Suchergebnisse

Although few want to deny the importance of individual rights, many political theorists have recently complained that their importance has been greatly over-emphasized. The result, as they see it, is an excessive individualism that blinds people to the needs of the community or state to which they belong. We should be less concerned with our rights, in their view, and more concerned with our responsibilities. Those who advanced this view typically argue against liberalism. In Civic Virtues, a compelling addition to the distinguished Oxford Political Theory series, Richard Dagger takes a different approach. Finding the proper relationship between rights and responsibilities requires us not to choose between liberalism and republicanism, he argues, but to unite them in a republican form of liberalism.

The book provides a thematic examination of republican theory from the Renaissance, through the Enlightenment and the experiences of the early American republic to contemporary debates. It maps out a republican ideal type according to four themes - popular sovereignty, a view of history which is sensitive to systemic corruption, an insistence on civic virtue and, following Philip Pettit, a conception of liberty as non-domination. Where possible it contrasts the treatment of those themes with that of liberals and other streams of thought.

Tocqueville's claim in Democracy in America about the link between associations and a vibrant public sphere is interpreted especially by neo-republicans in political theory as aligned with their argument that civic virtue can and ought to be fostered in today's democracies. This paper challenges such a reading of Tocqueville by considering his notion of enlightened self-interest. Tocqueville's ideas about the nature of political activity differ markedly from the republican ideal of a citizenry marked by civic virtue, as Tocqueville appeals to self-interest, albeit an enlightened sort, as the primary motive for involvement. Tocqueville also suggests that the character of political behaviour he describes in contrast to civic virtue contributes to a more nuanced understanding of what motivates citizens to engage in public life in modern democracy.

John Adams's complaints notwithstanding, no one of the American Founding generation has been so consistently misunderstood as James Madison. In recent decades a small handful of scholars have made significant strides toward correcting the Madisonian record. In addition to the justly acclaimed study of Madison by Lance Banning, The Sacred Fire of Liberty, the thoughtful work of Alan Gibson stands out in this regard. In particular, Professor Gibson's efforts to parse the contemporary debate over the character of Madison's political thought constitute a distinctive and valuable contribution to the literature on Madison and the Founding.In his most recent essay, "Veneration and Vigilance: James Madison and Public Opinion, 1785–1800," Professor Gibson makes three central claims, namely, that Madison never wavered in his commitment to popular sovereignty and deserves to be considered a leading and prescient democratic theorist of the Founding, that Madison's conception of the nature and role of public opinion in the 1790s signifies a substantial revision of the earlier Humean understanding of public opinion he embraced in the 1780s, and that Madison did not seek to foster civic education in the American republic. I agree with the first of these claims, though I would make the case for Madison's democratic credentials even more emphatically than Gibson does. In general, however, Gibson and I share common ground in the recognition of the critical importance of the concept of public opinion in Madisonian theory.

Comments on an article by Alan Gibson, "Veneration and Vigilance: James Madison and Public Opinion, 1785-1800." Sheehan contends that Madison's views about public opinion were not a significant departure from the analysis of David Hume, & that Madison hoped to advance civic education in the new nation.