkers and clerks and dominate the world by sheer force of character. Life is a search after power, he announces, and the successful men who understand the laws of Nature and respond to the godhead within themselves, who convert the sap and juices of the planet to the incarnation and nutriment of their design, are unconsciously fulfilling the plan of a benevolent providence. In these essays and elsewhere, Emerson was not only synchronizing the predatory practices of the entrepreneur with the harmony of the universe and permitting merchants (as Bronson Alcott shrewdly said) to find a refuge from their own duplicity under his broad shield; he was also outlining a code of behavior that the superior man must follow, and sketching the ideal political economy under which the superman might best exercise his uncommon talents. 3. EMERSONS PHILOSOPHY LEGITIMIZES UNCHECKED CAPITALIST EXPLOITATION Robert Milder, Professor of English at Washington University of Saint Louis, THE CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO RALPH WALDO EMERSON, 1999, pp. 68-69. By emphasizing the anti-feudal power of trade, which displaces the physical strength of kings and aristocrats and installs the enlightened forces of computation, combination, information (and) science, in its room. Emerson can associate capitalism with amelioration in nature, which alone permits and authorizes amelioration in mankind. Implicit in his words are the notion that the civic world is part of nature and subject to its processes and that advancement occurs by cooperating with these processes rather than directing them toward immediate human ends. The political corollary to this belief is an almost unmitigated laissez-faire: Trade is an instrument of that friendly Power which works for us in our own despiteOur part is plainly not to throw ourselves across the track, not to block improvement, and sit till we are stone, but to watch the uprise of successive mornings, and to conspire with the new works of new days.

EMERSONS PHILOSOPHY IS IRRELEVANT TO EVERYDAY AND POLITICAL LIFE 1. TRANSCENDENTALISM PLACES ITSELF ABOVE ORDINARY HUMAN EXPERIENCE Michael Lopez, Professor of English at Michigan State University, EMERSON AND POWER, 1996, p. 32. Empty, vacantthe image is invoked repeatedly in Henry Jamess and Santayanas portrayals of Emerson. For James, Emersons memory evoked an unforgettable series of impressions of New Englands cultural barrenness. Emersons personal history, he recalled, could be condensed into the single word Concord, and all the condensation in the world will not make it look rich. He continued, in his 1888 essay, to associate Emerson with the terrible paucity of alternatives, the achromatic picture his environment presented him. As far as James was concerned, the whole Concord school had, as Matthiessen notes, enacted a series of experiments in the void. Emersons special capacity for moral experiencewhich for James meant Emersons ripe unconscious of evil, his inability to look at anything but the soulwas the result of his coming to maturity in a community that had to seek its entertainment, its rewards and consolations, almost exclusively in the moral world. The decidedly lean Boston of Emersons day was self-enclosed, an island above the extremes of common human experience. 2. EMERSONS PHILOSOPHY IGNORES THE EVILS OF THE REAL WORLD Michael Lopez, Professor of English at Michigan State University, EMERSON AND POWER, 1996, p. 32-33. Emersons limited moral world was, like the New England (of) fifty years ago, sealed off, perpetually untested by the beguilements and prizes of experience. Boston existed serenely, James writes (and he means Boston to stand for Emerson), like a ministry without an opposition. It was no surprise, then, that his eyes were thickly bandaged to all sense of the dark, the foul, the base, and no surprise that there was a certain inadequacy and thinness in (Emersons) enumerations and quaint animadversions. We get the impression, James concludes, of a conscience gasping in the void, panting for sensations, with something of the movement of the gills of a landed fish. 3. EMERSONS PHILOSOPHY LACKS ANY SPECIFIC CONTENT OR DEFINITION George Santayana, philosopher, EMERSON: A COLLECTION OF CRITICAL ESSAYS, 1962, p. 31. This effect was by no means due to the possession on the part of Emerson of the secret of the universe, or even of a definite conception of ultimate truth. He was not a prophet who had once for all climbed his Sinai or his Tabor, and having there beheld the transfigured reality, descended again to make authoritative report of it to the world. Far from it. At bottom he had no doctrine at all. The deeper he went and the more he tried to grapple with fundamental conceptions, the vaguer and more elusive they became in his hands. Did he know what he meant by Spirit or the Over-Soul? Could he say what he understood by the terms, so constantly on his lips, Nature, Law, God, Benefit, or Beauty? He could not, and the consciousness of that incapacity was so lively within him that he never attempted to give articulation to his philosophy. 4. EMERSONIAN MYSTICISM VOIDS ALL REASON AND UNDERSTANDING George Santayana, philosopher, EMERSON: A COLLECTION OF CRITICAL ESSAYS, 1962, p. 35. Mysticism, as we have said, is the surrender of a category of thought because we divine its relativity. As every new category, however, must share this reproach, the mystic is obliged in the end to give them all up, the poetic and moral categories no less than the physical, so that the end of his purification is the atrophy of his whole nature, the emptying of his whole heart and mind to make room, as he thinks, for God. By attacking the authority of the understanding as the organon of knowledge, by substituting itself for it as the herald of a deeper truth, the imagination thus prepares its own destructing. For if the understanding is rejected because it cannot grasp the absolute, the imagination and all its worksart, dogma, worshipmust presently be rejected for the same reason. Common sense and poetry must both go by the board, and conscience must follow after: for all these are human and relative. Mysticism will be satisfied only with the absolute, and as the absolute, by its very definition, is not representable by any specific faculty, it must be approached through the abandonment of all.
JOHN DEWEY
"Men have never fully used [their] powers to advance the good in life, because they have waited upon some power external to themselves and to nature to do the work they are responsible for doing." John Dewey INTRODUCTION This essay will explore the life and thought of John Dewey, a distinctively American pragmatist philosopher. Dewey has influenced famous contemporary thinkers such as Richard Rorty and Donald Davidson in the area of philosophy, as well as countless teachers and educational theorists. What makes Dewey uniquely American is his pragmatism. Dewey held that transcendent truths were not as important as the collective experience of ordinary human beings. For Dewey, the ultimate test of a theory or idea was whether it worked for ordinary people applying the theory or idea. After examining Deweys interesting life, I will attempt to explain both the philosophy of pragmatism and Deweys educational philosophy. Both of these philosophies stem from particular assumptions such as the vitality of experience and usefulness, the primacy of collective and community activity over individual reflection, and the belief that humans can progress and improve themselves over time. A brief synopsis of some general objections of Dewey follows, along with some ideas about how Dewey can be used in value debate. LIFE AND WORK John Dewey was born in Burlington, Vermont, on October 20, 1859, the son of a grocer. Dewey's father owned a general store in the small Vermont community, and Dewey grew up listening to local customers at the store discuss politics and culture. From a very early age, John Dewey witnessed the kind of community participation that would inspire his views on society, politics and education. Burlington possessed paradoxical traits (and in many ways, still does): It was both a local intellectual center and a community of simple farming and trade. If, as some critics have charged, Dewey possessed an unreasonable utopian trust in communities, it may very well have been his youth in Burlington that inspired that trust. At the same time, Dewey would come to reject the small town provincialism of Burlington in favor of the changing and growing national community that characterized the second half of the 19th century. Dewey stayed in Burlington after graduating from the public schools, and enrolled at the University of Vermont. He graduated in 1879, at the age of twenty, and taught high school for three years. These early teaching experiences no doubt forced Dewey to realize that something was not quite right with the education system in America. Students were herded in and out of classrooms, taught to memorize proofs and facts and histories, and expected to regurgitate them faithfully. There seemed to be different "tracks" for different students, from base "vocational" education to higher forms of learning, and these divisions were often based on students' economic circumstances rather than any useful distinctions. Not surprisingly, Dewey left public school teaching in favor of exploring the alternatives that might be available. In the fall of 1882, Dewey enrolled in the philosophy graduate program at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. Two years later, he received his PhD. in philosophy, and received an appointment from the University of Michigan to teach philosophy and psychology. By now, the young scholar had experienced a wide range of educational models, from the naive provincialism of small town public schools to the progressive possibilities of advanced study in philosophy. He was beginning to realize that what separated these extremes was not so much the "natural talent" of students as the philosophical commitments of the instructors and administrators. He would come to understand that if teachers and administrators believed in students, saw students as valuable in and of themselves, rather than seeing them as defects to be corrected or workers to be trained, most students would take advantage of the opportunities afforded them, and grow accordingly. In 1894, Dewey was appointed professor of philosophy and chair of the department of philosophy, psychology and pedagogy at the University of Chicago. It was at Chicago where Dewey would begin experimenting with

his progressive theories of education, and these experiments, along with his prolific and rigorous essays in philosophy and psychology, brought national fame to the young man from Burlington. However, the experiments and the progressive thinking also brought Dewey directly into conflict with University of Chicago President William Rainey Harper, who by all accounts represented exactly the kind of "old school" traditionalism Dewey opposed. In 1904, Dewey left the University of Chicago to become a professor of philosophy at Columbia University in New York City. John Dewey would stay at Columbia for the next 47 years. His writings and experiments enjoyed free reign and institutional encouragement, and he would produce a body of work nearly unmatched in the history of American philosophy. He wrote essays and books about epistemology, politics, ethics, and education. He influenced teachers and educational theorists all over the world. To them, he offered a notion that was both politically radical and educationally sound: Education must occur through real, genuine experience, engaged to the child by teachers who visibly value the child, and allow the child to participate in his or her own education. (http://inst.augie.edu/~mafjerke/dewey.htm) Perhaps one of the most significant, and least known, of Dewey's achievements came in 1937 when he chaired the "Dewey Commission," an effort to clear Soviet revolutionary leader Leon Trotsky of Josef Stalin's charges that Trotsky was a counterrevolutionary sabuteur. A collection of anti-Stalinist left activists and anti-capitalist figures asked Dewey to chair the commission because, although Dewey was no socialist, he was viewed by leftists as fair, impartial, and concerned with social justice. Dewey's commission cleared Trotsky of all of Stalin's charges, which did not stop Stalin's agents from assassinating Trotsky in Mexico a short time later (wsws.org/history/1997/may1997/dewey.shtml). Dewey's role in vindicating Trotsky is important because it shows how his concern for justice and solidarity overrode his differences with the communists. At a gathering of Trotsky's defenders, Dewey and Trotsky shared a laugh when Trotsky reportedly said "If more liberals were like you, I might be a liberal," and Dewey replied "If more socialists were like you, I might be a socialist." This exchange speaks volumes about Dewey's philosophy and politics. He believed that shared experiences were always more important than ideological doctrines. The fact that he could share such honest and sincere humor with one of the most dogmatic ideologues of the 20th century underscores Dewey's commitment to pluralism. John Dewey died on June 1, 1952. No other 20th century American philosopher has enjoyed a greater impact on the day-to-day workings of the system, and despite this impact, few philosophers are more misunderstood. DEWEYS PHILOSOPHY OF PRAGMATISM Dewey's metaphysical assumptions naturally lead to an embrace of the kind of pragmatism advocated in the 19th century by William James (1842-1910) and Charles Saunders Peirce (1839-1914). James and Peirce believed that theoretical soundness was not a matter of adherence to some kind of transcendent logic, removed from everyday experience. "Truth" for pragmatists is not determined in reference to absolute metaphysical principles, but rather in reference to what "works," and what coheres with the genuine experience of living subjects. This explains why, concerning the philosophy of religion, William James was more concerned about people's personal religious experiences than with the various logical "proofs" for God's existence, or appeals to the truth of scripture. Similarly, Dewey sees humans as part of nature, and sees nature as constantly changing. "A thing is its history" for Dewey, and that history is lived experience (Gordon L. Ziniewicz, www.fred.net/tzaka/deweynew.html). Humans, as part of nature, also have a history of change, both as a race and as individuals. Like existentialists, Dewey believes that what constitutes "human nature" is a history of experience. But unlike existentialists, Dewey believes that history and experience are collective as well as individual. This will become important later, when we see how strongly Dewey believes in cooperation instead of competition. Pragmatism holds that there is no such thing as "absolute certainty," in theory or practice. Humans may, through experience and reflection (in fact, Dewey sees mental reflection as part of the sum of human experience), reach near-certainty about theories or ideas. This near-certainty results not from an abstract examination of a theory or idea, but through a contemplation of the consequences of behaving as if the theory or idea were true.

For example, I may have the idea that procrastination is an undesirable character trait, that I should adhere to my schedule and not put things off until the last minute. I may have this idea because my parents kept pounding it into my head, because my teachers warn me about it, and so on. But unless the "procrastination is bad" idea is validated by my lived experience, I could never consider it "true." In fact, my experience may contradict the advice of my parents and teachers. I may work well under the pressure of the last minute. I may be talented enough to pull off last-minute miracles. My lived experience tells me that it is okay to procrastinate. At least, until the inevitable time that my last-minute miracle doesn't happen. My assignment is poorly written; my teacher tells me it's obvious I wrote it the night before. I fail. At that point, I reconsider the original idea, and begin to think that procrastination might be bad after all. This example illustrates two important aspects of Dewey's pragmatism. First, as already stated, my lived experience is more important than logic or metaphysics in determining the truth or falsity of a claim. Second, however, the example shows that theories and ideas change. I hold something true as long as my experience verifies it. When my experience no longer verifies it, I no longer have sound reason to hold it true. For Dewey, experience can be active or passive, and includes reflection as well as interaction. Thus, experience is not (as it was for the empiricists), the simple reception and contemplation of external data. It includes long-term, rigorous meditation on ideas and things. It may even include mystical, emotional, or religious experience. As long as those things add to my understanding of the way the world works (and remember, I am part of the world), then they are valuable parts of the way I know things. (Ziniewicz, IBID) Many scholars refer to these pragmatic ideas as John Deweys instrumentalism. In sum, instrumentalism holds that humans encounter problems and exercise mental inquiry to solve those problems. They experiment, test, propose and oppose, and through trial and error reach a higher stage of understanding. The journey to higher levels of understanding has no end, as there is no absolute certainty: Dewey's 'instrumentalism' defined inquiry as the transformation of a puzzling, indeterminate situation into one that is sufficiently unified to enable warranted assertion or coherent action; and the knowledge that is the object of inquiry is, Dewey insisted, just as available in matters of morals and politics as in matters of physics and chemistry. What is required in all cases is the application of intelligent inquiry, the self-correcting method of experimentally testing hypotheses created and refined from our previous experience. What counts as 'testing' may vary with the 'felt difficulty' in need of resolution-testing may occur in a chemistry laboratory, in imaginative rehearsal of conflicting habits of action, in legislation that changes some functions of a government - but in all cases there is a social context, mediating both the terms of the initial problem and its solution, and being in turn transformed by the inquiry. (http://www.xrefer.com/entry/551811) Finally, Dewey is a strong proponent of collectivism and cooperation. There are many reasons for this beyond mere progressive political sentiment. Rather, his collectivism stems directly from his belief in the universality of experience as the arbiter of knowledge. I do not learn things merely by self-reflection. My experiences include the stories and experiences of other people. Moreover, "community ideals" are those ideas and principles that a community develops over time, as a result of collective experience. This explains Dewey's strong support of schools and progressive education, which we'll examine in the next section. Finally, Dewey supports community ideals because, pragmatically speaking, we achieve more cooperating with others than we achieve on our own. In summary, Dewey's philosophy is an affirmation of humans as part of an ever-changing natural world. Abstract principles are only valuable insofar as they cohere to our experiences of and in this ever-changing natural world. Part of this experience is our membership in a community, where we learn from and with other people. The best political world is one that maximizes the strength of communities, to the maximum benefit of all participants.

DEWEYS VIEWS ON EDUCATION Education is not a preparation for life; Education is life itself. John Dewey As might be suggested by his pragmatism, John Dewey believed education must be informed by genuine experience, constant interaction, and community values. Although he did not reject the notion that some individuals may be more motivated than others to learn, he nevertheless believed that one's environment was a huge determining factor in one's educational development. In many ways, then, Dewey's theory of education was a direct result of his pragmatist philosophical perspective. (www.infed.org/thinkers/et-dewey.htm) One of the most significant differences between traditional educational approaches and Dewey's "progressive" views of education was his perspective on the role of teachers. Dewey did not view instructors as absolute authorities imposing ideas and practices on students. Rather, he saw teachers as facilitators, guiding students through the learning process, and he believed this ought to be done as democratically as possible. Contrary to the picture some critics have painted of Dewey, he did not believe in some kind of simplistic (and utopian) democracy where students have as much authority as teachers. He simply believed that much more democracy was possible in the classroom; that students could be taught the virtues of democracy by learning to participate, in feasible ways, in their own educational experiences. Dewey rejected the "checklist" rigor of individual assignments and isolated studies in favor of group learning, discussion, and genuine experiences. If students are learning about agriculture, Dewey would rather students visit a farm and share in some of the farm work than just read about farms in a book. If the subject was politics and government, Dewey would prefer that students form their own governments and raise issues and solicit votes than merely listen to a lecture on how governments function in a democracy. OBJECTIONS TO DEWEY Critics of John Deweys philosophy include both philosophers opposed to pragmatism, and political activists opposed to the soft, utopian liberalism of Deweys political positions. Objections to pragmatism usually come in the form of metaphysical assertions that the truth of a claim is not dependent upon the experiential validation of that claim. To cite the example I used in the section on pragmatism, those opposed to Dewey would argue that the statement You should not procrastinate has a truth-value independent of my verification of that statement with my own experience. However, more strongly worded objections come from the political side. Primarily, Dewey is charged with having utopian aspirations regarding cooperation and progressivism, but at the same time ignoring real-world barriers to his utopia. Conservatives, for example, charge that Dewey believes all citizens (and particularly students, in regards to his educational philosophy) have the same basic abilities, or the same potential for genius; that Dewey seems to believe that all differences come from the environment. Conservatives believe that people have different abilities, and that perceived inequalities in society are really just the result of the cold, hard fact that some people are more talented and industrious than others. More criticism comes from those to the political left of Dewey, such as Marxists. For them, Dewey is a liberal in the negative sense of the term. He believes everyone can get along, even though Marxists believe that there can be no reconciliation between the ruling class and the working class. Thus, Dewey offers a vision of universal enlightenment and progressive, community virtues, but offers no material means of getting to such a world. The desire that we all get along and progress together is not enough.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DEBATE Deweys educational philosophy is in a class by itself, and any value debate topic dealing with education should inspire a great deal of research on Deweys ideas. But in this section I will concern myself only with his general philosophy. The following main points suggest ways in which debaters can incorporate the ideas of John Dewey: Democracy: Obviously, Dewey is a strong proponent of democracy, for unique reasons. Dewey believes that we learn, both individually and collectively, through experimentation and the consideration of all ideas and possibilities. For Dewey, the clash of ideas and approaches found in a healthy democracy is the paradigm example of a progressive society. Necessity of Experience rather than Idealism: Dewey provides a solid answer to philosophers such as Plato, Hegel, Ayn Rand, Leo Strauss, and other thinkers who believe that the Truth is a transcendent set of principles simply waiting to be discovered. Rather, Dewey believes, we make the truth, not in some relativistic sense, but through genuine human experience. Moreover, Dewey would accuse these idealist and objectivist philosophers of being foundationally anti-democratic. A natural conclusion to Deweys philosophy is that our collective notions of truth ought to be decided democratically. The idea that Truth emanates from on high is contrary to the notions of progressive, participatory democracy. Cooperation versus Conflict: Obviously, Dewey believes that we learn more together than we do apart, and that we achieve more when we unite around common goals than when we compete with one another. He rejected the notion of competition in academics and embraced the idea that we can learn cooperatively, helping each other out, learning from common struggles. CONCLUSION John Dewey represents something very important about American philosophy. Instead of being concerned about what is ideally true, metaphysically true, logically true or mathematically true, Dewey was concerned about the truth of what works for people in their everyday lives. This is radically democratizing, and wholly appropriate to a people who, at least in principle, rejected the divine right of kings and the assumptions of aristocracy. It is appropriate to an experiment in democracy amidst pluralism and uncertainty. Debaters wishing to incorporate Dewey's ideas ought to research both the foundations of his pragmatism, and the implications of his pragmatism on his educational theories. Although these two aspects of his philosophy are intimately related, the literature is divided rather distinctively. Debaters might also contemplate the fact that, as they search the library for Dewey's works, they might well be using the Dewey Decimal System, devised by John Dewey to catalogue books in libraries. In many ways, Dewey would be a strong advocate of academic debate. Like the participatory models of education he advocated, debate is an exercise in empowering, involved activity. It is student-centered and relies on the students experimenting, succeeding and failing, and learning from each exchange. In fact, understanding why debate is educational for you can help you understand exactly the kind of education that Dewey wanted for students. At the same time, debaters should be aware that objections to pragmatism are important. Dewey and his followers talk about the importance of democracy and participation, but they seem unable to suggest ways to dismantle the very real power structures that block these possibilities. Perhaps creative debaters can synthesize Deweyan pragmatism with effective political strategies for actually opening up the real, material possibility of change in a world where, despite Dewey's efforts, elitism still remains.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Baker, Melvin C. FOUNDATIONS OF JOHN DEWEYS EDUCATIONAL THEORY (New York: Atherton Press, 1966). Campbell, James. UNDERSTANDING JOHN DEWEY: NATURE AND COOPERATIVE INTELLIGENCE (Chicago: Open Court, 1995). Dewey, John and James Hayden Tufts. ETHICS (New York: H. Holt, 1936). Dewey, John. A COMMON FAITH (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960). Dewey, John. ART AS EXPERIENCE (New York: Minton, Balch & Company, 1934). Dewey, John. ESSAYS IN EXPERIMENTAL LOGIC (New York: Dover Publications, 1953) Dewey, John. EXPERIENCE AND NATURE (La Salle, IL: Open Court Publishing Company, 1958). Dewey, John. FREEDOM AND CULTURE (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1939). Dewey, John. HOW WE THINK (Boston: D.C. Heath, 1910). Dewey, John. INDIVIDUALISM OLD AND NEW (New York: Minton, Balch & Company, 1930). Dewey, John. LECTURES IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1899). Dewey, John. LECTURES ON ETHICS, 1900-1901 (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1991). Dewey, John. LIBERALISM AND SOCIAL ACTION (New York: Capricorn Books, 1963). Dewey, John. THE CHILD AND THE CURRICULUM, AND SCHOOL AND SOCIETY (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956). Dewey, John. THEORY OF THE MORAL LIFE (New York: Irvington Publishers, 1980). Dewey, John. DEMOCRACY AND EDUCATION: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION (New York: The Macmillan company, 1916). Gavin, W. J. CONTEXT OVER FOUNDATION: DEWEY AND MARX (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988). Haskins, Casey, and Seiple, David I.. DEWEY RECONFIGURED: ESSAYS ON DEWEYAN PRAGMATISM (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1999). Nissen, Lowell. JOHN DEWEYS THEORY OF INQUIRY AND TRUTH (The Hague: Mouton, 1966). Popp, Jerome A. NATURALIZING PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION: JOHN DEWEY IN THE POSTANALYTIC PERIOD (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1998). Schilpp, Paul Arthur. THE PHILOSOPHY OF JOHN DEWEY (La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1951). Soneson, Jerome Paul. PRAGMATISM AND PLURALISM: JOHN DEWEYS SIGNIFICANCE FOR THEOLOGY (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993).

TRUTH IS PROGRESSIVE AND EVOLVING 1. ADAPTING TO SOCIAL CONDITIONS DETERMINES OUR ABILITY TO THINK WELL John Dewey, American pragmatist philosopher, PHILOSOPHY AND CIVILIZATION, 1968, p. 296. Thinking, however, is the most difficult occupation in which man engages. If the other arts have to be acquired through ordered apprenticeship, the power to think requires even more conscious and consecutive attention. No more than any other art is it developed internally. It requires favorable objective conditions, just as the art of painting requires paint, brushes, and canvas. The most important problem in freedom of thinking is whether social conditions obstruct the development of judgment and insight or effectively promote it. We take for granted the necessity of special opportunity and prolonged education to secure ability to think in a special calling, like mathematics. But we appear to assume that ability to think effectively in social, political and moral matters is a gift of God, and that the gift operates by a kind of spontaneous combustion. Few would perhaps defend this doctrine thus boldly stated, but upon the whole we act as if that were true. 2. SOCIAL CONDITIONS INTERACT WITH INDIVIDUALS, PRODUCING CHANGING CONCEPTIONS OF MORALITY John Dewey, American pragmatist philosopher, PHILOSOPHY AND CIVILIZATION, 1968, p. 298. Constant and uniform relations in change and a knowledge of them in laws, are not a hindrance to freedom, but a necessary factor in coming to be effectively that which we have the capacity to grow into. Social conditions interact with the preferences of an individual (that are his individuality) in a way favorable to actualizing freedom only when they develop intelligence, not abstract knowledge and abstract thought, but power of vision and reflection. For these take effect in making preference, desire and purpose more flexible, alert, and resolute. Freedom has too long been thought of as an indeterminate power operating in a closed and ended world. In its reality, freedom is a resolute will operating in a world in some respects indeterminate, because open and moving toward a new future. 3. FREEDOM CONSISTS IN RECOGNIZING AND ADAPTING TO CHANGE John Dewey, American pragmatist philosopher, LECTURES ON ETHICS, 1991, p. 89. Judgment or responsibility depends upon the balance between the subject and the predicate, between the natural self and the ideal self. In obligation, the element of tension or resistance between the two is perhaps the more emphasized, the explicit thing. But the necessary unity between the two is involved. In the idea of responsibility that unity of the natural and the ideal self (that it is the business of the natural self to become the ideal self and of the ideal self to be realized in the natural self) is the prominent thing. The point of simple tension between the two has been passed, and the emphasis is on the other side of the identity between the two. In other words, the possible self does not represent a remote, abstract possibility but is the possibility of the actual self. The actual self is not complete as long as it is stated simply as given. It is complete only in its possibilities. That is the basis of responsibility. Carry that identity farther. Make it not merely an identity in conception but in action, and you have freedom. Freedom is the equivalent of the reality of growth.

THERE ARE NO TRANSCENDENT MORAL TRUTHS 1. VALUES ARE DEPENDENT UPON REAL WORLD CONSEQUENCES AND CIRCUMSTANCES John Dewey, American pragmatist philosopher, PHILOSOPHY AND CIVILIZATION, 1968, pp. 48-49. For ordinary purposes, that is for practical purposes, the truth and the realness of things are synonymous. We are all children who saw really and truly. A reality which is taken in organic response so as to lead to subsequent reactions that are off the track and aside from the mark, while it is, existentially speaking, perfectly real, is not good reality. It lacks the hallmark of value. Since it is a certain kind of object which we want, one which will be as favorable as possible to a consistent and liberal or growing functioning, it is this kind, the true kind, which for us monopolizes the title of reality. Pragmatically, teleologically, this identification of truth and reality is sound and reasonable: rationalistically, it leads to the notion of the duplicate versions of reality, one absolute and static because exhausted; the other phenomenal and kept continually on the jump because otherwise its own inherent nothingness would lead to its total annihilation. Since it is only genuine and sincere things, things which are good for what they lay claim to in the way of consequences, which we want or are after, morally they alone are real. 2. MORAL AND LEGAL RULES ARE NOT FIXED AND TRANSCENDENT, BUT CHANGE IN RESPONSE TO HISTORICAL CIRCUMSTANCES John Dewey, American pragmatist philosopher, PHILOSOPHY AND CIVILIZATION, 1968, p. 139. Failure to recognize that general legal rules and principles are working hypotheses, needing to be constantly tested by the way in which they work out in application to concrete situations, explains the otherwise paradoxical fact that the slogans of the liberalism of one period often become the bulwarks of reaction in a subsequent era. There was a time in the eighteenth century when the great social need was emancipation of industry and trade from a multitude of restrictions which held over from the feudal estate of Europe. Adapted well enough to the localized and fixed conditions of that earlier age, they became hindrances and annoyances as the effects of new methods, use of coal and steam, emerged. The movement of emancipation expressed itself in principles of liberty in use of property, and freedom of contract, which were embodied in a mass of legal decisions. But the absolutistic logic of rigid syllogistic forms infected these ideas. FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY REQUIRE MATERIAL EQUALITY 1. ABSTRACT FREEDOM IS NOT ENOUGH: WE NEED THE MATERIAL AND ECONOMIC MEANS TO BE FREE John Dewey, American pragmatist philosopher, PHILOSOPHY AND CIVILIZATION, 1968, p. 281. The notion that men are equally free to act if only the same legal arrangements apply equally to all irrespective of differences in education, in command of capital, and the control of the social environment which is furnished by the institution of propertyis a pure absurdity, as facts have demonstrated. Since actual, that is, effective, rights and demands are products of interactions, and are not found in the original and isolated constitution of human nature, whether moral or psychological, mere elimination of obstructions is not enough. The latter merely liberates force and ability as that happens to be distributed by past accidents of history. 2. FREEDOM REQUIRES THE OBJECTIVE, MATERIAL MEANS TO ATTAIN CHOICE John Dewey, American pragmatist philosopher, PHILOSOPHY AND CIVILIZATION, 1968, pp. 297-98. I sum up by saying that the possibility of freedom is deeply grounded in our very beings. It is one with our individuality, our being uniquely what we are and not imitators and parasites of others. But like all other possibilities, this possibility has to be actualized; and, like all others, it can only be actualized through interaction with objective conditions. The question of political and economic freedom is not an addendum or afterthought, much less a deviation or excrescence, in the problem of personal freedom. For the conditions that form political and economic liberty are required in order to realize the potentiality of freedom each of us carries with him in his very structure.

DEWEYS PHILOSOPHY IS GENERALLY REMOVED FROM REALITY 1. DEWEYS MORAL PHILOSOPHY HAS NO OBJECTIVE BASIS George Novack, Marxist philosopher and activist, PRAGMATISM VERSUS MARXISM, 1975, p. 251. Deweys theory of ethics suffers from the same faults as his theory of knowledge. Just as ideas have no validity before all the returns are in but must be tested afresh in each instance, so moral judgments have no verifiable value or weight in advance of their results in action. Instrumentalist morality goes from case to case and from one step to the next without reaching any general standards of right or wrong and what makes them so. The most it can offer is a reasonable assumption or hopeful expectation that this way may be better than that, without examining the requisite objective grounds for the hypothetical belief. 2. DEWEYS PHILOSOPHY HAS BEEN DISPROVEN BY 20TH CENTURY HISTORY George Novack, Marxist philosopher and activist, PRAGMATISM VERSUS MARXISM, 1975, p. 256. Any philosophy which had not lost contact with the realities of social life should have been able to foresee, at least in broad outline, the growth and outbreak of these upheavals; to have interpreted their meaning; to have prepared and equipped people to cope with them; and thereby to have helped influence the course of events in a progressive direction. Certainly a philosophy like instrumentalism, which claims to be so realistic and practical, should have done no less. However, the record shows that at every critical turn of American history in the twentieth century, Deweyism has been caught off guard and overwhelmed by the sweep of events. Instead of playing a directing role, its adherents have been towed along in the wake of the more aggressive and dominant forces of plutocratic reaction. Their perplexity and powerlessness was first exhibited in the First World War; it has been duplicated in every serious crisis convulsing the United States since that time. DEWEYS PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION IS FLAWED 1. DEWEY FAILS SYNTHESIZE THE TEACHERS ROLES AS PARTICIPANT AND AUTHORITY R.S. Peters, professor of the philosophy of education at the University of London, JOHN DEWEY RECONSIDERED, 1977, p. 114. Deweys view of the teacher, who is societys agent for the transmission and development of its cultural heritage, is also unsatisfactory, for it slurs over the dualism between the teachers position as an authority and the legitimate demand for participation. A teacher is not just a leader in a game, like a football captain. In a game most of the participants know how to play; but pupils come to a teacher because they are ignorant, and he or she is meant to be, to some extent, an authority on some aspect of the culture. This disparity between teacher and taughtespecially in the primary schoolmakes talk of democracy in education problematic, unless democracy is watered down to mean just multiplying shared experiences and openness of communication, as by Dewey. If democracy is to include, as it usually does, some suggestion of participation in decisionmaking, we are then confronted with current tensions underlying the question of how much participation is compatible with the freedom and authority of the teacher. 2. DEWEYS EDUCATIONAL THEORIES IGNORED SOCIAL CONDITIONS R.S. Peters, professor of the philosophy of education at the University of London, JOHN DEWEY RECONSIDERED, 1977, p. 115. Deweys treatment of the psychological principle was equally unsatisfactory; for it combined a conception of the child, which was almost as idealistic as his conception of democracy, with a too limited view of what he called the social medium. This led him to oversimplify the dualism between what he called internal conditions and what is the result of social influences. Dewey was impressed, as I have reiterated, by the informal learning that went on in the home and in the local community and wanted to forge a link between this sort of learning and learning at school. But he did not ask the questions which home? and which local community?, for sociologists have catalogued the vast disparities that exist between homes in this respect.

DEWEYS JUSTIFICATIONS FOR DEMOCRACY ARE FLAWED 1. DEWEYS PHILOSOPHY OF DEMOCRACY IS MYSTICAL AND IMPRACTICAL R.S. Peters, professor of the philosophy of education at the University of London, JOHN DEWEY RECONSIDERED, 1977, pp. 114-115. Dewey himself never paid much attention to institutional issues. This was not just because he lived before the days when participation became an issue. It was also because his attitude towards the democratic way of life was semi-mystical. When the emotional force, the mystical force, one might say, of the miracles of the shared life and shared experience is spontaneously felt, the hardness and concreteness of contemporary life will be bathed in a light that never was on land or sea. I wonder if he always felt like this about sitting on committees! 2. DEWEYS BELIEF IN DEMOCRACY IS BASED ON MYSTICAL, RELIGIOUS NOTIONS George Novack, Marxist philosopher and activist, PRAGMATISM VERSUS MARXISM, 1975, p. 291. Dewey derived his basic stance toward democracy not, as he contended, from a scientific investigation of the history of society and a realistic analysis of American conditions, but rather from a tradition that was rooted in the mystical equality promised by the Christians. He accused the dualistic idealist philosophers of Greek and modern times of operating with ideal fancies instead of dealing with the given facts. Yet he committed the same error of metaphysical abstraction in the pivotal question of his whole philosophy: the origin, meaning, and application of democracy. He approached democracy not in its concrete manifestations throughout class society, but as an abstraction to be stuffed with the content he preferred to give it. Democracy to him was less a historical phenomenon than a secular religion. DEWEYS POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IGNORES HUMAN NATURE AND HISTORY 1. DEWEY IGNORES NATURAL DIFFERENCES AND INEQUALITIES Anthony Flew, professor of philosophy at the University of Reading, JOHN DEWEY RECONSIDERED, 1977, p. 87. But even if we do concede that this opposite tendency really is implicit in the original insistence upon maximum interplay with other forms of association, there is no getting away from the truth of Bantocks contention that there are strong pressures of equality of outcome in the work of John Dewey; for if associations are good and democratic in so far as their members share numerous and varied interests, and if education for democracy is to be a matter of concentrating on the development of various but always shared interests, then the variety of those shared interests, and the scope for independent individual development, necessarily must be limited correspondingly. It must, that is to say, be limited by and to whatever happens to be the maximum attainable either by the least richly talented or by the modal majority. Maybe Dewey himself would have been unhappy about the full force of these implications. But he never comes to terms in this context with the truth that people vary enormously in all natural endowments. 2. DEWEY IGNORES CLASS CONFLICT George Novack, Marxist philosopher and activist, PRAGMATISM VERSUS MARXISM, 1975, pp. 250-51. Dewey refused to believe that class conflict arises from deep-seated, compelling, and ineradicable causes in the capitalist system. It was an occasional and subordinate phenomenon that could be overcome by joint effort, good will, mutual give and take. He therefore looked to different agencies and means than the Marxists for achieving the desirable ends of a better life. He wrote: That work can be done only by the resolute, patient, cooperative activities of men and women of good will, drawn from every useful calling, over an indefinitely long period. In other words, class collaboration is the preferable means of social reformation, political action, and moral improvement. Class struggle goes in the wrong direction and gives disastrous results.
WOODROW WILSON
When most of us think of Woodrow Wilson, we dont necessarily think philosopher -- but thats what this visionary president of the United States was. Best remembered as the progenitor of the League of Nations (the precursor to todays United Nations) and of the fourteen point program for peace, Wilsons name is also invoked by students of international relations theory today in the context of so-called Wilsonian idealism -- the notion that an interventionist American foreign policy can spawn positive changes in other countries and cultures. This, for better or for worse, is the former presidents predominant legacy: the liberal internationalism that continues to inform American foreign policy under most Democratic presidents (and some Republicans, such as the first George Bush). Like most historic truths, these simple summations contain quite a bit of accuracy and a little sleight-ofhand. The veracity of these statements depend on ones political perspective, on ones position in the world, and various other factors. I will try to present diverse perspectives on the life, work and thoughts of this embattled and interesting president. Though perspectives differ on his ideas -- and the efficacy of those views in a swift and fierce world -- it cannot be denied that those views have had a major impact on American and global visions of justice. THE LIFE OF WOODROW WILSON Thomas Woodrow Wilson was born in 1856 in Staunton, Virginia, and grew up during and immediately following the Civil War. His father was a Presbyterian minister, and at times taught college courses. He was inspired by his fathers religion and love of education. Young Woodrow Wilson first went to Davidson College in North Carolina, but was forced to withdraw due to illness. He graduated what was then the College of New Jersey (and what later became Princeton University) and went on to get his law degree from the University of Virginia in 1879-80 and passed the Georgia bar in 1882. His law practice floundered, though, prompting a career change into government and politics. He returned to school in 1883, studying government and history at Johns Hopkins University. His book Congressional Government was accepted as his dissertation in 1885, and led to his receipt of the Ph.D. degree in political science from Johns Hopkins. To this day, Wilson is the only U.S. president to hold a Ph.D. proving that most presidents just arent too smart. But Wilson was, teaching at Bryn Mawr College, Wesleyan University and Princeton University. After an accomplished career as an author and essayist, he was named president of Princeton University in 1902. From there, politics was a natural step. In 1910, Wilson won the Democratic nomination for governor of New Jersey, subsequently winning the election by a wide margin. His agenda was a progressive one: he focused on preventing the publics exploitation by monopolies and trusts. This earned him serious popularity with the masses, and just two years later he accepted the Democratic nomination for president. Wilson called his platform the "New Freedom" platform, and gave keen attention to stimulating the American economy. Again, he earned a landslide victory, winning the presidency with 435 electoral votes out of a possible 531. His brother wasnt a governor, and he did not have to cheat to win. True to his word, Wilson followed through on a domestic agenda based on busting corrupt trusts. To this end, he created a dramatic array of economic reforms. He pushed through the Underwood Act (which reformed tariffs and instituted a progressive income tax) and the Federal Reserve Bill (which established our modern banking system, creating new currency and establishing the twelve Federal Reserve banks and their board of governors) in 1913. Yes, we can partially blame Alan Greenspan on Wilson. He also established the Federal Trade Commission in 1914 to restrict "unfair" trade practices.
These economic reforms show Wilsons brand of liberalism: create reforms that stabilize a functioning market economy and offer marginal protections for the poor, while promoting international trade to enrich the wealthy. You can see the economic legacy of Wilson in todays New Democrats. THE WAR YEARS Some of the controversy surrounding Wilsons idealism involves the way he handled American involvement in World War I, which began in 1914. Wilson, despite growing pressure from allies like Britain (who were losing an entire generation of young men), resisted American involvement in Europes war. In fact, he ran for reelection in 1916 with the slogans "he kept us out of war" and peace without victory. Conventional wisdom holds that escalation of submarine warfare by Germany forced Wilsons hand in declaring war -- the sinking of the passenger liner Lusitania is often cited. It may be, however, that these events came at the same time a revolution in Wilsons thinking was brewing --a revolution that would inspire his ideas on how to make peace. Some critics believe that Wilson, despite his public pronouncements, had already decided to enter the fray. They point to that fact that he created the U.S. governments first major state propaganda agency (the Committee on Public Information, also called the Creel Commission). The population of the U.S. didnt favor war at the time, and the theory goes that Wilson intended to change their minds. At any rate, he asked Congress for a declaration of war in April 1917. This turn of events led the United States into the fight, and led to Wilsons famous efforts at peace -- culminating in the Fourteen Points Address of 1918, which well discuss below. The critics on the right accused Wilson of thinking wrongly that the United States owes an obligation to the rest of the world -- that instead of intervening to help other nations, we should tend to our own business. The critics on the left had then and have now a radically different take: that not only are their few if any places where American intervention can help the rest of the world, the impulse to intervene is itself a pernicious manifestation of liberal internationalism that desires to control the rest of the human community. This type of thinking reveals itself at home, too, when people opposing governmental policies must also be controlled through imprisonment. Historians such as Howard Zinn point to the Sedition Acts that were used to jail opponents of the war. He criticizes the administration for passing such legislation and the Supreme Court for failing to challenge it on a constitutional basis: This shows the irony of liberalism: Wilson supported many progressive social agendas (women received the right to vote when he was in office, for example), but when ones own power and decision-making are challenged, that commitment to social progress sometimes flies out the nearest window. Domestic policy aside -- and it was not an insignificant part of Wilsons presidency -- most people remember Wilson for his foreign policy, specifically the role he played in the ending of World War I. Lets turn to his ideas on that front now.

