Michael Lienesch

INTERPRETING EXPERIENCE History, Philosophy, and Science in the American Constitutional Debates

Political scientists are predisposed to view the American constitution as the product of pragmatic politics. In part, this interpretation has been inspired by the founders themselves, who frequently spoke of the importance of political experience in framing the constitution. Yet the framers held a different definition of experience from our own. By “experience” they meant not only the practical participation in immediate events, but also the theoretical knowledge gained from the study of history, philosophy, and science. This article examines their changing concept of experience. Relying primarily on the debates in the federal and state ratifying conventions, it reviews the intellectual conflicts that took place between Federalists and Antifederalists concerning the roles of historical, philosophical, and scientific theories in the creation of the constitution. The contradictions that resulted within constitutional theory, and the importance of these contradictions for later politics are discussed.

Creating Constitutional Conservatism

Although “constitutional conservatism” has become commonplace among American conservatives, its meaning has proven elusive. Revisionist historians and political scientists have looked to its origins in the early twentieth century, when Republican Party elites constructed a conservative interpretation of the Constitution and put it into practice in the era of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. Yet these revisionists have told only part of the story, because constitutional conservatism was also the creation of a network of activists and groups who in the 1920s constructed a nationwide campaign to instill a conservative understanding of the Constitution in the American public. This study examines how they built their campaign, defined its purpose, framed a conservative reading of constitutional history and theory, and conveyed it to the public in a bitterly contested political process. By telling this fuller story, it provides a more complete understanding of constitutional conservatism, both in the past and today.