Harry, Lincoln, and Me

IF 0.3 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Steven R. B. Smith
{"title":"Harry, Lincoln, and Me","authors":"Steven R. B. Smith","doi":"10.1086/724493","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"to say the least. My interests had been—and to some degree still are—in the great tradition of European political philosophy, to which I condescendingly regarded the American contribution as something of an afterthought. This attitude began to change when I took Nathan Tarcov’s class on the American political founding, where we read the classic exchanges between Federalists and Anti-Federalists, as well as key documents of the revolutionary period. It was in this class where I was also introduced to Bernard Bailyn’s The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967), Gordon Wood’s The Creation of the American Republic (1969), and Edmund Morgan’s The Birth of the Republic (1977), which for the first time opened my eyes to the philosophic sources of the American Revolution in radical English Whig political theory. At around the same time, I read John Pocock’s magisterial, albeit flawed, TheMachiavellian Moment (1975), which sought to put the American founding period in the long history of republican self-government going back to Machiavelli and before him to Polybius and Aristotle. Suddenly what had previously seemed to me something of an intellectual backwater had become a key moment in the revival of the great tradition of classical republicanism. Shortly thereafter, I was privileged to study with David Greenstone—of blessed memory—in whose class we read Louis Hartz’s The Liberal Tradition in America (1955). Here I learned that it was the philosophy of John Locke that formed the philosophic core of American history and that helped to explain why America—at least in the height of the Cold War—seemed uniquely immune to the radical ideologies of both the Left and the Right that had been the legacy of European politics. This to me was a powerful insight and one that","PeriodicalId":41928,"journal":{"name":"American Political Thought","volume":"12 1","pages":"244 - 255"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Political Thought","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/724493","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

to say the least. My interests had been—and to some degree still are—in the great tradition of European political philosophy, to which I condescendingly regarded the American contribution as something of an afterthought. This attitude began to change when I took Nathan Tarcov’s class on the American political founding, where we read the classic exchanges between Federalists and Anti-Federalists, as well as key documents of the revolutionary period. It was in this class where I was also introduced to Bernard Bailyn’s The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967), Gordon Wood’s The Creation of the American Republic (1969), and Edmund Morgan’s The Birth of the Republic (1977), which for the first time opened my eyes to the philosophic sources of the American Revolution in radical English Whig political theory. At around the same time, I read John Pocock’s magisterial, albeit flawed, TheMachiavellian Moment (1975), which sought to put the American founding period in the long history of republican self-government going back to Machiavelli and before him to Polybius and Aristotle. Suddenly what had previously seemed to me something of an intellectual backwater had become a key moment in the revival of the great tradition of classical republicanism. Shortly thereafter, I was privileged to study with David Greenstone—of blessed memory—in whose class we read Louis Hartz’s The Liberal Tradition in America (1955). Here I learned that it was the philosophy of John Locke that formed the philosophic core of American history and that helped to explain why America—at least in the height of the Cold War—seemed uniquely immune to the radical ideologies of both the Left and the Right that had been the legacy of European politics. This to me was a powerful insight and one that
哈利、林肯和我
至少可以这么说。我的兴趣一直是——在某种程度上仍然是——欧洲政治哲学的伟大传统,我屈尊地把美国的贡献看作是一种事后的想法。当我上了内森·塔可夫(Nathan Tarcov)的美国政治建国课后,这种态度开始改变。在这门课上,我们阅读了联邦主义者和反联邦主义者之间的经典交流,以及革命时期的重要文件。正是在这门课上,我还被介绍到伯纳德·拜林的《美国革命的意识形态起源》(1967),戈登·伍德的《美利坚共和国的建立》(1969)和埃德蒙·摩根的《共和国的诞生》(1977),这是我第一次看到激进的英国辉格党政治理论中美国革命的哲学根源。大约在同一时间,我读了约翰·波科克(John Pocock)的权威著作《马基雅维利时刻》(the achiavellian Moment, 1975),该书虽然有瑕疵,但试图将美国在共和自治的漫长历史中的建国时期追溯到马基雅维利,在他之前追溯到波利比乌斯和亚里士多德。突然之间,在我看来曾经是一潭死水的知识分子,变成了古典共和主义伟大传统复兴的关键时刻。此后不久,我有幸师从大卫·格林斯通——这是美好的回忆——在他的课上,我们读了路易斯·哈茨的《美国的自由主义传统》(1955)。在这里,我了解到,正是约翰·洛克的哲学构成了美国历史的哲学核心,并有助于解释为什么美国——至少在冷战最激烈的时期——似乎对欧洲政治遗留下来的左翼和右翼的激进意识形态具有独特的免疫力。这对我来说是一个强大的洞察力
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American Political Thought
American Political Thought POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信