THE IDEAS OF WOODROW WILSON In 1919, the Versailles Treaty was signed with Germany during the Paris Peace Conference. However, a new Republican Congress in the United States rejected the peace negotiated under Wilson, skeptical of the League of Nations. A separate peace had to be negotiated between the United States and Germany. Still, the Europeans considered Wilson a key factor in making peace -- he was awarded the 1919 Nobel Peace Prize. Why was the peace negotiated by Wilson so controversial at home? Many of his ideas were quite ahead of their time, including the internationalist tendencies favoring collective security that are even today rejected by many Republicans who favor the big-stick, unilaterist school of diplomacy. That doesnt mean, however, that the ideas behind the league have lost their relevance. FOURTEEN POINTS The best single summary of Woodrow Wilsons political philosophy came in his Fourteen Points Address to Congress, where he promoted his plan for peace in Europe. There, we see the ideas he held most dear in both promotion of peace and economic justice. Before presenting the fourteen points themselves, Wilson had this to say about the end of the war to end all wars: We entered this war because violations of right had occurred which touched us to the quick and made the life of our own people impossible unless they were corrected and the world secured once for all against their recurrence. What we demand in this war, therefore, is nothing peculiar to ourselves. It is that the world be made fit and safe to live in; and particularly that it be made safe for every peace-loving nation which, like our own, wishes to live its own life, determine its own institutions, be assured of justice and fair dealing by the other peoples of the world as against force and selfish aggression. All the peoples of the world are in effect partners in this interest, and for our own part we see very clearly that unless justice be done to others it will not be done to us, Wilson said. How to establish justice? The first five points hold up remarkably well in todays political climate. In fact, they might have been written after the Gulf War by George Bush or Bill Clinton. I. Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view. II. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants. III. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance. IV. Adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety. V. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined. One can see in these first several points the framework for establishing what we would call today a neoliberal economic order -- one largely supported by both political parties in the United States. The prime points of this neoliberal order include free trade (absolute freedom of navigation, the removal of all economic barriers to trade, an international regime managing trade, and a colonial system that would provide raw materials and labor for the trading system) and an international market that today we might call globalized.

View this in the context of his domestic economic policy: Wilson established the Federal Reserve Bank, stabilized the economy with numerous reforms that foreshadowed big-government liberalism, and established the progressive income tax. Overseas, he sought to promote trade as a path to peace. This shows that he believed in government as a positive force for change in economics as in foreign policy. Points six through thirteen establish the territorial settlements following the conflict, including evacuation of conquered lands, the establishment of an independent Polish state, etc. But the fourteenth point was the most controversial to the Republican Congress Wilson faced at home, and arguably the one with the most historic staying power: XIV. A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike. As weve talked about, this vision is whats behind todays U.N. -- a collective body for the nations of the world to gather and discuss problems, solve disputes, and work together toward common goals. Weve talked a bit about the lefts criticism of Wilson as a Machiavellian liberal who wanted to build a world he and his country could control. The right has a somewhat different slant, preferring to think of Wilson as a meddlesome tinkerer who bumbled into trouble by trying to do too much good overseas. As the far-right author David Horowitz wrote this February: (Of course, a consensus to Horowitz means something different than what it does to the rest of the world. Not even the mainstream right takes him seriously. But thats another story.) From another right-wing perspective, groups like the Cato institute toe a more isolationist line. As long as the United States can protect itself with the most powerful military in the world, they argue, why blunt the focus of American foreign policy by taking on multiple humanitarian missions? This kind of misguided internationalism, they would argue, is Wilsons legacy. Wilson would argue that promoting justice (through institutions like American democracy) abroad is the best way to get peace. These thinkers claim that its a fallacy to presume we can effectively promote those institutions worldwide, and even if we can, the nation-building activities have bad tradeoffs. Take the example of Latin America, where Wilson once refused to acknowledge non-democratic governments. One scholar on inter-American affairs, Abraham F. Lowenthal, was quoted in a Cato publication as concluding: Of course, its overly simplistic to say that only the right favors this line of analysis. Many left-wing thinkers have taken a similar angle, but made more of these policies effects on the nations in question rather than the impact they had on the United States. It is possible, then, to see Wilson at once as overly idealistic and overly cynical. Some see him as a man who naively believed one powerful country could bring peace to the world. Others see him as a man who wanted to bring peace to rich nations and rich men living within them, while maintaining other kinds of dominance (economic, for example). DEBATE APPLICATION Motives are a difficult thing to ascertain in any human being, given the myriad factors at play in the formation of ones thinking. It is better, in my estimation, to examine the policies Wilson favored rather than muddy the water with simple labels like idealism, which mean different things to different people. A more concrete term we can grab onto might be liberalism: the belief that government economic or social interventions are necessary to build a just world. Wilson is important to understand as a precursor to todays modern liberal politicians, both in domestic and foreign policy. His ideas have impacted todays Democratic party in at least two major ways.

Economic policy: unlike his Republican successors such as Calvin Coolidge, Wilson didnt believe in laissezfaire (let it be) economics. He believed the government should take an active role in stimulating the economy through establishing necessary regulations at home. Overseas, he backed the free trade policies that modern Democrats fall over themselves to back. One can see Bill Clintons economic policys roots in Wilson. He passed the Family Leave Act as a domestic reform to marginally benefit working Americans while vigorously pursuing free trade agreements abroad. Foreign policy: Wilson, despite his initial reluctance to get involved in World War I, was interventionist by nature. This can be explained by the American publics marked opposition to the war: he knew from polls what a winning election issue would be, but then pursued his own policies after employing substantial spin from his propaganda agency. For these reasons, it is possible to see both Bushs and Clintons attacks on Iraq, for example, as Wilsonian in nature -- the defense of a nation from an attack by an autocratic and oppressive neighbor (though Wilson wouldnt have been a fan of Kuwaits oppressive monarchy, either). CONCLUSION: THE LEGACY OF WOODROW WILSON When Wilson was president, his dogged pursuit of the Versailles Treaty necessitated traveling 8,000 miles by rail around the country. After this effort, he fell ill and never fully recovered. Since Wilson was unable to campaign for the presidency, James M. Cox took the Democratic nomination and was beaten by Warren G. Harding in 1920. Wilson retired to Washington, D.C., where he died in 1924. He never saw most of the impact his ideas would have on the world.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adar, Korwa G. professor of International Relations at the International Studies Unit, Political Studies Department, Rhodes University, South Africa, AFRICAN STUDIES QUARTERLY, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1998, http://web.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v2/v2i2a3.htm, accessed April 22, 2002. Ambrosius, Lloyd. WOODROW WILSON AND THE AMERICAN DIPLOMATIC TRADITION: THE TREATY FIGHT IN PERSPECTIVE; Cambridge University Press, 1990 AMERICAN EXPERIENCE: WOODROW WILSON, PBS documentary, 2001, available online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wilson/sfeature/sf_legacy.html, accessed May 1, 2002. Auchincloss, Louis. WOODROW WILSON: A PENGUIN LIFE, Viking Press, 2000. Blum, John Morton. WOODROW WILSON AND THE POLITICS OF MORALITY, Addison-Wesley Pub Co, 1998 Chomsky, Noam. Professor of Linguistics at the Massachussets Institute of Technology, Z MAGAZINE, November 1994, p. 10. Daniels, Josephus. THE LIFE OF WOODROW WILSON, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1971. Gilderhus, Mark. PAN AMERICAN VISIONS: WOODROW WILSON AND THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE, 1913-1921; University of Arizona Press, 1986 Knock, Thomas. TO END ALL WARS: WOODROW WILSON AND THE QUEST FOR A NEW WORLD ORDER; Princeton University Press, 1995 Kuehl. Warren and Lynne Dunn, KEEPING THE COVENANT: AMERICAN INTERNATIONALISTS AND THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, 1920-1939; Kent State University Press, 1997 Levin, Norman Gordon. WOODROW WILSON AND WORLD POLITICS; AMERICA'S RESPONSE TO WAR AND REVOLUTION; Oxford University Press, 1980 Link, Arthur. CAMPAIGNS FOR PROGRESSIVISM AND PEACE; Princeton University Press, 1965 Link, Arthur. THE NEW FREEDOM; Princeton University Press, 1956 Rowen, Herbert. WOODROW WILSON: A LIFE FOR WORLD PEACE, University of California Press, 1991 Zinn, Howard. Professor Emeritus of History at Boston University, Z MAGAZINE NETWORK DAILY COMMENTARY, May 7, 2000, http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/content/2000-05/07zinn.htm, accessed April 22, 2002.

WILSON PROMOTED PROGRESSIVE SOCIAL AGENDAS 1. WILSONS LEGACY INCLUDES MANY PROGRESSIVE AGENDAS Ira Katznelson, Historian, AMERICAN EXPERIENCE: WOODROW WILSON, PBS documentary, 2001, p. np, available online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wilson/sfeature/sf_legacy.html, accessed May 1, 2002. Wilson matters as the first modern president. Wilson matters as the person who led the United States into global geopolitics. Wilson matters as someone who followed a progressive political agenda and who established a model for subsequent possibilities, some of which had to wait a long time to come back. 2. WILSONS CONCEPTS OF POWER AND SOCIAL JUSTICE ARE STILL USEFUL John M. Mulder, Historian, AMERICAN EXPERIENCE: WOODROW WILSON, PBS documentary, 2001, p. np, available online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wilson/sfeature/sf_legacy.html, accessed May 1, 2002. I see Wilson's life as tragic in the sense that he obviously lost on the League. He's not tragic however in the larger scope of American history because what he did was to help us understand the complexity of power both domestically and internationally in ways that we are still working with. The Wilsonian concepts of how political power should be used on behalf of social justice are still defining assumptions for twentieth century American political life. 3. WILSON SUPPORTED MANY PROGRESSIVE AGENDAS Ira Katznelson, Historian, AMERICAN EXPERIENCE: WOODROW WILSON, PBS documentary, 2001, p. np, available online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wilson/sfeature/sf_legacy.html, accessed May 1, 2002. Wilson's also important as the president who presided over a number of major constitutional changes. The direct election of United States senators, prohibition, and womens suffrage. The period of his presidency was a period therefore of extraordinary new assertion of governmental capacity in the United States, as well as presidential ambition. 4. IT WASNT WILSONIANISM, BUT THE COLD WAR, THAT PROMOTED COLONIALISM Korwa G. Adar, professor of International Relations at the International Studies Unit, Political Studies Department, Rhodes University, South Africa, AFRICAN STUDIES QUARTERLY, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1998, p. np, http://web.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v2/v2i2a3.htm, accessed April 22, 2002. In the spirit of Wilsonianism, the US welcomed decolonization and independence in Africa in the 1960s. However, with Cold War prism taking a centre stage, emerging American national interests became defined in terms of combatting communism in Africa and other parts of the world. Indeed, such concerns were evident even prior to much of Africa's independence. After his visit to Africa, Vice-President Nixon in his report to Eisenhower explained that "the course of Africa's development...could well prove to be the decisive factor between the forces of freedom and international communism".

WILSONIAN THOUGHT HELPED CREATE INTERNATIONAL PEACE 1. WILSONIAN PHILOSOPHY HELPED CREATE THE U.N. AND HAD A GLOBAL IMPACT Korwa G. Adar, professor of International Relations at the International Studies Unit, Political Studies Department, Rhodes University, South Africa, AFRICAN STUDIES QUARTERLY, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1998, p. np, http://web.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v2/v2i2a3.htm, accessed April 22, 2002. In his foreign policy pronouncements vis-a-vis the European colonial powers President Woodrow Wilson advocated for the pursuit of democracy and human rights conceptualized within the context of selfdetermination for the colonized peoples. The idea of universal morality was central for Wilson. In his view, the realization of individual freedom, limited government, and legitimacy of power held the key to both international peace and the emancipation of humanity from injustice. It was within this philosophical context that he advocated for the need to make the world safe for democracy. This, he argued, would promote America's long term interests. Wilsonianism emerged as a distinct policy philosophy at the end of the First World War. One of the central concerns at the time was how to avoid war and conflict in general. For Wilson, the crucial priority was the need to establish people-oriented internal and international democratic institutions that would act as the custodians of democracy and human rights as conceptualised within the general rubric of self-determination. This idealism culminated in the formation of the League of Nations in 1919. Thus, Wilsonianism was not only internationalised but also institutionalised. Although the United States did not become a contracting party to the League, Wilsonianism had a global impact. 2. WILSONIAN THINKING HELPED PAVE THE WAY FOR DECOLONIZATION OF AFRICA Korwa G. Adar, professor of International Relations at the International Studies Unit, Political Studies Department, Rhodes University, South Africa, AFRICAN STUDIES QUARTERLY, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1998, p. np, http://web.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v2/v2i2a3.htm, accessed April 22, 2002. Such thinking would go on to inform the founding fathers of the United Nations. The UN system tangibly paved the way for the process of decolonization in Africa through the UN General Assembly resolutions, with African countries which were independent at the time as well as India and the socialist countries taking the lead. In this respect, Wilsonianism not only challenged dictatorial and authoritarian systems worldwide but it also helped oppressed people become aware of their rights. For the colonized peoples of Africa, democracy and human rights (or self-determination in general) was equated with the absence of colonialism. Moreover, the momentum on the issues of democracy and human rights was evidenced with the appointment of Eleanor Roosevelt to Chair a Commission on Human Rights. The results of Roosevelt's Commission were the establishment of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its corollaries the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 3. WILSONS IDEAS HELP CONTROL POTENTIAL INTERNATIONAL ANARCHY John Morton Blum, Historian, AMERICAN EXPERIENCE: WOODROW WILSON, PBS documentary, 2001, p. np, available online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wilson/sfeature/sf_legacy.html, accessed May 1, 2002. If one wants to talk about Wilsons legacy, I see it at least more in terms of a process than I do in terms of a product. It isnt the League of Nations but the importance of thinking through a way to the control the potential anarchy and the relations of states. What Wilson was capable of was as a president, to involve himself in great affairs and to try to find ways in which to work out the problems created by those great affairs, he was never evasive in that way. 4. WILSONS IDEAS WERE VICTORIOUS EVEN THOUGH HIS POLICIES WERENT Jay Winter, Historian, AMERICAN EXPERIENCE: WOODROW WILSON, PBS documentary, 2001, p. np, available online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wilson/sfeature/sf_legacy.html, accessed May 1, 2002. Wilsons ideas were victorious even if his policies werent. He left his stamp upon the way in which American foreign policy has been formulated throughout the 20th Century and the paradox is that a man whose vision was repudiated by the political leadership of his time managed to achieve a way of framing the language of American foreign policy throughout the 80 years since his death.

WILSON SUPPORTED AMERICAN COLONIALISM AND IMPERIALISM 1. WILSON FAILED BECAUSE HE TRIED TO APPLY AMERICAN PRINCIPLES TO THE WORLD Walter LaFeber, Historian, AMERICAN EXPERIENCE: WOODROW WILSON, PBS documentary, 2001, p. np, available online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wilson/sfeature/sf_legacy.html, accessed May 1, 2002. It seems to me that Wilson failed because he tried to apply American principles to the world; and the world did not want the American principles. He took a kind of an American liberalism and essentially tried to create a form of world institutions: self-determination, open trade, the things that Americans had evolved over threehundred years and incidentally in the process of which we had killed six hundred thousand of each other in the Civil War because it hadnt worked too well. The Europeans knew this. The Europeans knew that Wilsons principles had problems. 2. WILSONS IDEALISM CONTINUES TO JUSTIFY HORRIBLE TRAGEDIES IN HAITI Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Z MAGAZINE, November 1994, p. 10. Whether Aristide is allowed to return in some fashion is anyone's guess at the time of writing. If he is, it will be under conditions designed to discredit him and further demoralize those who hoped that democracy might be tolerated in Haiti. To evaluate what lies ahead, we should look carefully at the plans for the security forces and the economy. The military and police forces were established during Woodrow Wilson's invasion as an instrument to control the population, and have been kept in power by U.S. aid and training for that purpose since. That is to continue. As discussed here in July, the head of the OAS/UN mission through December 1993, Ian Martin, reported in Foreign Policy that negotiations had stalled because of Washington's insistence on maintaining the power of the security forces, rejecting Aristide's plea to reduce them along lines that had proven successful in Costa Rica, the one partial exception to the array of horror chambers that Washington has maintained in the region. The Haitian military, Martin observed, recognized that the U.S. was its friend and protector, unlike the U.N., France, and Canada. The generals continued their resistance to a diplomatic settlement, trusting that "the United States, despite its rhetoric of democracy, was ambivalent about that power shift" to popular elements represented by Aristide. They were proven right. As the matter is now rephrased, "At first, Father Aristide resisted having so many former soldiers in the police force, but Administration officials said they persuaded him to accept them," so the New York Times reported on the eve of the invasion. This was one of the successes of the educational program designed for the "doctrinaire monomaniac."Aristide's unwillingness to "broaden the political base" has become a kind of mantra, on a par with "Wilsonian idealism." Like many other mindless propaganda slogans, the phrase conceals a grain of truth. Aristide has been unwilling to shift power to the "enlightened" sectors of foreign and domestic Civil Society and their security forces. He still keeps his allegiance to the general population and their organizations -- who could teach some lessons to their kindly tutors about what was meant by "democracy" in days when the term was still taken seriously. It is intriguing to watch the process at work. Consider Peter Hakim, Washington director of the Inter-American dialogue, well-informed about the hemisphere and far from a ranting ideologue. While Aristide was elected by a two-thirds majority, Hakim observes, "in most Latin American countries, movement from authoritarianism to democracy tends to reflect a more broadly based consensus than is currently the case in Haiti." It is true enough that from the southern cone to Central America and the Caribbean, the consensus is "broadly based" in the sense that sustained terror and degradation, much of it organized right where Hakim speaks, has taught people to abandon hope for freedom and democracy, and to accept the rule of private power, domestic and foreign. It hasn't been easy; witness the case of Guatemala, just now attaining the proper broad consensus after many years of education. Hakim also surely knows the nature of the "consensus" at home, revealed by the belief of half the population that the political system is so rotten that both parties should be disbanded. And he knows full well what efforts are made to broaden government to include authentic representatives of the overwhelming majority of the population in Latin America, or by its traditional master.

WILSONS SOCIAL IDEAS WERENT NOT PROGRESSIVE, BUT REPRESSIVE 1. WILSONS RHETORIC WAS PRO-DEMOCRATIC, BUT HIS SOCIAL POLICIES WERENT Victoria Bissell Brown, Historian AMERICAN EXPERIENCE: WOODROW WILSON, PBS documentary, 2001, p. np, available online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wilson/sfeature/sf_legacy.html, accessed May 1, 2002. His greatest contradiction from my point of view, is that his rhetoric was pro-democratic, but his behavior was often very paternalistic, very controlling, very unsympathetic with and having very little patience for the messiness of democracy, the noise of democracy. He saw democracy as a tool for creating harmony, civilized mediation. He wasnt always comfortable with the fact that democracy is a noisy and messy business. 2. WILSONS PHILOSOPHY INCLUDED RACISM AND WAR-MONGERING Howard Zinn, Professor Emeritus of History at Boston University, Z MAGAZINE NETWORK DAILY COMMENTARY, May 7, 2000, p. np, http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/content/2000-05/07zinn.htm, accessed April 22, 2002. As for Woodrow Wilson, also occupying an important place in the pantheon of American liberalism, shouldn't we remind his admirers that he insisted on racial segregation in federal buildings, that he bombarded the Mexican coast, sent an occupation army into Haiti and the Dominican Republic, brought our country into the hell of World War I, and put anti-war protesters in prison. Should we not bring forward as a national hero Emma Goldman, one of those Wilson sent to prison, or Helen Keller, who fearlessly spoke out against the war? 3. WILSONIAN POLICIES ARENT IDEALISTIC: JUST THE SAME OLD REALPOLITIK Korwa G. Adar, professor of International Relations at the International Studies Unit, Political Studies Department, Rhodes University, South Africa, AFRICAN STUDIES QUARTERLY, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1998, p. np, http://web.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v2/v2i2a3.htm, accessed April 22, 2002. The principles of democracy and human rights have been persistent, if at times secondary, themes within the rhetoric of American foreign policy toward Africa since the end of World War II. The linking of such Wilsonian precepts with foreign policy practice, however, has been an altogether different story. US policy makers consistently followed the dictates of realpolitik in the era of the Cold War, leaving concerns for democracy and human rights aside. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, conditions are now in place for the tangible and coherent pursuit of an American foreign policy based on democracy and human rights. In the current era, the question emerges as to the resonance of such Wilsonian principles in US foreign policy towards Africa. 3. WILSONS IDEAS JUSTIFY VICIOUS COLONIALISM Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics at the Massachussets Institute of Technology, Z MAGAZINE, November 1994, p. 10. "Perspective" on what is taking place was provided in the New York Times by R. W. Apple, who reviewed the lessons of history. "For two centuries," he wrote, "political opponents in Haiti have routinely slaughtered each other. Backers of President Aristide, followers of General Cedras and the former Tontons Macoute retain their homicidal tendencies, to say nothing about their weapons" -- which the homicidal maniacs in the slums have cleverly concealed. "Like the French in the 19th century, like the Marines who occupied Haiti from 1915 to 1934, the American forces who are trying to impose a new order will confront a complex and violent society with no history of democracy." One takes for granted that the vicious terror and racism of the Wilson administration and its successors will be transmuted to sweet charity as it reaches the educated classes, but it is a novelty to see Napoleon's invasion, one of the most hideous crimes of an era not known for its gentleness, portrayed in the same light. We might understand this as another small contribution to the broader project of revising the history of Western colonialism so as to justify the next phase.
FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT
Of all the former presidents the United States has seen leave office in the past 100 years, perhaps none (even including Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton) has inspired such virulent criticism and simultaneously vociferous defense as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, popularly known as FDR. The architect of the New Deal, the charming and affable voice behind the Fireside Chats, the first president to truly take his case directly to the people, FDR is feted by liberals and reviled by conservatives to this day -- not a bad record for a man who left office nearly 70 years ago. Why the hatred from the right wing? After all, Roosevelt isnt just the man who pulled the country out of the Great Depression, he was perhaps the living embodiment of that rugged individualism and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps stuff that conservatives like to bluster about. Debilitated by a youthful bout with polio, FDR nevertheless rose to great heights as a statesman. He was elected to an unprecedented four terms. He passed important legislation, and was generally beloved by the public. So whats up with the bitterness? Well, the majority of it is due to the success of FDRs liberal social programs. The New Deal included massive government spending to create jobs and the creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps, which proved that private industry isnt the only way to create jobs. Theres no way to anger a political opponent than by passing popular and effective legislation. Another element is that most American of traits, anti-Semitism. (But I didnt know FDR was Jewish! you say. He wasnt -- but no one accused the far right of being rocket scientists, except Werner von Braun, anyway.) Well discuss how that applies in a bit. Whatever the roots of the anti-FDR sentiment, though, it is certainly remarkable that the enmity exists more than two generations later in this country. Even today, youll see conspiracy theorist websites devoted to decrying Roosevelts influence on the country -- and academic articles from scholars and think tank employees slathering over why the New Deal was unconstitutional. It wasnt, and it happened 70 years ago, but the threat of a good example of liberalism is still pretty threatening to these people. Thats not to say the left doesnt have problems with FDR. Many saw the New Deal as a cop-out, a bone thrown to the masses who demanded an alternative to the capitalism that was starving them in droves (in their view). In fact, neither the left nor the right felt they had to restrain themselves when criticizing FDR: FDR was "carrying out more thoroughly and brutally than even Hoover the capitalist attack against the masses," according to Communist leader Earl Browder, while American fascist William Dudley Pelley called him the "lowest form of human worm - according to Gentile standards." (Told you so about the anti-Semitism). This isnt to say that there arent legitimate criticisms of FDR. What is legitimate depends on what side of the political discourse you come down on, of course -- but there are certainly things we can all now (hopefully) agree on as grievous acts on FDRs part. The best example: the massive internment of Japanese Americans in concentration camps, a horrific violation of civil liberties and a betrayal of what would appear to be FDRs own principles. Only recently has there been mass outcry about this mass violation of human rights, which tells you we have a ways to go yet in this country. It also says something about the limits of mainstream liberalism, but well get to that below. All this should tell you that Roosevelt had a monumental impact on American life. If one can inspire vitriol of this nature from both sides of the American political spectrum, I say with a smirk, one has doubtless done something right. ROOSEVELTS IMPORTANCE As I said above, even people that hate Roosevelt acknowledge his importance. Historians, from right to left to centrist, agree on this. William E. Leuchtenburg, at the Conference on Leadership in the Modern Presidency at the Woodrow Wilson School of Princeton University, said that The presidency as we know it today begins with Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

There are many reasons for this, Leuchtenberg continued, from his leadership in World War II to his economic ideas to his intangible inspirational qualities. He noted so powerful an impression did FDR leave on the office that in the most recent survey of historians he was ranked as the second greatest president in our history, surpassed only by the legendary Abraham Lincoln. This did not stop some of his contemporaries from referring to FDR as "that megalomaniac cripple in the White House." But believe it or not, some of that sentiment stems from the same root. Many believe that todays so-called imperial presidency -- where significantly more power rests in the hands of the executive branch -- began with FDR and his legislative ideas. ROOSEVELTS IDEAS Much is made of Roosevelts social and economic reforms. In order to understand these, it is important to understand the ideology behind them. Perhaps the best manifestation of these ideas came from the man himself. In his famour Four Freedoms speech, FDR laid out exactly to what he thought humans ought to be entitled: Certainly this is no time for any of us to stop thinking about the social and economic problems which are the root cause of the social revolution which is today a supreme factor in the world. For there is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy. The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple. They are: Equality of opportunity for youth and for others. Jobs for those who can work. Security for those who need it. The ending of special privilege for the few. The preservation of civil liberties for all. The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living. These are the simple, the basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of our modern world. The inner and abiding straight of our economic and political systems is dependent upon the degree to which they fulfill these expectations. This is why the left sees Roosevelt as a betrayer of social revolution, and perhaps they are right. This is also why the right sees him as a betrayer of unfettered capitalism -- and perhaps they are right, too. FDR saw the economic system of the early 20th century as too harsh, as failing to meet the needs of the public. If youre starving, and you have to put your 10-year-old to work in a factory, sewing clothes for 16 hours a day for pennies a day (due to no child labor laws and no minimum wage), youre a lot more susceptible to someone preaching overthrow of the existing system than, say, someone making a union-won family wage who can provide for his or her family and even be a little bit comfortable. FDR recognized this. He figured if America as we knew it was to survive intact, someone had to do something fast to preserve the positive aspects of the old order. He also thought there were certain fundamental rights to which humans were entitled. Unlike most every other president, he included economic rights in that list. The four freedoms which give the famous speech its name are listed here: One would think that this made FDR a pacifist, or at the very least an advocate of disarmament. This is not quite true, as we will see later. ECONOMIC POLICY: THE DEFENDERS The left saw FDR as a sellout who saved capitalism as we know it when it was on the brink of collapse, foregoing more revolutionary change for institutional reform. The right see him as having betrayed capitalism for a more socialist model. The thing they both agree on is that a fundamental shift occurred during his time in office. Before, the government had no rhetorical or actual commitment to the average working person.

In January 1935, FDR emphasized his commitment to social security this way: "I see no reason why every child, from the day he is born, shouldn't be a member of the social security system. Cradle to the grave - from the cradle to the grave they ought to be in a social insurance system." You may have heard this cradle to the grave rhetoric before, but no one heard it from the President before then. The FDR years, wrote William Barber in his book DESIGN WITHOUT DISORDER, were "a watershed in economic policy and in economic thinking" (p. 3). The reason was not that Roosevelt was revolutionary economic thinker himself -- instead, he was a man with certain values (expressed above) that was willing to listen to professional economists about how to achieve those values. He had his own ideas -- Barber says he was "an uncompromising champion of consumer sovereignty" -- but he was more a "laboratory affording economists an opportunity to make hands-on contact with the world of events" (p. 2). Specifically, the FDR experimentation resulted in an "Americanized version of Keynesian macroeconomics" which relied on government stimulation of private industry. He also promoted expanded federal regulation of agriculture, industry, finance, and labor relations to prevent market failures and offer governmental support of certain businesses in danger of failure. Aside from the governmental influx of capital to boost the economy, FDR is best known for promoting what is known as the welfare state. This imprecise term covers a variety of reforms that constitute a safety net for the poor and otherwise disadvantaged. Things we take for granted today include: relief programs for the unemployed; the establishment of a legal minimum wage; Social Security; pensions for the elderly; unemployment insurance and aid to families with dependent children, the aged poor, the physically handicapped, and the blind. All of these were first established under Franklin Roosevelt. He explained his rationale in the Four Freedoms speech: ECONOMIC POLICY: THE CRITICS As I mentioned, there are lots of people that wont let 70-year-old policies go. One of them is Robert Higgs, the conservative economic theorist, who admits that In the construction of the American regulatory and welfare state, no one looms larger than FDR. He does not say this as a compliment. Sure, Higgs writes, with few exceptions, historians have taken a positive view of the New Deal -- but, to him, such programs as massive relief programs for the unemployed; the expanded federal regulation of agriculture, industry, finance, and labor relations; the establishment of a legal minimum wage; and the creation of Social Security with its old-age pensions, unemployment insurance, and income supplements for dependent children in single-parent families, the aged poor, the physically handicapped, and the blind are not beneficent ideas designed to make the functioning of government and economy more humane. Nope, these policies are a power grab by liberal economists! Of course, he doesnt mention that Kershner was a paranoid, pathological anti-communist who saw such things as laws against child labor as a sign of the creeping red tide, and was arguing in the 1950s and 1960s along with Joe McCarthy that Communists were infiltrating the American government. Its also pretty interesting how he skips over free-market conservative Herbert Hoover, who was president when the Great Depression started in 1929, and who continued to adopt laissez-faire policies that deepened the depression until 1932, when voters unceremoniously dumped him in favor of FDR. Higgs and the like paint FDR as a big-government liberal who created federal agencies for their own sake and no other. As evidence, Higgs breaks out the organizational chart of the federal government. He points to such agencies as the Export-Import Bank, the Farm Credit Administration, the Rural Development Administration (formerly the Farmers Home Administration), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Housing Administration, the National Labor Relations Board, the Rural Utility Service (formerly the Rural Electrification Administration), the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Security Administration,

and the Tennessee Valley Authority as the offspring of the New Deal and argues that they are pernicious in their effects. Each in its own fashion, he writes, interferes with the effective operation of the free market. By subsidizing, financing, insuring, regulating, and thereby diverting resources from the uses most valued by consumers, each renders the economy less productive than it could be-and all in the service of one special interest or another. Regardless of how one feels about each of these individual agencies, and one can certainly debate about the impacts of some of them, it seems the argument here is that NO federal agency is EVER justified in helping to stimulate the economy or to ameliorate the effects on a market collapse on average people. Even if youve got a problem with, say, the Export-Import Bank, isnt it a good rather than a bad thing that farmers get subsidies that help family farms stay afloat; that students have their college loans federally provided, so even (gasp!) the middle class and below can attend universities; that old people with no family can rely on Social Security checks rather than cat food in order to eat? WAR POLICY Its unfortunate that we have to sum up FDRs World War II actions in so short a space, but thats the way it is. To his credit, William J. vanden Heuvel has noted, FDR was the first (and, vanden Heuvel argues, the ONLY) political leader to stand against Hitler from the very beginning. Considering that this made him alone not only among the political leaders of the world, but virtually alone among prominent Americans (many of whom, including Henry Ford, who praised Hitler and continued to trade with Nazi Germany AFTER World War II began), it certainly serves as a major mark in Roosevelts favor. It also helps to explain the hatred of FDR by the anti-Semitic right, who didnt see the murder of European Jews as any of out business, and didnt think Roosevelt should be sticking his nose in Hitlers business as the German leader committed the most horrific act of the 20th century. The nutty right spread rumors that Roosevelts real name was Rosenfeld, and called his policies the Jew Deal, playing to racist notions of wealthy Jews running the government. Charming. This nonsense about Roosevelt and about Jews continues to this day among the racist right, by the way, including Holocaust deniers like David Irving and his ilk. One would think, being a victim of race-baiting himself, FDR would have seen the folly in his most shameful act of the war. Sadly, this was not the case. Famously, FDR signed Executive Order 9066, which consigned over 100,000 loyal Americans of Japanese descent to prison camps for years. Their property was seized. The vast majority of it was never returned. The legal precedent that justified this vile act, Korematsu v. United States, was upheld by the Supreme Court and stands a valid legal precedent to this day. No similar policies were enacted for Americans of German or Italian descent, though the U.S. was at war with them, too. No act of espionage by any Japanese American was ever proven. CONCLUSION FDR might be the most important president of the 20th century. Love him or give in to insane and illogical hatred of him, this much is undeniable. And what about all those that got their jollies in hating Roosevelt? My favorite story is this one, told by William E. Leuchtenberg: In Kansas a man went down into his cyclone cellar and announced he would not emerge until Roosevelt was out of office. (Which he was there, his wife ran off with a traveling salesman.) Sometimes, only sometimes, narratives end with perfect poetic justice.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Burns, James MacGregor. ROOSEVELT: THE SOLDIER OF FREEDOM, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970. Chomsky, Noam. DETERRING DEMOCRACY, 1992, Boston: South End Press. Dallek, Robert. FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT AND AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY, 1932-1945, Oxford University Press, 1979. Davis, Kenneth S. FDR: THE NEW DEAL YEARS 1933-1937, New York: Random House Publishing, 1986. Gallagher, Hugh Gregory. FDR'S SPLENDID DECEPTION, New York: Dodd, Mead and Company Publishers, 1985. Higgs, Robert. Senior Fellow in Political Economy at The Independent Institute and editor of The Independent Review, THE FREEMAN, September 1998, http://www.independent.org/tii/news/x980900Higgs.html, accessed May 02, 2002. Kimball, Warren F. THE JUGGLER: FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT AS WARTIME STATESMAN, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991. Leuchtenburg, William E. The FDR Years: On Roosevelt and His Legacy, Conference on Leadership in the Modern Presidency at the Woodrow Wilson School of Princeton University on April 3,1987, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/fdryears.htm, accessed May 5, 2002. Namorato, Michael V. Department of History, University of Mississippi ,ECONOMIC HISTORY, EH.NET BOOK REVIEW , July 1997, http://www.eh.net/bookreviews/library/0024.shtml, accessed May 1, 2002. Roosevelt, Franklin Delano. A Message to the Congress on Social Security, Jan. 17, 1935, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/nf/resource/fdr/primdocs/socsecspeech.html, accessed May 9, 2002. Roosevelt, Franklin Delano. Purposes and Foundations of the Recovery (Fireside Chat), July 24, 1933, http://newdeal.feri.org/chat/chat03.htm, accessed May 10, 2002. Schlesinger, Jr., Arthur M. THE COMING OF THE NEW DEAL, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1959.

FDRS ECONOMIC LEGACY IS CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT 1. FDR REPRESENTED A WATERSHED IN ECONOMIC THINKING Michael V. Namorato, Department of History, University of Mississippi ,ECONOMIC HISTORY, EH.NET BOOK REVIEW , July 1997, p. np, http://www.eh.net/bookreviews/library/0024.shtml, accessed May 1, 2002. Similar to his earlier study, Designs Within Disorder concentrates on what economists were saying during the New Deal, how Franklin D. Roosevelt listened to and responded to their suggestions, and the ultimate impact these economic thinkers had on long-term federal economic policy. In the case of Franklin Roosevelt, Barber believes that professional economists had a president who was willing to listen to them and who was a "consumer" of what they had to offer. Although not a great economic thinker, Roosevelt himself, in Barber's opinion, was "an uncompromising champion of consumer sovereignty" (p. 1). He provided those with more learning and understanding of economic matters an opportunity to develop their ideas. Roosevelt's Washington, in short, was a "laboratory affording economists an opportunity to make hands-on contact with the world of events" (p. 2). After much experimentation, the end result was an "Americanized version of Keynesian macroeconomics" which became part and parcel of governmental policy by the end of the 1930s. In this sense, the Rooseveltian years were "a watershed in economic policy and in economic thinking" (p. 3). 2. IN JUST A FEW WEEKS, FDR TRANSFORMED THE NATIONS ECONOMIC OUTLOOK William E. Leuchtenburg, The FDR Years: On Roosevelt and His Legacy, Conference on Leadership in the Modern Presidency at the Woodrow Wilson School of Princeton University on April 3,1987, p. np, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/fdryears.htm, accessed May 5, 2002. Only a few weeks after Roosevelt took office, the spirit of the country seemed markedly changed. Gone was the torpor of the Hoover years; gone, too, the political paralysis. "The people aren't sure...just where they are going," noted one business journal, "but anywhere seems better than where they have been. In the homes on the streets, in the offices there is a feeling of hope reborn." Again and again, observers resorted to the imagery of darkness and light to characterize the transformation from the Stygian gloom of Hoover's final winter to the bright springtime of the First Hundred Days. Overnight, one eyewitness later remembered, Washington seemed like Cambridge on the morning of the Harvard-Yale game: "All the shops were on display, everyone was joyous, crowds moved excitedly. There was something in the air that had not been there before, and in the New Deal that continued throughout. It was not just for the day as it was in Cambridge." On the New York Curb Exchange, where trading resumed on March 15, the stock ticker ended the day with the merry message: "Goodnite. ...Happy days are here again." 3. FDR WAS KEY TO SOCIAL JUSTICE FOR THE DISADVANTAGED William E. Leuchtenburg, The FDR Years: On Roosevelt and His Legacy, Conference on Leadership in the Modern Presidency at the Woodrow Wilson School of Princeton University on April 3,1987, p. np, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/fdryears.htm, accessed May 5, 2002. Roosevelt rested his legislative program on the assumption that government should actively seek social justice for all Americans, not least those who are disadvantaged. Starting in the spectacular First Hundred Days, Roosevelt brought the Welfare State to America, years after it had become a fixture in other lands. Although European theorists had been talking about der Staat for decades, the notion of the State got little attention in America before FDR. The historian James T. Patterson, responding to left-wing critiques of FDR, has written: Roosevelt was no hard-eyed merchandiser; his opportunism was grounded in social concern and conscience, without which the New Deal would indeed have been mindless and devious.

