Philip Abbott

Still Louis Hartz after All These Years: A Defense of the Liberal Society Thesis

Louis Hartzs The Liberal Tradition in America was the dominant interpretative text in American political thought for a generation. In the late 1960s the Hartzian hegemony came under severe attack, and by the 1990s his interpretive framework had been declared obsolete. Critiques allege two basic, related flaws: (1) Hartzs interpretation ignored the diversity in American political thought, particularly, though not exclusively, on questions of race, and (2) his analysis exaggerated the extent of the consensus in American political culture. These critiques are based almost exclusively on Hartzs analysis of selected periods of early American political development. I argue that Hartzs basic concepts are powerful analytical tools that continue to provide the most compelling analysis of recent American political development. I test the Hartz thesis by constructing a plausible interpretation of the 1960s based on the concepts employed in The Liberal Tradition. Philip Abbott is Distinguished Graduate Professor at Wayne State University (aa2393@wayne.edu). His recent books include Exceptional America: Newness and National Identity (1999) and Political Thought in America: Conversations and Debates (2004). The author is grateful to Jennifer Hochschild for her encouragement and to the anonymous reviewers for Perspectives on Politics . Christopher Duncan and Max Skidmore also provided very helpful advice.

Philosophers and the abortion question.

The philosopher’s return to the public policy arena after his long battle with positivism has been understandably hesitant. The description offered by Marcuse in 1968 of a discipline obsessed with poking at tiny scraps of the world is judged no longer accurate. “The death of ethical and political argument over important public questions was only temporary.”l It is difficult to think of a major policy or ethical dispute in American politics that has not been subjected to the scrutiny of philosphical analysis-capital punishment, affirmative action, income distribution, civil disobedience, conscientious objection, IQ measurement, vivisection, sexism, pacifism, racism among them. There will be no attempt here to evaluate the general philosophical effort to clarifying public policy in general. We will focus on one issue which has received a great deal of attention-abortion-and suggest that it raises serious doubts concerning the viability of philosophy’s recent excursion into public policy. The contribution that political theory might provide to this question will also be explored. Five essays provide the basis for our analysis. Judith Thomson’s discussion of the

The Social Construction of a Legitimate Presidency

A recognized strength of modern constitutional democracies is their ability to insure legitimate political succession through the use of elections. For a review of the contribution of democratic theory to the succession problem, see: Peter Calvert, “The Theory of Political Succession” in The Process of Political Succession, ed. Peter Calvert (London: Macmillan, 1987), 245–66. We do not challenge this assessment; rather, we suggest that the process of producing a legitimate leader is a complex social construction with numerous variations. The pathway to political legitimacy can be conceived thus as a passage through a series of “gateways” and “rituals” that, when successfully confronted, confer political authority. The public, the press, and political elites participate in the process of conferring legitimacy on the “winner.” The 2000 presidential election is a prime illustration of this process because its contested nature clarifies and highlights gateways that have been less visible in other elections. We present an analysis of the social construction of legitimacy in the post-election and early weeks of George W. Bushs presidency, including examples of strategies designed to negotiate successful passage through these rituals. Finally, we note the capacity of these rituals to produce legitimate successions even when irregular events pose a challenge to democratic theory.

The Three Families of Thomas Hobbes

The extreme rational individualism of Thomas Hobbes has been the subject of rebuttal since the publication of Leviathan in 1651. A good portion of the critiques of Hobbes have centered around his famous description of the state of nature as a condition of individualized warfare. Hobbess contemporaries based their opposition to his individualism on the historical inadequacy of the state of nature. Filmer, for instance, complained about Hobbess assumptions that men sprang from the earth as “mushrooms … without any obligation to another.”

Genre bending and utopia‐building

Why are bookstore shelves filled with mysteries, horror stories, romances, Westerns and other genre fiction? Why should one spend time reading narratives that are so similar? Why, for that matter, should one write works that are so similar to those of other authors? One philosopher, Noel Carroll, in fact, refers to the phenomenon as the ‘paradox of junk fiction’. Are there works in political theory as well that share characteristics with these genres? And is there also a paradox involved among both these readers and authors? This essay reviews both the criticisms and defenses of popular generic texts focusing on arguments that defend the complexity of genre texts and those that deny the distinction between generic works and others. Utopias are identified as counterparts in political theory and are applied to this genre debate. I conclude by revising the genre paradox.

Redeeming American exceptionalism / Redeeming American political science: An analysis of Judith N. Shklar's presidential address

Abstract In her 1990 presedential address, the late Judith N. Shklar rejects characterizations of American political theory as either Lockean or republican and attempts to “redeem” American political theory by contending that there is a “diverse” tradition that constitutes a “profound meditation upon our political insititutions.” She also argues that such a perspective will integrate American political theory and political science. Through the presentation of a brief examination of various forms of American exceptionalism and an alternate historical narrative, I argue that her analysis is incomplete and requires revision because she fails to place the concept of American exceptionalism at the center of her analysis while simultaneously employing major portions of the theory. This failure leads Shklar to replicate the historical pattern of American political theory since her redemptive project simulates those she seeks to study and raises serious questions about the redemptive capacities of American political science as well.

The "Bobby Problem": Intraparty Presidential Rivalry and Factional Challenges

Aft er he left offi ce in 1968, Lyndon Johnson recounted his diffi cult political situation to Doris Kearns Goodwin. He mentioned Vietnam, infl ation, urban unrest, and student protests, but what he claimed was most “unbearable” was something he “feared from the fi rst day” of his presidency: “Robert Kennedy had openly announced his decision to reclaim the throne in the name of his brother. And the American people, swayed by the magic of the name, were dancing in the streets.” 1 Johnson’s concerns were referred to by both his aides and by the president himself as the “Bobby problem.” One aide, in fact, contended Robert Kennedy received more attention than any other single issue in the Johnson White House. 2 Th e animosity between LBJ and RFK had major ramifications for party unity and domestic and foreign policy. The “Bobby problem” is not an isolated phenomenon. Intraparty competition that reaches this level of intensity is a recurring feature of presidential politics in America. Several other presidents have confronted similar challenges. Although the sources and characteristics of faction differ, it is possible to identify common dynamics in these confl icts as well as strategies employed by presidents to deal with factional challengers.