Philosopher and Value Handbook
Philosopher and Value Handbook
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
ORDER WEST COAST HANDBOOKS 1. E-mail us at [email protected] 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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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."
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
__________________________________________________________________________________
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