FDRS OVERSEAS POLICY WAS EXCELLENT 1. FDR HELPED PROMOTE SOVEREIGNTY FOR COLONIZED PEOPLES Korwa G. Adar, professor of International Relations at the International Studies Unit, Political Studies Department, Rhodes University, South Africa, AFRICAN STUDIES QUARTERLY, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1998, p. np, http://web.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v2/v2i2a3.htm, accessed April 22, 2002. President Wilson's global campaign as the champion for the silent majority also set the stage for a United States democracy and human rights foreign policy in the twentieth century. Wilsonian precepts resonated clearly in the messsage of the Atlantic Charter which, although promulgated by Franklin D. Roosevelt, Wilson's intellectual heir, manifestly indicated US dissatisfaction with the lack of sovereignty for colonised peoples. 2. FDRS LEGACY IS THE ABOLITION OF INTERNATIONAL ISOLATIONISM William E. Leuchtenburg, The FDR Years: On Roosevelt and His Legacy, Conference on Leadership in the Modern Presidency at the Woodrow Wilson School of Princeton University on April 3,1987, p. np, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/fdryears.htm, accessed May 5, 2002. Roosevelt's high place rests also on his role in leading the nation to accept the far-ranging responsibilities of world power. When he took office, the United States was firmly committed to isolationism; it had refused to participate in either the League of Nations or the World Court. Denied by Congress the discretionary authority he sought, Roosevelt made full use of his executive power in recognizing the USSR, crafting the Good Neighbor Policy, and, late in his second term, providing aid to the Allies and leading the nation toward active involvement in World War II. So far had America come by the end of the Roosevelt era that Henry Stimson was to say that the United States could never again "be an island to herself. No private program and no public policy, in any sector of our national life, can now escape from the compelling fact that if it is not framed with reference to the world, it is framed with perfect futility." 3. FDRS INTERNATIONAL ROLE WAS FIRST-RATE William E. Leuchtenburg, The FDR Years: On Roosevelt and His Legacy, Conference on Leadership in the Modern Presidency at the Woodrow Wilson School of Princeton University on April 3,1987, p. np, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/fdryears.htm, accessed May 5, 2002. As a wartime president, Roosevelt had wide latitude to demonstrate his executive leadership by guiding the country through a victorious struggle against the fascist powers. Never before had a president been given the opportunity to lead his people to a triumph of these global dimensions, and it seems improbable, given the nature of nuclear weapons, that such a circumstance will ever arise again. As commander-in-chief, a position he was said to prefer to all others, Roosevelt not only supervised the mobilization of men and resources against the Axis but also made a significant contribution to fashioning a postwar settlement and creating the structure of the United Nations. "He overcame both his own and the nation's isolationist inclination to bring a united America into the coalition that saved the world from the danger of totalitarian conquest," Robert Divine has concluded. "His role in insuring the downfall of Adolf Hitler is alone enough to earn him a respected place in history."

THE NEW DEAL WAS BAD FOR THE ECONOMY, PROLONGING THE DEPRESSION 1. FDRS POLICIES ACTUALLY PROLONGED THE DEPRESSION Robert Higgs, Senior Fellow in Political Economy at The Independent Institute and editor of The Independent Review, THE FREEMAN, September 1998, p. np, http://www.independent.org/tii/news/x980900Higgs.html, accessed May 02, 2002. The irony is that even if Roosevelt did help to lift the spirits of the American people in the depths of the depression-an uplift for which no compelling documentation exists-this achievement only led the public to labor under an illusion. After all, the root cause of the prevailing malaise was the continuation of the depression. 2. THE NEW DEAL PROLONGED THE DEPRESSION Robert Higgs, Senior Fellow in Political Economy at The Independent Institute and editor of The Independent Review, THE FREEMAN, September 1998, p. np, http://www.independent.org/tii/news/x980900Higgs.html, accessed May 02, 2002. In fact, as many observers claimed at the time, the New Deal did prolong the depression. Had Roosevelt only kept his inoffensive campaign promises of 1932cut federal spending, balance the budget, maintain a sound currency, stop bureaucratic centralization in Washingtonthe depression might have passed into history before his next campaign in 1936. But instead, FDR and Congress, especially during the congressional sessions of 1933 and 1935, embraced interventionist policies on a wide front. With its bewildering, incoherent mass of new expenditures, taxes, subsidies, regulations, and direct government participation in productive activities, the New Deal created so much confusion, fear, uncertainty, and hostility among businessmen and investors that private investment, and hence overall private economic activity, never recovered enough to restore the high levels of production and employment enjoyed in the 1920s. In the face of the interventionist onslaught, the American economy between 1930 and 1940 failed to add anything to its capital stock: net private investment for that eleven-year period totaled minus $3.1 billion.2 Without capital accumulation, no economy can grow. Between 1929 and 1939 the economy sacrificed an entire decade of normal economic growth, which would have increased the national income 30 to 40 percent. The governments own greatly enlarged economic activity did not compensate for the private shortfall. 3. THE NEW DEAL WAS A MASSIVE VOTE-BUYING SCHEME Robert Higgs, Senior Fellow in Political Economy at The Independent Institute and editor of The Independent Review, THE FREEMAN, September 1998, p. np, http://www.independent.org/tii/news/x980900Higgs.html, accessed May 02, 2002. In this madness, the New Dealers had a method. Despite its economic illogic and incoherence, the New Deal served as a massive vote-buying scheme. Coming into power at a time of widespread destitution, high unemployment, and business failures, the Roosevelt administration recognized that the president and his Democratic allies in Congress could appropriate unprecedented sums of money and channel them into the hands of recipients who would respond by giving political support to their benefactors. As John T. Flynn said of FDR, it was always easy to interest him in a plan which would confer some special benefit upon some special class in the population in exchange for their votes, and eventually no political boss could compete with him in any county in America in the distribution of money and jobs. 4. ROOSEVELTS LEGACY IS TO TRAMPLE ON LIBERTY Robert Higgs, Senior Fellow in Political Economy at The Independent Institute and editor of The Independent Review, THE FREEMAN, September 1998, p. np, http://www.independent.org/tii/news/x980900Higgs.html, accessed May 02, 2002. But however significant his legacies, Roosevelt deserves no reverence. He was no hero. Rather, he was an exceptionally resourceful political opportunist who harnessed the extraordinary potential for personal and party aggrandizement inherent in a uniquely troubled and turbulent period of American history. By wheeling and dealing, by taxing and spending, by ranting against "economic royalists" and posturing as the friend of the common man, he got himself elected time after time. But for all his undeniable political prowess, he prolonged the depression and fastened on the country a bloated, intrusive government that has been trampling on the peoples liberties ever since.

FDRS ECONOMIC POLICIES WERE NOT TRULY EFFECTIVE 1. FDR, DESPITE ESTABLISHMENT HISTORIANS, DIDNT ADDRESS INEQUITY Noam Chomsky, DETERRING DEMOCRACY, 1992, Chapter 2, http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/dd/dd-c02s03.html, accessed May 1, 2002. Franklin Delano Roosevelt attained similar heights among large sectors of the population, including many of the poor and working class, who placed their trust in him. The aura of sanctity remains among intellectuals who worship at the shrine. Reviewing a laudatory book on FDR by Joseph Alsop in the New York Review of Books, left-liberal social critic Murray Kempton describes the "majesty" of Roosevelt's smile as "he beamed from those great heights that lie beyond the taking of offense... Those of us who were born to circumstances less assured tend to think of, indeed revere, this demeanor as the aristocratic style... [We are] as homesick as Alsop for a time when America was ruled by gentlemen and ladies." Roosevelt and Lucy Mercer "were persons even grander on the domestic stage than they would end up being on the cosmic one," and met the great crisis in their lives, a secret love affair, "in the grandest style." "That Roosevelt was the democrat that great gentlemen always are in no way abated his grandeur... [His blend of elegance with compassion] adds up to true majesty." He left us with "nostalgia" that is "aching." His "enormous bulk" stands between us "and all prior history...endearingly exalted...splendidly eternal for romance," etc., etc. Roosevelt took such complete command that he "left social inquiry...a wasteland," so much so that "ten years went by before a Commerce Department economist grew curious about the distribution of income and was surprised to discover that its inequality had persisted almost unchanged from Hoover, through Roosevelt and Truman..." But that is only the carping of trivial minds. The important fact is that Roosevelt brought us "comfort...owing to his engraving upon the public consciousness the sense that men were indeed equal," whatever the record of economic reform and civil rights may show. There was one published reaction, by Noel Annan, who praised "the encomium that Murray Kempton justly bestowed on Roosevelt." Try as they might, the spinners of fantasy could not even approach such heights in the Reagan era. 2. FDR SHOULD NOT GET CREDIT FOR KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS Michael V. Namorato, Department of History, University of Mississippi ,ECONOMIC HISTORY, EH.NET BOOK REVIEW , July 1997, http://www.eh.net/bookreviews/library/0024.shtml, accessed May 1, 2002. Finally, in his last chapters, Barber takes his argument through the later 1930s, World War II, and the immediate post-war era. Seeing Harry Hopkins' appointment as Secretary of Commerce as a turning point towards official acceptance of Keynesianism, Barber details how Hopkins brought in young academics sympathetic to this approach, how the president barely tolerated Thurman Arnold and his anti-trust movement, and how people like John K. Galbraith in the Office of Price Administration helped to mobilize America's wartime economy. In the end, however, individuals like Galbraith left the New Deal. In fact, Barber concluded that the Full Employment Act was more of a victory for the opponents of the Keynesian approach than one would have suspected. Still, Keynesianism took hold after 1945 only after it had infiltrated the universities (p. 171). 3. THE ECONOMISTS SHOULD GET THE CREDIT, NOT FDR Michael V. Namorato, Department of History, University of Mississippi ,ECONOMIC HISTORY, EH.NET BOOK REVIEW , July 1997, http://www.eh.net/bookreviews/library/0024.shtml, accessed May 1, 2002. Finally, Barber credits Roosevelt with so much in terms of providing economists with an opportunity to influence policy, but the president himself is seldom even mentioned, no less analyzed in terms of his own thinking on what these economists were telling him and his close advisors. Somehow, Roosevelt is lost amidst the intellectual environment that Barber has created.
TOM HAYDEN
It says a great deal about American academic thinking that we are still arguing about the 1960s, and whether some of the political movements of the time were benevolent or detrimental. One of those movements, Students for a Democratic Society, had a charismatic and thoughtful leader named Tom Hayden who has continued (as an activist and as a California state legislator) to work for change in the American political arena. And unlike me, Hayden -- committed to the Socratic and Platonic tradition of logic and rhetoric -- does not shy away from nor roll his eyes at debates on the impact of the 1960s. Far from it: Hayden welcomes the dialogue, which he sees as necessary for a rich and stable intellectual culture. While its certainly impossible to sum up either the SDS or Hayden in just a few pages -- the issues they tackled ranged from the war in Vietnam to racial injustice to anti-nuclear politics to American economic inequity -- it is possible to sum up the academic debate surrounding them. Basically, there are two camps that feel strongly as regards Hayden and SDS. There are those who consider them to be heroic protestors, challengers of the status quo and defenders of the downtrodden -- and those who consider them to be troublemaking, anti-American louts who have frayed the fabric of the blue jeans of American life. Who is right? Well, in order to answer that question, well have to take a look at Hayden, his life, his ideas, and what he and those inspired by him did during the 1960s. It wouldnt hurt to have a gander at what they have continued to do in the ensuing decades. So, with that said, lets examine one of the most fascinating periods of recent American history. TOM HAYDENS LIFE Regardless of your opinion of Hayden as an activist or as a person, youve gotta admit hes led a pretty interesting life so far. "Tom Hayden changed America", wrote the national correspondent of The Atlantic, Nicholas Lemann. Born December 11, 1939, he has lived in Los Angeles since 1971. As his own website (www.tomhayden.com) admits, though, he was best known for his 16-year marriage to actress Jane Fonda. Together, they participated in many controversial events demonstrating their opposition to the Vietnam War. In 1968, he was arrested as a member of the "Chicago Seven" for inciting a riot at the Democratic National Convention. In 1969 and 1970, he was a prominent defendant in the Chicago Seven trial. Along with four other defendants -- Jerry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman, Rennie Davis and David Dellinger -- Hayden was convicted of intent to riot at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. The other defendants, who were not convicted, were John Froines and Lee Weiner. All the defendants, including Froines and Weiner, were acquitted of additional conspiracy charges. Later, even those intent to riot convictions were overturned by a federal appeals court, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court based its decision on procedural errors by U.S. District Judge Julius Hoffman. Undaunted by his legal trouble, Hayden continued with his activism. He later served as a freedom rider. The freedom riders were a group of mostly white students from the north who traveled to the American south in efforts to assist racial desegregation the South. As some former radicals did, Hayden decided to run for elected office. He was elected to the state Assembly in 1982 -- and when he was elected as a state assemblyman 20 years ago, the Los Angeles Times reported, he was regarded warily as an invader and outlaw by his fellow lawmakers, some of whom even tried to expel him from the Legislature as a "traitor."

This didnt stop him, as he was elected to the state Senate in 1992, the culmination of seven consecutive electoral victories representing the west side of Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley. Until he was forced out by term limits, he was "the conscience of the (California State) Senate", wrote Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters. While he didnt pass much legislation -- his radical views often polarized even friendly legislators -- he sponsored numerous bills, including legislation on behalf of women, African-Americans and Latinos and Holocaust survivors. He backed pro-labor, anti-sweatshop legislation -which you might expect of a former 1960s radical. But mainstream groups honored him, too. Hayden was called the "legislator of the year" by the American Lung Association for taking on the tobacco industry. While a state legislator, he was given kudos by the Sierra Club and the California League Conservation Voters for backing protection of endangered species and proenvironment record, hailed by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference for his civil rights achievements, praised by the Jewish National Fund for his support of Israel, and on and on. Hayden fought against university tuition increases, fought for reform of the K-12 educational system, and decried the prominence of special interest waste and abuse of power in California politics. Hardly a single issue activist or politician. Unlike many of his fellow radicals, Hayden never decried the existence of the political system as such. Indeed, his tenure as a state senator was not the first time Hayden had influenced legislative agendas. At least one prominent political figure, presidential assistant Richard Goodwin, has said that Hayden created the blueprint for the Great Society programs of Lyndon Baines Johnson during his tenure as an advocate for the working poor. He is currently married to the actress Barbara Williams. He has an infant son with Williams. Hayden also has two grown children from his earlier marriage to Fonda. Activist, convict, husband of actress; activist, convict with his sentence overturned, former husband of actress; politician, author, again husband of different actress. Its been a tumultuous ride for Hayden, even when he wasnt married to Barbarella. (Look it up, kids). IDEAS OF TOM HAYDEN Perhaps the most important item to read in studying the ideology of this and other radical organizations is the Port Huron Statement, the founding document of Students for a Democratic Society, which was written by Tom Hayden in 1962. Hayden wrote the Port Huron Statement while a student at The University of Wisconsin. Then statement encouraged other students to research and understand the world at large, and more, to take action. What kind of action? Well, lots of different kinds, of course. As one might expect given the racial intolerance prevalent in America at the time -- remember, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was still two years away -- Hayden decried the injustice of the discrepancy in material wealth and economic opportunity between the white and black communities. In fact, he credits that issue as one of the factors inspiring the SDS movement: SDS moved from a mere problem identification mode to a serious institutional analysis of American politics. Like many of the so-called New Left groups of the time, the SDS had socialist leanings -- not necessarily the hard Marxist leaning of various communist groups, but a general desire for leveling the economic playing field in the United States. Recognizing that this would require revolutionary change, the SDS got its name from a desire for what they termed true democracy, using rhetoric reminiscent of early American rabble rousers such as Thomas Paine. Even in his youth, Hayden recognized that power could not truly be challenged without alliances between various progressive groups. That includes student groups, workers, and other activists of various stripes. The conclusion of the Port Huron Declaration reads:
While Hayden has never focused on one issue to the exclusion of all others, it is certainly possible to decide based on his activist priorities which are the most important to him. Like many of his vintage, the Vietnam War provided his activist awakening. Especially because of the nuclear age, pacifism and the avoidance of war were a pressing concern for Hayden: as he wrote then, the enclosing fact of the Cold War, symbolized by the presence of the Bomb, brought awareness that we ourselves, and our friends, and millions of abstract "others" we knew more directly because of our common peril, might die at any time... It seems, then, that Hayden and SDS defended a multidisciplinary activism that recognized the need for progressive groups of all stripes to come together toward overlapping goals. Naturally, there was tension in this: many labor groups distrust environmentalists because of perceived inattention to the cause of workers, for example. Thus, even people that consider themselves progressive on one or more issues might not be given to the kind of movement-building that SDS advocated. And, of course, if one is not progressive at all, one would hardly be given to support any of the prevailing agendas that Hayden or his allies would. Let us turn to the latter group now, and some of the charges they have levied against Hayden, the SDS, and indeed the 1960s in its entirety. THE CHARGE OF MORAL AND CULTURAL RELATIVISM Conservative academics interesting in revising history have tried to give a black eye to the 1960s student movements by accusing them of moral and cultural relativism -- of turning a blind eye to oppression if it suits their political ends. Quite the opposite is true, insists Hayden to this day. He responds to the charges of people such as Allan Bloom and David Horowitz thusly: What Bloom and others see as moral relativism -- they argue that the student movements essentially defended the right of societies to choose communism -- Hayden sees as merely a shift in morals. The 1960s radicals were not defending Vietnamese (or Chinese, or Soviet) communism -- they were defending their own brand of moral claims, that the United States should not engage in what the SDS felt were immoral activities. Rather than moral relativism, this was actually the mirror image of the moral absolutism that Bloom and his allies defended. Just because it isnt your morality, Hayden might say, doesnt mean there isnt a moral system behind it. When he was interviewed by the journal NEW PERSPECTIVES QUARTERLY, Hayden expanded upon this defense of his philosophy: NPQ: In Bloom's mind, when the current preoccupations of a democratic society become the primary concerns of the university, the university loses the critical detachment necessary to preserve and pass on the core values of Western civilization. Pursuit of knowledge is then eclipsed by the needs of the moment and the opinion of the masses. HAYDEN: Bloom has it backwards. This man who makes so much of being able to distinguish between shadow and substance in Plato's cave becomes blind to the fact that the anguished cry of the students in the 60s was not so very different from Bloom's own lament. The editorials I wrote from 1957 to 1961 in the Michigan Daily were based on Cardinal Newman's concept of the university as a community of scholars, on the remoteness of the curriculum from the real dilemmas of life, on the failure of the university to stand as a critical institution representing inquiry, on the cowardly silence of the intellectual community in the 50s. Bloom continuously asserts that higher education has failed democracy, but it seems difficult for him to comprehend that, at least in the United States, higher education is not separate from democracy. It's an institution that is a full participant in our democratic society. It is not Plato's cave. We live in an economy and a culture where ideas are not separate from improving productivity, improving cultural literacy or improving the quality of life. Higher education is fully integrated into - or contaminated by, depending on how we view it American society. As a result, as long as we have a US Constitution there will be the possibility of strikes or

other disruptive activity any time the component members of an institution are treated like numbers or feel their point of view is not represented. OTHER CRITICISMS OF HAYDEN Even if individuals agreed with the goals of the SDS, they might be criticized for methods -- such as a willingness to riot at the Democratic National Convention. Many say that the riot was something the SDS planned all along -- certainly, that was the basis of the governments case against the Chicago Seven. Because of the overturned conviction, this is far from undisputed. However, others maintain that Hayden and SDS were supporters of violent groups, even if they werent violent themselves. Critics cite Haydens speech to the radical group The Weathermen, who refused to rule out violence as a political tactic, at the Weathermens Days of Rage gathering. According to observers, Hayden told the group: "Anything that intensifies our resistanceis in the service of humanity. The Weathermen are setting the terms for all of us now." This would seem to be at least a tacit endorsement of the groups tactics. The question of whether violence is justified as a political tactic -- and the vexing corollarly question, whether it is justified in an advanced democracy which generally protects freedom of speech -- is not something we will concern ourselves with here. Nevertheless, it is worth reporting and considering that Hayden and SDS were certainly on the edge of the debate. CONCLUSION -- HAYDEN AND DEBATE If there is one thing that we can say about Tom Hayden, its this: he isn't afraid to change with the times. He is unafraid of a vigorous and public discussion on policies, philosophies and ideas -- not unlike many members of the debate community.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aptheker, Herbert with prefaces by Staughton Lynd and Tom Hayden, MISSION TO HANOI. New York: International Publishers, 1966. Hayden, Tom. activist and former California state legislator, NEW PERSPECTIVES QUARTERLY, Volume 4, #4, Fall 1987, p. 20. Hayden, Tom. activist and former California state legislator, WASHINGTON POST, December 5, 1999, p. B1. Hayden, Tom. activist, Port Huron Statement, 1962, http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/huron.html, accessed May 2, 2002. Hayden, Tom. THE LOVE OF POSSESSION IS A DISEASE WITH THEM, Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972. Tom Hayden, REUNION: A MEMOIR, New York: Random House, 1988. Horowitz, David. former radical, THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE, May/June 1997, http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/taemj97s.htm, accessed May 1, 2002. Lynd, Staughton & Thomas Hayden, The Other Side. New York: New American Library, 1966 (pb New York: Signet, 1967). Radosh, Ronald. author of Commies: A Journey Through the Old Left, the New Left and the Leftover Left, FRONTPAGE MAGAZINE, November 27, 2001, http://www.frontpagemag.com/columnists/radosh/2001/rr11-27-01.htm, accessed May 2, 2002.

THE 1960s ACTIVISM OF SDS AND HAYDEN WAS POSITIVE 1. THE 1960s WERE THE UNIVERSTIES FINEST MOMENT Tom Hayden, activist and former California state legislator, NEW PERSPECTIVES QUARTERLY, Volume 4, #4, Fall 1987, p. 20. On the contrary, one can argue that the finest moment of the university was when students and faculty stopped the university's business-as-usual during a time of national crisis. We were spending $30 billion a year on death and destruction; hundreds of Americans per week were coming home in body bags. Professors at Columbia and Berkeley were among the intellectual architects of that war, and to this day I am astounded by the fact that of nearly 1000 academic articles written for leading political science journals during the 60s, only one was about Viet Nam. It was honorable to protest that situation, and those who did so should be blessed in our history. They are the exact opposite of Nazi storm troopers. They were, on the contrary, calling on us not to be "good Germans." That's what Bloom doesn't understand. 2. THE NEW MOVEMENTS CONTINUE THE LEGACY OF THE 60s, AND HAVE MORE IMPACT Tom Hayden, activist, WASHINGTON POST, December 5, 1999, p. B1. Comparisons between the World Trade Organization protests here and the protest movements of the '60s became a media micro-industry last week. One reporter even asked me, is the pepper spray helping you relive your youth? My response was that it beats taking Viagra. My serious take on the question might surprise you. Based on five days of joining in protests, marching, being gassed myself, sitting on cold pavements and hard floors, I have to say I am glad to have lived long enough to see a new generation of rebels accomplish something bigger here in 1999 than we accomplished in Chicago in 1968 with our disruptive protests at the Democratic National Convention. 3. WE MUST CONTINUE TO EXPERIMENT TOWARD TRUE DEMOCRACY Tom Hayden, activist, Port Huron Statement, 1962, p. np, http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/huron.html, accessed May 2, 2002. Our world is guided by the sense that we may be the last generation in the experiment with living. But we are a minority - the vast majority of our people regard the temporary equilibriums of our society and world as eternally-functional parts. In this is perhaps the outstanding paradox: we ourselves are imbued with urgency, yet the message of our society is that there is no viable alternative to the present.... Some would have us believe that Americans feel contentment amidst prosperity - but might it not better be called a glaze above deeply-felt anxieties about their role in the new world? And if these anxieties produce a developed influence to human affairs, do they not as well produce a yearning to believe there is an alternative to the present, that something can be done to change circumstances in the school, the workplaces, the bureaucracies, the government? It is to this latter yearning, at once the spark and engine of change, that we direct our present appeal. The search for truly democratic alternatives to the present, and a commitment to social experimentation with them, is a worthy and fulfilling human enterprise, one which moves us and, we hope, others today. 4. THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SYSTEM ISNT REALLY DEMOCRACY Tom Hayden, activist, Port Huron Statement, 1962, p. np, http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/huron.html, accessed May 2, 2002. The American political system is not the democratic model of which its glorifiers speak. In actuality it frustrates democracy by confusing the individual citizen, paralyzing policy discussion, and consolidating the irresponsible power of military and business interests. 5. THE NEW MOVEMENTS ARE LIKE THE NEW BOSTON TEA PARTY Tom Hayden, activist, WASHINGTON POST, December 5, 1999, p. B1. For the first time in memory, the patriotism of the corporate globalizers is in question, not that of their opponents. Do the Clinton administration's investor-based trade priorities benefit America's interest in highwage jobs, environmental protection and human rights? Are American democratic values and middle-class interests secondary to those of transnational corporations? As a grass-roots movement seeking the overthrow of what it sees as an oppressive system, Seattle '99 was more like the Boston Tea Party than the days of rage we knew in the late '60s.

HAYDENS CRITICS ARE WRONG THE 60s WERENT ABOUT MORAL RELATIVISM 1. ALLAN BLOOMS FOCUS IS CONFUSED: HE SELECTS THE WRONG ISSUES Tom Hayden, activist and former California state legislator, NEW PERSPECTIVES QUARTERLY, Volume 4, #4, Fall 1987, p. 20. I'll give another example. One week after the Kent State shootings, Kingman Brewster, the president of Yale, led one thousand Yale students to Washington in protest. They spent an entire week involved in the process of lobbying the government to terminate the war. Was that a worthy undertaking by a university leader? Absolutely. Did that damage Yale? Did it morally and intellectually cripple the thousand students who participated? I think not. What would Bloom make of that situation? His focus is so confused because he chooses his events so selectively. 2. THE 1960s WERENT ABOUT RELATIVISM: THEY INTRODUCED REAL MORALITY Tom Hayden, activist and former California state legislator, NEW PERSPECTIVES QUARTERLY, Volume 4, #4, Fall 1987, p. 20. If we accept Bloom's Platonic model - the legitimacy of questioning everything - then of course one of the occasional consequences will be rebellious behavior. But far from being a time which gave birth to moral relativism, the 60s introduced morality into an amoral society and a materialistic university. To view the 60s as mindless because many of us followed C. Wright Mills and Albert Camus rather than Allan Bloom's prescriptions is wrong. The 60s were an intellectual and intensely introspective decade. If there has been an erosion of general education, that erosion comes from turning the university to the specialized uses of society, and Bloom knows that. That omission is another reason why his book is so baffling. He complains that students become economics majors prematurely and they all go to university with fantasies about becoming millionaires. How was that caused by the 60s? Those attitudes obviously result from the drive of the marketplace and the tendency of the university to provide for the immediate professional needs of society. 3. BLOOM IS WRONG HIS IDEA OF THE UNIVERSITY HASNT EXISTED FOR CENTURIES Tom Hayden, activist and former California state legislator, NEW PERSPECTIVES QUARTERLY, Volume 4, #4, Fall 1987, p. 20. NPQ: Bloom argues that, in the 60s, thinking stopped with the moral indignation over the Vietnam War and racial injustice. Does Bloom have a point? Hayden: Of course he has a point, but it's confused because the cloistered community of scholars Bloom describes has not existed for many centuries. At my university, to be much more accurate about the 60s than Bloom, the Dean of Women was not encouraging reading in Greek tragedy. She was deploying a network of informants who notified parents of the white girls who were seen socializing with black men in the student union. That was the University of Michigan in 1960. That administrative behavior deserved a revolt, and it's not anti-intellectual to revolt against those attitudes. 4. HAYDENS CRITICS HAVE MANY MORE MORAL PROBLEMS THAN HE DOES Tom Hayden, activist and former California state legislator, NEW PERSPECTIVES QUARTERLY, Volume 4, #4, Fall 1987, p. 20. Speaking of mindlessness, how should we regard the official claim that the US was in Viet Nam to stop Chinese communism? Speaking of moral relativism, how are we to interpret Edward Teller's views on limited nuclear war? If academic leaders proclaim that the university is doing the best it can, but it can't improve on a black admission rate of 5% or 6%, and they say those things loudly on the edge of the Oakland ghetto, or Morningside Heights, the university will unfortunately reap a whirlwind. And it did. Furthermore, let's also not forget the 60s are over. We have the most conservative president we have ever had, the most traditional US Secretary of Education we have ever had, the whitest universities elitists could want and the income base of the people attending our universities is safely affluent.

HAYDENS POLITICAL AGENDA WAS SECONDARY: HE JUST WANTED TROUBLE 1. HAYDEN AND SDS ONLY WANTED TO STIR UP TROUBLE David Horowitz, former radical, THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE, May/June 1997, http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/taemj97s.htm, accessed May 1, 2002. As principal architect of the Port Huron Statement in 1962, Tom Hayden had helped launch Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), which soon became the largest student organization of the New Left. When he called for a demonstration at the 1968 Democratic national convention to protest the Vietnam War, everybody knew it meant a confrontation with the Chicago police that could prove bloody. Ramparts editor-in-chief Warren Hinckle decided to participate by publishing a "wall paper," as Maos Red Guards had done during the cultural revolution in China. During the riots that followed the assassination of Martin Luther King, Chicagos Mayor Daley had recently ordered his police to shoot looters. A radical street protest would put peoples lives at risk. Because of such considerations, Haydens plans attracted only two or three thousand people to Lincoln Park. But that was enough to generate troubleHaydens real agenda. 2. HAYDEN LURED PEOPLE TO CHICAGO FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF RIOTING David Horowitz, former radical, THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE, May/June 1997, http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/taemj97s.htm, accessed May 1, 2002. When the dust cleared in Chicago, Hayden and seven other radicals, including the Black Panthers Bobby Seale, were indicted for conspiring to create a riot. During the trial, the defendants created a near-riot in the courtroom itself. Seale was so obstructive that the judge ordered him bound and gagged. The picture of a black man in chains was a made-to-order script for the radical melodrama. One of the conspirators, Jerry Rubin, admitted a decade later that the organizers had lured activists to Chicago hoping to create the riot that eventually took place. This fit with the general strategy Hayden had laid out in private discussions with me. When peoples heads are cracked by police, he said more than once, it "radicalizes them." The trick was to maneuver the idealistic and unsuspecting into situations that would achieve this result. 3. HAYDEN PROPELLED THE LEFT WING DEMOCRATS INTO POWER David Horowitz, former radical, THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE, May/June 1997, http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/taemj97s.htm, accessed May 1, 2002. The ensuing melee changed the shape of American politics. The now-famous pictures of demonstrators being bloodied by police, and the chaos on the convention floor, destroyed the presidential chances of Hubert Humphrey and moved the Democratic party dramatically to the left. Four years later, Hayden and the protesters provided the push and the party rule changes that pushed the antiwar candidacy of George McGovern and propelled the partys left wing into power.

HAYDEN SAID HE WANTED PEACE, BUT HE REALLY WANTED VIOLENCE 1. HAYDEN WAS A GUERILLA BOMBTHROWER David Horowitz, former radical, THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE, May/June 1997, http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/taemj97s.htm, accessed May 1, 2002. Sid Peck, a member of mobe, the pacifist group that issued the call to the Chicago demonstration, later told me with somebitterness that Hayden had been "extremely deceptive" in outlining his agenda for the gathering, assuring everyone that his intentions were nonviolent. Haydens duplicity continued throughout the event, causing the radical historian Staughton Lynd to comment that "on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday [Hayden] was a National Liberation Front guerrilla, and on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday, hewas on the left wing of the Democratic party." Anyone who knew Tom knew that the bombthrower was the real Hayden. 3. PREACHING PACIFISM, HAYDEN REALLY ADVOCATED FIREBOMBING COP CARS David Horowitz, former radical, THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE, May/June 1997, http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/taemj97s.htm, accessed May 1, 2002. Having secured pacifist cover, Hayden then went to the most radical elements in the Leftthose who actively advocated violence as a political tacticand proposed that they provoke a conflict with the police who would be at the demonstration. According to Haydens own retrospective account, he warned one group in New York that "they should come to Chicago prepared to shed their blood," and he told his co-organizer, Rennie Davis, that he expected 25 people to die. He recruited the Yippies, a group organized by Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, who alarmed Chicago officials by immediately threatening to put lsd in the Chicago water supply. Hayden also met before the convention with the Weatherman faction of sds, which had issued a call for "armed struggle" in American cities. As one of the Weather leaders told me later, Hayden proposed to them that "It might be useful if someone were to fire-bomb police cars." 4. HAYDEN ADVOCATED VIOLENCE Ronald Radosh, author of Commies: A Journey Through the Old Left, the New Left and the Leftover Left, FRONTPAGE MAGAZINE, November 27, 2001, http://www.frontpagemag.com/columnists/radosh/2001/rr11-27-01.htm, accessed May 2, 2002. Some would like to separate the rest of the so-called moderate New Left from the Weatherman. Todd Gitlin, one of SDSs first leaders, has condemned Ayers as a "failed terrorist," and accuses him of responsibility for destroying what he saw as becoming a mass democratic Left. We are so often told by Gitlin and others that Tom Hayden, who wrote the famed SDS Port Huron statement in the movements early days, showed the possibility of a true democratic radicalism. Hayden gave the New Left the alternative of entering into the nations democratic political structure and waging a serious political fight for left-wing social policies within the two-party system. It is therefore good that Ayers reminds us of Haydens speech to the Weatherman at their Days of Rage, when Hayden told the rioters "Anything that intensifies our resistanceis in the service of humanity. The Weathermen are setting the terms for all of us now." You wont find this in Haydens own memoir, but it gives the lie to those who argue that there is simply no connection between the early humanist New Left and the later Weathermen. 5. HAYDEN TRIED TO MAKE BLOOD FLOW ALL OVER THE CITY David Horowitz, former radical, THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE, May/June 1997, http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/taemj97s.htm, accessed May 1, 2002. At the event, Hayden gave Bobby Seale a platform in Lincoln Park, and Seale addressed the crowd with the suggestive exhortation that "If a pig comes up to us and starts swinging a billy club, and you check around and you got your piece, you got to down that pig in defense of yourself. Were gonna barbecue us some pork!" Once the violence started, Hayden defiantly incited the crowd to "make sure that if blood is going to flow, it will flow all over the city."
HOWARD ZINN
Howard Zinn is a historian and activist to take note of by any measure. The author of more than 15 books, Zinn is not only prolific but is considered one of the most accessible modern historical writers. His progressive history text, A PEOPLES HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, has sold more than 800,000 copies.1 In addition to his historical writing, he has authored several plays, spoken word CDs, and an autobiographical commentary on politics and history. He received his Doctorate in history from Columbia and is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Boston University. There are a number of different values and philosophical arguments that Zinn writes about. Because many of them are framed in terms of their historical context, either nationally or in terms of his own life, this essay will engage each of these values in the context he provides. CRITIQUES OF HISTORIOGRAPHY Zinns seminal text, A PEOPLES HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, revolutionized the way history is told. There are four ways in particular that Zinns historical methodology radically different from the norm: he recognizes (and even embraces) the bias in perspective that is a natural part of historiography; he tells the narrative of history from the bottom up, that is, from the perspective of those who have been disempowered throughout each era; rather than shying away from controversy, he actively engages it; he integrates the concepts of historiography with activism. I will address each of these in turn. History has traditionally been told as though there was an objective truth waiting to be discovered and written. This is particularly the case in texts that claim to be at all comprehensive, such as history textbooks used in schools. These books have a vested interest in making their version of history appear definitive, because, from the authors perspective, it makes them appear more credible and authoritative than their competitors. Howard Zinn takes an entirely different approach to the writing of history. In his essay The Uses of Scholarship, Zinn critiques what he sees as the sometimes unspoken, but almost universally accepted, rules for good scholarship. These are that writing should be disinterested, objective, narrowly tailored to one academic discipline, scientific (i.e., neutral), and rational (unemotional).2 One of Zinns primary arguments against this approach is that the disinterested and rational approach to history facilitates a distance between the historian and the subject matter that leads to complicity with evils in history: It is precisely by describing the brutality of war, the character flaws of our leaders, and the lies propagated by politicians, the mass media, the church, [and] popular leaders,4 for example, that students can be taught to think critically about the world that they live in, within the context of history. The second way that Zinns historical methodology challenges the dominant orthodoxy is that it describes history from the standpoint of the oppressed. Most United States history is told from a perspective that puts the government and politicians at the center, and ignores the daily lives of ordinary citizens. In contrast, Zinn is a champion of the notion that historical change occurs more through mass movements of ordinary people than through the wisdom and insight of so-called Great Men.5 This is due, in part, to Zinns personal background
1
Interview of Howard Zinn by Robert Birnbaum, Zinn and the Art of History, HOWARD ZINN ONLINE, no date, accessed May 12, 2002, http://howardzinn.org/index23.htm 2 Howard Zinn, THE ZINN READER: WRITINGS ON DISOBEDIENCE AND DEMOCRACY, 1997, p. 503-506 3 Zinn, THE ZINN READER, p. 506 4 Zinn, THE ZINN READER, p. 507 5 Zack Stenz, Howard Zinn brings his passion for history to Sonoma County in The Sonoma Independent, April 18-24 1996, p. np, accessed May 11, 2002, http://www.metroactive.com/papers/sonoma/04.18.96/books9616.html

with the civil rights movement and the labor movement, but extends to all of his writing, such as his retelling of the colonization of North America from the perspective of indigenous peoples. Third, and closely related to the last point, Zinn does not shy away from controversy in either his historical writing or his commentary on modern political events in magazines such as THE PROGRESSIVE, Z MAG, MOTHER JONES, and others. This makes him simultaneously one of the most loved and hated historians of this era, [D]espite his popularity, Zinn's brand of "bottom-up" history has been reviled by political conservatives, and he confesses that he isn't surprised."Whenever you introduce a new view of historical events, the guardians of the old order will spring to the attack," Zinn says.6 His perspective is that revolutionary and even utopian ideas are crucial for shaking up the stronghold conservatives have over academia. Finally, in part because of his commitment to stirring up controversy, Zinn is well known for integrating his own personal advocacy and activism with his writing. This stems, to a great degree, from his role as a professor. In 1956 Zinn moved his wife and children to Atlanta, Georgia, to take a position as the chair of the history and social sciences department at Spelman College, a Negro college in a deeply segregated area. Inspired by his students, who were engaged in non-violent civil disobedience, he participated in extensive protest with his students, and as a result eventually wrote the book DISOBEDIENCE AND DEMOCRACY (his treatise on civil disobedience), A PEOPLES HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, as well as many essays about his specific experience at Spelman. Zinn explained: I could see history being made before my eyes by ordinary people who are never written about in the history books.7 In addition to these issues of racism, the role socioeconomic class played throughout history greatly effected Zinn. Zinn came from a working class background, lived in tenements, and at a young age was influenced by the writing of Charles Dickens, John Stienbeck, Upton Sinclair, Marx, and various communist, anarchist, and anti-fascist writers. At age eighteen, during the depression, he won a New Deal job as an apprentice shipfitter, which was painful, physically demanding, and prohibited union membership. Despite the benefits of that job, and his next job as an Air Force bomber, his youth heavily influenced his perspective on class in the United States: If you look at the laws passed in the United States from the very beginning of the [A]merican republic down to the present day, you'll find that most of the legislation passed is class legislation which favors the elite, which favors the rich. You'll find huge subsidies to corporations all through [A]merican history.8 Despite being someone who might be described as having pulled himself up by his bootstraps to raise from a working class background to a famous intellectual, he does not identify with those who argue that hard work is all that is needed to get ahead. Instead, he is a proponent of progressive social and economic policy. This is the perspective of much of his historical writing (A PEOPLES HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES includes lots of infrequently taught labor union history) as well as the chapter of his memoir called Growing Up Class Conscious from YOU CANT BE NEUTRAL ON A MOVING TRAIN. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, NONVIOLENCE, AND DEMOCRACY: NINE FALLACIES Zinn writes extensively, in nearly all of his books, about the role of social protest and civil disobedience within democratic societies, particularly the United States. One of his lesser known books, however, is focused specifically on this topic. The book is organized into nine sections, each of which refutes one of the primary arguments made by opponents of civil disobedience, particularly former Supreme Court Associate Justice Abe Fortas. Some of these fallacies are specific to the role of the court system in ensuring justice, but I will focus on those concerning the role of the social protester. YOU MUST ACCEPT PUNISHMENT IF YOU COMMIT CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE This fallacy derives from the glorification of Socrates decision to accept his unjust death sentence. However, Zinn argues that if one is punished for breaking an unjust law, then the punishment itself is unjust, and when
6 7
Stenz, p. np. Stenz, p. np. 8 Howard Zinn, Gray Matters Interviews Howard Zinn, HOWARD ZINN ONLINE, December 3, 1998, accessed May 12, 2002, http://howardzinn.org/index23.htm

unjust decisions are accepted, injustice is sanctioned and perpetuated.9 In fact, Zinn writes, it treats protest like a game to argue that protesters should accept the penalty for losing instead of continuing their protest to the end. This argument, by Zinn, is useful in answering quotations from Martin Luther King Jr., in his essay Letter From A Birmingham Jail, which Zinn argues are taken out of context when they are characterized as arguing that protesters must accept the punishment for their acts of civil disobedience. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE MUST BE LIMITED TO LAWS WHICH ARE THEMSELVES WRONG Statists argue that violating laws other than those which are directly unfair is unjustified. This would include violating curfews, blocking streets, etc. in the course of a protest. Zinn outlines several situations which demonstrate the inanity of this principle. Perhaps the most obvious example were the sit ins in the segregated South which violated laws against trespassing, when the segregation was not a public law but a decision by a private business owner. In a theoretical sense, the reason this principle is invalid is that it fails to distinguish between important and trivial laws in the context of preventing massive injustice. This principle would also proscribe any solution to injustice resulting not from unjust laws, but the failure of the government to enforce just laws (e.g., desegregation). CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE MUST BE ABSOLUTELY NONVIOLENT There are a plethora of excellent theoristsincluding Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Thoreauwho argue for the benefits of nonviolence. Unfortunately, most of the people who respond to this argument are peoplesuch as Malcom X and Ward Churchillwho explicitly espouse levels of violence that may be difficult to defend. One virtue of Zinns writing is that he does not explicitly encourage violence, but instead finds a middle ground between violence and nonviolence. On the one hand, Zinn argues that all things being equal, nonviolence is better than violence. Moreover, he sees the ultimate end of civil disobedience, and progress generally, as being a nonviolent world. On the other hand, Zinn points out, even thinkers like Gandhi and Thoreau at times defended the use of violence when no other option was available. Furthermore, Zinn distinguishes between different levels of violence. In any humanist philosophy, for example, a distinction must be drawn between violence against people and violence against property. Generally, he points out that the severity of the protest must be weighed against the severity of the injustice: Would not any reasonable code have to weigh the degree of violence used in any case against the importance of the issue at stake? Thus, a massive amount of violence for a small or dubious reason would be harder to justify than a small amount of violence for an important and a clear reason.10 The litmus test for determining the legitimacy of violence in civil disobedience has to do with the degree to which it is discriminating: Violence might be justifiable as it approaches the focusing and control of surgery. Self-defense is by its nature focused, because it is counterviolence directed only at a perpetrator of violence. Planned acts of violence in an enormously important cause (the resistance against Hitler may be an example) could be justifiable. Revolutionary warfare, the more it is aimed carefully at either a foreign controlling power, or a local tyrannical elite, may be morally defensible.11
Howard Zinn, DISOBEDIENCE AND DEMOCRACY, 1968, p. 29 Howard Zinn, DISOBEDIENCE AND DEMOCRACY, 1968, p. 45 11 Howard Zinn, DISOBEDIENCE AND DEMOCRACY, 1968, p. 48
10

In essence, Zinns argument is that limited violence is justified when the oppression being fought is extreme, when there are no other viable means of successful protest, and when the target of the violence is directly responsible for the oppression. RULE OF LAW HAS INTRINSIC VALUE / DEMOCRACY MAKES PROTEST UNNECESSARY There are two primary justifications for the argument that the law has intrinsic value and that, therefore, even civil disobedience that has good intentions is unjust. The first of these arguments is that regardless of whether the laws are just or unjust, they maintain peace and stability, and must therefore be followed. The problem with this view is that it places stability at a premium while ignoring the price of that stability: Surely, peace, stability, and order are desirable. Chaos and violence are not. But stability and order are not the only desirable conditions social life. There is also justice. Absolute obedience to law may bring order temporarily, but it may not bring justice.12 The most important question then becomes: when the law does not serve the cause of justice, do citizens have a greater obligation to ensure lawfulness or justice? Zinn writes: Thus, when an individual sees injustice in the world around her, and she sees no other effective method, she is justified in violating lawseven if that lawlessness leads to social instabilityto fight to stop the injustice. The second justification for the argument that the law (at least in a democracy) has intrinsic value, thus making civil disobedience unjustified, is that law is created by the people, thus represents the common sentiment of what is just. This is certainly true at times, and in these cases it is irrefutable that the law ought be followed. Nevertheless, as Zinn writes: The law may serve justice, as when it forbids rape and murder or requires a school to admit all students regardless of race or nationality. But when it sends young men to war, when it protects the rich and punishes the poor, then law and justice are opposed to one another.14 It is in these instances that civil disobedience is justified. It is too simplistic to argue that because democracy is majoritarian, it will protect whatever the majority sees as just, and will therefore be just. Often, as we have seen throughout history, the majority denies basic principles of justice to the minority for the sake of the majoritys benefit, be it material, social, or anything else. In these situations, the minority is structurally precluded from using the law to advance their rights. Thus, civil disobedience may be the only possible method for fighting for justice. There is no better example of such a case than in the civil rights movement in the United States. PATRIOTISM AND OPTIMISM Zinn is frequently criticized for not being sufficiently patriotic, particularly for a United States historian. Many conservative historians, in various terms, have characterized A People's History as a Hate America book, Zinn says. Butwhile it's true that I take a very critical view of the United States government in history, I take a very positive view toward the mass movements of people in America who have fought to make the country a better place. 15 This demonstrates the fundamental distinction Zinn draws between how conservatives define patriotism and how he defines it. There are two primary differences First, Zinn argues that there is a substantial difference between loyalty to the government of a country and loyalty to the country itself. It is hard to imagine how anyone could read Zinns articles or book chapters about the civil rights or labor movements without sensing the strong sense of pride he feels in American people. Zinn argued that the great writers could see through the fog of what was called patriotism, what was considered
Zinn, THE ZINN READER, p. 370-371 Zinn, THE ZINN READER, p. 371 14 Zinn, THE ZINN READER, p. 370-371 15 Zack Stenz, Howard Zinn brings his passion for history to Sonoma County in The Sonoma Independent, April 18-24 1996, accessed May 11, 2002, http://www.metroactive.com/papers/sonoma/04.18.96/books9616.html
13
12

loyalty. 16 To demonstrate the distinction, he quoted from the satire A CONNECTICUT YANKEE IN KING ARTHUR'S COURT, by Mark Twain: Similarly, Zinn feels that the real, eternal part of what makes America America is not the government, but the people and the social movements that have fought for justice for all people. The second aspect of Zinns redefinition of patriotism is his insistence that criticizing the government, far from being unpatriotic, is actually one of the best ways of being a patriot. As he argues in his examination of civil disobedience, challenging unjust governmental policies is an integral part of being a citizen of a democracy. Only by exercizing the right (and duty) to protest do we as individuals truly participate in democracy. Thus, by protesting we strengthen and engage in the true democratic spirit of America. However, Zinn is not purely critical of the United States government and its leaders. His optimism leads him to take a more balanced approach: the left hasn't balanced its act very well. They've done a very good job of illuminating the various bad policies of the American government, but they haven't shown what people have done to resist these policies, often successfully. And that's a critical thing to do, to show people in the present day that they can fight back and win.18 One important aspect of Zinns writing is that it does not, in contrast to the perception of his critics, attempt to describe a world of oppressive futility, in which the government is overwhelmingly bad and cannot be resisted. Instead, he writes history from a perspective which demonstrates the gains that have been made by social movements since the government was established.
Howard Zinn, Artists of Resistency, THE PROGRESSIVE, July 2001, accessed May 11, 2002, http://www.progressive.org/zinn0701.html 17 Howard Zinn, Artists of Resistency, THE PROGRESSIVE, July 2001, accessed May 11, 2002, http://www.progressive.org/zinn0701.html 18 Zack Stenz, Howard Zinn brings his passion for history to Sonoma County in The Sonoma Independent, April 18-24 1996, accessed May 11, 2002, http://www.metroactive.com/papers/sonoma/04.18.96/books9616.html
16

BIBLIOGRAPHY Churchill, Ward. PACIFISM AS PATHOLOGY : REFLECTIONS ON THE ROLE OF ARMED STRUGGLE IN NORTH AMERICA. Winnipeg: Arbeiter Ring Publishing, 1999 Fortas, Abe. CONCERNING DISSENT AND CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. New York: Signet Books, 1964 FREESPEECH.ORG, Accessed May 17, 2002, http://free.freespeech.org/evolution/articles.htm HOWARD ZINN ONLINE, Accessed May 17, 2002, http://www.howardzinn.org/ HOWARD ZINNS ZNET HOMEPAGE, Accessed May 17, 2002, http://www.zmag.org/bios/homepage.cfm?authorID=97 Zinn, Howard. A PEOPLE'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES: 1492 TO PRESENT. New York: Harper Perennial, 2001 Zinn, Howard. DECLARATIONS OF INDEPENDENCE : CROSS-EXAMINING AMERICAN IDEOLOGY. New York: Harper Perennial, 1991 Zinn, Howard. DISOBEDIENCE AND DEMOCRACY: NINE FALLACIES ON LAW AND ORDER. New York: Vintage Books, 1968 Zinn, Howard. HOWARD ZINN: ON HISTORY. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2000 Zinn, Howard. HOWARD ZINN ON WAR. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2000 Zinn, Howard. TERRORISM AND WAR (OPEN MEDIA PAMPHLET SERIES). New York: Seven Stories Press, 2002 Zinn, Howard, et al. THREE STRIKES: MINERS, MUSICIANS, SALESGIRLS, AND THE FIGHTING SPIRIT OF LABOR'S LAST CENTURY. Boston: Beacon Press, 2001 Zinn, Howard. YOU CANT BE NEUTRAL ON A MOVING TRAIN: A PERSONAL HISTORY OF OUR TIMES. Boston: Beacon Press, 1994 Zinn, Howard. THE ZINN READER: WRITINGS ON DISOBEDIENCE AND DEMOCRACY. New York: Seven Stories Press, 1997

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IS JUSTIFIED 1. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE DENIES THAT LAWS ARE ALWAYS MORAL OR CORRECT Howard Zinn, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Boston University, Gray Matters Interviews Howard Zinn, HOWARD ZINN ONLINE, December 3, 1998, accessed May 12, 2002, http://howardzinn.org/index23.htm The principle of civil disobedience doesn't state as a universal that you must always disobey the law (laughter). What it does do is refuse the universal principle that you must always obey the law. And what it does is declare a willingness to decide when laws are consonant with morality and when laws are immoral and support terrible things like war or racism or sexism, injustices of all sorts. And so laws that sustain injustice should be disobeyed. Sometimes though it's the law itself that's disobeyed, sometimes the law that is disobeyed is a law against trespassing or a law against picketing and people will commit civil disobedience and trespass as the sitdown strikers did in the United States in the 1930s when they took over factories or as the black protesters did in the civil rights movement in the United States when they sat down in lunch counters and refused to move. But the idea of civil disobedience is that Law is not sacrosanct. 2. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE MAY BE JUSTIFIED BY SPECIFIC CRITERIA Howard Zinn, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Boston University, DISOBEDIENCE AND DEMOCRACY, 1968, p. 48-49. All this is to suggest what criteria need to be kept in mind whenever civil disobedience, in situations of urgency where very vital issues are at stake, and other means have been exhausted, may move from mild actions, to disorder, to overt violence: it would have to guarded, limited, aimed carefully at the source of injustice, and preferably directed against property rather than people. There are two reasons for such criteria. One is the moral reason: that violence is in itself an evil, and so can only be justified in those circumstances where it is a last resort in eliminating a greater evil, or in) self-defense. The other is the reason of effectiveness: The purpose of civil disobedience is to communicate to others, and indiscriminate violence turns people (rightly) away. 3. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IS NECESSARY FOR JUSTICE Howard Zinn, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Boston University, Gray Matters Interviews Howard Zinn, HOWARD ZINN ONLINE, December 3, 1998, accessed May 12, 2002, http://howardzinn.org/index23.htm I think that the history of the United States indicates that when we have had to redress serious grievances, that has not been done by the three branches of government that are always paraded before junior high school students and high school students as the essence of democracy. It hasn't been Congress or the President or the Supreme Court who have initiated acts to remedy racial inequality or tho do something about the government going to war or about economic injustice. It's always taken the actions of citizens and actions of civil disobedience to bring these issues to national attention and finally force the President and Congress and the Supreme Court to begin to move. You were talking about this going on for hundreds of years. If you go back a hundred and fifty years ago to the middle of the nineteenth century, to the 1850s, you'll see that it wasn't Lincoln who caused the anti-slavery sentiment in the country to grow. Lincoln was reacting to the growth of the movement that became stronger and stronger from the 1830s to the outbreak of the civil war. And in the 1850s, manifested itself in many acts of civil disobedience against the Fugitive Slave Act that had been passed in 1850. The Fugitive Slave Act required the federal government to aid southern slave owners in bringing escaped slaves back to the South. Well people in the North, black people, escaped slaves, free black people, white people, they gathered together in committees. They broke into courthouses and into jailhouses to rescue escaped slaves. And they used certainly acts of civil disobedience. And in a number of cases, when they were brought up on charges and put on trial, juries acquitted them. Because juries recognized the morality of what they were doing even though they had broken the law.

DEMOCRACY DOESNT DELEGITIMIZE CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE 1. PROTEST IS NECESSARY WHEN VOTING FAILS TO PROMOTE JUSTICE Howard Zinn, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Boston University, DISOBEDIENCE AND DEMOCRACY, 1968, p. 65-66. We have been naive in America about the efficacy of the ballot box and representative government to rectify injustice. We forget (hence all the emphasis in recent years on voting rights for the Negro) how inadequate is the ballot. We forget what the history of American politics has shown repeatedly: that there is only the vaguest connection between the issues debated in an election campaign and those ultimately decided by the government; that the two-party system is_only slightly less tyrannical than the one-party system, for Michels iron law of oligarchy operates to keep us at the mercy of powerful politicos in both parties. We forget that the information on which the public depends for judging public issues is in the hands of the wealthiest sections of the (true, we have freedom to speak, but how much of an audience we can speak to depends on how much money we have);,that wealth dominates the electoral process (see Murray Levins meticulous study, Kennedy Campaigning); that the moment we have cast our ballots, the representative takes over (as Rousseau, and before him, Victor Considerant pointed out) and we have lost our freedom. The result of all this is that most of uswhen we are honest with ourselvesfeel utterly helpless to affect public policy by the orthodox channels. The feeling is justified. Historically, we have found it necessary to go outside the proper channels at certain pivotal times in our history. Slavery probably could not he ended without either a series of revolts by blacks, or finally, a devastating war waged, ironically, by the very government that condemned John Brown to death for seeking a less costly means of emancipating the slave. And the rights of even a portion of the laboring population were secured only by extra-legal uprisings in a wave of violent labor struggles from 1877 to 1914, and again during the sit-down strikes of the 1930s. 2. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE ENHANCES DEMOCRACY Howard Zinn, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Boston University, Gray Matters Interviews Howard Zinn, HOWARD ZINN ONLINE, December 3, 1998, accessed May 12, 2002, http://howardzinn.org/index23.htm So the Law should not be given the holy deference which we are all taught to give it when we grow up and go to school, and it's a profoundly undemocratic idea to say that you should judge what you do according to what the law says. Undemocratic because it divests you as an individual and the right to make a decision yourself about what is right or wrong and it gives all of that power to that small band of legislators who have decided for themselves what is right and what is wrong. So to me the idea of civil dissobedience is to really enhance democracy. 3. DEMOCRATIC LAW IS NOT SACROSANCT, IT MAY BE VIOLATED ON BEHALF OF JUSTICE Howard Zinn, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Boston University, THE ZINN READER: WRITINGS ON DISOBEDIENCE AND DEMOCRACY, 1997, p. 400-401. Or perhaps we should say ignore man-made law, the law of the politicians to obey the higher lawwhat Reverend Coffin and Father Berrigan would call the law of God and what others might call the law of human rights, the principles of peace, freedom, and justice. (Daniel Berrigans elderly mother was asked by a reporter, when Dan went underground, how she felt about her son defying the law; she responded quietly. Its not Gods law.) The truth is so often the total reverse of what has been told us by our culture that we cannot turn our heads far enough around to see it. Surely, it is obedience to governments, in their appeals to patriotism, their calls for war, that is responsible for the terrible violence of our century. The disobedience of conscientious citizens, for the most part nonviolent, has been directed to stopping the violence of war. The psychologist Erich Fromm, thinking about nuclear war, once referred to the biblical Genesis of the human race and the bite into the forbidden apple: Human history began with an act of disobedience and it is not unlikely that it will be terminated by an act of obedience.

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IS UNJUSTIFIED 1. GOOD MOTIVATIONS FOR CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE DO NOT MAKE IT JUSTIFIED Abe Fortas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, CONCERNING DISSENT AND CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, 1968, p. 62-63. For example, a young man may be advised by counsel that he must refuse to report for induction in order to challenge the constitutionality of the Selective Service Act. This is very different from the kind of civil disobedience which is not engaged in for the purpose of testing the legality of an order within our system of government and laws, but which is practiced as a technique of warfare in a social and political conflict over other issues. Frequently, of course, civil disobedience is prompted by both motivesby both a desire to make propaganda and to challenge the law. This is true in many instances of refusal to submit to induction. It was true in the case of Mrs. Vivian Kellems, who refused to pay withholding taxes because she thought they were unlawful and she wanted to protest the invasion of her freedom as a capitalist and citizen. Let me first be clear about a fundamental proposition. The motive of civil disobedience, whatever its type, does not confer immunity for law violation. Especially if the civil disobedience involves violence or a breach of public order prohibited by statute or ordinance, it is the states duty to arrest the dissident. If he is properly arrested, charged, and convicted, he should be punished by fine or imprisonment, or both, in accordance with the provisions of law, unless the law is invalid in general or as applied. He may be motivated by the highest moral principles. He may be passionately inspired. He may, indeed, be right in the eyes of history or morality or philosophy. These are not controlling. It is the states duty to arrest and punish those who violate the laws designed to protect private safety and public order. 2. CITIZENS SHOULD NOT VIOLATE THE RULE OF LAW FOR THE SAKE OF PROTEST Abe Fortas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, CONCERNING DISSENT AND CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, 1968, p. 64-65. We are a government and a people under law. It is not merely government that must live under law. Each of us must live under law. Just as our form of life depends upon the governments subordination to law under the Constitution, so it also depends upon the individuals subservience to the laws duly prescribed. Both of these are essential. Just as we expect the government to be bound by all laws, so each individual is bound by all of the laws under the Constitution. He cannot pick and choose. He cannot substitute his own judgment or passion, however noble, for the rules of law. Thoreau was an inspiring figure and a great writer; but his essay should not be read as a handbook on political science. A citizen cannot demand of his government or of other people obedience to the law, and at the same time claim a right in himself to break it by lawless conduct, free of punishment or penalty. 3. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE MAY SPIRAL OUT OF CONTROL, JUSTIFYING ITS RESTRAING Abe Fortas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, CONCERNING DISSENT AND CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, 1968, p. 70-71. These mass demonstrations, however peacefully intended by their organizers, always involve the danger that they may erupt into violence. But despite this, our Constitution and our traditions, as well as practical wisdom, teach us that city officials, police and citizens must be tolerant of mass demonstrations, however large and inconvenient. No city should be expected to submit to paralysis or to widespread injury to persons and property brought on by violation of law. It must be prepared to prevent this by the use of planning, persuasion, and restrained law enforcement. But at the same time, it is the citys duty under law, and as a matter of good sense, to make every effort to provide adequate facilities so that the demonstration can be effectively staged, so that it can be conducted without paralyzing the citys life, and to provide protection for the demonstrators. The city must perform this duty. An enormous degree of self-control and discipline are required on both sides. Police must be trained in tact as well as tactics. Demonstrators must be organized, ordered, and controlled. Agitators and provocateurs, whatever their object, must be identified, and any move that they may make toward violence must be quickly countered. However careful both sides may be, there is always danger that individual, isolated acts of a few persons will overwhelm the restraint of thousands. Law violation or intemperate behavior by one demonstrator may provoke police action. Intemperate or hasty retaliation by a single policeman may provoke disorder, and civil disobedience may turn into riot. This is the dangerous potential of mass demonstrations.

NONVIOLENT RESISTANCE FAILS 1. NONVIOLENT STRATEGIES ARE UNABLE TO EFFECTUATE CHANGE Ward Churchill, Professor of Ethnic Studies and Coordinator of American Indian Studies at University of Colorado, 2001, PACIFISM AS PATHOLOGY, p. 44 Absurdity clearly abounds when suggesting that the state will refrain from using all necessary physical force to protect against undesired forms of change and threats to its safety. Nonviolent tacticians imply (perhaps unwittingly) that the immoral state which they seek to transform will somehow exhibit exactly the same sort of superior morality they claim for themselves (i.e., at least a relative degree of nonviolence). The fallacy of such a proposition is best demonstrated by the nazi states removal of its Jewish threat. Violent intervention by others divides itself naturally into the two parts represented by Gandhis unsolicited windfall of massive violence directed against his opponents and Kings rather more conscious and deliberate utilization of incipient antistate violence as a means of advancing his own pacifist agenda. History is replete with variations on these two subthemes, but variations do little to alter the crux of the situation: there simply has never been a revolution, or even a substantial social reorganization, brought into being on the basis of the principles of pacifism. In every instance, violence has been an integral requirement of the process of transforming the state. Pacifist praxis (or, more appropriately, pseudo-praxis), if followed to its logical conclusions, leaves its adherents with but two possible outcomes to their line of action: To render themselves perpetually ineffectual (and consequently unthreatening) in the face of state power, in which case they will likely be largely ignored by the status quo and self-eliminating in terms of revolutionary potential; or, To make themselves a clear and apparent danger to the state, in which case they are subject to physical liquidation by the status quo and are self-eliminating in terms of revolutionary potential. In either event mere ineffectuality or suicide the objective conditions leading to the necessity for social revolution remain unlikely to be altered by purely pacifist strategies. As these conditions typically include war, the induced starvation of whole populations and the like, pacifism and its attendant sacrifice of life cannot even be rightly said to have substantially impacted the level of evident societal violence. The mass suffering that revolution is intended to alleviate will continue as the revolution strangles itself on the altar of nonviolence. 2. NONVIOLENCE DO NOT CREATE SUSTAINABLE VICTORIES Brian Martin, Associate Professor in Science, Technology & Society at the University of Wollongong, Australia, NONVIOLENCE VERSUS CAPITALISM, 2001, Accessed May 17, 2002, p. np, http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/01nvc/nvcall.html It is important to note that not all uses of nonviolent action lead to long-lasting, worthwhile change. Nonviolent action is not guaranteed to succeed either in the short term or long term. The 1989 prodemocracy movement in China, after a short flowering, was crushed in the Beijing massacre. Perhaps more worrying are the dispiriting aftermaths following some short-term successes of nonviolent action. In El Salvador in 1944, the successful nonviolent insurrection against the Martnez dictatorship did not lead to long term improvement for the El Salvadorean people. There was a military coup later in 1944, and continued repression in following decades. The aftermath of the Iranian revolution was equally disastrous. The new Islamic regime led by Ayatollah Khomeini was just as ruthless as its predecessor in stamping out dissent. 3. NONVIOLENCE FAILS IN THE CONTEXT OF MODERN CONFLICTS Brian Martin, Associate Professor in Science, Technology & Society at the University of Wollongong, Australia, NONVIOLENCE VERSUS CAPITALISM, 2001, Accessed May 17, 2002, p. np, http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/01nvc/nvcall.html The consent theory of power Gandhi approached nonviolent action as a moral issue and, in practical terms, as a means for persuading opponents to change their minds as a result of their witnessing the commitment and willing sacrifice of nonviolent activists. While this approach explains some aspects of the power of nonviolent action, it is inadequate on its own. Moral persuasion sometimes works in face-to-face encounters, but has little chance when cause and effect are separated. Bomber pilots show little remorse for the agony caused by their weapons detonating far below, while managers of large international banks have little inkling of the suffering caused by their lending policies in foreign countries.
JOSEPH NYE, JR.

Joseph Nye, Jr. is one of the most influential modern voices in American governance and political science. Well versed in foreign policy, he is also an influential thinker on the domestic scene. Name a qualification that holds weight in the policy wonk world, and Nyes likely got it. Written for the heavy-hitter journals? Check. Longtime professor? Check. Intellectual chops that are unquestioned? Check. Nye is currently Dean of Harvard Universitys Kennedy School of Government. You might think that Nye is merely another old, bald white guy that has worked in the government and worked with universities. And, well, youd sort of be right. But the guy is a pretty sharp old, bald white establishment guy, and his viewpoints are refreshing in their lack of ideological predisposition. Just look at the wide variety of sources that have praised his work: from Machiavellian realists like Henry Kissinger to loose cannons like George Soros, from the Democratic establishment sources like Strobe Talbott and Madeleine Albright to academics of all kinds. If we are to think of American politics in terms of the left wing and the right wing, and imagine the wings praising Nye as belonging to some giant bird, those are some big outstretched wings. I wouldnt want to wash my car while that seagull is flying overhead. Thats not to say there is something in Nye for everyone. Its hard to imagine the left cozying up to him very much. The further right wont like his reluctance to use American power in every situation. However, to the extent that Nye is reluctant to adopt the ideological fabric of any particular pigeonhole, he is an intriguing thinker who appears to approach each problem as a fresh challenge. While he is certainly a product of his upbringing and intellectual culture, he is at least apparently willing to try to step outside that rigid intellectual framework as he explores the issues of today. Speaking of his upbringing and intellectual culture, lets look at where Nye has come from in order to understand where he is today. THE LIFE OF JOSEPH NYE, JR. Joseph Nye, Jr. was born in 1937. Nye grew up on a farm in Northwest New Jersey, and received his bachelors degree in an interdisciplinary major from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University in 1958. He is a Rhodes Scholar, doing his post-graduate work at Oxford University, and a graduate of the Ph.D program in government at Harvard. After Jimmy Carter won the 1976 presidential election, Nye was recruited to join his transition team as a consultant on nuclear proliferation. When Cyrus Vance was appointed secretary of state, he asked Nye to serve as deputy undersecretary in charge of Carter's nonproliferation initiatives. He stayed on in that capacity from 1977-1979, after which he returned to Harvards Kennedy School of Government to teach. He fluttered between governmental work and university work over the next several years. All the while, Nye kept up his prolific writing on international security issues, serving as an editorial board member of Foreign Policy and International Security magazines. He has written more than one hundred articles in professional journals. The fact that Nye is neither a lifelong government official nor a lifelong academic may have some influence on his thinking. He seems decidedly less dogmatic than a great deal of his contemporaries who have spent their entire careers in the Beltway or the Ivory Tower.

As Nye himself has observed This lack of a fixed plan mirrors his thinking -- always reacting to emerging situations rather than viewing emerging phenomena through a fixed lens. NYE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS While technically Nye falls under the school of realism in international relations, his views of power and global politics is much more nuanced than the big-stick diplomats that dominate the scene today. Nye coined the marvelously efficient phrase soft power to refer to those non-military forms of exerting influence -- cultural, economic, etc. He meditates on the differences between soft and hard power in his book THE PARADOX OF AMERICAN POWER: WHY THE WORLD'S ONLY SUPERPOWER CAN'T GO IT ALONE. "Soft Power is your ability to attract others to get the outcomes you want," Nye has said. "Hard power is when I coerce you--if I the use a carrot or a stick to get you to do something you otherwise wouldn't do, that's hard power. But if I get you to want what I want, and I don't have to use a carrot or a stick, that's the ultimate because it costs me almost nothing but I get the outcomes I want." This has not changed since September 11, despite the United States so-called war on terrorism. Nye wrote an insightful article with a global focus in the Guardian on March 31, 2002, which included the following: Soft power is an important concept to understand, particularly in the post Cold War world. If we disagree with Japans trade policy, for example, we arent going to invade them. Were going to either negotiate with them or flex our own economic muscles (as George W. Bush did by imposing steel tariffs recently) in response. Thats true of most adversaries in addition to traditional allies like Japan. While Bush has been threatening to invade Iraq almost constantly for the last year, other measures (such as the multilateral United Nations oil embargo and other sanctions) are really more effective with less of an opportunity cost. Its only for a truly dramatic event (like the terrorist tragedy on September 11, 2001) that will of necessity engender a military response. Nye is a believer in war as a last resort, considering it a solution that is often actually creates worse problems. Nye is not, as should be clear, a hawk per se. War is an impractical and problematic means of enforcing American interests and desires. That said, Nye is a realist who does seek to advance American interests through the policies he advocates. How, then, does one secure American interests, especially in the face of competing and potentially adversarial powers? The answer is a question of containment vs. engagement. Containment is a more hawkish strategy, where one uses foreign policy tools to isolate an adversarial power. Engagement is where a nation continues to interact with the adversarial power through trade, diplomacy and other channels in an attempt to exert influence over the other state. Nye is usually an advocate of engagement. Take, for example, the case of China. An emerging power with one billion citizens and a growing economy, China will be a force in the new century. Nyes idea is that a strong China is better for the world community than a weak China, given that a weak China would be more given to lash out to shore up its power -- especially against American allies like Taiwan (an island nation that China considers a part of its country, though the Taiwanese dont agree) or Japan. If that is true, Nye reasons, then the United States must not isolate china. An attempt to treat China as a threat, in fact, might turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. If China can be brought into a network of rule-based relations, such an evolution may continue. Will this strategy work? No one can be certain, but it is clearly better than the containment strategy ... It would be one of

history's tragic ironies if domestic politics leads to an unnecessary Cold War in Asia that will be costly for this and future generations of Americans, he wrote. As an intellectual who lived through the darkest moments of the Cold War, Nye knows what kind of policies led to increased tensions during that period in history. He is keen on avoiding that kind of situation with other powers, such as China. It should be noted that this falls right in line with his idea of soft power: the big stick approach is a counterproductive one. Rather than isolating other nations, in his view, we should be using our influence in a positive manner. NYE ON GLOBALIZATION Neither a demagogue nor a radical, Nye takes the line on globalization that you might expect from an establishment centrist. While himself an advocate of a globalized economy and free trade believing that the rising tide of economic growth lifts all boats, even the poor he is one of the few mainstream analysts who has attempted to seek out ways to assuage the concerns of protesters. While he surely agrees with virtually none of their prescribed solutions (calling anti-free trade protesters demagogues in the street), he at least has attempted to address the flaws in the system some have identified. In an article for FOREIGN AFFAIRS, an establishment journal that some call the most influential in the world, Nye wrote on Globalization's Democratic Deficit: How to Make International Institutions More Accountable. He sets out a program of action for increasing transparency and democratic accountability for actions at organizations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization. He reasons that if decisions are made out in the open, and that citizens might have better opportunities to influence those decisions, that might satisfy the majority of the populace and confer a legitimacy on those institutions they havent seen yet. While Nye recognizes this probably wont satisfy everyone, especially the radical left, it will help allay the fears of most Americans and other world citizens.

CRITICS OF NYE Critics of Nye fall into several different categories. The mainstream left criticizes Nyes optimism about the positive influence of American soft power and the stabilizing character of the American military presence overseas. For example, Nye is a staunch defender of the Japan-U.S. security relationship. This entails both the United States maintaining a military presence in Asia (predominantly on the island of Okinawa) and the United States continuing to exert influence over Japan in international relations. Critics of this policy, including the Japan Policy Research Institute (headed by the noted Asian scholar Chalmers Johnson) argue that the American military presence is more destabilizing than anything, and that Nye misanalyses available data from polls and opinion surveys. Instead, the JPRI and Johnson claim that the American military presence overseas, and in Japan particularly, is engendering a blowback -- unintended and unpredictable consequences which threaten security instead of enhancing it. There is no better example of this blowback, Johnson argued in his 2000 book of the same name, than the U.S.-Japan relationship. Just look at Okinawa. The American military bases on the island are the subjects of constant protests from the locals; America keeps itself in the news in a negative manner due to the annual rapes of young Okinawan girls committed by American servicemen; and any military utility of these bases is speculative at best. even if the soft power phenomenon is true, Johnson argues, American credibility is diminished, not enhanced, by this unwieldy and counterproductive arrangement. It is more likely, according to Johnson, that the arrangement is contributing to imperial overstretch rather than soft power. Imperial overstretch is where an empire (like the United States) tries to project power into too many places, on too many fronts. Nyes defense of the U.S.-Japan arrangement might be just such an example of overstretch. Further left, many take issue with Nyes notion of the American national interest -and his assumption that advancing the American national interest is in the interest of the world at large. Take, for example, the distinction between soft power and hard power. They have a common denominator -the term power. No matter how you slice it, the United States is going to be extending its influence on the world in a manner designed to advance its interests. No great radical thought here: everyone from the establishment to Noam Chomsky agrees on that. The difference between Nye and his critics is that Nye believes American influence is generally benign or positive. Even open-minded, liberal internationalist thinkers like Nye -- who take a broader view of the American national interest -- are still trapped by the paradigm of American imperialism in the view of these critics. While Nye might say that the United States should continue to maintain a forward presence in Asia in order to prevent a power vacuum in the region, thus preventing a war that is damaging to American (and world) interests, critics would say that the lens he uses to evaluate such phenomena is fundamentally corrupted. This lens seeks threats in the world for the United States to solve. As the old Chinese proverb goes, if you go looking for enemies, you will probably find them. Similarly, critics say, people looking for a role for the American military (or even soft power) will probably find an indispensable role for it. This type of self-justifying behavior, critics say, serves to perpetuate the hegemonic imperialism of the United States just as much as the more realpolitik theorists. Perhaps there is a reason that Henry Kissinger has praised Nye despite their differences? IN CONCLUSION Its always difficult to analyze a scholars impact while that scholar is still producing materials especially when that scholar is as prolific as Nye continues to be. His most recent book was just published this year, and he continues to write for the most influential periodicals in print and on-line. However, it is possible to sketch out the general precepts that Nye values and to watch as his thinking continues to evolve. Where there is a foreign policy crisis that affects the United States, you can be sure this scholar will have something to say about it.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Japan Policy Research Institute, JPRI CRITIQUE, Volume V, Number 1, January 1998, http://www.jpri.org/jpri/public/crit5.1.html, accessed May 5, 2002. Nye, Jr., Joseph S. THE PARADOX OF AMERICAN POWER: WHY THE WORLD'S ONLY SUPERPOWER CAN'T GO IT ALONE (New York: Oxford University Press, January 2002) Nye, Jr., Joseph S. UNDERSTANDING INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS: AN INTRODUCTION TO THEORY AND HISTORY, 3d ed. (New York: Longman, 2000). Nye, Jr., Joseph S. Bound to Lead: THE CHANGING NATURE OF AMERICAN POWER, (New York: Basic Books, 1990). Nye, Jr., Joseph S. NUCLEAR ETHICS, (New York: The Free Press, 1986). Nye, Jr., Joseph S. HAWKS, DOVES AND OWLS: AN AGENDA FOR AVOIDING NUCLEAR WAR, coauthored with Graham Allison and Albert Carnesale (New York: Norton, 1985). Nye, Jr., Joseph S. GOVERNANCE AMID BIGGER, BETTER MARKETS (Brookings Institution Press, August 2001) Nye, Jr., Joseph S. GOVERNANCE IN A GLOBALIZING WORLD, co-edited with John D. Donahue (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2000. Nye, Jr., Joseph S. democracy.com? Governance in A Networked World, co-edited with Elaine Ciulla Kamarck (Hollis Publishing, 1999) Nye, Jr., Joseph S. WHY PEOPLE DONT TRUST GOVERNMENT, co-edited with Philip D. Zelikow and Davic C. King (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997). Nye, Jr., Joseph S. Military Deglobalization? FoREIGN POLICY (Jan.-Feb. 2001). Nye, Jr., Joseph S. Globalization: What's New? What's Not? (And So What?) [co-authored with Robert O. Keohane], FOREIGN POLICY (spring 2000). Nye, Jr., Joseph S. The US and Europe: Continental Drift? INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS (January 2000). Nye, Jr., Joseph S. Redefining America's National Interest: The Complexity of Values, CURRENT (September 1999). Nye, Jr., Joseph S. Dean of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, THE OBSERVER, March 31, 2002, http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4384507,00.html, accessed May 1, 2002.

SOFT POWER AND DEMOCRACY PROMOTION ARE INCREASINGLY KEY 1. SOFT POWER IS MORE IMPORTANT NOW THAN EVER Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Dean of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, THE OBSERVER, March 31, 2002, http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4384507,00.html, accessed May 1, 2002. Power in the global information age is becoming less coercive among advanced countries. But most of the world does not consist of post-industrial societies, and that limits the transformation of power. Much of Africa and the Middle East remains locked in pre-industrial agricultural societies with weak institutions and authoritarian rulers. Other countries, such as China, India, and Brazil, are industrial economies analogous to parts of the West in the mid-twentieth century. In such a variegated world, all three sources of power - military, economic, and soft - remain relevant. However, if current economic and social trends continue, leadership in the information revolution and soft power will become more important in the mix. 2. LIBERALISM, PLURALISM AND AUTONOMY INCREASE SOFT POWER Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Dean of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, THE OBSERVER, March 31, 2002, http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4384507,00.html, accessed May 1, 2002. The countries that are likely to gain soft power are those closest to global norms of liberalism, pluralism, and autonomy; those with the most access to multiple channels of communication; and those whose credibility is enhanced by their domestic and international performance. These dimensions of power give a strong advantage to the United States and Europe. 3. SOFT POWER DOESN'T DEPEND ON HARD POWER Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Dean of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, THE OBSERVER, March 31, 2002, http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4384507,00.html, accessed May 1, 2002. Soft power is not simply the reflection of hard power. The Vatican did not lose its soft power when it lost the Papal States in Italy in the nineteenth century. Conversely, the Soviet Union lost much of its soft power after it invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia, even though its economic and military resources continued to grow. Imperious policies that utilised Soviet hard power actually undercut its soft power. And countries like the Canada, the Netherlands, and the Scandinavian states have political clout that is greater than their military and economic weight because of their support for international aid and peace-keeping. 4. GLOBALIZATION SHOULD BE MORE DEMOCRATIC Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Dean of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, July/August 2001, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/articles/Nye0701.html, accessed May 2, 2002. Seattle; Washington, D.C.; Prague; Quebec City. It is becoming difficult for international economic organizations to meet without attracting crowds of protesters decrying globalization. These protesters are a diverse lot, coming mainly from rich countries, and their coalition has not always been internally consistent. They have included trade unionists worried about losing jobs and students who want to help the underdeveloped world gain them, environmentalists concerned about ecological degradation and anarchists who object to all forms of international regulation. Some protesters claim to represent poor countries but simultaneously defend agricultural protectionism in wealthy countries. Some reject corporate capitalism, whereas others accept the benefits of international markets but worry that globalization is destroying democracy. Of all their complaints, this last concern is key. Protest organizers such as Lori Wallach attributed half the success of the Seattle coalition to "the notion that the democracy deficit in the global economy is neither necessary nor acceptable." For globalization's supporters, accordingly, finding some way to address its perceived democratic deficit should become a high priority.

ISOLATION AND CONTAINMENT DONT WORK IN POLICY-MAKING 1. ISOLATING OTHER COUNTRIES IS BAD POLICY Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Dean of Harvards Kennedy School of Government, The Case Against Containment: Treat China Like an Enemy and That's What It Will Be, June 22, 1998, p. np, http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/asia/china/06221998nye.html, accessed May 3, 2002. Isolating other countries is bad policy. Washington's current hysteria about China is largely driven by domestic politics. Three times in two weeks, the House of Representatives rebuked the president over China. In an election year, Republicans seize on allegations of campaign finance scandals, and illegal technology transfers to build campaign issues. Democrats looking forward to the year 2000, split over how to handle human rights during Clinton's trip. It would be a pity if domestic politics caused Americans to lose sight of our long-term strategic interest in East Asia. Clinton defended his trip in a recent speech. Disagreeing with those who want to isolate China, he argued that such a course would make the world more dangerous. I agree. 2. EVEN IF CHINA RISES AS A GREAT POWER, WE CAN ACCOMODATE THEM Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Dean of Harvards Kennedy School of Government, The Case Against Containment: Treat China Like an Enemy and That's What It Will Be, June 22, 1998, p. np, http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/asia/china/06221998nye.html, accessed May 3, 2002. Ever since Thucydides and the ancient Greeks, historians have known that great wars are often caused by the rise of new powers and the fears such change creates in established powers. But it is not true in every case. New powers can be accommodated if they can be persuaded to define their interests in responsible ways. That is the overarching question the United States faces in its relations with China. 3. A POLICY OF CONTAINMENT SIMPLY WILL NOT WORK Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Dean of Harvards Kennedy School of Government, The Case Against Containment: Treat China Like an Enemy and That's What It Will Be, June 22, 1998, p. np, http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/asia/china/06221998nye.html, accessed May 3, 2002. Pessimists about China's future and about America's continuing strength argue for a policy of containment analogous to our response to the Soviet Union after World War II. But the current debate between containment and engagement is too simple. For one thing, a crude policy of containment would not work. 4. CONTAINMENT HAS THREE FATAL FLAWS Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Dean of Harvards Kennedy School of Government, The Case Against Containment: Treat China Like an Enemy and That's What It Will Be, June 22, 1998, p. np, http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/asia/china/06221998nye.html, accessed May 3, 2002. Containment has three fatal flaws. First, it exaggerates current and future Chinese strength. Unlike the Soviet Union, which had an expansionist ideology and conventional military superiority in Europe, China lacks the capacity to project military power much beyond its borders. Moreover, in the new dimensions of military strength in the information age, America's edge will continue to persist. Second, as a quick survey of Asian capitals makes clear, the United States could not now develop a coalition to contain China even if we tried. China's neighbors do not see it as a current threat in the way the Soviet Union's neighbors did during the Cold War. Only if China's future behavior becomes more aggressive could such a coalition be formed. In that sense, only China can produce an effective containment policy. Third, containment is mistaken because it discounts the possibility that China can evolve to define its interests as a responsible power. If we treat China as an enemy now, we are guaranteeing ourselves an enemy, particularly given the fact that nationalism is rapidly replacing communism as the dominant ideology among the Chinese people. No one knows for certain what China's future will be, but it makes no sense to throw away the more benign possibilities at this point. Containment is likely to be irreversible, while engagement can be reversed if China changes for the worse.

NYES NOTION OF SOFT POWER IS WRONG 1. NYES VIEW OF SOFT POWER IGNORES HISTORY Wayne Hunt, Mount Allison University, JANUS HEAD Vol. 2, No. 2., Fall 1999, p. np, http://www.janushead.org/2-2/whunt.cfm, accessed May 1, 2002. In the study of transnational relations, the strategic balance between hard and soft power has been much commented upon. The terms originate with Joseph S. Nye, Jr. According to Nye, the state-sanctioned application of force comes under the definition of hard power, as do the requisite material conditions necessary to sustain this force. Soft power, by contrast, relies on the force of ideas rather than the force of arms. Included in this first definition are the ethical values which have been injected into the international arena by a number of mediating institutions. Mainstream Hollywood movies as well as sophisticated advertising techniques came into this category, as did advances in communications technology. In this context, hard power was about ends and the bottom-line criteria necessary to achieve those ends while soft power was about process and the means to an end. Hard power was objective, quantifiable and direct while soft power was subjective, unquantifiable and indirect. The first was readily understandable because it spoke to the traditional role of the state which was to provide for security of the person as well as the security of property. The second seemed to indicate a larger transformation, a paradigm shift as some enthusiasts would have it. But on closer inspection these categories seemed to take on an older dimension. On the one hand there were those who engaged with the world as it is, and on the other there were those who looked to what ought to be. This was observed in the tension between realpolitik and idealism which analysts have long detected in Americas relations with other powers. Involved as well were competing conceptions of political community. Allied to this was a bifurcated view of the nature of public action, with coercive measures on one side of the divide and co-operative ones on the other. More ancient still, and at a greater philosophic remove, was the contrast between authority and liberty. In Nyes writings this longer scholarly tradition goes unremarked upon. 2. NYES SOFT POWER JUST SEEKS TO PROJECT CAPITALISM Wayne Hunt, Mount Allison University, JANUS HEAD Vol. 2, No. 2., Fall, 1999, p. np, http://www.janushead.org/2-2/whunt.cfm, accessed May 1, 2002. His concern is with the present and the way in which the future can be brought to the present. In his view of the world there is a subtle but implicit business orientation in which the notion of soft power takes on entrepreneurial boldness. The comparative dimension was critically important. Soft power was associated with the relative strength of the American economy in relation to its competitors. Entrepreneurial dynamism, it was further assumed, was tied to the ability to innovate. Nye clearly sees soft power as the way of the future. He implies that it is superior to hard power because it relies on uncommanded loyalties. As such it allows for the free play of creative instincts. In short, it approximates an anglo-American form of capitalism, or to be more precise, an idealized version of what this form of capitalism represents. 4. SOFT POWER STILL DEFENDS AMERICAN TECHNOSTRATEGIC INTERVENTION Wayne Hunt, Mount Allison University, JANUS HEAD Vol. 2, No. 2., Fall, 1999, p. np, http://www.janushead.org/2-2/whunt.cfm, accessed May 1, 2002. Nye and Owens (1996) examine this from a geopolitical perspective, insisting that it can be a force for good throughout the world. Thus soft power can work in tandem with hard power, as, in his phrase, "a force multiplier in American diplomacy." Space-based surveillance, direct broadcasting and a high speed system of systems, he argued, had given the United States a "dominant battlespace knowledge"-- as Operation Desert Storm and Operation Desert Fox presumably demonstrated. This assertion rested on the strategic argument that Americas capacity for accurate, real-time, situational awareness of military field operations exceeds that of all other nations combined. (Operation Allied Force, by contrast, put many of the beliefs about surgical intervention, in areas where there is not an obvious national interest at stake, to the test.) Assumed here was a technologically-driven view of American intervention.

NYES FOREIGN POLICY THINKING IS FLAWED 1. NYES EFFORTS AT EXPLAINING THE POST-SEPTEMBER 11 WORLD ARE FEEBLE Joseph Losos, investment adviser, ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, Feb. 27, 2002, p. B1. That may not have been how it seemed at the time, but commentators are notorious hindsight experts. Today, so they say, matters are much harder to figure out, and this is especially so now that we have entered the Age of Terror and anti-terror. Confusing situations produce squadrons of deconfusers, of course, and professors Joseph Nye and Walter Mead have come forward to explicate our condition and prescribe programs of policy. In some respects, these books are similar. Both make the same basic assumption: The United States is the world's only superpower, perhaps even a superduper power, but despite the immense might that that implies, our freedom to do just what we want is limited. Moreover, in a world with such diverse developments -Muslim hostility, increased Chinese potency, uncertain economic trends and many other crosscurrents -- there are more options for our country to follow and more spokespeople to advocate them. Yet we must choose, for failing to make up our mind, or simply drifting from one crisis to the next, is in itself a choice, and a rather bad one. Both authors argue that we cannot retreat from most or all of our present involvements, so that this should be taken as the basis for decision. But in working out our strategy, these books definitely differ. The chief difference, to put the matter bluntly, is that Mead has written a valuable book while Nye's effort is feeble. The latter's little treatise is long on cliches and short on substance. Thus, he argues that it is not just hard power (guns, planes, money) but also soft power (what anybody else calls influence) that counts. So we get nuggets such as "countries that are well-placed in terms of soft power do better." Throughout the book there are tables that propose desirable projects, aspirations that would not surprise any reasonably studious 15-year-old. 2. NYE IS WRONG ABOUT COMMON INTERESTS BETWEEN U.S. AND JAPAN Japan Policy Research Institute, JPRI CRITIQUE, Volume V, Number 1, January 1998, http://www.jpri.org/jpri/public/crit5.1.html, accessed May 5, 2002. Last November 30, the Yomiuri published the results of an opinion poll it had commissioned from the Gallup organization concerning Japanese and American attitudes toward the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. In Japan, 1,952 people were interviewed; in the U.S., 982 responded. In an accompanying article, Joseph Nye, one of the principal architects of last year's revised Security Treaty, tried to put a positive spin on the poll's results. While he acknowledged "some perception gaps between the two countries on military cooperation, mainly over details for implementing new defense cooperation guidelines," he professed to believe that the poll reveals "Japan and the United States share common interests in the Asia-Pacific region." JPRI's reading of the same statistics is far less sanguine. When respondents were asked which nations or regions they believed might pose a military threat to their own country, 69% of the Japanese named the Korean Peninsula, whereas 58% of U.S. respondents gave the Middle East top billing. Only 26% of the U.S. respondents believed that the Korean Peninsula posed a military threat. So much for some of those shared common interests. 3. NYE SEVERELY MISANALYZES THE DATA U.S.-JAPAN RELATIONSHIP IS FLAWED Japan Policy Research Institute, JPRI CRITIQUE, Volume V, Number 1, January 1998, http://www.jpri.org/jpri/public/crit5.1.html, accessed May 5, 2002. There is a further statistic that should give both sides pause. While approximately half of both Japanese and U.S. respondents think that the U.S. military presence in Asia should be maintained-which Joseph Nye cites as evidence of "the broad public support in both countries for the reaffirmation of the Japan-U.S. Security relationship"-40.9% of the Japanese and 20.4% of the Americans want the U.S. military presence reduced. These are sizeable percentages, and the fact that the 'hosts,' the Japanese, outvote their 'guests' by two to one in calling for a reduction of troops must tell us something. Most likely, it should tell us that we have become an unwelcome army of occupation rather than of liberation, and that if security is the air we breathe (to use Professor Nye's tired analogy), the air surrounding Japan's American bases is decidedly unhealthy.
RALPH NADER
Great societies must have public policies that declare which rights, assets and conditions are never for sale. Such policies strengthen noncommercial values, which, nourished by public enlightenment and civic participation, can provide wondrous opportunities to improve our country. Guided by such values, we can better use our wealth and power to benefit all Americans. Applied beyond our borders, these values can help us astutely wage peace and address the extreme poverty, illiteracy, oppression, environmental perils, and infectious diseases that threaten to jeopardize directly our own national security as well as that of the rest of the world. Ralph Nader, from the preface to Crashing the Party Among contemporary political figures, Ralph Nader is one of a kind, but wishes he were not. He has been a thorn in the side of corporate power and governmental corruption for nearly forty years, but wishes there were others like him; in fact, he wishes that contemporary American politics was full of Ralph Naders, people who devote their lives to working for reforms and exposing corruption within all power centers. This essay will explore both the philosophical foundations and the practical political implications of Ralph Naders work and thought. Nader radicalizes the Jeffersonian tradition of democratic participation, and simultaneously brings other radical thought into the mainstream. After exploring his life, from his student activist days to his two presidential runs, I will try to explain his philosophy, and then his political project. I will conclude with some thoughts on using Ralph Naders writings in debate rounds. NADERS LIFE AND WORK Ralph Nader was born in 1934 to Rose and Nathra Nader, Lebanese immigrants who owned a restaurant in the small town of Winstead, Connecticut. Nathra, Ralph Nader recalls, would encourage patrons at his restaurant to participate in informal political debates. Nathra and Rose had strong opinions about democracy, and like most immigrants they experienced some dissonance upon coming into the country and witnessing both great acts of public good and objectionable acts of elitist exploitation. By age 14, Ralph Nader had closely read the classic journalistic muckrakers of his day as well as several years of the Congressional Record. At age 17, he entered Princeton University, where he would have the opportunity to test his father's enthusiasm for public protest. He attempted to get the administration to ban the spraying of DDT on campus trees, came to the defense of small business owners being abused by larger businesses, and, finding these endeavors unsuccessful, resigned himself to studying Chinese and preparing for law school. An excellent student, Nader entered Harvard Law School in 1955. He immediately developed an aversion to the corporate orientation of both the courses and the professors' ideologies. Nader wanted to study the legal issues involving food production and automobile safety. He had to do most of this on his own, as Harvard Law School didn't offer such courses and the professors were enthusiastically uninterested. He researched automobile safety anyway, and in 1959 published his first article, "The Safe Car You Can't Buy," in THE NATION. At the time, there were nearly 50,000 automobile deaths every year in America, and more than twice that amount of permanent disabilities incurred in automobile accidents. Nader believed--and would continue to believe--that car companies simply didn't believe safety was worth the cost. By 1965, he had expanded the article into a devastating book, UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED: THE DESIGNED-IN DANGERS OF THE AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE. The book contained a theme that, in a larger sense, is almost uniquely attributable to Nader in American politics: corporations habitually blame consumers for defects in their products, just as all perpetrators tend to blame the victims, just as the rich blame the poor for being poor, and so on. The automobile industry spent millions in "public service" propaganda blaming "the nut behind the wheel" for auto fatalities. Nader, of course, took issue with the assumption, and justified his position with painstaking research and eloquent prose.

The book launched the consumer rights movement, and General Motors' attempt to discredit Nader assured his fame, which he exploited in order to launch a career of public service and anti-corporate activism. Because of UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED, Congress enacted tougher automobile safety laws (eventually culminating, some decades later, in mandatory seat belts and air bags). While other activists dedicated themselves to ending the Vietnam War, Nader spent the rest of the 1960s expanding his project to include the creation of various task forces and groups of young advocates dedicated to consumer safety and rights. In 1969 he and his comrades formed the Center for Study of Responsive Law. Throughout the next thirty years, Nader's "Raiders," as they came to be called, fought for increased water quality, reforms in the Food and Drug Administration, and a plethora of other causes. Of course, most contemporary followers of politics identify Nader with his 1996 and 2000 Presidential runs on the Green Party ticket. Many hold him uniquely responsible for Democratic candidate Al Gore's loss to George W. Bush in 2000. By campaigning to the "left" of Gore politically, it is argued, Nader took voters away who would have voted for the centrist Democrat Gore, albeit reluctantly. Since the 2000 campaign, Nader has continued to organize grass roots activists against corporate power and irresponsibility. A statement Nader made in 1993 sums up his political perspective: What neither Clinton...nor most other Democratic Party proponents of change seem to realize is that significant, enduring change will require an institutionalized shift of power from corporations and government to ordinary Americans. While politicians have now made an art of populist symbolism, virtually none have a serious agenda to strengthen Americans in their key roles as voters, taxpayers, consumers, workers, and shareholders. (http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR18.2/nader.html) THE PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF NADERS POLITICS "In a democracy, the highest office is the office of citizen." Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter Ralph Nader is not a philosopher. In fact, he seems to have an inherent distrust of academic intellectuals (not a hostility, simply a distrust), based on their tendency towards theory at the expense of action. He is also not a radical revolutionary, despite the best efforts of conservatives and moderates to paint him as such. Naders philosophy can be summed up as citizen empowerment, and as such, draws upon the American political tradition in much the same way as any social movement. There are two basic philosophical premises behind Naders politics. First, in a democracy, the people are the ultimate authorities. This is Jeffersonian democracy at its most extreme, but, as the quotation below explains, it is also a contemporary application of Jeffersonian democracy to conditions he and the other founders could not necessarily have foreseen: The inspiration came directly from Thomas Jefferson, who had written, "I know of no safer depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves." But Jefferson, of course, could not have envisioned how moneyed special interests, official secrecy, procedural complexities and the brute size of the nation would erode the sinews of government accountability. Nor could James Madison, author of the famous Federalist No. 10 essay, have predicted how competing special-interest factions might not yield the public good, contrary to his predictions. The creation of a citizens' lobby to represent the people as a whole -- "the public interest" -was a bold, innovative development in American politics at the time. It represented a creative attempt to reclaim Jefferson's faith in "the people themselves." John Gardner, a former Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, would have a similar idea in 1970, when he founded Common Cause, a good government lobby that focused primarily on procedural reforms such as campaign finance reform and government ethics. (http://www.nader.org/history/bollier_chapter_3.html) Naders second philosophical premise is that power tends to corrupt unless it is checked by a wide array of citizens. This is why it is grossly over simplistic to view Nader as merely a proponent of greater government control, indistinguishable from typical liberal democrats. Nader believes that ordinary people must make both corporations and governments more accountable. Why, then, should corporations be held to the same standard as politicians? There are several sensible reasons for this. First and most importantly, the democratic "experiment" is about checking excessive power.

Corporations have as much power as, and frequently more power than, any elected or appointed political leader. They can control resources and make large-scale decisions about production and distribution. They can make decisions that have far-reaching environmental and economic effects, sometimes stretching centuries into the future. And, most recently, the multinational status of many corporations makes them, literally, "above" the laws of most nations. Second, the kinds of "checks" which defenders of corporate power claim exist are not really effective. The classic argument is that citizens "vote with their dollars." Aside from the fact that this means people with a million dollars get a million votes, Such an argument assumes what many capitalist apologists assume without proof: that citizens possess near-perfect information about public and private transactions and the effects of corporate decisions. Since most corporate decisions are made behind closed doors, and since advertising does not normally reveal the truth about the production process, citizens do not have the kind of information that voters in political elections possess. Finally, checks must exist on corporate power because the classic individualist metaphors of entrepreneurship and hard work hardly do justice to the corporate juggernauts. Wealth is not generated through the individual actions of individual innovators; rather, wealth is a social creation: capitalists need laborers, sellers need consumers, and the resources extracted from the earth do not belong to any one individual in some a priori sense. So corporations need to be accountable because corporations could, literally, not exist without the collective masses that sustain them. All of these reasons provide sound philosophical justification for an increased watchdog role on the part of concerned citizens. Some less-than-eloquent critics have, over the past few decades, referred to Nader as an anti-capitalist, a communist, a socialist, even a Stalinist. Nader is none of these. He does not call for the end of corporations or market economies. In fact, many on the anti-capitalist left see Nader as wanting to "save" corporations and capitalism by forcing reforms that smart corporate executives would favor as a way to make themselves look better. NADERS POLITICAL PRINCIPLES When I was in law school, we had a joke that at Harvard they teach you how to distort the law of contracts and contract the law of torts. Little did I know then that in 1999 this very thing would be occurring. We are losing the two great pillars of American law, torts and contracts, to institutionalized, giant corporations. Corporate law firms are composed of lawyers who have forgotten what it means to be a professional and who are themselves losing their independence. They are not heeding the warnings of Justice Louis Brandis and Henry Stimpson and Ella Herue, who warned about corporate law firms losing their independence to corporate clients by becoming mere adjuncts to the corporation's priorities. Nader, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF LAW AND POLICY, 1999, p. 56 Over the past two presidential races, Ralph Nader has tended to stress the following points as a political program: 1. Facilitate voter initiatives: Nader wants to make it easier to vote, and also increase the number of things people vote for and against. He is in favor of more accessible voter registration, and the use of referendums and initiatives to increase public control over the lawmaking process. 2. Reform our corrupt campaign finance system: Nader is a strong proponent of viable campaign finance reform, limiting the amount of money people can spend on political campaigns, and increasing public financing of elections. He sees the democratic process as little more than a joke if elections come down to who has the most money. 3. Set term limits for Members of Congress: Term limits allow the system to constantly rejuvenate and reinvent itself, and discourage career politicians who tend to become cynical and greedy. Term limits would increase opportunity for ordinary citizens to participate in government. 4. Reclaim the public airwaves: Nader is very concerned that radio and television waves, which should belong to everyone, are available to the highest bidder. He was instrumental in encouraging public access laws

requiring cable companies to devote some of their stations to public use. He would like to see much more of this. 5. Create shareholder democracy: Nader wants shareholders in corporations to have greater power over corporate decision-making. At present, shareholders possess minimal power compared to the day-to-day power of corporate executives. Most of these platforms stem from the overarching desire on Ralph Naders part to increase citizen empowerment. He believes that ordinary people are not stupid, especially when they are given a chance to participate in the large-scale affairs that determine so much in their lives. OBJECTIONS TO NADER To answer Ralph Nader's underlying political philosophy is difficult. One must assert and prove not only that capitalism is desirable, but also that elitism is desirable. It is much more fruitful to concentrate on the pragmatic implications of Naders beliefs than to question whether democracy and citizen empowerment are good things. To begin with, many people are angry that Naders dogmatic and purist run for the presidency in 2000 supposedly cost the Democrats the White House. This is because those people believe that, while Gore and the Democrats may not have been as faithful to Naders ideals as the Greens were, they were still comparatively closer to those ideals than were the Republicans and George W. Bush. This is an ongoing argument, as recent events demonstrate: The Capital Times (5/21, Steverman) reports, " Ralph Nader's 2000 Green Party presidential run angered many Democrats, but the Green Party's current plans, if successful, could frustrate Democrats in Wisconsin and around the country even more. Green Party activists say they have learned a lot since 2000, and they are planning to run a candidate for every statewide office in Wisconsin, including candidate Jim Young for governor. Democrats, especially liberal Democrats, say Greens end up hurting the very causes that they support by playing the spoiler in many races." In Wisconsin, "the Green Party has a dozen chapters around the state, only four of which existed before the 2000 election." (THE BULLETIN'S FRONTRUNNER, May 21, 2002) The argument is that we must be willing to compromise, to accept some of what we want; if we hold out for everything, we end up with nothing (or, as some would say in reference to Bush, worse than nothing!). The problem here is not merely one election. It places in question Naders whole philosophy of stubborn and dogmatic insistence that only his platform is viable and democratic. Democrats respond that, at a time when many citizens seem to be drifting to the right, we should settle for checks on that drift rather than try to get everything. Of course, Nader supporters responded that the Democrats had themselves to blame for the election loss, since they alienated the voters who ended up either not voting at all, or voting for Nader: Sam Smith is right when he points out that the liberal establishment in the Democratic Party--which includes the current congressional leaders of the party--''yawned as the Clintons disassembled their own cause and became incensed when Ralph Nader dared to defend it.'' (VILLAGE VOICE, May 7, 2002) Another source of objection to Naders ideas is found in libertarian philosophies. Libertarians generally believe that regulation of the market never yields the results intended, and often makes things considerably worse. Although Nader is not simply a pro-government liberal, his ideas clearly include tougher regulations, higher taxes for corporations, and more restrictions on what people can do with their money. Regulations fail, libertarians claim, because people respond better to self-management than hierarchical management. Even many non-libertarians favor measures such as tax incentives rather than regulatory schemes to make corporations behave better. Along the same lines, many people advocate pollution trading permits rather than strong regulations against pollution. The idea is that people respond favorably to carrots (rewards), but if they are threatened with punishment, they simply find ways around the tough regulations rather than ways to comply with them.
Overall, most of the objections to Naders ideas work well within the general framework of libertarianism and belief in a minimal state. However, it remains to be seen whether advocates of Naders ideas can articulate the sense in which citizen empowerment differs from traditional advocacy of government intervention. IMPLICATIONS FOR DEBATE In my mind, Ralph Nader inspires three main ideas with immediate and far-reaching implications on value debate: Capitalism can exist with checks and balances: Traditional value debates about capitalism and its alternatives tend to be very black-and-white, either-or. One side argues that capitalism is necessary because it maximizes individual freedom, while the other side emphasizes the problems of selfishness, exploitation and imperialism. Nader is no fan of capitalism, but he argues that, since its what we have, we should keep it in check. Debaters may even be able to argue that the ideas of people like Nader are essential to capitalisms survival, since such ideas prevent the excesses that fuel the anti-capitalism movement. Alternatives to capitalism and globalization can be explored through a widening of the political arena: Conversely, debaters might argue that political and economic alternatives exist, and that we should explore those alternatives by broadening the political arena. Greater participation by third parties and citizens movements can help this happen. Democracy must be participatory: More than any other idea, Ralph Nader advocates the notion of citizen participation and a breaking down of the distinctions between government and people. After all, in the strongest democratic traditions, government is the people. Nader eschews elitism, not merely philosophically, but with many historical examples of the disasterous effects of unchecked power among governments and corporations. CONCLUSION Ralph Nader is currently Americas loudest and most passionate advocate of citizen participation and greater corporate accountability. He might also open the door to more radical alternatives to the kind of politics and economics we seem destined to accept in the status quo. At the same time, his stubborn insistence that the people not compromise with those in power cost him a great deal of credibility in 2000, and that lesson might itself serve as a reminder that alternatives must be pragmatic, and not just theoretically attractive. Writing about a living person is a lot different than writing about a long-dead philosopher. Debaters wishing to explore more about Ralph Nader can do many things: read his books, read commentary about him, and even update their files with the daily news reports about Nader and his movement. Unlike so many of our sources, Ralph Nader continues to make news every day. Were it up to him, it would be citizens making the news instead of corporate news agencies.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Buckhorn, Robert F. NADER: THE PEOPLES LAWYER (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall 1972). Burt, Dan M. ABUSE OF TRUST: A REPORT ON RALPH NADERS NETWORK (Chicago: Regnery Gateway, 1982). Chu, Franklin D. THE MADNESS ESTABLISHMENT: RALPH NADERS STUDY GROUP REPORT ON THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH (New York: Grossman Publishers, 1974). Gorey, Hays. NADER AND THE POWER OF EVERYMAN (New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1975). Isaac, Katherine. RALPH NADERS PRACTICING DEMOCRACY 1997: A GUIDE TO STUDENT ACTION (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997). McCarry, Charles. CITIZEN NADER (New York: Saturday Review Press, 1972). Nader, Ralph. CORPORATE POWER IN AMERICA (New York: Grossman, 1973). Nader, Ralph. CRASHING THE PARTY: TAKING ON THE CORPORATE GOVERNMENT IN AN AGE OF SURRENDER (New York: Thomas Dunne Books/St. Martin's Press, 2002). Nader, Ralph. NO CONTEST: CORPORATE LAWYERS AND THE PERVERSION OF JUSTICE IN AMERICA (New York: Random House, 1996). Nader, Ralph. TAMING THE GIANT CORPORATION (New York: Norton, 1976). Nader, Ralph. THE BIG BOYS: POWER AND POSITION IN AMERICAN BUSINESS (New York: Pantheon Books, 1986). Nader, Ralph. THE CONSUMER AND CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1973). Nader, Ralph. THE MENACE OF ATOMIC ENERGY (New York: Norton, 1977). Nader, Ralph. THE RALPH NADER READER (foreword by Barbara Ehrenreich (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2000). Nader, Ralph. UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED: THE DESIGNED-IN DANGERS OF THE AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE [Expanded ed.] (New York: Grossman, 1972). Ralph Nader Congress Project. RULING CONGRESS: A STUDY OF HOW THE HOUSE AND SENATE RULES GOVERN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS (New York: Grossman Publishers, 1975).

EGALITARIAN CRITERIA OF JUSTICE IS BEST 1. THE CRITERIA FOR JUSTICE SHOULD BE THE CONDITION OF THE POOR AND OPPRESSED Ralph Nader, political activist, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF LAW AND POLICY, 1999, p. 56. If someone were to ask how much injustice exists in society, how would you respond? The criteria for analyzing a just society is very primitive and unclear. The data one would use is arguably nonexistent. We are then at a point where such a question cannot be answered without a firm understanding of our past. I think that the level of injustice in our society is partly a reflection of expectation levels. Poor or oppressed persons are often downtrodden - having accepted their condition and resigned. If the larger society has a higher expectation level, then we become very uneasy with the state of affairs. 2. ELITE CONTROL OF THE CRITERIA FOR JUSTICE ENSURES FURTHER INJUSTICE Ralph Nader, political activist, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF LAW AND POLICY, 1999, p. 56. If the oligarchy controls the yardsticks by which we measure progress and justice, then they also control agendas and that is what is happening. When Alan Greenspan reports to Congress every few weeks on the state of the economy, he uses oligarchic indicators that imply the economy could hardly be better - profits are up, the stock market is up, inflation is down, and unemployment is down. If we were to use the people's yardsticks to report on the state of the economy, we would begin to see that twenty-five percent of children grow up in poverty and that this is the highest in the western world. Eighty percent of the workers in the bottom eighty percent of the job force have seen their wages decrease since 1973 when adjusted for inflation. There are a record number of consumers filing bankruptcies and living beyond their means in order to subsist, totaling record amounts of consumer debt. Homelessness and poverty are affecting large numbers of families and people than ever before; clinics, schools, and public utilities are in extreme disrepair. Yet, what Congress hears is that our economy could not be better. CORPORATE POWER THREATENS THE PUBLIC GOOD 1. CORPORATE WELFARE SIPHONS FUNDS FROM OTHER PRIORITIES Ralph Nader, political activist, CUTTING CORPORATE WELFARE, 2000, p. 13 Corporate welfarethe enormous and myriad subsidies, bailouts, giveaways, tax loopholes, debt revocations, loan guarantees, discounted insurance and other benefits conferred by government on businessis a function of political corruption. Corporate welfare programs siphon funds from appropriate public investments, subsidize companies ripping minerals from federal lands, enable pharmaceutical companies to gouge consumers, perpetuate anti-competitive oligopolistic markets, injure our national security, and weaken our democracy. 2. CAPITALISM REQUIRES CHECKS AND BALANCES Ralph Nader and William Taylor, political activists, THE BIG BOYS, 1986, p. 521. Adam Smith knew that the ideology of the invisible hand was an idealization quite removed from market reality. This is very far from the way modern corporations plan to reduce risks through market power and to get the public to help pay their costs through tax breaks and other subsidies. Smiths invisible hand of 1776 has been joined two centuries later by the invisible atom, the invisible gene, the invisible currency, the invisible pollutant, and the invisible bureaucrat. Working at high levels of abstraction, pampered executives can distance themselves from everyday life, limiting their ability to deal with reality. The need for distance grows more insistent every daythe mounting challenges of doomsday weapons, mass famines, artificial intelligence, and genetic engineering are added to the stresses of conventional chemical, production, and marketing technologies. To introduce more managerial foresight and honesty, those at the peaks of corporate power need to have their thoughts and actions better known to the public. If people think more about how major business executives work, then those executives may think harder about how their work affects people.

GLOBAL FREE TRADE HAS HORRIBLE IMPACTS 1. GLOBALIZATION UNDERMINES HEALTH, THE ENVIRONMENT, AND WORKERS RIGHTS Ralph Nader, political activist, THE CASE AGAINST FREE TRADE, 1993, p. 1 Citizens beware. An unprecedented corporate power grab is underway in global negotiations over international trade. Operating under the deceptive banner of free trade, multinational corporations are working hard to expand their control over the international economy and to undo vital health, safety, and environmental protections won by citizen movements across the globe in recent decades. The megacorporations are not expecting these victories to be gained in town halls, state offices, the U.S. Capitol, or even at the United Nations. They are looking to circumvent the democratic process altogether, in a bold and brazen drive to achieve an autocratic far-reaching agenda through two trade agreements, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada free trade deal (formally known as NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement) and an expansion of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), called the Uruguay Round. The Fortune 200s GATT and NAFTA agenda would make the air you breathe dirtier and the water you drink more polluted. It would cost jobs, depress wage levels, and make workplaces less safe. It would destroy family farms and undermine consumer protections such as those ensuring that the food you eat is not compromised by unsanitary conditions or higher levels of pesticides and preservatives. 2. GLOBALIZATION HURTS DEMOCRACY AND PROMOTES AUTOCRATIC SECRECY Ralph Nader, political activist, THE CASE AGAINST FREE TRADE, 1993, p. 3. Secrecy, abstruseness, and unaccountability: these are the watchwords of global trade policy-making. Every element of the negotiation, adoption, and implementation of the trade agreements is designed to foreclose citizen participation or even awareness. The process by which a policy is developed and enacted often yields insights into who stands to benefit from its enactment. Narrow, private interests inevitably prefer secrecy; in the halls of the U.S. Congress, for example, corporate lobbyists roam the corridors before a budget or tax package is to be voted on, hoping to insert a special tax exemption or subsidy in the dark of night and have it voted on before the public (or even most Congressional representatives) know it exists. By contrast, citizenbased initiatives generally succeed only if they generate public debate and receive widespread support. 3. GLOBAL FREE TRADE UNDERMINES LOCAL, STATE, AND NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY Ralph Nader, political activist, THE CASE AGAINST FREE TRADE, 1993, p. 6. Enactment of the free trade deals virtually ensures that any local, state, or even national effort in the United States to demand that corporations pay their fair share of taxes, provide a decent standard of living to their employees, or limit their pollution of the air, water, and land, will be met with the refrain, You cant burden us like that. If you do, we wont be able to compete. Well have to close down and move to a country that offers us a more hospitable business climate. This sort of threat is extremely powerfulcommunities already devastated by plant closures and a declining manufacturing base are desperate not to lose more jobs, and they know all to well from experience that threats of this sort are often carried out.

NADERS PHILOSOPHY HURTS DEMOCRACY 1. PUBLIC INTEREST ADVOCACY UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY Dan M. Burt, President of Capital Legal Foundation, ABUSE OF TRUST: A REPORT ON RALPH NADERS NETWORK, 1982, p. 8. Public interest advocacy has become one of the signs of our times. It embodies an inherent distrust of traditional political and social organizations to represent the public adequately and to wage the fight for the common good. Public interest groups seek an alternative means of influencing decision-making in both government and industry. This most often takes the form of intervention in the regulatory processes of the federal, state, and local governments. Testimony is often given on behalf of the public interest before congressional committees and federal regulatory panels. In some cases, the groups elect to fight the issues out before the courts. 2. NADERS ADVOCACY DESTROYS INDIVIDUAL CHOICE AND THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS Dan M. Burt, President of Capital Legal Foundation, ABUSE OF TRUST: A REPORT ON RALPH NADERS NETWORK, 1982, p. 20 What is clear is that Mr. Nader and his network distrust the current political and economic system in the United States, and seek to change it. They do not put much faith in the democratic process that has been Americas unique tradition for the past 200 yearsthat is, the political votes we cast regularly at the ballot box, and the economic votes we make every day with our money at the cash register, at the bank, or in the investment markets. Our diverse, de-centralized political, economic, and social system, with its heavy reliance on individual choice, is not considered adequate to achieve the public interest or the common good. NADER IS ELITIST AND TOTALITARIAN 1. NADERS ADVOCACY TRANSFERS POWER FROM INDIVIDUALS TO ELITES CLAIMING TO SPEAK IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST Dan M. Burt, President of Capital Legal Foundation, ABUSE OF TRUST: A REPORT ON RALPH NADERS NETWORK, 1982, p. 20 Instead, Mr. Nader and his groups seek a greater politicization of life in America, where more decisions will be made by a few to affect the many. Government would have an especially large influence on the functioning of the economy and, in turn, on our daily lives. In this regard, a new elite of un-elected, professional public interest advocates would acquire a substantial amount of power to make decisions in both the private and public sectors. In sum, America would become a more centrally governed and less free, individualistic nation. Public interest advocates would become new power-brokers, and their ideology would have immense impact on political and economic activities and society as a whole. Ralph Nader seeks nothing less than a transfer of power in America, away from the individual and into the hands of the government and public interest groups. 2. NADERS POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY WOULD CULMINATE IN TOTALITARIANISM Dan M. Burt, President of Capital Legal Foundation, ABUSE OF TRUST: A REPORT ON RALPH NADERS NETWORK, 1982, p. 135 In place of our system of modified and limited individual choice and private enterprisewe certainly recognize and welcome much of what FDA, SEC, EPA and similar agencies dothe public interest groups would appear to want more politicization of life in America. In other words, government would probably become more authoritarian or even totalitarian by encroaching more on our private lives as workers, employers, and consumers. And it has been and would be a government they run. This is a distinct political ideology, which has been and remains in vogue in Western thought. But it is a radical departure from U.S. political tradition of the last 200 years, and it does not square with the common view of the nature of the public interest.

NADERS ANTI-CORPORATE AGENDA IS UNDESIRABLE 1. NADERS OPPOSITION TO TRADE AGREEMENTS HURTS DEVELOPING NATIONS Paul Krugman, Professor of Economics at MIT, PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, July 25, 2000, p. A-19. Everyone knows about Nader's furious opposition to global trade agreements. But it is less well known that he was equally adamant in opposing a bill removing barriers to Africa's exports -- a move that Africans themselves welcomed, but which Nader denounced because of his fear that African companies would be "run into the ground by multinational corporations moving into local economies." (Most African countries would be delighted to attract a bit of foreign investment.) Similar fears led Nader to condemn South Africa's new constitution, the one that ended apartheid, because -- like the laws of every market economy -- it grants corporations some legal status as individuals. 2. NADER IGNORES THE CONTRIBUTIONS CORPORATIONS MAKE TO OUR PROSPERITY Laurence D. Cohen, columnist, THE HARTFORD COURANT, October 22, 2000, p. C3. That's the problem with Ralph. He isn't like you and me. Michael Kinsley, editor of Slate, had it right when he characterized the Nader reason-for-being as "irritating others for the public good." But you can't create a public good until you recognize the reality of a private good, the product of freedom to acquire and strive and create for personal gain. Because multinational corporations go their amoral way, because chemical companies have to put their gunk somewhere, because insurance companies have to say no to some doctors sometimes, we are the happiest, healthiest, most prosperous nation in the world. NADER PRACTICES A RHETORIC OF FEAR AND OVERSIMPLIFICATION 1. NADERS ANTI-CORPORATE RHETORIC OVERSIMPLIFIES THE ISSUES Paul Krugman, Professor of Economics at MIT, PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, July 25, 2000, p. A-19. If you look for a unifying theme in all these causes, it seems to be not consumer protection but general hostility toward corporations. Nader now apparently believes that whatever is good for General Motors, or Pfizer, or any corporation, must be bad for the world. To block opportunities for corporate profit he is quite willing to prevent desperately poor nations from selling their goods in U.S. markets, prevent patients from getting drugs that might give them a decent life and prevent a moderate who gets along with business from becoming president. At times Nader's hostility to corporations goes completely over the edge. Newt Gingrich disgusted many people when, in his first major speech after leaving Congress, he blamed liberalism for the Columbine school shootings. But several days before Gingrich spoke, Ralph Nader published an article attributing those same shootings to -- I'm serious -- corporate influence. 2. NADER IS A NATIONALIST WHO EXPLOITS AMERICANS FEAR OF IMMIGRANTS Patrick ONeill, columnist, THE MILITANT, March 6, 2000, p. 3. Nader's 1996 campaign was marked by nationalist themes. The North American Free Trade Association treaty means "we're exporting jobs--probably about 350,000 to 400,000" to Mexico, he said. He complimented rightist politician Patrick Buchanan, now vying for the Reform Party presidential nomination, saying he has "learned a lot in the last few years about corporate power." At the same time, Nader presented his campaign as a "pull to the left" for the Democratic Party. According to the February 21 Green Party news release announcing Nader's bid, in 1996 he "received nearly 700,000 votes and finished in fourth place, although limiting his campaign spending to under $5,000. In 2000, the Nader campaign intends to raise $5 million dollars." The campaign will have similar themes to the effort of four years ago. Nader says he will concentrate on "democracy, concentrated corporate power and the excessive disparities of wealth." The Green Party's press release states that "Nader's advisors claim that his campaign will help turn out the vote and could assist the Democrats in taking back Congress." Nader will invoke "the message of last year's Seattle demonstrations against the WTO," reads the statement. Those demonstrations were led by union officials and liberal and environmental activists, who put forward economic nationalist slogans that drew favorable comment from Buchanan.
LANI GUINIER
Lani Guinier was unjustly passed over in one of the most highly publicized confirmation hearings ever. Thats not just me being partisan. Guinier was unjustly denied her rightful post as Assistant U.S. Attorney General for Civil Rights because, the right wing said, she believed in quotas for minority hiring in order to make up for the problems caused by systematic racism for the past 200 years in this country, including slavery. She was, they claimed, a quota queen. Just one problem: Guinier had never advocated quota-based hiring. In fact, she OPPOSED quotas they went contrary to her notion of confirmative action, Guiniers version of affirmative action. That didnt stop the hounds once they had been released, though. As the woman herself said in a subsequent interview on the topic: Because we are in a sound-bite culture, we define you by no more than three or four words-in my case, two: Quota Queen. It had nothing to do with what I had written, but it was a very useful, alliterated metaphor that served partisan purposes at the time. What do we learn from reading the work of Lani Guinier? What do we learn from the fact that her nomination was torpedoed? To answer the first question, we get to inspect the ideas of one of the most forward-looking thinkers on race in America. We get to watch as one of the best legal minds in America grapples with issues to which there are no easy solution: to what extent does the pact inform today? What kind of remedies are effective for centurieslong discrimination? How can we ensure those remedies dont inflame the problem, or create new forms of discrimination? These are questions without easy answers. As for the second proposition -- What do we learn from the fact that her nomination was torpedoed? we learn that being an insightful critical thinker instead of a partisan demagogue is a sure way to avoid public service at a high level. As Mark Tushnet has written: Guinier's nomination to head the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division foundered because she understood those tensions and her work makes them apparent. For understandable political reasons, the politicians who control the nomination process preferred to keep the tensions under wraps. For them, Guinier's intellectual honesty made her politically unacceptable. Guinier continues to teach law at Harvard Law School, write manifold articles on the subject of race in the United States, and publish books. GUINIERS THOUGHT Guinier doesnt just talk about affirmative action far from it. She examines all kinds of issues relevant to racial politics in this country. Lets start with what white citizens of this country take as a given: voting rights. Voting rights are the essential element of a democracy. After all, if you cant vote, it isnt a true democracy to you, right? During and prior to the Civil War, can it be said (really) that slaves were living in a functional democracy? How about a non-member of the communist party under the Soviet Union, which also had elections? Any democratic theory worth its salt has to acknowledge that an inability to vote equals an inability to call ones government a legitimate and functioning democracy. Now, it wasnt until the mid-1960s that African Americans had the right to vote. And even then and immediately thereafter, such a right was not truly meaningful. In the South (and, to be fair, many places in the North), places dealt with the issue in a straightforward manner: if you were black, you didnt get to vote. Period. So the first wave of voting rights laws dealt with these

formal exclusions from the franchise: they FORCED states to allow Black Americans to vote. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 made sure of that. The thing is, if you go to vote, and some guy has a pit bull that snarls at you every time you approach the polls do you REALLY have the right to vote? Or, alternatively, if youre one of the 90 percent of African Americans that voted for Al Gore, and you headed to the polls in Florida, and Jeb Bushs thuggish state troopers told you to turn around and drive home do you really have the right to vote? As you can see, this is far from an issue weve left behind. We had to deal with it in the LAST presidential election. And depending on how old there are, your parents (and certainly your grandparents) might remember a time when Black Americans didnt even have the lip-service right to vote. So, if the right to vote represents full citizenship, we ought to defend it for minorities. Plus, it has another value: an instrumental value. You sue your vote to elect people who will do the things that you want done. You vote for Jesse Ventura because he says hell battle special interests. You vote for Ralph Nader because he says hell challenge corporate rule. You vote for Jesse Helms because youre a psychotic racist (hey, it takes all kinds). Again, though, imagine you are a member of a minority group (and maybe you are): are your interests being taken into account? Since white folks are the majority in many places, the votes of minorities can be trumped by the White Folks Vote. Hence, minorities often have a problem electing what voting rights law calls "representatives of their choice. After all, white people keep electing the aforementioned Mr. Helms despite the fact that the Black man who keeps running against him, Harvey Gantt, is an excellent candidate who is notably NOT insane. The Voting Rights Act Amendmnts of 1982 recognized that this was a problem, and created a right to select representatives of choice. The only question was how to actualize this? In the past, whites have gerrymandered districts so that minorities couldnt overwhelm the white majority and elect candidates of choice. What is the solution? Some suggested establishing "majority-minority" districts so that minorities would be assured of candidates that reflected their interests. As Tushnet notes, this turned out to be something between a very bad thing and a disaster for racial minorities. Particularly as it became easy to use computer technology to draw district lines, people -- mostly Republicans -- discovered techniques that would guarantee the election of some members of racial minorities while actually reducing the chances that the views of those representatives would prevail in the legislature. The techniques are known in the voting rights field as packing, cracking, and stacking. For example, you can guarantee the election of a minority representative by packing as many members of that minority as possible into a single district. The problem is that in other districts, racial minorities are so few in number that candidates can simply disregard them. The result is that you get one minority representative, and a slew of representatives who owe nothing to minority constituents. Cracking and stacking are more complicated, but they have the same result: the legislature has the "right number" of minority representatives, and they are regularly outvoted. The other problem, of course, is that concentrating minorities in certain districts means that OTHER districts can effectively IGNORE their interests altogether. Something between a very bad thing and a disaster, indeed.

Enter Lani Guinier. SOME OF GUINIERS SOLUTIONS We started out discussing voting rights law not just because its an important subject that often gets short shrift, but because its just as integral to the thinking of Lani Guinier as anything else, and that includes affirmative action. Guinier has many ideas for transformation of the current situation, not all of which involve modifying affirmative action. Some involve changing the internal decision-making structure of state and local legislatures. For example, a structural reform might be adopted where passing some policies might require a greater margin than a simple majority it might take a two-thirds majority to pass policies that could systematically have a negative effect on minorities. There would be problems with identifying these policies, of course but even requiring a super-majority on all legislation might help minority constituencies. It could provide them a valuable commodity (a small voting block) where they could trade votes in exchange for other favorable legislation. Sound radical? Ever heard of the filibuster in the Senate? Thats an example of how, by merely threatening a filibuster on a certain bill or resolution, legislators can get concessions on another. (Give us labor provisions in the FTAA bill, or well filibuster and block the bill which brings the pork barrel project to your district.) After all, what is a filibuster but a minority veto enacted by a minority of one, usually Ted Kennedy? GUINIER AND THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY Now, some might say there is nothing more democratic than majority rule. Total majority rule. And nice as that sounds, it doesnt work that way. There are a couple of reasons why, the first of which is just logical: if the majority votes to legalize cannibalism or to legalize discrimination against homosexuals (as my hometown of Canby, Oregon did in the 1990s) or to do other unconstitutional, stupid things, there needs to be some check on that abuse. Thats why we have three branches of government to stop excesses and abuses of power by those who reach past their intended authority. The second reason is that those are the principles the Republic was founded on. Guinier borrows the title of her book from James Madison, whose theory of representative democracy appealed to "the principle of reciprocity. This topic is covered in great detail in the Madison essay, but lets review some of the high points here. People are self-interested. That includes people living in a democracy. They will vote to advance their own interests. So, why dont poor people just vote to take all the money from rich people through taxation? Well, theres the well-established propaganda system, for one thing, but theres another reason, too: voters and politicians have to think about the long term. Just because youre in the majority now doesnt guarantee that you will ALWAYS be. This is one major reason both parties talk about bipartisanship: they want to appeal to voters of the other political party. Reagan was re-elected primarily with the votes of traditional Democrats, for example. When youre in power, you dont want to totally ignore the minority (whether racial, economic, or political) because they may be the MAJORITY in four years, and youll be in big trouble. This is especially true in close races or districts where there is an even split in political opinion. Since every vote counts, every interest group is up for schmoozing even traditional enemies. Hence, you see things like former Washington Senator Slade Gorton cozying up to Indian tribes, even though he spent 30 years trying to screw them sideways in a close election, every vote counts. Similarly, the tribes

dont want to blast Gorton with both barrels when hes in office, because he controls appropriations money for their environmental restoration projects, health care projects, etc. This doesnt always happen that way, though. More often, people like Gorton just ignore their traditional enemies altogether or worse yet, try to actively undermine their interests. There is a reason, after all, that Indian tribes hate him so much. (He tried to take away their fishing rights, crush their economic infrastructure, and abrogate their constitutionally guaranteed treaty rights). Guinier recognizes this. Thats why shes so concerned with voting rights reform: if minorities can be represented in fact, rather than just in name, their interests will be better served by legislators. GUINIER AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION As noted above, Guinier's political views in no way support her designation as a "quota queen." Guinier's books and law review articles support only one conclusion -- she believes a quota of minorities taken as representatives of the minority races as a whole will not truly give minorities a fair chance. The best strategy lies in other means. That means includes continually updating affirmative into new policies that Guinier calls Confirmative Action. This includes modifying preference policies to consider class so minorities that are truly disadvantaged get the most preferences, and so poor whites are also considered in programs like jobs and university admissions. What does confirmative action entail? It entails a merit-based approach that is continually evolving. Guinier asks, for example, college administrators, to revamp their admissions policies based on various factors: Practicing confirmative action, each institution would, with its specific mission in mind, regularly review and seek feedback on its admissions program. And it would ask several important questions to guide such efforts: Are admissions processes consistent with the institution's purposes? Do they award opportunity broadly? Do they admit people who demonstrate competence and potential under a range of relevant measures? Are the relevant stakeholders involved in helping formulate, give feedback on, and carry out the criteria that are adopted? Do their decisions support the institution as a public place? Are graduates contributing back to the institution and the society it serves? This continual review process would involve, presumably, seeing what is working and what is not. This is a flaw Guinier finds in traditional affirmative action. Her rationale for these reforms is simple. If admissions policies and employment opportunities are truly to be merit-based, we need to admit that those merit-based criteria exclude certain people youre not going to get as good grades as other kids, usually, if you need a 40-hour a week job and/or dont get enough to eat. Hence, Guinier writes: So a policy of confirmative action would include economics as a decision calculus, and would include an assessment of what contributions society as a whole can expect from the student or worker after the preference policy assists them. SOME CRITICS Critics of Guinier fall into basically two categories: the conservative and the liberal. You might be surprised, but many liberals consider Guinier a fairly conservative (in the sense of being careful and wary to offer wild, programmatic change) thinker. The conservative critics are relatively easy to understand: we should all be evaluated on an individual basis, and neither race nor class should not be a determining factor in discussions. This is your basic Ward Connerly school of thought, and is relatively easy to understand. However, Stephen Steinberg, a left-wing critic of Guinier, has thoughts I feel are worth considering:
CONCLUSION Whether you agree or disagree with Lani Guiniers ideas -- and whether you disagree with her from the left or the right you have to admit her ideas are provocative. People that are interested in building a more racially just, economically viable future should check out her work.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Connerly, Ward. Chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute, BOSTON REVIEW, December 200/January 2001, http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR25.6/connerly.html, accessed May 1, 2002. Guinier, Lani. "Lessons and Challenges of Becoming Gentlemen." NEW YORK UNIVERSITY REVIEW OF LAW AND SOCIAL CHANGE 24, 1998, p. 1-16. Guinier, Lani. LIFT EVERY VOICE: TURNING A CIVIL RIGHTS SETBACK INTO A NEW VISION OF SOCIAL JUSTICE. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998. Guinier, Lani. "President Clinton's Doubt; Lani Guinier's Certainty." In REBELS IN LAW: VOICES IN HISTORY OF BLACK WOMEN LAWYERS, edited by J. C. Smith, Jr., Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998. Guinier, Lani. "Reframing the Affirmative Action Debate." KENTUCKY LAW JOURNAL 86, 1998, p. 505525. Guinier, Lani. Foreword to REFLECTING ALL OF US: THE CASE FOR PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION, by Robert Richie and Steven Hill. Boston: Beacon, 1999. Guinier, Lani. THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY: FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS IN REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, New York: Free Press, 1994. Guinier, Lani. "Don't Scapegoat the Gerrymander," THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE, January 8, 1995, p. 36-37. Guinier, Lani. "The Triumph of Tokenism: The Voting Rights Act and the Theory of Black Electoral Success." MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW. Vol. 89, No. 5, March 1991, p. 1077-1154. Steinberg, Stephen. author of The Ethnic Myth and Turning Back: The Retreat from Racial Justice in American Thought and Policy BOSTON REVIEW, December 200/January 2001, http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR25.6/steinberg.html, accessed May 1, 2002. Tushnet, Mark. Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University Law Center, BOSTON REVIEW June/September 1994, http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR19.3/tushnet.html, accessed May 1, 2002.

GUINIERS VIEWS ARENT BAD: THE MEDIA LIES TO US ABOUT THEM 1. THE MEDIA DISTORTS GUINIERS VIEWS TO THE EXTREME Rob Richie and Jim Naureckas , Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, EXTRA!, July/August 1993, p. 3. In the media smear campaign against Lani Guinier, Clinton's nominee as assistant attorney general for civil rights, her views were not only distorted, but in many cases presented as the exact opposite of her actual beliefs. One of the most prominent themes of the attack on Guinier was her supposed support for electoral districts shaped to ensure a black majority -- a process known as "race-conscious districting." An entire op-ed in the New York Times -- which appeared on the day her nomination was withdrawn (6/3/93) -- was based on the premise that Guinier was in favor of "segregating black voters in black-majority districts." In reality, Guinier is the most prominent voice in the civil rights community challenging such districting. In sharp contrast to her media caricature as a racial isolationist, she has criticized race-conscious districting (Boston Review, 9-10/92) because it "isolates blacks from potential white allies" and "suppresses the potential development of issue-based campaigning and cross-racial coalitions." 2. GUINIER IS THE OPPOSITE OF A QUOTA QUEEN Rob Richie and Jim Naureckas , Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, EXTRA!, July/August 1993, p. 3. Another media tactic against Guinier was to dub her a "quota queen," a phrase first used in a Wall Street Journal op-ed (4/30/93) by Clint Bolick, a Reagan-era Justice Department official. The racially loaded term combines the "welfare queen" stereotype with the dreaded "quota," a buzzword that almost killed the 1991 Civil Rights Act. The problem is that Guinier is an opponent of quotas to ensure representation of minorities. In an article in the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review (Spring/89), she stated that "the enforcement of this representational right does not require legislative set-asides, color-coded ballots, electoral quotas or 'one black, two votes' remedies." But once the stereotype was affixed to her, there was seemingly no way she could dispel it: "Unbelievably, the woman known as the 'quota queen' claimed she did not believe in quotas," columnist Ray Kerrison wrote in the New York Post (6/4/93). 3. CONSERVATIVES ARE HYPOCRITICAL WHEN THEY CHALLENGE GUINIERS VIEWS Lani Guinier, Professor of Law at Harvard University, EXTRA!, July/August 1993, p. 3. No one who had done their homework seriously questioned the fundamentally democratic nature of "my ideas." Indeed, two conservative columnists, George Will and Lally Weymouth, both wrote separate columns on the same day in the Washington Post (7/15/93), praising ideas remarkably similar to mine. Lally Weymouth wrote: "There can't be democracy in South Africa without a measure of formal protection for minorities." George Will wrote: "The Framers also understood that stable, tyrannical majorities can best be prevented by the multiplication of minority interests, so the majority at any moment will be just a transitory coalition of minorities." In my law review articles I had expressed exactly the same reservations about unfettered majority rule, about the need sometimes to disaggregate the majority to ensure fair and effective representation for minority interests. The difference is that the minority that I used to illustrate my academic point was not, as it was for Lally Weymouth, the white minority in South Africa. Nor did I write, as George Will did, about the minority of wealthy landlords in New York City. I wrote instead about the political exclusion of the black minority in local, county and municipal governing bodies in America.Yet these same two journalists and many others condemned me as anti-democratic. Apparently, some of us feel comfortable providing special protections for wealthy landlords or white South Africans, but we brand as "divisive" and "radical" the idea of providing similar remedies to include black Americans, who after centuries of racial oppression are still excluded. 4. THE MEDIA ADMITS THEY ARE BIASED AGAINST GUINIER Rob Richie and Jim Naureckas , Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, EXTRA!, July/August 1993, p. 3. How could Guinier's positions be distorted so thoroughly? Part of the problem was simple laziness: Rather than doing research into Guinier's record, many journalists preferred to simply repeat the charges of ideologically motivated opponents. When the New York Times finally devoted an article to her views, rather than to the political firestorm that raged around them -- on June 4, after the nomination had already been killed -- there still was not a single quote from any of her writings. "Almost everyone is relying on reconstructions by journalists and partisans, injecting further distortions into the process," reporter David Margolick wrote -"everyone" including himself, he admitted in an interview with Extra!.

LANI GUINIERS IDEAS ARE GOOD FOR MULTIRACIAL DEMOCRACY 1. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AIDS DEMOCRACY, AND SHOULD INCLUDE POOR WHITES Lani Guinier, Professor, Harvard Law School, ADDRESS DELIVERED BEFORE THE NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUES STATE OF AMERICA 2000 CONFERENCE, June 14, 2000, p. np, http://www.minerscanary.org/mainart/confirmative_action.shtml, accessed May 1, 2002. If we are to move beyond the present polarization in a manner consistent with the commitments to fairness and equality that both positions endorse, we must more carefully explore how to measure and what to call merit, and what constitutes fairness for all, in a multiracial democracy. A first step is to view merit as a functional rather than generic concept, while keeping firmly in mind the democratic purposes of higher education and the specific mission of most institutions of higher education. In other words, we should seek to reconfirm the democratic role of higher education in a multiracial society by re-connecting admissions processes to the public mission of both public and private schools. In doing so, we confirm the benefits of affirmative action but not simply to people of colorby re-casting merit as a practical term that is intimately connected with each institutions specific mission. That focus, in turn, allows us to reconsider the relationship between individual merit and operational fairness, between claims of individual desert based on past opportunities and individual contributions based on future societal needs. I tentatively call this a process of confirmative action, because it takes lessons from both the testocracy as well as affirmative action to confirm a set of experimental and pragmatic actions that begin to link (ad)mission practices for all students to the broad mission and public character of higher education in a multiracial democracy. 2. CONFIRMATIVE ACTION IS A COMMITMENT TO DEMOCRACY Lani Guinier, Professor, Harvard Law School, ADDRESS DELIVERED BEFORE THE NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUES STATE OF AMERICA 2000 CONFERENCE, June 14, 2000, p. np, http://www.minerscanary.org/mainart/confirmative_action.shtml, accessed May 1, 2002. Our commitment to democratic values benefits from studies like the one at the University of Michigan, which showcase the experience of people of color and many women, who carry a commitment to contributing back to those who are less fortunate. In this fuller accounting of the democratic values of publicly supported institutions, each of us is then obligated not only to succeed as individuals, but to lift as we climb. Merit becomes a forward-looking function of what a democratic society needs and values rather than a fixed, quantifiable and backwards-looking entity that, like ones family tree or family assets, can be chronicled with the proper instruments. Merit, in other words, becomes future-oriented and dynamic. Dynamic merit involves a commitment to distribution of opportunity not only at birth but also through ones life. It is contextual and resistant to standardized measurement. It is changing and manifests itself differently depending on how you look at it. It requires modesty in our beliefs about what we can measure in human beings, even as it demands clarifying and explicitly stating our institutional objectives. 3. THE CHARGES OF REVERSE RACISM AGAINST GUINIER ARE LUDICROUS Rob Richie and Jim Naureckas , Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, EXTRA!, July/August 1993, p. 3. Many commentators painted Guinier as a racial polarizer who implies that "only blacks can represent blacks," as George Will put it (Newsweek, 6/14/93). And she was repeatedly charged with believing that only "authentic" blacks counted. But in a Michigan Law Review article (3/91), Guinier stated that "authentic representatives need not be black as long as the source of the authority, legitimacy and power base is the black community." But more important, she was not endorsing the concept of authentic representation; she was critiquing it, describing it as a "limited empowerment tool."

GUINIERS IDEAS WONT HELP SOLVE RACISM OR PROMOTE DEMOCRACY 1. GUINIER IGNORES THAT RACISM IS TOO DEEPLY ROOTED FOR HER PROPOSALS Mark Tushnet, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University Law Center, BOSTON REVIEW June/September 1994, http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR19.3/tushnet.html, accessed May 1, 2002. What is most striking about Guinier's work, given these tensions, is how optimistic and fundamentally conservative she is. For her, people -- perhaps most particularly whites -- have mistakenly seen politics as a zero-sum game, in which what one group wins necessarily comes at the expense of another group. Instead, she proposes, we ought to believe -- apparently in the face of the failures of public policy -- that society is not so racially polarized; public policy could generate gains for everyone. All we need to do, according to Guinier's optimistic vision, is develop procedures which will allow all of us to work together to find the policies which will do that. The substantive failures of policy can be eliminated by following the indirect strategy of using the right procedures. Which invites the pessimist to reply that the failures of policy show that the principle of reciprocity really doesn't work on matters of importance to African Americans, and that those failures must result from a more deeply-rooted racism than Guinier is willing to acknowledge. 2. GUINIERS IDEAS WERE TRIED AND FAILED 30 YEARS AGO Ward Connerly, Chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute, BOSTON REVIEW, December 200/January 2001, http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR25.6/connerly.html, accessed May 1, 2002. Thus, it was surprising, and refreshing, to see Susan Sturm and Lani Guinier propose "shift[ing] the terrain of the debate." Sturm and Guinier implicitly concede that preference proponents cannot carry the day while traditional measures of merit prevail. Thus, they mount a frontal assault on the "prevailing selection procedures" of American society: academic standards measured by paper-and-pencil tests. Unfortunately, their argument is not at all new. Nor do we lack for evidence about how their proposal would work. In 1970, City College of New York embarked on precisely the same social experiment advocated by Sturm and Guinier today: open admissions. While the City College administration shared their concerns about racial equality and merit, the history of City Colleges experiment highlights the inherent problems in sacrificing merit on the altar of race. 3. EMPIRICALLY, GUINIERS IDEAS LEAD TO RACIAL POLARIZATION Ward Connerly, Chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute, BOSTON REVIEW, December 200/January 2001, http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR25.6/connerly.html, accessed May 1, 2002. City Colleges experiment has failed. Its efforts to create a student body with the right mix of skin colors have polarized it into two schools. Students admitted based on their prior academic performance continue to succeed. City Colleges School of Engineering remains one of the best schools in the country, attracting topflight students from around the world. The English Department is also enjoying a renaissance. Both departments alumni often proceed to top graduate programs in the country. 4. SORTING PEOPLE INTO CATEGORIES AS GUINIER DOES IS RACIST Ward Connerly, Chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute, BOSTON REVIEW, December 200/January 2001, http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR25.6/connerly.html, accessed May 1, 2002. Unfortunately, Sturm and Guinier ignore this fundamental reality. Their prescription of emphasizing race anew merely resurrects the worst of our history. For its entire history, American governments at all levels have sorted us into categories based on our skin color: slave, Indian, free black, octoroon, Caucasian, Hispanic, etc. It is a long and sordid history, one for which we should all be ashamed. The next step in fulfilling Americas promise is to create a colorblind state.

GUINIERS IDEAS WILL NOT BE EFFECTIVE 1. THE SOLUTION IS TO MEND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, NOT GIVE UP AS GUINIER DOES Stephen Steinberg, author of The Ethnic Myth and Turning Back: The Retreat from Racial Justice in American Thought and Policy BOSTON REVIEW, December 200/January 2001, http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR25.6/steinberg.html, accessed May 1, 2002. The problem is that "for more than two decades, affirmative action has been under sustained assault," as Sturm and Guinier write in their opening sentence. Though they do not say so explicitly, they seem resigned to the fact that the Supreme Court, which has already eviscerated affirmative action through a series of decisions, is now poised to deliver the coup de grace. Against this background, Sturm and Guinier declare that "it is time to shift the terrain of debate." The entire thrust of their argument is to explore alternatives to affirmative action that will broaden access of minorities and women to jobs and universities. At first blush, this strategy may appear to be a sensible concession to political reality. However, two troubling questions arise. First, are Sturm and Guinier capitulating to the anti-affirmative action backlash and prematurely throwing in the towel for the sake of an illusory consensus? Second, would their proposed reforms of the selection process, even if enacted, provide the access to jobs and opportunities that are today secured by affirmative action? The logic of Sturm and Guiniers brief can be stated as follows: 1. Affirmative action is assailed by critics as violating cherished principles of "merit." 2. On closer examination, the "testocracy" that is used to assess merit is neither fair nor functional. 3. Thereforealas, here the syllogism runs into trouble. Sturm and Guinier could have concluded that the case against affirmative action is specious and therefore affirmative action should be upheld. As the saying goes, "if it aint broke, dont fix it." 2. GUINIERS IDEAS ARE IMPRACTICAL Stephen Steinberg, author of The Ethnic Myth and Turning Back: The Retreat from Racial Justice in American Thought and Policy BOSTON REVIEW, December 200/January 2001, http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR25.6/steinberg.html, accessed May 1, 2002. Instead Sturm and Guinier make a case for overhauling the selection process that evaluates candidates for jobs and college admissions. To be sure, there are compelling arguments for abandoning standardized tests that favor privileged groups who, aside from the advantages that derive from better schooling, have the resources to pay for expensive prep courses. Sturm and Guinier also make a compelling case that it would be fairer and more productive to judge applicants on the basis of performance criteria, rather than scores on "paper-andpencil" tests. The problem, though, is that they implicitly advocate these reforms as a surrogate for affirmative action policy. They may tell themselves that they are driven by realpolitik, but they end up acquiescing to the reversal of hard-won gains and falling back on reforms that are unlikely to be enacted in the foreseeable future. Their ideological enemies will revel in this retreat to a second line of defense by two law professors who are identified with the cause of affirmative action. Nor will Sturm and Guinier get the concessions they are bargaining for. Is this not the lesson of Bill Clintons ill-fated proposal to "end welfare as we know it"? 3. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE GUINIERS PROPOSALS WOULD WORK Stephen Steinberg, author of The Ethnic Myth and Turning Back: The Retreat from Racial Justice in American Thought and Policy BOSTON REVIEW, December 200/January 2001, http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR25.6/steinberg.html, accessed May 1, 2002. What evidence is there that overhauling the selection criteria would open up avenues for women and minorities? In most large-scale organizationscorporations and universities alikeemployees are routinely evaluated by superiors on an array of performance criteria. Is so-and-so a "team player"? Does she do her job well? Does he have good communication skills? Does she make the tough decisions? Does he demonstrate leadership? Such judgments are easily tainted by personal prejudices, especially when the people doing the evaluations are white and male and the people being evaluated belong to stigmatized groups. Indeed, studies have consistently found that performance appraisal ratings of women and people of color are prone to bias.
THEDA SKOCPOL
Theda Skocpol is the Victor S. Thomas Professor of Government and Sociology at Harvard. She is a native of the state of Michigan. She received her Bachelors degree from Michigan State in 1969 and then went on to study for her PhD at Harvard. From 1975 to 1981 she taught as a member of the non-tenured faculty at Harvard (Homepage). In 1981 the all-male department of Sociology at Harvard refused tenure to Dr. Skocpol and Sociologists for Women in Society (SWS) filed charges against Harvard with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (E.E.O.C.) on her behalf (Impersonal at Best). From 1981 to 1985 she taught Political Science and Sociology at the University of Chicago, she then returned to Harvards Sociology Department. She now has tenure in both Sociology and the Department of Government at Harvard. Dr. Skocpol utilizes her experience in sociology and political science to analyze the nature of public policy and social revolutions. Her work includes discussions about the nature of the state, social policies and revolution through historical and comparative methods. Her earlier works focused more on revolution while her more recent literature tends to deal extensively with the United States domestic social policies. Not only is Dr. Skocpol a researcher, professor and well-known author, but she is a wife and mother. In addition to all of this responsibility she still finds time to be what she calls her readers to be, an active citizen. She is involved in the community around her not only through her books but by contributing to local newspapers. In this essay I will briefly describe some of Theda Skocpols most prominant works and the theories she has developed in them. Each section should provide another useful way of approaching domestic and foreign topics in the realm of social policy or social change. I will end with a general discussion of the importance of Skocpols work for Lincoln-Douglas debaters. EXPLAINING SOCIAL REVOLUTIONS In her early work, STATES AND SOCIAL REVOLUTIONS, Theda Skocpol defines social revolutions as, rapid, basic transformations of a societys state and class structures, (4). She points out that they are accompanied and partially carried out by, class-based revolts from below. This type of change is not the only force of change in the modern world, in fact, full scale social revolution has been quite rare. However, Skocpol argues, that this particular form of change deserves special attention because they are a distinctive pattern of sociopolitical change that has a large and lasting effect on both the country where the revolution occurs as well as other nations around the world. Social revolutions are fundamentally different, shows Skocpol, than other types of societal change. She argues that social revolutions involve two coincidences. First, a social revolution involves the coincidence of societal structural change with class upheaval. Next, they involve the coincidence of political and social transformations. Other forms of change never achieve this unique combination. The examples she points to are rebellions that, by nature, involve class-based revolt but not structural change. As well as political revolutions that transform the state but not society and do not necessarily involve class struggles. The nature of the social revolution is unique because of its mutually reinforcing nature and the intensity through which they work. Debaters are often drawn to a social science perspective on social change in order to explain the effects of their views on society. Skocpols work refutes such mechanisms as the best method, especially in analyzing revolutions. Her work focuses on a structural perspective and pays special attention to the specific contexts in which certain types of revolutions take place. Through comparative historical analysis she helps to create an understanding of international contexts and changes in domestic policies that spawn revolutionary change in a particular society. She then uses her knowledge of history to create a more generalizable framework and allow readers to move beyond particular cases. This perspective is useful for Lincoln Douglas debaters because it allows for method of examining values within a particular social and political climate and the effect they will have on particular resolutions. It also allow debaters to utilize historical examples without making it sound simply like a list that can be easily countered by a list on the other side. Skocpols way of tying social and political forces together and analyzing those issue which effect both provides debaters with a model for effective argumentation through a discussion of past events.
Skocpols work draws heavily on Marxist tradition from which she recognizes that class conflicts figure prominently in social revolutions. She takes the Marxist analysis further by examining other factors that have an influence on social change. After understanding that a particular class may come to a place where they realize the can struggle for change it is also important to understand how such groups may carry out their objectives. For this understanding political-conflict theories are necessary in Skocpols analysis. The idea of political-conflict is based in the assumption that, collective action is based upon group organization and access to resources (STATES AND SOCIAL REVOLUTIONS 14). Thus, in following Skocpols model successfully a debater would outline a particular stance on the resolution, those individuals capable of creating change, their social position, and the resources available to the group. Hopefully, through this analysis the debater should be able to show how their stance can create positive changes in society. The same method may prove successful in answering a plan that could have detrimental effects. The structural perspective taken by Skocpol is one that examines, for better or worse, the conditions that cause change. Her claim is that: First, changes in social systems or societies give rise to grievances, social disorientation, or new class or group interests and potentials for collective mobilization. Then there develops a purposive, mass-based movementcoalescing with the aid of ideology and organization- that consciously undertakes to overthrow the existing government and perhaps the entire social order. Finally, the revolutionary movement fights it out with the authorities or dominant class and, if it wins, undertakes to establish its own authority and program. (STATES AND SOCIAL REVOLUTIONS 14-15) Obviously, not all social revolution is a positive thing. A debater can use this strategy to make the argument that the status quo is good or at least that the case brought about by their opponent, if affirmed, could create a situation that would lead to an undesirable revolution. MATERNALIST SOCIAL POLICY FRAMEWORK In American political debates it is common to hear politicians refer to this nation as a welfare state. The concept of the welfare state began in countries like Australia, New Zealand and Brazil between 1880 and World War I. Early social spending in these countries continued to spread to other nations as well including Denmark, Britain and Germany where governments enacted laws concerning hour and wage regulations as well as arbitration of labor disputes for workers. These countries also began noncontributory pensions for the elderly, and insurance for workers. During wartime nations like Britain became successful in maintaining and increasing such policies by juxtaposing their model of the welfare state against the Nazi model, which they labeled the warfare state. Though many politicians would like to believe that the U.S. exists in the framework of the welfare state, that view is inaccurate. While all of the previously mentioned nations provided social benefits directly from the nations budget, the United States model, which started long after these other nations programs, never followed a noncontributory model and in only one instance was anything allotted directly from the federal government to the citizens. The Social Security Act of 1935 included contributory retirement programs as its only national program. Other issues dealt with by the Social Security Act were things such as unemployment insurance, which left states in charge of taxes and allowed them to determine coverage and benefits. The federal government has never created a national health insurance policy and though it offers some subsides for public assistance programs it is left up to the states to administer such policies. The term welfare has always been a negative term in United States political discussions. Americans tend to perceive these programs as handouts to people who are lazy and havent earned them. This concept makes receipt of such benefits demeaning and citizens attempt to avoid them. Skocpol examines these issues in order to analyze the way the United States chooses to give out social benefits. In the past individuals in a variety of areas, political science and history being the most prominent have discussed the concept of welfare. Skocpol takes the work from both of these areas in to consideration in understanding the development of social policies in the U.S. and examining how their development was effected by who could vote and have an effect on the legislation.

The welfare state concept has always been approached from a masculine standpoint. The fundamental understanding and belief has been that the public sphere, politics and business, was for males and females were responsible for the private realm, which included the charities and the home. Welfare literature often ignores the gendered dimension when examining American politics. This mentality causes theorists to miss important issues when attempting to understand the history and development of social policy in the United States. Skocpol alters that reality by examining gendered social policies as well as maternalist policies in her work. She argues that up until this point the role of literature on women and welfare has been to sensitize readers to the subject and it therefore treats the subject through the use of narrative and interpretive essay. Skocpol takes on the challenge of creating a straightforward treatment of gender and social policies while learning from the more tentative arguments that have previously been made on the subject. Skocpol develops a maternalist theory of the United Stats social policies. This has a number of implications for debate. First, this different perspective is one that allows debaters to emphasize the role of women in the history and development of United Stats social policy without painting the male population in a negative light. Second it provides a well rounded concept of social policy in the United States, by examining pensions and programs for males and the elderly as well as subsidies for women and children. Most importantly however, this perspective allows debaters to move beyond shallow criticisms of a patriarchal structure to a full understanding of what that term truly means and how it may be an inaccurate criticism of United States policies. The work done by Skocpol in her book, PROTECTING SOLDIERS AND MOTHERS, moves away from an understanding of United States history as one where powerful men made all the decisions and women could only make marginal gains under a patriarchal framework. She explains the powerful place middle-class women found themselves in once they began to organize around particular issues affecting their place in society. This book defends an understanding of the power of various womens organizations that make up the womens movement in America. However, the subject is not presented as one sided but rather analyzed through an understanding of the interplay between a variety of forces which she claims include womens organizations as well as, U.S. political institutions and variously structured social movements and political coalitions (PROTECTING SOLDIERS AND MOTHERS 36). THE MISSING MIDDLE The late 1990s were a fairly positive time in American history. Most nights the average American could turn on the news and see President Bill Clinton or Vice President Al Gore promoting their latest policy to put health care in the hands of the people and provide opportunities to the working class. This could be followed by reports of the Clinton administrations success at keeping the economy up and unemployment rates low. In such a political climate it struck many people as strange that Theda Skocpol would choose that time to speak out about inequality in America. Her book, THE MISSING MIDDLE, was published in 2000 and all of the issues that she addresses are still important in current political debates. The framework she sets up in this work provides yet another useful mechanisim for analyzing problems with the social and political structure in the United States while finding workable solutions to those issues. Despite media reports that America was in a prosperous time the majority of the country was feeling overworked and underpaid, having trouble obtaining health care and proper treatment at their jobs and not seeing the great wealth they heard about every night from the news media. A shallow analysis of this problem may yield support for an understanding that American media is inaccurate, a widely accepted understanding in the U.S. However, in this case the media was absolutely right, unemployment was down, the stock market was up and social spending was high as well. In order to explain this paradox Skocpol developed her theory of the missing middle. When talking about the middle she refers both to those individuals who fall into the middle of the socioeconomic spectrum as well as the middle of the generations. Her theory applies to Working men and women of modest economic means- people who are not children and are not yet retirees. They are adults who do most of the providing and caring for the children, while paying the taxes that sustain retirees now and into the future. (THE MISSING MIDDLE 8)

The people she is referring to are the one who fall somewhere in between the poor that are often the focus of welfare debates and the wealthy professionals who are usually defended in political debates by the conservative politicians. The group Skocpol seeks to address are generally working Americans who spend long hours at a job because they need to feed families and want to create a decent life either as a single parent or in a dual income home. Those individuals who fall in the middle of the generational and socio-economic spectrum, Skocpol argues, are generally ignored in political debates. She points out that political debates devolve into conflicts between what are seen as the rich and poor in American society on issues such as welfare. More recently social policy debates have become an issue of the elderly verses the young. Politicians tend to juxtapose the needs of an aging population with the programs designed to help underprivileged children. While all of these groups are relevant to discussions on social policy, taking this approach insures that politicians leave out the largest portion of American society, the working population, many of them parents, who Skocpol argues, are truly at the epicenter of the changing realities of U.S. society and economic life (THE MISSING MIDDLE 8). The reason many Americans found themselves feeling overworked at the end of the 1990s while the media reported on the positive status of America was because they were, and still are. Skocpol argues that because politicians continue to ignore the middle section of people in Americas diverse spectrum of individuals they continuously miss the needs of this population. Though the Clinton administration can tout low unemployment rates and a high stock market it is irrelevant to a large portion of the population. The low unemployment rate sounds good but ignores the fact that more Americans are working harder for less money than they have before and a majority of those same people could care less about a rising stack market because they dont own stock or have the time to learn how to invest their money because they are too busy getting out there and trying to earn it. This work is especially important for Lincoln-Douglas debaters to have as a tool when determining a perspective with which to shape the debate for a couple of reasons. First, this theory differs from most current social and political theories in that it stand right in the middle of the dominant perspectives and still provides tons of clash with all of the things around it. By examining a resolution through the missing middle perspective you seem to be avoiding the extreme positions and providing a discussion that is more palatable yet it will always clash with the dominant positions in these debates. This may leave some debaters thinking, why would I want to take a middle of the road stance if there will still be a lot of literature that clashes with it? The answer to this is simple, because the theory of the missing middle addresses, mainly, working class parents it provides a realistic mechanism for assessing the resolution which your judges may often relate to. While college student and professors who judge Lincoln Douglas debate may be more amenable to radical discussions on either the right or the left of the resolution these individuals are not always the largest portion of a high school debaters judging pool. Often working parents make up a large portion of the audience at tournaments and Skocpols theory of the missing middle may be the perfect perspective with which to approach a resolution and make arguments that your audience can relate to. Additionally, because Skocpols theory tends to address the unspoken majority in American society she may provide a safer perspective when you are having trouble with audience analysis.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE APPLICATIONS Some of the implications of this authors work for Lincoln-Douglas debates have already been outlined in previous sections. Here I would like to give a more broad discussion of the application of Skocpols work to this activity. This particular theorists work is a great tool for debaters because she takes the time to analyze situations from a viewpoint that allows the reader to examine historical examples, which LD tends to draw upon, tied together with values and political context as well as factors such as class, to explain events. Her work provides a mechanism for examining proposals made in the form of policy action as well as those that are created more as social changes. Skocpols work is useful for any Lincoln Douglas debater who finds themselves in a debate about domestic or foreign social policies. She takes great care in pointing out the roots of social policy as well as explaining work done in a variety of fields and showing what other scholars have contributed to the research. She also does a beautiful job of answering those theories that she chooses to disagree with. In Skocpols book a debater will not only find a framework through which to construct a case, they will find useful examples and explanations that support the arguments they choose to make. Additionally, reading Skocpols work will assist debaters in understanding perspectives that may be used to answer their case and providing them the tools necessary for refuting such arguments. The final reason that debaters may find Skocpols work accessible is that she does not merely offer an explanation of why things are the way that they are nor does she stop after a thorough criticism of a particular structure. Instead, her criticisms and explanations end with plans for practical actions that could bring about desired change. No matter what subject a debater may access this authors work to find she will end her discussion with a workable solution to the problems laid out in the discussion. Following her structure will allow debaters not only to have a political theory on which to base their arguments but it will provide a logical structure that culminates in a workable mechanism for change that should make sense to the critic.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Barker, Kristin Kay, Federal Maternal Policy and gender Politics: Comparative Insights, JOURNAL OF WOMENS HISTORY, July 31, 1997, p.183. Dubrow, Gail Lee, Impersonal at best: tales from the tenure track, OFF OUR BACKS, May 31, 1982, p. 28. Halliday, Terrance C. Review Section Symposium: Lawyers and Politics and Civic Professionalism: Legal Elites and Cause Lawyers, LAW AND SOCIAL INQUIRY, Fall, 1999. Kornbluth, Felicia A., The New Literature on Gender and the Welfare State: The U.S. Case, FEMINIST STUDIES, April 30, 1996, p.171. Ritter, Gretchen, and Nicole Mellow, The State of Gender Studies in Political Science, THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE, September 2000. Skocpol, Theda and Stanley B. Greenberg, THE NEW MAJORITY, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997. Skocpol, Theda, THE MISSING MIDDLE, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2000. Skocpol, Theda, PROTECTING SOLDIERS AND MOTHERS: THE POLITICAL ORIGINS OF SOCIAL POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992. Skocpol, Theda, STATES & SOCIAL REVOLUTIONS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FRANCE, RUSSIA & CHINA, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Wineman, Steven, THE POLITICS OF HUMAN SERVICES, Boston: South End Press, 1984.

SKOCPOLS THEORY OF THE STATE IS GOOD 1. SKOCPOL CAN ACCOUNTS FOR INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS BEARING ON POLITICS Kristin Kay Barker, Professor of Sociology, Federal Maternal Policy and gender Politics: Comparative Insights, JOURNAL OF WOMENS HISTORY, July 31, 1997, p.183. Skocpol's larger theoretical agenda is to substantiate her framework -- a polity-centered perspective -- for accounting for the trajectory of social provisions. Given the enormity of her undertaking, resulting in over 500 pages of text, I will necessarily condense her account. Simply stated, in her polity-centered perspective (much as in her earlier state-centered model), the history of social policy is understood by situating it "within a broader, organizationally grounded analysis of American political development"(526). In other words, governmental institutions, bureaucrats, political parties and officials, electoral rules, and policy feedback loom large. Together, these institutionalized forces create policy opportunities and barriers. 2. SKOCPOLS EXPLAINS STATES POLICIES' RELATIONSHIP TO SEXISM WELL Felicia A. Kornbluth, The New Literature on Gender and the Welfare State: The U.S. Case, FEMINIST STUDIES, April 30, 1996, p.171. To this already weakened edifice of Marxian theory, historical sociologist Theda Skocpol delivered a series of blows that threatened to bring it tumbling down. "[C]apitalism in general has no politics," she argued in 1980, "only (extremely flexible) outer limits.... [S]tate structures and party organizations have (to a very significant degree) independent histories." 13 Skocpol and her colleagues redirected the focus of study, from whether and how economic elites could determine political outcomes, to the emergence of particular government policies from particular governments. 14 In Skocpol's vision, the shape of a government in itself-which she takes as mostly invariant over time, that is, the United States possesses a decentralized, weakly bureaucratic "Tudor polity," whereas historic monarchies like Sweden and France have strong central states-has enormous weight in shaping public policy. The negotiations and conflicts among politicians, bureaucrats, and elite interest groups account for much of the remainder. In her newest work, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States, Skocpol introduces the term "structured polity" to describe the mix of political autonomy and social constraints that operate to produce social policy. However, just as the neo-Marxists admitted the "relative autonomy" of politics while loading the dice in favor of "determination in the last instance" by economic power, Skocpol pushes social determinants out of her study so far as to load the dice in favor of autonomous state actors. Neither neo-Marxists nor Skocpolians offered a model that entirely works for feminist students of welfare. However, the emphasis of both models on determination and autonomy, in combination with the postmodern suspicion of theories that make social life sum up into a neat coherent whole, has helped in describing the complex historical relationships between masculine power and government policy. Although not always explicitly, the literature under review profiles both the tight links between sexism and state policies, and the random walk that such policies often take along their autonomous historical paths. 3. INCLUDING GENDER IN POLITICAL STUDIES IMPROVES THE ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK Gretchen Ritter, Associate professor of American Politics at University of Texas at Austin and Nicole Mellow, a graduate student in the same department, The State of Gender Studies in Political Science, THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE, September 2000. Research on policy in a historical context tends to be preoccupied with broad theoretical questions that are of concern to feminist and other political theorists. There is a tradition of research in the area of social welfare exemplified by scholars such as Theda Skocpol and Gwendolyn Mink that has influenced not only scholarship on American political development but interdisciplinary feminist scholarship as well. In Protecting Soldiers and Mothers (1992), Skocpol asserts that the early development of American social policy was shaped by a social feminist movement that advocated for the establishment of a maternalist welfare state. In The Wages of Motherhood (1995), Mink follows the development of this welfare state through the New Deal and argues that it was not only gendered but also racialized in ways that lowered the civic status of poor women and nonwhites. This type of policy and law research offers one of the most promising venues for integrating gender in such a way as to both critique and reformulate standard theories and interpretations of AP. Gender is being used not just to add women to a fixed political picture. Rather, it provides an analytic concept for understanding the nature of political relations and state institutions.

SKOCPOL'S UNDERSTANDING OF MATERNALISM SHOULD BE ADOPTED 1. SKOCPOL PROVIDES THE CLEAREST UNDERSTANDING OF MATERNALIST POLICIES Kornbluth, Felicia A., The New Literature on Gender and the Welfare State: The U.S. Case, FEMINIST STUDIES, April 30, 1996, p.171. Skocpol clarifies her operating definition of maternalism by analogy to the "paternalism" she argues characterized most other welfare states. "Pioneering European and Australasian welfare states," she writes, in Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, were doubly paternalist: Elite males, bureaucrats and national political leaders, established regulations or social benefits for members of the working class-that is, programs designed "in the best interest" of workers, rather than just along the lines their organizations requested. [W]hile very little paternalist legislation was passed in the early-twentiethcentury United States, the story was different when it came to what might be called maternalist legislation. (P. 317) As paternalist social policies were paternalist in two ways-in their content, which treated men as fathers and heads of families, and in their processes of creation, which were largely closed to their putative workingclass beneficiaries-so were maternalist policies maternalist in two ways. In content, they treated women as mothers who made claims on the state thereby; in their processes of creation, they were designed by ambitious middle-class women for working-class women, with the latter's perceived best interests in mind. 2. MATERNALISM UNDERSTANDS THAT WOMEN HAVE A POLITICAL ROLE AS MOTHERS. Felicia A. Kornbluth, The New Literature on Gender and the Welfare State: The U.S. Case, FEMINIST STUDIES, April 30, 1996, p.171. Maternalist reformers may be familiar to some readers, who know them as "social feminists," or as the fractious, exhausted, post suffrage women's movement. Readers may also hear in maternalism, which simultaneously justified a public role for women and affirmed women's primary responsibility for children, echoes of what historians of the early national United States have termed "republican motherhood." However, maternalism represents a unique political philosophy that is particular to the historical moment at which it emerged. Many women reformers in U.S. history may have believed (in Ladd-Taylor's phrase) "that there is a uniquely feminine value system based on care and nurturance" or (in Gordon's) have "imagined themselves in a motherly role toward the poor." But we can distinguish maternalism from social feminism, republican motherhood, and other reform ideologies by emphasizing its special, time-bound contribution to political thought. Maternalists were those reformers at the turn of the twentieth century who believed that motherhood or potential motherhood was a legitimate basis for women's citizenship, that women as mothers deserved a return from their governments for the socially vital work they performed by raising children, and/or that governments had a special responsibility to ensure the health and welfare of children. 3. THE HISTORY OF MATERNALISM SHOWS THE IMPORTANCE OF WOMENS EXPERIENCES Kristin Kay Barker, Professor of Sociology, Federal Maternal Policy and gender Politics: Comparative Insights, JOURNAL OF WOMENS HISTORY, July 31, 1997, p.183. For over 20 years feminist scholars have outlined the ways in which maternalist rhetoric and strategies were employed in the formation of social policy campaigns and crusades. Although often overlooked in scholarship focused on state provisions to workers, federal social programs for mothers, potential mothers, and children figured prominently in the configuration of early welfare politics. These texts continue to advance the larger claim of feminist scholarship that existing categories of analysis fail to capture adequately women's realities. Historical accounts of the emergence of maternal policies are significant not only because they make for a richer representation of the crucial years of welfare-state development in Western capitalist democracies between 1880 and 1940. More important, they offer a fundamental restructuring of our current understanding of what is political.

SKOCPOLS THEORY CANNOT CREATE CHANGE 1. SKOCPOLS THEORY OF THE STATE FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THE AUTONOMY OF LAW. Terrance C. Halliday, Senior Research Fellow, American Bar Foundation, Adjunct Professor of Sociology, Northwestern University, Review Section Symposium: Lawyers and Politics and Civic Professionalism: Legal Elites and Cause Lawyers, LAW AND SOCIAL INQUIRY, Fall, 1999, p. np. Theory of the State. Within political sociology, a substantial literature has arisen that critiques the failure of pluralist theories to recognize the centrality of the state as an institutional actor with interests of its own with some measure of autonomy from the economic and political interests that emerge from the market and civil society. Shamir sympathizes with Theda Skocpol's thesis that state managers develop their own agendas, but he criticizes Skocpol and other state theorists for failing to comprehend law's autonomy: "In asserting the autonomy of the state, in both class and state- centered approaches, law and its carriers had been reduced to a mere instrumentality" (p. 165). Hence Shamir maintains that if it is good enough to argue for the autonomy of the state and its managers, it is also good enough to take seriously the autonomy of law. 2. THE WELFARE STATE IS AN INSTITUTION OF EXPLOITATION THAT CAN'T BE REFORMED Steven Wineman, Author, THE POLITICS OF HUMAN SERVICES, 1984, p.36. It is a mistake to view the welfare state policies as representing a qualitatively different system from the conservative program. Instead, they represent a different version of how to sustain the corporate capitalist structure. Point for point, liberal human services leave basic elements of the political economy in tact: structural unemployment; severe stratification of power; the predominance of giant corporations; reliance on industrial production which poisons the planet. If the true agenda of the conservative program is to serve the interests of big business, the hidden function of the welfare state is to maintain political and social stability and to deter fundamental change- in the interests of the corporate order. This function proceeds despite the conscious of many individuals, from legislators to bureaucrats to social workers, to "do good." MATERNALISM IS FLAWED 1. MATERNALISM CAN ONLY PROVIDE A LIMITED CONCEPT OF RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR AMERICAN WOMEN; THIS CAUSES THEIR POLICY INFLUENCE TO OFTEN BE COUNTER PRODUCTIVE. Michel, Sonya, teaches American women's gender, and social welfare history at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, she is also the co-editor and author of a variety of works on these subjects, "The Limits of Maternalism," MOTHERS OF A NEW WORLD (ed. Koven & Michel), New York: Routledge, 1993. p. 307. The case of child care and mothers' pensions reveals both the strengths and the limitations of an ideology rooted in arguments about women's natural capacity as mothers. While maternalism empowered the early female philanthropists to establish day nurseries and the NDFN to improve them, maternalism can also cast public child care as peculiarly unstable enterprise with a self-divided and self-defeating sense of purpose. Similarly, it was maternalism that fueled the campaign for mothers' pensions, but also maternalism that contributed to the humiliating and punitive treatment of recipients. Ironically, after the turn of the century maternalist ideology began to weaken as parent education and other fields challenged the notion of maternal instinct and called for training and professionalization for those who dealt with children. What became extracted and reified was the single trope of the woman as mother in the home, which continued to be reproduced not only by experts on children and the family, but also by policy makers seeking to restrict governmental services for women. It was the limited vision of women's rights and responsibilities, not the idea of child care as public service to all, and that became maternalism's legacy to the American welfare state.

MATERNALISM IS BAD FOR WOMEN 1. SKOCPOL'S GENDER ANALYSIS IS SIMPLISTIC AND INCOMPLETE Eirinn Larsen, PhD. researcher at European University Institute, "Gender and the Welfare State: Maternalism: a New Historical Concept?" A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF CAND.PHILOL. THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY, UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN, NORWAY. Spring, 1996, p. np. To Gordon, the problems in Skocpol's interpretations are already present in the outset of the book: she fails to produce any adequate definitions of what she means by "paternalist" and "maternalist". Gordon continues: "This failure exemplifies ways in which Skocpol's approach to the influence of gender is undeveloped in relation to the theoretical level of much scholarly gender analysis today". Clearly, Gordon indicates that Skocpol's analysis is not matched by familiarity with scholarly debates on gender. Gender means "female" for Skocpol, and Gordon claims that "she produces an entirely celebratory account of the women's organizations she studies. She has no critique of maternalism". Skocpol uses maternalism as an opposition to paternalism, without directly expressing the distinctions between the two concepts, with the exception of the structural differences mentioned above. The absence of such a specification and definition is a result of her failure to ground her concept of gender in questions of male and female power, says Gordon. Gender is, after all, not merely a neutral or benign difference; it is a difference, or rather a set of meanings culturally constructed around sexual difference, in a context of male domination. In the entire book there is no discussion of male power in general or in its specifics -or, to put it inversely, of the fact that the forms of political power with which Skocpol is so concerned are shaped by their maleness.The maternalist strategy was after all a result of women's lack of political power, says Gordon, and thus the concepts of paternalism/maternalism refer to an inequity of power in relation to both gender and generation. 2. SKOCPOL'S ESSENTIALISM REINFORCES A DESTRUCTIVE GENDER BINARY. Eirinn Larsen, PhD. researcher at European University Institute, "Gender and the Welfare State: Maternalism: a New Historical Concept?" A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF CAND.PHILOL. THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY, UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN, NORWAY. Spring, 1996, p. np. The stratification of the American welfare system into the social insurance and public assistance program, often called the two-track welfare system, was, in the way Gordon sees it, a result of gender values shared by both men and women, in order to maintain the family wage system. ...male and female welfare reformers worked within substantially the same gender system, the same set of assumptions about proper family life and the proper sphere for men and women. By not employing gender as a male/female opposition, Gordon is able to underscore that men and women were holding similar visions of the economic structure of the proper family in which the welfare state took its form. However, while these gendered assumptions did not necessarily express antagonism between men and women, they were anything but universal: "they expressed a dominant outlook, to be sure, but one that did not fit the needs and understandings of many less privileged citizens". In other words, Gordon thinks it is false to believe that a kind of unity among women was present at this time. Women's activism was as much as men's, determined by class as much as by gender. "Specifically, this supposed unity denies that women's agency also derives from other aspects of their social position." Gordon continues: She [Skocpol] generalizes about these "maternalists" as if they were manifestations of some universal female principle. They did share some fundamental beliefs and assumptions about proper role of government and the proper construction of families, but Skocpol identifies these commonalties no more than their differences.
bell hooks
bell hooks is the name chosen by Gloria Watkins as her pseudonym. She chooses to use this particular name in honor of her great-grandmother who she sees as a powerful, self-actualized woman who survived harsh racism, sexism and classism. Hooks describes her grandmother as: bell hooks is a prolific author. In the period from 1980 to 1998 she produced sixteen books as well as numerous articles and speeches. She has been extremely successful in applying her personal experiences in feminism, academia and her southern upbringing to a criticism of society that speaks to readers among a variety of audiences. hooks was born in 1952 in Hopkinsville, Kentucky. From the age of ten she was sure she wanted to become a writer. She could often be found curled up on her bed on a mental escape in a good book. This interest in books was not, as it might be today, perceived as a productive activity for a young girl to be engaged in. Her father feared, correctly it turned out, that too much reading would change her life. Growing up hooks was taught that men did not like to be with smart girls and if she ever wanted to marry, which was supposed to be the primary goal in every girls mind, she would have to avoid excessive involvement in books. The desire to marry was not something bell hooks chose to focus on. She knew there was something else out there for her. She earned her bachelors degree from Stanford University where she expected to find a more enlightened view on the role of reading and education in a womans life. At the university she found herself further away from individuals expecting girls to seek out married life but the sex discrimination was not gone, it was simply recreated in new ways. In her classes, generally taught by white males, she found a hostile reaction toward discussions of feminism. Determined to overcome these notions, hooks continued writing and went on to Yale after graduating. She later returned to California to obtain her Ph.D. from the University of California in Santa Cruz. In her reading hooks found one author who she had a particular connection with, Paulo Friere. Despite the fact the many feminist critics, including hooks, have indicted Friere as "partially blinded by sexism"(Women Writing Culture 106), there are many aspects of his work that have nurturing qualities for hooks and she feels justified in overlooking the sexist tendency. For her, Friere's work has served as a model of critical consciousness. She follows his model because it is participatory and employs the notion of praxis, which allows the author to combine reflex and action. This is accomplished in most of hooks' work through the contribution of her own life experience. She uses her own experience to help others understand the hierarchy that exists in American society, and the destructive effects of sexism, racism and classism. WRITING STYLE bell hooks is a scholar, highly knowledgeable in a variety of areas including literature, politics, race and gender studies but she more often chooses to write from her experiences and to adopt a more narrative style regardless of the type of work she is composing. Though hooks will make reference in her works to scholars who have influenced her work, especially Friere, she does not generally conform to rules of source citation or footnoting. This is part of her attempt to decolonize her mind and the minds of other colonized people. Like everything hooks does, her writing style functions as a critical tool that breaks down accepted notions of proper and improper in academic scholarship. hooks argues that her choice to avoid particular citation formatting of her work is not careless writing but rather a conscious choice to make her writing more accessible. Unfortunately she realizes that it is this choice that often causes her work to be passed over for use in institutions of higher learning. She points out that, Despite this realization hooks continues her practice because she feels the accessibility of her work to those outside of the scholarly community is more important.

She often feels free to alter the structure or grammar of her writing depending on the audience. Vernacular is another tool she uses to maintain connection with her roots as well as connections to her audience. Even the smallest elements of bell hooks work are purposeful. The letters at the beginning of her first and last name are lower case to how that the person is not as important as the message and in hopes that people would become more connected to her words than simply attaching themselves to a name. The lower case letters were an attempt to avoid the status of icon but the name remains one regardless. hooks has written so much and had such an effect on so many lives that her name is highly noted but she hope that the lower case letters at least cause people to consider what it is they have attached themselves to. hooks deals with issues that are important in the lives of everyday people. She indicts institutions and promotes a multitude of values, which seek to create a more open society free of oppression on the basis of race, sex or class. No matter your debate topic hooks has probably written something that applies, this essay will deal with her general theoretical arguments and the literature on those subjects, after gaining a better understanding of bell hooks thoughts on society it would be beneficial for debaters to examine the literature in her books or online dealing with any variety of issues in society from education to politics and medicine. RACISM Growing up hooks attended segregated elementary schools. No one ever informed her that she was living in a white-supremacist nation, which was obvious to her as she took the long bus ride to her all-black school. She remembers getting up in the earliest hours of the morning so that she could make the long bus ride she always noticed as they passed the white school those student appeared well rested because they lived in the area where their school was located, no bussing, they just got up in the morning and went. The bus riding process seems minor but it was one major example of the racist dehumanization young black children like bell hooks were forced to endure. It is experiences like these that cause her to point out that the world is more a home for white folks than it is for anyone else (BONE BLACK 31). She argues white supremacist values continue to develop in society even today. hooks explains that the mass media plays an enormous role in the construction of images that construct Americas social reality. Mass media is generally seen as a mechanism for entertainment but with the frequency that it is viewed in American society there is a tendency for individuals to accept those things consistently seen on television as normal. Because of this values conveyed by television play themselves out in everyday life. The prominent group controlling American mass media are white males, representations of their value structures and a devaluing of non-white people further marginalizes those groups. Frequently the media represents black people in subordinate roles to whites and fails to represent their reality or daily concerns, hooks argues that this acts as a barrier to self actualization by creating a false consciousness. (KILLING RAGE) There are five major angles from which hooks chooses to analyze white supremacist tendencies in society: American nationalism, legitimating standard English, racism within feminism, social movements and educational biases. hooks articulates the impact of white supremacist media influence as socialization and colonization of the mind. This process, she argues, also occurs in the classroom where students are presented with white heritage and values but not called upon to consider the history of any other cultures and when those cultures are presented they are generally shown as they are perceived by the white historians. hooks discusses pictures in her all-black school that portrayed black people as primitive savages in loin cloths, not very different from anything the students could relate to. Her argument is that we live in a patriarchal, white supremacist, capitalist culture that uses racist, sexist, and classist educational policies. There are a few terms that are frequently used in criticisms of the structure hooks describes. Racism privileges one group of people over another based on racial classification, in a white supremacist society white individuals have the highest concentration of power thus white people are seen as superior to any other racial group. Patriarchy is the privileging of males over females. Classism creates an elite group, in a capitalist society it is those with the most money, and it privileges that group over disenfranchised peoples. FEMINISM "Feminist politics is losing momentum because feminist movement has lost clear definitions. We have those definitions. Let's reclaim them. Let's share them. Let's start over. Let's have T-shirts and bumper stickers and

postcards and hip hop music, television and radio commercials, ads everywhere and billboards, and all manner of printed material that tells the world about feminism. We can share the simple yet powerful message that feminism is a movement to end sexist oppression. Let's start there. Let the movement begin again."(FEMINISM IS FOR EVERYBODY 6) Often people will refer to the feminist movement as a collective whole and while they do tend to come together on many issues each major feminist thinker in American society has their own take on the definition and qualities of feminism. Occasionally an author, or their critics, may even create a new type of feminism for the ideas presented in their work. When talking about a particular feminist position it is important to clarify what the author's point of view is on the subject so that everyone is functioning in the same conceptual framework. bell hooks sees feminism as, "a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression,"(FEMINISM IS FOR EVERYBODY 1). She believes that this is a good definition of the feminism because it does not imply that men are an enemy of the movement. Sexism, she argues, is the heart of the matter. Issues of who perpetuates sexism or whom it is directed toward are irrelevant. It is broad and able to include institutionalized sexism. In her book, FEMINISM IS FOR EVERYBODY, hooks argues against the impression that feminism is only, and always, about women becoming equal to men and she indicts the notion that feminism is anti-male. She argues that feminists are made, not born, and that individuals who choose to advocate feminist ideals do so as a result of a conscious choice that comes from consciousness raising. bell hooks is in the business of consciousness raising, not only on feminist issues but a variety of social concerns. hooks version of feminism is one that goes beyond traditional notions of a feminist movement that only deals with womens issues to include race. At the core of her feminist theory is the assumption that racism and sexism are intimately intertwined forms of oppression. These structures are mutually reinforcing and dependent. The goal of her writing is consciousness raising in order to overturn the white supremacist patriarchal system. She argues that most women became involved in womens rights movements as a result of their efforts to create change in a cultural setting. In FEMINISM IS FOR EVERYBODY she points out: This is the reason many early feminists lashed out at men, they perceived them as the problem and the reason for the perpetuation of a sexist structure that allowed them to be dominant. However, men are not the sole reason there is sexism in society and feminists had to eventually learn to fight the oppressive structures through sisterhood. As women identified structures that were hindering their self-actualization they looked to their own lives and realized that nearly all structures in American society were part of hooks white supremacist patriarchal system. This lead women to begin working on things that most affected them. Work on personal issues have caused feminists to group together based on their lifestyle. hooks identifies this as the most destructive force in current feminist ideology. The womens movement has fractured into multiple movements based on the area certain women are most concerned with. While it is important that feminism address all of the structures that support oppression they have decreased some of their power by dividing on particular issues. hooks argument is that these groups need to come to this realization and reunite to regain power for social change. She points out that when feminist politics can be divided and connected only to equality with elite white males it prevents society from recognizing the need for revolutionary change and allows small gestures toward equality to pacify people. She argues that in order to rectify the problem we must, acknowledge the ways politics of difference have created exploitative and oppressive power relations between women that must be contested and changed(SKIN DEEP 272). Because of this a more beneficial definition of the feminist movement is the one used above by hooks that provides cohesion, not division in the movement. RACISM DIVIDING FEMINISM Earlier it was said that there are a variety of definitions of feminism. Though hooks advocates unity among feminists she realizes that the prevalence of racism even in the roots of the movement itself create a problem. The white supremacist culture has less difficulty recognizing upper class white womens experience then the experience of those generally excluded from this grouping. Feminists who are recognized by the media and the American culture are generally white women and black women in the movement, like hooks, have often felt marginalized.

White women often speak for black women without fully understanding their experience and thus complicating the problem with increased racist assumptions under the guise of positive social change. White feminists also have been known to express connection with black womens experiences while completely missing their point of view all together. Having the dominant culture speak for black women in the movement is not only damaging because it creates misunderstanding but, even worse, it silences their voices out of the movement further denying self actualization to this group of people. Manifestations of this racism can be seen in schools as well as in the workforce, media and the academy. While white supremacist sexist society guarantees a devaluing of womens experiences and their bodies white women will always be better off on this structure than black women because of their race. LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE bell hooks is a wonderful resource for debaters because of her application to a wide variety of concerns. Her criticisms apply to every conceivable area of American life because she critiques the fundamental structures in which we live. This critical approach may seem most accessible for a debater on the negative who wants to critique the dominant stance of the affirmative case. Her theories work well to indict any affirmative case that does not question its own underlying assumptions. When faced with a case that advocates a particular ideology, hooks will generally have something to criticize because even when someone is conscious to avoid racism and sexism they often dont recognize the critical role class plays in the assumptions we make about the way society functions. Whatever the flaw, using hooks work debaters should be able to uncover the problems with assumptions made in the case construction process. The wonderful thing about hooks for debaters is that she does not simply critique. She provides a unique perspective for creating practical approaches to societal issues. That makes her a good person to refer to when constructing cases as well. She may criticize the educational process in America but her books also discuss what can be done to alleviate detrimental effects of a problematic educational system. She looks at issues of poverty and class and discusses the ways that a feminist perspective addresses those issues. Freedom of expression is another great area to use hooks work, in this area she not only has a vast array of works dealing with expression but also mass media and she attempts to come to grips with what society can do to move away from destructive expression without censoring out groups who are already marginalized by the dominant culture. These are only a few of the many areas bell hooks has chosen to write about. The next great thing about bell hooks is her accessibility. Not only is her work easy to locate but it is simple to read. Type her name into any library data base and you are bound to find something written by this author, she even writes interesting childrens books! Bookstores often carry a sampling of hooks major works as well. Lets face it though, debaters tend to want the information accessible on the computer as well. Type the name bell hooks into internet search engines and you will find tons of information. Because she is so interesting people want to provide information on her, even her publishing company has made parts of the book FEMINISM IS FOR EVERYBODY available on their website for free. Not only can you find her work but when you sit down to read it you will not be lost. One of the most important issues for hooks as an author is a students ability to read. She wants to make her work something that everyone can understand the issues that are important to her. Finally, one of the most important parts of winning a debate is the ability to persuade your audience that the stance you have taken is correct. A careful deployment of hooks work can bring audiences to your side. Her use of personal experience allows her work o be passionate and compelling. Combined with knowledge of social realities and academic subjects hooks is an author many audiences can relate to. The key is finding the appropriate discussions to have with particular audiences in order to raise consciousness.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Florence, Namulundah, BELL HOOKS ENGAGED PEDAGOGY: A TRANSGRESSIVE EDUCATION FOR CRITICAL CONCIOUSNESS, Westport: Bergin & Garvey, 1998. Golden, Marita and Susan Richards Shreeve, SKIN DEEP: BLACK WOMEN & WHITE WOMEN WRITE ABOUT RACE, New York: Doubleday, 1995. hooks, bell, YEARNING: RACE GENDER AND CULTURAL POLITICS, Boston: South End Press, 1990. hooks, bell, Black Woman Artist Becoming, LIFE NOTES (ed. Patricia Bell-Scott), New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1994. hooks, bell, KILLING RAGE: ENDING RACISM, New York: Henry Holt, 1995 hooks, bell, BONE BLACK:MEMORIES OF CHILDHOOD, New York: Henry Holt, 1996. hooks, bell, WOUNDS OF PASSION: A WRITING LIFE, New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1999. hooks, bell, FEMINISM IS FOR EVERYBODY, Cambridge: South End Press, 2000. Olsen, Gary A. and Elizabeth Hirsh, WOMEN WRITING CULTURE, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995.

RACISM PERMEATES US CULTURE 1. AMERICAN SOCIETY HAS A WHITE SUPREMACIST CULTURE. Namulundah Florence, adjunct faculty member in Fordham Univeristys Graduate School of Education and College of Bussiness, BELL HOOKS ENGAGED PEDAGOGY: A TRANSGRESSIVE EDUCATION FOR CRITICAL CONCIOUSNESS, Westport: Bergin & Garvey, 1998, p. 11. Critical, feminist and multicultural critics highlight the fallacy behind mainstream norms and practices. It is argued that a pervasive false consciousness is reinforced in society due to the sanctioning of exclusive ways of being, feeling and knowing as the norm. Essentially, these values and traditions are racial, gender, and class specific. Students from marginalized cultures find their primary cultural values and traditions inadequately represented and/or denied. The subordination of one groups cultural traits and characteristics has significant impact in marginalized students experiences of schools and/or incorporation of official curricula. In a white supremacist society, White peoples values, traditions, and practices are engrained in social policies and norms serving as basic criteria for social and economic mobility. hooks succinctly states: In the beginning black folks were most effectively colonized via the structure of ownership. Once slavery ended, white supremacy could be effectively maintained by the institutionalization of social apartheid and by creating a philosophy of racial inferiority that would be taught for everyone. This strategy of colonialism needed no country, for the space it sought to own and conquer was the minds of blacks (1995, p.109). 2. AMERICAN CULTURAL BIAS IS ROOTED IN COLONIZATION Namulundah Florence, adjunct faculty member in Fordham Univeristys Graduate School of Education and College of Bussiness, BELL HOOKS ENGAGED PEDAGOGY: A TRANSGRESSIVE EDUCATION FOR CRITICAL CONCIOUSNESS, Westport: Bergin & Garvey, 1998, p. 14. In the United States, colonization of the continent led to the institution of economic, educational, and political structures that primarily served the interests of the colonizers , currently policy makers(Banks, 1988; hooks, 1992, 1994, 1995; McNaught, 1996). Historically, in America, Anglo-Saxon sociocultural traditions functioned as a prerequsite to social acceptability and access to the political structure (Banks 1988, p.58). However, unlike Northern and Western European immigrants, groups such as African Americans, Chinese Americans, and Mexican Americans faced greater challenges in trying to assimilate as a result of possessing different cultural traits and characteristics from the mainstream (Banks, 1988; Nelson et al., 1996). Insisting on the primacy of racial discrimination, hooks contends: Racism took precedence over sexual alliances in both the white worlds interaction with Native Americans and African Americans, just as racism overshadowed any bonding between black women and white women on the basis of sex. (1981, p.122) 3. ASSIMILATION HAS A DESTRUCTIVE EFFECT ON BLACK STUDENTS bell hooks, TALKING BACK: THINKING FEMINIST, THINKING BLACK, Boston: South End Press, 1989, p. 67. While assimilation is seen as an approach that ensures the successful entry of black people into the mainstream, at its very core it is dehumanizing. Embedded in the logic of assimilation is the white-supremacist assumption that blackness must be eradicated so that a new self, in this case, a white self, can come into being. Of course, since we who are black can never be white, this very effort promotes and fosters serious psychological stress and even severe mental illness. My concern about the process of assimilation has deepened as I hear black students express pain and hurt, as I observe them suffer in ways that not only inhibit their ability t perform academically, but threaten their very existence.

THE INTERSECTIONAL APPROACH IS BEST 1. CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE INTERSECTIONS OF RACE AND SEX IS KEY bell hooks, social critic, author, professor, KILLING RAGE: ENDING RACISM, New York: Henry Holt, 1995, p. np. Surely it is patriarchal condescension that leads black folks, particularly sexist black men, to assume that black folks, particularly sexist black men, to assume that black females are incapable of embracing revolutionary feminism in ways that would enhance rather than diminish black liberation, despite the continued overt racism and racist agendas of those groups of white women who can most easily lay claim to the term feminism and project their conservative and reactionary agendas. Often this condescension merely masks the allegiance to sexism and patriarchal thinking in black life. Certainly, the labeling of black women who engage in feminist thinking as race traitors is meant to prevent us From embracing feminist politics as surely as white power feminism acts to exclude our voices and silence our critiques. In this case both groups are acting to protect and maintain the privileges, however relative, that they receive in the existing social structure. 2. INCORPORATION OF FEMINISM IS NECESSARY FOR BLACK LIBERATION bell hooks, social critic, author, professor, KILLING RAGE: ENDING RACISM, New York: Henry Holt, 1995, p. 69. If we start with the premise that black liberation struggle, and all our efforts at self-determination, a strengthened when black males and females participate as equals in daily life and struggle, it is clear that we cannot create a cultural climate where these conditions exist without first committing ourselves to a feminist agenda that is specific to black life, that concerns itself with ending sexism and sexist oppression in our diverse communities. To advance this agenda we would need to rethink our notions of manhood and womanhood. Rather than continuing to see them as opposites, with different inherent characteristics, we would need to recognize biological differences without seeing them as markers of specific gender traits. This would mean no longer thinking that it is natural for boys to be strong and girls to be weak, for boys to be active and girls to be passive. Ours task in parenting and in education would be to encourage in both females and males the capacity to be holistic, to be capable of being both strong and weak, active and passive, etc., in response to specific contexts. Rather than defining manhood in relation to sexuality, we would acknowledge it in relation to biology: boys become men, girls women, with the understanding that both categories are synonymous with selfhood. 3. FEMINISM ALLOWS THE BREAKDOWN THE RACIAL DIVISIONS AMONG WOMEN bell hooks, Associate Professor of English and Womens Studies at Oberlin College, and Mary Childers, A Conversation About Race and Class, CONFLICTS IN FEMINISM, New York: Routledge, 1990, p.75. Women seem to be particularly threatened when our differences are marked by class privilege. What do you do when you are not privileged and have contact with a privileged woman of any race? Or when there is race and class difference? What gives us a space to bond? These are questions we have had trouble answering. I want to privilege political commitment because in this culture we do not emphasize enough that you can choose to be politically committed in ways that change your behavior and action. We need to do more work examining the reasons white women and black women of all classes view one another with suspicion, thinking we are trying to take something from each other (whether it is the privileged white woman who thinking that a black woman is trying to take some of her power from her or to make herself more powerful or it is black women feeling like thee are these white women who have everything and want more). I dont think we really understand either historically or in terms of contemporary circumstances why we view each other in such incredibly negative terms. Certainly as a group white males have been more oppressive to black women, yet black women dont unequivocally view white males in the hostile, suspicious ways that we often view white women. And I would say vice versa as well. Feminist theory needs to study historically, sociologically, and anthropologically how we see one another and why it has been so hard or us to change how we see one another.

HOOKS' CRITICISM IS INEFFECTIVE 1. HOOKS FAILS TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE ALTERNATIVE VISION Maggie Gallagher, co-author (with Linda Waite) of The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially, NATIONAL REVIEW vol. 53, 1/22/2001, p. 50. Which is exactly bell hooks complaint. An unreconstructed black radical feminist, hooks (who insists on the lowercase letters) has nothing but disdain for "reformists" like Estrich who sought only to claim the "class privilege" their brothers enjoyed. "While it was in the interest of mainstream white supremacist capitalist patriarchy to suppress visionary feminist thinking reformist feminists were also eager to silence these forces. Reformist feminism became their route to class mobility." hooks is equally disdainful of what she calls "lifestyle feminism," in which "the politics was slowly removed from feminism." I wish I could tell you in more detail what hooks revolution might look like, but in 123 pages she never gets around to explaining what "ending sexist oppression" means, aside from abortion on demand and contraceptives for all. Equally hard to explain is her naive idea that all that prevents the triumph of radical feminism is bad marketing: "Let's start over. Let's have T-shirts and bumper stickers and postcards and hip-hop music, television and radio commercials, ads everywhere and billboards, and all manner of printed material that tells the world that feminism is a movement to end sexist oppression." 2. HOOKS' FASCINATION WITH POP CULTURE WEAKENS HER CRITIQUE Catharine R. Kelly, staff writer, For bell, love goes the way of BMW's, Buppiedom and Big Houses, MICHIGAN CITIZEN, 3/14/98, p. B1. Bell Hooks and her BMW have disappointed me for the last time. Posing as a "feminist author" Bell Hooks' interview with Jada Pinkett in the March issue of Essence magazine falls short of her used-to-be scathing critiques of dominant culture. I was initially excited by the cover story - Bell Hooks interviewing Jada Pinkett for Essence - a potentially informing, empowering article for Black women. I was surprised by what I read. Hook's interview actually reinforces white-male-dominated patriarchal ideas she built her career fighting. Like Jada, I read Hooks' first book as a young women in college. I was impressed with her passion in telling the historical oppression of Black women in America. Her follow-up works equally impressed me. However, in recent year Hooks' work seems to have gone the direction of pop culture rather than a critique of dominant culture. In the past hooks has defended this move by arguing she should be allowed to "grow" and should not be pigeonholed. Yes, Black people and especially artists are often pigeonholed, yet at one point, Hooks was an important player in developing Black feminist theory. She began Ain't I a Woman in college. Maybe, like the older civil rights generation, she has gone mainstream - her passion lost, lulled into a more "comfortable" and "middle class" existence. It is clear from her Essence interview the "rage of youth" in Ain't I a Woman is gone.

MULTIDIMENSIONALITY IS SUPERIOR TO INTERSECTIONALITY 1. OPPOSITIONAL STRUCTURES OF RACE AND SEX BECOME BARRIERS TO COALITIONS Lennard Hutchinson, Assistant Professor, Southern Methodist University School of Law. B.A., University of Pennsylvania; J.D., Yale Law School, Symposium Article: Identity Crisis: Intersectionality, Multidimensionality, and the Development of an Adequate Theory of Subordination. MICHIGAN JOURNAL OF RACE & LAW, Spring 2001, p. 288-290. The HRC endorsement controversy reflects broader, structural problems in antisubordination theory: the embrace of essentialist politics, the positioning of progressive movements as oppositional and conflicting forces, rather than as potential alliances and coalitions, and the failure to recognize the multidimensional and complex nature of subordination. While essentialism remains a prominent feature of progressive social movements, critical scholars have offered persuasive arguments against traditional, single-issue politics and have proposed reforms in a variety of doctrinal and policy contexts. The feminist of color critiques of feminism and antiracism provided the earliest framework for analyzing oppression in complex terms. Feminists of color and other critical scholars have examined racism and patriarchy as "intersecting" phenomena, rather than as separate and mutually exclusive systems of domination. Their work on the intersectionality of subordination has encouraged some judges and progressive scholars to discard the "separate spheres" analysis of race and gender. The powerful intersectionality model has also inspired many other avenues of critical engagement. Lesbian-feminist theorists, for example, have challenged the patriarchy and heterosexism of law and sexuality and feminist theorists, respectively, and, recently, a growing intellectual movement has emerged that responds to racism within gay and lesbian circles and heterosexism within antiracist activism. These "postintersectionality" scholars are collectively pushing jurists and progressive theorists to examine forms of subordination as interrelated, rather than conflicting, phenomena. 2. MULTIDIMENSIONALITY ALLOWS THE EXAMINATION OF MULTIPLE INTERSECTIONS Lennard Hutchinson, Assistant Professor, Southern Methodist University School of Law. B.A., University of Pennsylvania; J.D., Yale Law School, Symposium Article: Identity Crisis: Intersectionality, Multidimensionality, and the Development of an Adequate Theory of Subordination. MICHIGAN JOURNAL OF RACE & LAW, Spring 2001, p. 309-310. The intersectionality scholarship has inspired helpful analyses in areas outside of the contexts of feminism and antiracism. Lesbian feminists, gays and lesbians of color, and other scholars have utilized the intersectional model in order to counter essentialism in feminism, law and sexuality, critical race theory, and poverty studies. These scholars, like the intersectionality theorists, have also examined the experiences of persons who suffer from intersecting forms of marginalization and have proposed policies to address the reality of complex subordination. Although heavily influenced by intersectional analysis, the "post-intersectionality" theorists have offered several improvements to the intersectionality model. In particular, race-sexuality critics, whose work examines the relationships among racism, patriarchy, class domination, and heterosexism, are currently developing a sizeable body of scholarship that extends intersectionality theory into new substantive and conceptual terrains. In a series of articles, I have examined the relationships among racism, heterosexism, patriarchy, and class oppression utilizing a model I refer to as "multidimensionality." Multidimensionality "recognizes the inherent complexity of systems of oppression ... and the social identity categories around which social power and disempowerment are distributed." Multidimensionality posits that the various forms of identity and oppression are "inextricably and forever intertwined" and that essentialist equality theories "invariably reflect the experiences of class-and race-privileged" individuals. Multidimensionality, therefore, arises out of and is informed by intersectionality theory.
PETER SINGER
Peter Singer was born in Melbourne, Australia on July 6, 1946. At age 30, he began his teaching career and has been teaching and writing since. In 1998, he was given a professorship at Princeton University amid much controversy. His writings include discussion of issues like animal rights, what makes an individual or creature a person, and democracy. Peter Singers educational experiences include a BA with honors from the University of Melbourne in 1967, an MA from the University of Melbourne in 1969, and a BA in philosophy from the University of Oxford in 1971. He has lectured at Radcliff, New York University, La Trobe University, Monash University, and Princeton University (where he currently is a professor). While at Monash University, Singer was a professor at the Center for Human Bioethics, the Director of the Center for Human Bioethics, and co-director of the Institute for Ethics and Public Policy. He was awarded a fellowship by the Academy of Humanities and the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia. He was a senior scholar in the Fullbright Program, and was awarded the National Book Council of Australia Banjo Award for non-fiction in 1995. His works include DEMOCRACY AND DISOBEDIENCE in 1973, ANIMAL LIBERATION: A NEW ETHICS FOR OUR TREATMENT OF ANIMALS in 1975, ANIMAL RIGHTS AND HUMAN OBLIGATIONS: AN ANTHOLOGY in 1976, PRACTICAL ETHICS in 1979, MARX in 1980, ANIMAL FACTORIES (co-author with James Mason) in 1980, HEGEL in 1982, TEST-TUBE BABIES: A GUIDE TO MORAL QUESTIONS, PRESENT TECHNIQUES, AND FUTURE POSSIBILITIES in 1982, THE REPRODUCTION REVOLUTION: NEW WAYS OF MAKING BABIES (co-author with Deane Wells) in 1984, SHOULD THE BABY LIVE? THE PROBLEM OF HANDICAPPED INFANTS (co-author with Helga Kuhse) in 1985, IN DEFENCE OF ANIMALS in 1985, ETHICAL AND LEGAL ISSUES IN GUARDIANSHIP OPTIONS FOR INTELLECTUALLY DISADVANTAGED PEOPLE (co-author with Terry Carney) in 1986, EMBRYO EXPERIMENTATION in 1990, A COMPANION TO ETHICS in 1991, HOW ARE WE TO LIVE? ETHICS IN AN AGE OF SELF-INTEREST in 1995, INDIVIDUALS, HUMANS AND PERSONS: QUESTIONS OF LIFE AND DEATH (Co-author with Helga Kuhse) in 1994, RETHINKING LIFE AND DEATH: THE COLLAPSE OF OUR TRADITIONAL ETHICS in 1994, and ETHICS INTO ACTION: HENRY SPIRA AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT in 1998. His works have appeared in nineteen languages. He is the author of the major article on ethics in the current edition of the ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA. 1 When he was hired at Princeton University, the decision was met with much enthusiasm and controversy. As the President of the University noted, But some of the controversy arises from the fact that he works on difficult and provocative topics and in many cases challenges long-established ways of thinking -- or ways of avoiding thinking -- about them. Even careful readers of his works will disagree, sometimes quite vehemently, with what he has to say or will reject some of the premises upon which he bases his arguments. 2 SINGER AND HISTORICAL OPPRESSION Singer uses a comparison of speciesism to the historical concepts of racism and sexism. He believes that society has become far too complacent, and thinks that they have gotten rid of the last form of discrimination. Now, instead of classifying those of other races or women as less deserving of rights, we classify members of other species as undeserving. Singer understands that extending rights to animals seems a bit far-fetched. He also reminds us that for a long period of time, liberation movements for minorities and women seemed far-fetched; but that society has since realized its mistake. When Mary Wollstonecraft published her VINDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN in 1792, it was widely criticized as absurd. 3 The barrier that causes society to not extend rights to animals is their view that these species are fundamentally different. But Singer explains that equality can be extended with attention paid to detail, and again turns to the womens rights movement as an example. He explains that conceding the differences in beings does not mean they are unworthy of equality. Instead, they merely need different considerations. For example, a woman can claim that she has a right to an abortion; whereas a man cannot physically require an abortion and so does not have this right. Women were given the

right to vote because they are capable of rational decision making just like men are. Dogs, however, do not have that same capability and should not be allowed the right to vote. 4 Singer concedes that there exist important differences between animals and people, but that does not mean that the basic principle of extending equality to non-human animals is invalid. THE DEFINITION OF EQUALITY Before we can explore the ways in which Singer believes equality should be extended, we must first have a clear understanding of how he defines equality. In his All Animals are Equal, Singer offers the following definition: The basic principle of equality, I shall argue, is equality of consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights. 5 This helps to further clarify the notion that equality does not mean an extension of the exact same rights. Fundamentally, Singers notion of equality is that it is a moral ideal, and not merely an assertion of fact. A difference in ability documented in fact does not justify any difference in the consideration we give them. Equality, according to Singer, is not descriptive of they way beings are; rather, it is a prescription of the way beings should be treated. 6 This consideration is based on two things. The first is the ability of a being to suffer, and the second is if they have interests. If a creature cannot suffer, then they cannot have interests. But if a creature can suffer, and a decision can cause that suffering; their interests must be given equal consideration to human interests or any other animals interest. CRITERIA FOR EXTENSION OF EQUALITY Critics of Peter Singer often offer criteria that attempts to include all of humanity and exclude non-human animals. The proposed criterion are ways to determine who is worth of having equality extended to them. Singer, however, points out that all of the proposed criterion exclude some of humanity while including some non-human animals. Singers ideas here begin with the notion that not all human beings are the same. Singer notes that, Humans come in different in different shapes and sizes; they come with differing moral capacities, differing intellectual abilities, differing amounts of benevolent feeling and sensitivity to the needs of others, differing abilities to communicate effectively, and differing capacities to experience pleasure and pain. 7 These differences make it nearly impossible to create a criteria that encompasses all of humanity. Furthermore, factual equality comes with no guarantee that the abilities and capacities that humans have are distributed evenly throughout the population. Because the notion of basing equality on a fact; like intelligence, moral capacity, strength, or other matters; creates divisions between humanity, a new criteria becomes necessary. The criteria agreed upon by Singer, as noted above, is sentience. That is, the determining factor is the capacity to suffer or experience happiness. Others have proposed differing criterion that Singer responds to. The first idea that Singer deconstructs is the notion that equal consideration should hold until there is a clash between the interests of humans and nonhuman animals. After noting the similarity this principle holds with the racist and sexist policies of the past, Singer explains that if fails since our interests are constructed to always be in conflict with other species. We eat them, wear them, and use them to do our labor. Perhaps the conflict of interests is not real. Singer notes how much money and resources it requires to raise animals for food, and explains how it is not necessary for a healthy diet. But because we believe our interests are always in conflict, we will never give equal consideration. Thus, a criteria based on equality only in certain circumstances fails. Another proposed criterion to decide upon the extension of equality is intelligence or the capability to reason. Singer is quick to explain the problem with this criterion: it necessarily excludes humans who are infants and those who have mental defects. He poses the hypothetical situation of an experiment that needs testing. His critics often ask, if harming one animal in tests could save thousands, would that be ok? Singer responds with another hypothetical situation: would the experimenter be prepared to conduct the study using a human infant? If he is not, then it is simple discrimination. 8 There are a few other arguments that Singer answers. His critics claim that the reason why infants should be included in the criteria of intelligence and reasoning is because they have the potential to develop those things. This would mean that individuals with mental defects still would not be included. It would also mean that

sperm and eggs would also have to garner equal treatment as a full-grown being. Again, critics of Singer argue that those with mental defects should still be extended equality; but cannot articulate why their criteria of intelligence and reasoning apply. The final argument Singer addresses is that humans have an intrinsic dignity. Singer notes that this is couched in many elegant phrasings, such as the intrinsic dignity of the human individual, or that humans are ends in themselves.9 This dates back to the ideals of the Renaissance and humanists, and runs through Judeo-Christian doctrines. Singer maintains that this idea only holds up when it goes unquestioned and assumed. After all, fellow humans are not eager to disagree with the view that they are members of the highest order. Once we ask the question as to why all humans have this worth we are only taken back to the previous issue. It leaves us searching for the characteristic that all humans possess and other animals dont that would qualify them for intrinsic dignity. Those who advocate this position, therefore, find themselves in a precarious situation without the ability to distinguish a defining characteristic. INTERPRETATIONS OF SINGERS CRITERIA While Singer does frequently make reference to the fact that most proposed criterion would include some animals but exclude infants and those with mental defects; interpretations of these references is varied and controversial. Critics of Singer say that his criteria for declaring someone a person are rationality and self awareness over time.10 This leads many beings to not get classified as persons, and therefore be seen as unworthy of equality. This would include brain-damaged people, those with significant mental retardation, those with some forms of psychosis, human embryos, human fetuses, chickens, and fish. However, many animals, like dogs and bears, would be considered persons. Here Singer enters territory that offends many and has helped to create a feeling of hatred towards him. In PRACTICAL ETHICS, Singer writes, "When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of the happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if the killing of the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others it would . . . be right to kill him." 11 While many people disagree with Singers position, few are able to articulate a standard that includes all types of humanity and excludes all non-human animals. SINGER AND BIOCENTRISM Holmes Rolston III and some green philosophers argue that Singers position is detrimental to biocentrism, and more specifically, to plants. Rolston concedes that our views regarding ethics prior to Singer were too humanist, too focused on people. He also explains, however, that Singer has proven himself blind to the still larger effort in environmental ethics to value life at all its ranges and levels, indeed to care for a biospheric Earth.12 The implications of this view outlined by Rolston are those of an anthropocentric society. Singer argues that you would conduct environmental policy with regards to the interest of those who are granted the status of person. Since those persons depend on the environment, policy decisions would be made to protect the environment in the interest of persons. However, an environmental ethic that is based on human needs does not often differ in policy recommendations from an environmental ethic based on the biosphere as its center. Singer questions this criticism by pondering how we assign value if not based on sentience. Rolston says value comes from having a respect for life. He supports his idea with the thoughts of Paul Taylor, who details that every living organism has a will to live; and that even plants are pursuing their own good. Singer dismantles this position by noting that a plant doesnt have a choice as to whether or not it grows toward the light for its own interest, rather it is just what the plant does and cannot be anything else. Singer goes on to add that by the logic of those who advocate looking to plants interests; the good of a missile is to blow up and should be considered, and a river is seeking its own good to reach the sea. 13

THE GOOD OF THE ANIMAL Some have argued (and attempted to use Singers utilitarian framework to do so) that raising animals to eat is not causing them to suffer. This position is initially weakened by the fact that it ignores the entire premise that killing animals in any way could be simply wrong. However, engaging the argument still yields some debate. From a utilitarian perspective, in order for an action against an animal to be wrong, it must cause suffering; that is, whether is causes more benefit than harm. The question then becomes, does raising animals for food cause more benefit than harm? R.M. Hare takes the position that it is not. He says, For it is better for an animal to live a happy life, even if it is a short one, than no life at all. 14 Singer answers this claim on several levels. First, he notes that mere existence is not in itself a benefit. The creature would be allowed to live without human interference, so breeding a new existence is not some sort of net gain for the animal. Second, even if the benefit that this existence creates is good, the absence of a benefit is not harm. We cannot compare what an animal would have in nature to what they would have in a farm. Most importantly, however, Singer notes that the way animal production works within the system does not take into account animal suffering. The confinement that these animals endure, the disease and filthy living conditions, the painful ways in which they are killed; all suggest a lack of concern for the animals. Singer argues that allowing death is as bad as causing death. If humans simply took advantage of the fact that animals died, it would still not justify the use of the creatures as a means to an end. The implications of the distinction between causing a death and allowing a death carry over from the realm of non-human animals into the world of humanity as well. Here, Singer discusses the ideas of our responsibility in world famine. Singer claims that proximity, or the distance between an individual and a famine, is no justification for a lack of action. Complacently allowing death to happen is just as morally and ethically wrong as dong the killing yourself. PRACTICAL ETHICS The philosophy of Singer is based on the idea of practical ethics. He first alludes to the notion that philosophy and ethics should entail action in the introduction to a book that developed from his thesis project at Oxford. In Democracy and Disobedience, Singer explains how philosophy should be accessible to everyone by noting, As the subject of this book is one that concerns not only those studying or teaching political philosophy in universities but also any citizens, especially citizens of a democracy, who find themselves faced with a law they oppose, I have tried to write throughout to write in a way that can easily be understood by those who have never studied philosophy. 15 Singers view of accessibility extends to the way people use philosophy. Practical ethics have three primary characteristics. The first is that it is revisionary; that is, its purpose is to not merely explain the world and the way it works, but to change it. The second is that in Singers work, facts matter. An understanding of the way things are is necessary to determine the way things should be, the way we should strive to make things. A third is that there is an assumption that individual action can make a difference. This is why Singer discusses action as well as right and wrong, why he tries to make his work easy to read and applicable to individuals. 16 Singer feels that a discussion of an argument, an understanding of a position, is irrelevant and uninteresting unless it calls for an action in a way that individuals can have power. This perception that philosophy is not just for the academically inclined and is not to be merely kept in books and the classroom helps to distinguish Singer from not only his contemporaries but philosophers throughout history. Many philosophers and their positions seem to invite action, but few have gone so far as Singer in making it a primary goal explicitly explained to his readers and audiences. SINGER IN DEBATE Singers framework is particularly useful for calling into question the underlying assumptions of your opponent. Any advocacy of valuing progress, growth, humanity, etc. will most likely rest on the assumption that humans are inherently more valuable than non-human animals. Unless your opponent can identify why that belief is justified, a counter-advocacy of a value that encompasses all those considered persons would be more beneficial.

Singers advocacy also has implications to any topics that particularly deal with science, medicine, and academics. These lines of study all rely heavily on the superiority of humanity, and use animals to further human aims. Counter values that rely on inclusive values of animals and all life are much more preferable. Singer also offers a critique of modern philosophy that can be applied in many ways. It calls for a justification of the superiority of human beings that does not rely on rhetoric such as, intrinsic worth of humanity. It also calls for a questioning of the basic assumptions of the age. It is the significant problem of equality, in moral and political philosophy, is invariably formulated in terms of human equality. The effect of this is that the question of the equality of other animals does not confront the philosopher, or student, as an issue itself- and this is already an indication of the failure of philosophy to challenge accepted beliefs. 17 A critical discussion of what makes beings equal must escape the normalcy of an assumption that humans are and animals arent.
__________________________________________________________________________________
1 http://www.princeton.edu/~uchv/index.html 2 Princeton Weekly Bulletin. December 7, 1998 3 Peter Singer. All Animals are Equal. 4 Peter Singer. All Animals are Equal. 5 Peter Singer. All Animals are Equal. 6 Peter Singer. All Animals are Equal. 7 Peter Singer. All Animals are Equal. 8 Peter Singer. All Animals are Equal. 9 Peter Singer. All Animals are Equal. 10 Smith, Wesley J. Peter Singer Gets a Chair. http://www.frontpagemag.com/ 11 Smith, Wesley J. Peter Singer Gets a Chair. http://www.frontpagemag.com/ 12 Holmes Rolston. Respect for Life: Counting what Singer Finds of no Account. 1999. 13 Holmes Rolston. Respect for Life: Counting what Singer Finds of no Account. 1999. 14 R.M. Hare. Essays on Bioethics. 1993. 15 Peter Singer. Democracy and Disobedience. 1973. 16 Dale Jamieson. Singer and the Practical Ethics Movement. 1993. 17 Peter Singer. All Animals are Equal

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ball, Terrence and Richard Dagger. IDEALS AND IDEOLOGIES, (New York: Longman, 2002). Hare, R.M. ESSAYS ON BIOETHICS, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993). Jamieson, Dale. SINGER AND HIS CRITICS, (Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 1999). Pojman, Louis J., ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS: READINGS IN THEORY AND APPLICATION, (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1997). Singer, Peter. ANIMAL LIBERATION: A NEW ETHICS FOR OUR TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, (New York: Review/Random House, 1975). Singer, Peter. DEMOCRACY AND DISOBEDIENCE, (Oxford: Claredon Press, 1973). Singer, Peter. ETHICS, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994). Singer, Peter. ETHICS INTO ACTION: HENRY SPIRA AND THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT, (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1998). Singer, Peter. PRACTICAL ETHICS, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

SPECIESISM IS THE NEW RACISM 1. REALIZATION OF THE FAULT OF RACISM IS LIKE REALIZING THE FAULT OF SPECIESISM Jeremy Bentham, Philosopher and Jurist, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, 1789, ch. XVII. The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been witholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without a redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty or discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? 2. SPECIESISM ATTEMPTS TO LOWER GROUPS JUST AS RACISM DID Colin, McGinn, Professor of Philosophy at Rutgers University, SINGER AND HIS CRITICS, 1999, p. 152153. The point is that we should not think of animal pain as intrinsically ownerless. Animal minds are not just bundles of subjectless sensations gathered around a single body. If we conceive of animal pain in this subjectless way, thus refusing to grant genuine selfhood to animals, then we will not see why it is morally significant, since pain matters only because it is pain for someone. Putatively ownerless pain sensations have no moral weight, since the alleged pain is not painful to a subject of awareness. In other words, animals need to be granted selves if their sensations are to matter morally. This may seem like a major provision, and one that threatens to exclude animal experience from the moral realm; but in fact it is simply a point about the very concept of experience....An experience always comes with an owner built into it. It is not that you bundle some inherently ownerless experiences together and get a self, as Hume was (partially) inclined to suppose; rather, to speak of experiences at all is already to assume bearers for them- subjects of experience. (This is so whether or not the experiences are conceived to be embodied in an organism.) So, since animals have experiences, they necessarily have selves- by Freges point. Thus it is wrong to cause them pain, because this will necessarily be pain for a subject of consciousness. 3. TOO MUCH FOCUS ON RATIONALITY DESTROYS DIVERSITY AS AN IDEAL Robert C. Solomon, Quincy Lee Centennial and Distinguished Teaching Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas, Austin, SINGER AND HIS CRITICS, 1999, p.69. The danger is that reason, instead of building on our natural impulses, may instead undermine them. If the basis of ethics is personal feeling for those we care about, there is the very real danger that, in over-enlarging the circle to include everyone and everything or in turning from the personal to the impersonality of reason , we will lose precisely that dimension of the personal that produces ethics in the first place. But I want to be equally cautious about premature enthusiasm for those universal feelings of love, called agape, which have been defended by some of the great (and not-so-great) religious thinkers of the world. There is the very familiar danger that such feelings, however noble their object or intent, will degenerate into a diffuse and ultimately pointless sentimentality, or worse, that form of hypocrisy that 9as has often been said of such lovers of humanity as Rousseau and Marx) adores the species but deplores almost every individual of it. The natural sensibility that is at issue here is nothing so lofty as love or even universal care, but rather a kind of kinship or fellow-feeling, which may well produce much caring and many kindnesses but will also provoke rivalry and competition. The basic biological sense we seek, in other words, is not so much a particular attitude or emotion as it is a sense of belonging, the social sense as such.

REJECTING THE CRITERIA OF RATIONALITY IS BENEFICIAL 1. EUTHENASIA ALLOWS GREATER HAPPINESS FOR ALL Jeff Sharlet, WHY ARE WE AFRAID OF PETER SINGER?, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 10 March 2000. Critics often accuse Mr. Singer of being cold-hearted, a man who measures happiness in numbers and considers love a replaceable resource. But to him the symbol of the "tragic farce" brought on by an inhumane adherence to the sanctity-of-life principle is "Rudy Linares, a twenty-three-year-old Chicago housepainter, standing in a hospital ward, keeping nurses at bay with a gun while he disconnects the respirator that for eight months has kept his comatose infant son Samuel alive. When Samuel is free of the respirator at last, Linares cradles him in his arms until, half an hour later, the child dies. Then Linares puts down the gun and, weeping, gives himself up." That was April 26, 1989. Cook County charged Mr. Linares with first-degree murder, but the criminal case was over by May, when a grand jury refused to indict him. 2. FOCUSING ON RATIONALITY DESTROYS INTUITION AND DEVALUES IT Robert C. Solomon, Quincy Lee Centennial and Distinguished Teaching Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas, Austin, SINGER AND HIS CRITICS, 1999, p.73. It is not necessarily thinking or negotiating that are essential here. Successful traders and businessmen often claim (truthfully) that they dont think about what they are doing. They just know what to do. So, too, animals display a remarkable array of strategic behaviors- mother birds pretending to have broken wings to lead predators away from the nest, monkeys fooling one another by uttering a misleading cry to distract the others- without any need on our part to postulate Pentagon-like tactical mentality behind their behavior. In such cases, even Darwin himself seems to have erred in giving too much credit here to the role of reason and not enough to heredity, but to attribute strategic skill to heredity is not to relegate it to merely automatic behavior. Good game players usually describe their own skill in non-intellectual terms. A good billiards or pool player simply sees the shot, she doesnt calculate it. A good poker player doesnt sit skimming a mathematical odds book on the one hand and a psychology of facial expressions text on the other. Of course, one must (to some extent) acquire such skills but it doesnt follow that such skills are not also (or may not alternatively be) genetically engineered or that the general capacity for strategic behavior- the tit-for-tat attitude as such- must not be so engineered. 3. SINGER MAKES STRONG ARGUMENTS, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE COUNTER-INTUITIVE Michael Specter, writer, The New Yorker, THE DANGEROUS PHILOSOPHER, September 6, 1999, p. np. When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him. Few people will ever consider infants replaceable in the way that they consider free-range chickens replaceable, and Singer knows that. Yet many of those who would never act on his conclusions still agree that if an infant really had no hope of happiness, death would be more merciful than a life governed by misery.

RATIONALITY IS BEST STANDARD 1. RATIONALITY IS THE HUMAN NORM AND ALLOWS FOR EXCEPTIONS Stanley Benn, Senior Fellow in Philosophy at the Research School of Social Sciences in Australia, NOMOS IX: EQUALITY, 1967, p. 62ff. We respect the interests of men and give them priority over dogs not insofar as they are rational, but because rationality is the human norm. We say it is unfair to exploit the deficiencies of the imbecile who falls short of the norm, just as it would be unfair, and not just ordinarily dishonest, to steal from a blind man. If we do not think in this way about dogs, it is because we do not see the irrationality of the dog as a deficiency or a handicap, but as normal for the species. The characteristics, therefore, that distinguish the normal man from the normal dog make it intelligible for us to talk of other man having interests and capacities, and therefore claims, of precisely the same kind as we make on our own behalf. But although these characteristics may provide the point of the distinction between men and other species, they are not in fact the qualifying conditions for membership, or the distinguishing criteria of the class of morally considerable persons; and this is precisely because a man does not become a member of a different species, with its own standards of normality, by reason of not possessing these characteristics. 2. RATIONALITY DISTINGUISHES SPECIES AND IS ACCEPTED STANDARD Stanley Benn, Senior Fellow in Philosophy at the Research School of Social Sciences in Australia, NOMOS IX: EQUALITY, 1967, p. 62ff. Not to possess human shape is a disqualifying condition. However faithful or intelligent a dog maybe, it would be a monstrous sentimentality to attribute to him interests that could be weighed in an equal balance with those of human beings...if, for instance, one had to decide between feeding a hungry baby or a hungy dog, anyone who chose the dog would generally be reckoned morally defective, unable to recognize a fundamental inequality of claims. This is what distinguishes our attitude to animals from our attitude to imbeciles. It would be odd to say that we ought to respect equally the dignity or personality of the imbecile and of the rational man...but there is nothing odd about saying that we should respect their interests equally, that is, that we should give to the interests of each the same serious consideration as claims to considerations necessary for some standard of well-being that we can recognize and endorse. 3. RATIONALITY DEFINES A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HUMANITY AND ANIMALS Robert C. Solomon, Quincy Lee Centennial and Distinguished Teaching Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas, Austin, SINGER AND HIS CRITICS, 1999, p. 69. As intelligent and sensitive human beings, we can acknowledge the harshness of the world, and yet not accept it at all. We are not merely at the top of the food chain. We are, in an important sense, above the food chain. We, as opposed to all the other creatures in nature, are rational. We have what is uncritically called free will. We are able to reflect and choose our food, our habits, our breeding patterns. As for the saccharine quality of those Christmas greetings and that biblical fantasy, we can understand that, too, as an expression of a certain sentimentality as well as a Christian allegory. Our strange compassion for other species is a natural projection of our more immediate concerns but something learned and cultivated, part of culture rather than nature, the result of so many cuddly teddy bears and puppies when we were children, ad aggressive campaigns on the behalf of sensitivity when we become adults. But compassion, too, involves a certain distance. It too, one could argue, is not opposed to but a consequence of reason.

THE INCLUSION OF ANIMALS AS WORTHY OF EQUALITY IS BAD 1. GRANTING ANIMALS EQUALITY HARMS POLITICALLY DISADVANTAGED PEOPLE Lori Gruen, Professor of Philosophy at Stanford University, SINGER AND HIS CRITICS, 1999, p. 134-135. As Singer discusses the principle, it prohibits granting any weight to particular features of a situation...According to Singer, that some people have a different skin color, are from a different country, are of a different gender, or have different abilities than the person engaging in moral deliberation are not considerations that in themselves justify differential treatment. In most cases, such differences do not provide a rational basis for differences in our ethical considerations or treatment. For example, a theory which justifies the distribution of goods under which men receive greater benefits and thus have more of their preferences satisfied than women do, simply because they are men, is a theory that violates the principle of equal consideration of interests. According to this principle, all that is considered in deciding the morally correct course of action is the strength of the interests or preferences and the degree to which the interests and preferences of those affected will be thwarted or advanced....Just as Singers substantive impartiality condemns granting additional consideration to the interests or preferences of ones racial or ethic group, so does it condemn granting additional consideration to the interests or preferences of humans over non-humans, simply because they are humans. 2. AN EMPHASIS ON REASON BY SINGER DESTROYS THE NATURE OF COMPASSION Robert C. Solomon, Quincy Lee Centennial and Distinguished Teaching Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas, Austin, SINGER AND HIS CRITICS, 1999, p. 75. My argument, in a sentence, is that Singer, in his emphasis on reason (and consequently, on the role of normative ethical theory) underestimates the power of compassion. An adequate sense of ethics requires not only reason but concern and curiosity, a need to know about the state of the world and plight of people outside of ones own limited domain. Reason, according to Singer, adds universal principles to the promptings of our biologically inherited feelings. The danger, however, is that reason will also leave those feelings behind, as evidenced by any number of philosophers who simply talk a good game. Thus, I want to argue that what allows the circle to expand is not reason (in the technical sense of calculation on the basis of abstract principles) but rather knowledge and understanding in the sense of coming to appreciate the situations and the circumstances in which other people and creatures find themselves. This requires what many theorists now call empathy or feeling with (which Hume and Adam Smith call sympathy and which might more accurately be called fellow-feeling), and it requires care and concern, the emotional sense that what happens to other matters. 3. WE HAVE NO NEED TO GO FURTHER; WE ALREADY GIVE CONSIDERATION TO ANIMALS Bob Corbett, Professor at Webster University, COMMENTS ON PETER SINGER'S ANALYSIS THAT LEADS TO SPECIESISM, 1999, p. np. Let me begin with the easiest one, my number three. Singer rightly points out that most of us are living examples of speciesism in the same sense that radical Ku Klux Klan's people are racist. However, on the other hand, most of us are familiar with anti-speciesist sentiments. Suppose one were all the things Singer attacks: a meat eater, unconcerned with the processes of producing meat for the table, a zoo goer, a pet owner and so on. Nonetheless, one might have an experience that is contrary to this position, and most people seem to. Suppose one were drinking a large glass of milk and had drunk one's fill. At the same time one noticed a small kitten, seemingly hungry and crying. Many people would be enough moved by the "interests" of the kitten to look for some container to pour the remaining milk into so the kitten might drink it. We would not be absolutely immune to the "interests" of the kitten, even though our lives as a whole might suggest we were speciesists of the worst sort. The point here is that many of us have some intuitions toward the interests of animals. They may not be dominant, and they might not be sentiments of equality, and they many not compete well with contrary interests toward humans. At the same time, we still often have some positive sentiments and intuitions toward the interests of animals. The notion that Singer will develop in ways that may well be strange and new to us, are not 100% novel. If we have a hard time grasping his view, perhaps returning to some of those personal sentiments or intuitions might be a good place to go.

Philosopher and Value Handbook

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Philosopher and Value Handbook

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

West Coast Philosopher and Value Handbook, Volume 9 Page 1

WEST COAST DEBATE

Visit West Coast Publishing at: www.wcdebate.com

West Coast Philosopher and Value Handbook, Volume 9 Page 2

WEST COAST DEBATE

Visit our web page!

Visit West Coast Publishing at: www.wcdebate.com

West Coast Philosopher and Value Handbook, Volume 9 Page 3

Visit West Coast Publishing at: www.wcdebate.com

West Coast Philosopher and Value Handbook, Volume 9 Page 4

Visit West Coast Publishing at: www.wcdebate.com

West Coast Philosopher and Value Handbook, Volume 9 Page 5

Visit West Coast Publishing at: www.wcdebate.com

West Coast Philosopher and Value Handbook, Volume 9 Page 6

Visit West Coast Publishing at: www.wcdebate.com

West Coast Philosopher and Value Handbook, Volume 9 Page 7

Visit West Coast Publishing at: www.wcdebate.com

West Coast Philosopher and Value Handbook, Volume 9 Page 8

Visit West Coast Publishing at: www.wcdebate.com

West Coast Philosopher and Value Handbook, Volume 9 Page 9

Visit West Coast Publishing at: www.wcdebate.com

West Coast Philosopher and Value Handbook, Volume 9 Page 10

Visit West Coast Publishing at: www.wcdebate.com

West Coast Philosopher and Value Handbook, Volume 9 Page 11

Visit West Coast Publishing at: www.wcdebate.com

West Coast Philosopher and Value Handbook, Volume 9 Page 12

Visit West Coast Publishing at: www.wcdebate.com

West Coast Philosopher and Value Handbook, Volume 9 Page 13

Visit West Coast Publishing at: www.wcdebate.com

West Coast Philosopher and Value Handbook, Volume 9 Page 14

Visit West Coast Publishing at: www.wcdebate.com

West Coast Philosopher and Value Handbook, Volume 9 Page 15

Visit West Coast Publishing at: www.wcdebate.com

West Coast Philosopher and Value Handbook, Volume 9 Page 16

Visit West Coast Publishing at: www.wcdebate.com

West Coast Philosopher and Value Handbook, Volume 9 Page 17

Visit West Coast Publishing at: www.wcdebate.com

West Coast Philosopher and Value Handbook, Volume 9 Page 18

Visit West Coast Publishing at: www.wcdebate.com

West Coast Philosopher and Value Handbook, Volume 9 Page 19

Visit West Coast Publishing at: www.wcdebate.com

West Coast Philosopher and Value Handbook, Volume 9 Page 20

Visit West Coast Publishing at: www.wcdebate.com

West Coast Philosopher and Value Handbook, Volume 9 Page 21

Visit West Coast Publishing at: www.wcdebate.com

West Coast Philosopher and Value Handbook, Volume 9 Page 22

Visit West Coast Publishing at: www.wcdebate.com

West Coast Philosopher and Value Handbook, Volume 9 Page 23

Visit West Coast Publishing at: www.wcdebate.com

West Coast Philosopher and Value Handbook, Volume 9 Page 24

Visit West Coast Publishing at: www.wcdebate.com

West Coast Philosopher and Value Handbook, Volume 9 Page 25

Visit West Coast Publishing at: www.wcdebate.com

West Coast Philosopher and Value Handbook, Volume 9 Page 26

Visit West Coast Publishing at: www.wcdebate.com

West Coast Philosopher and Value Handbook, Volume 9 Page 27

Visit West Coast Publishing at: www.wcdebate.com

West Coast Philosopher and Value Handbook, Volume 9 Page 28

Visit West Coast Publishing at: www.wcdebate.com

West Coast Philosopher and Value Handbook, Volume 9 Page 29

Visit West Coast Publishing at: www.wcdebate.com

West Coast Philosopher and Value Handbook, Volume 9 Page 30

Visit West Coast Publishing at: www.wcdebate.com