Tuesday, January 3, 2017

Liberal Theory Redux

Liav Orgad


Liberal constitutional theory, and liberal political theory in general, have increasingly defended the status of often newly created or invented minorities. These are defined more expansively with each new theoretical formulation, as the means to resolve all political and legal tensions.

Known by many names, including group rights, “aggregate collectivities” rights, multiculturalism, and the like, these approaches to governmental policy have tended not to diminish political tensions or promote democratic processes, especially in what Arend Lijphart has described as “deeply divided societies.”[1] At the heart of the matter is the divorcement of these theories from the historical realities that originally created the tensions, and a lack of appreciation for two things: the need for the rule of law, and the wisdom of diffusing governmental power.

Of the new theorists, Will Kymlicka has become a major and representative advocate of a liberal multiculturalism as the guiding principle of such pursuits.[2] Kymlicka takes the construction of artificial minorities further than other scholars, integrating the political theory of multiculturalism with the insights of empirical political analysis. Liberal multiculturalism, he argues, is an outgrowth of the longstanding emphasis upon human rights in international politics, and is not based upon notions of cultural relativism.

Kymlicka’s philosophical mission is to analyze “the current process of internationalizing multiculturalism” and the obstacles to implementation of the concept. He explores the success of liberal multiculturalism and the decline of traditional views of the state, sovereignty, and ethnic politics. His scholarship is devoted to explicating the “logic of liberal multiculturalism” and an exploration of the potential threat that “liberal multiculturalism” poses to existing understandings of human rights and state sovereignty.

As with most of the new liberal theorists, Kymlicka earnestly desires that international organizations utilize liberal multiculturalism in practice to promote political stability through a defense and ennobling of ahistorical groups of citizens. Although attempts to implement these theories have proven to be less than salutary, they have gained much influence in the academy—even as some of the more perspicuous national leaders in the West, including former British Prime Minister David Cameron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, have stated that multiculturalism in all its modes has failed.

Yet a sophisticated and timely book, The Cultural Defense of Nations: A Liberal Theory of Majority Rights, offers a new twist on the conundrum of multiculturalism, especially in regard to the central issue of cultural assimilation. Liav Orgad, associate professor of law at Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya University near Tel Aviv, and a Marie Curie fellow at the Freie Universit├Ąt Berlin, poses a significant challenge to the prevailing new liberal theories of the state and immigration by arguing for a majoritarian, cultural defense of global assimilation and migration.

Orgad, writing from within the liberal tradition, nonetheless posits that contemporary liberalism provides solutions that only exacerbate current domestic and international tensions. The amalgamation of lenient immigration policies and the retention of national cultures is the gravamen of the work. For the author, “managing global migration” denotes one of the greatest challenges to liberal constitutional and political theory.

The first half of The Cultural Defense of Nations is devoted to an analysis of the current international immigration situation, with an emphasis on the extraordinary nature of the issue in contemporary society and politics. Accordingly, the dynamic and ever-changing dimensions of global migration, especially between majority and minority groups, require scholars of international relations and political theory to envision new solutions. Religious, cultural, and political methods for confronting public hysteria related to immigration are presented with great clarity. The second half (chapters four, five and six) of the book serves as a guide for differentiating between “justifiable and unjustifiable” defenses of the liberal state and deserves closer scrutiny.

There Orgad rather convincingly argues that contemporary liberal theory violates the very values professed by liberals. In fact, he urges liberals to find an alternative to these patterns of theoretical and practical self-contradiction that has embodied liberalism’s response to most political and social crises in American and in Europe. In this attempt to “‘liberate’ the illiberal” from contemporary liberal thought, the author energetically provides his own corrective, a philosophical and policy-oriented triage of sorts, seeking to resuscitate liberal theory through emendations that will allow for new modes of defense and conflict-resolution.

Among the problems that liberal regimes and liberal theory must confront anew, Orgad believes immigration is the most vital, and immigration is also an issue that a more imaginative liberalism could best resolve. The juxtaposition of America’s neglect to evaluate an aspiring immigrant’s faith in liberalism, on one hand, as a citizenship requirement, and, on the other, the imposition of just such a requirement by most European countries, demonstrates the need for revisiting liberal theory’s contribution to a potential remedy.

The denaturalization cases, especially Knauer v. United States (1946) and Baumgartner v. United States (1944), along with pledge cases, suggest to Orgad that this country has lost its willingness to require potential citizens to affirm liberal values, but Europe has failed the cause to an even greater degree, preferring to exhibit a “muscular liberalism” to forcibly implant liberal values upon individuals seeking citizenship.

To defend a rejuvenated liberalism from external threats, and to ameliorate immigration challenges, Orgad turns to three elements of a potential recovery: state neutrality, liberal tolerance, and policy motivation. While state neutrality is an oxymoronic formulation in most cases, he suggests the concept has importance when it serves as the basis for limiting “non-neutrality,” and the manner in which the restrictions are employed.

His delineation of liberal tolerance is much clearer, and includes an appreciation of the need for religious tolerance as part of his defense of a revised liberal theory, and assumes the form of an invitation to immigrating populations to adopt a very amorphous moral code that has been transferred from one generation to another.

The final element to recovering liberal theory, policy motivation, serves as a “cultural defense” of liberal norms and values. With any cultural defense, however, certain immigrants may be refused citizenship because of an unwillingness to adopt or accommodate a particularist narrative of a country’s understanding of liberal theory and practice.

Given the intrinsic limits to the policy-motivation approach, Orgad articulates another related means of aiding liberal theory: the sharing and acceptance of “constitutional stories.” In accord with the necessity of possessing some aspect of a shared understanding of a political and constitutional order, these stories would provide the theoretical sinew necessary to allow for the successful assimilation into a liberal regime, while also prohibiting those seekers of citizenship who might be capable of “future intolerant behavior.”

In borrowing from other approaches for promoting a sense of political and moral community, including communitarian and narrative-inspired social thought,[3] Orgad advances the moral and ethical potentialities of liberal responses. As is the case, however, with the proposals of other theorists, the vitality of the community that is needed for a narrative movement to succeed contradicts liberalism’s established purpose. Liberalism “sanctifies individual freedom” more than other pursuits.

Liav Orgad’s reformulation of a liberal constitutionalism that can resolve longstanding issues is certainly commendable and useful. Regrettably, the innovations he proposes cannot resolve the problems he wishes to ameliorate. The author’s attempted return to the fundamental principles of truly protecting majority political activity within a constitutional order offers more promise, but it remains a remedy that will be unappealing to contemporary liberals.

[1] Arend Lijphart, “Majority Rule Versus Democracy in Deeply Divided Societies,” Politikon 4:2 (December 1997), 113-126.
[2] Will Kymlicka, Multicultural Odysseys: Navigating the New International Politics of Diversity (Oxford University Press, 2007).
[3] See Stanley Hauerwas, The Peaceable Kingdom (University of Notre Dame Press, 1983).

H. Lee Cheek, Jr.

About the Author
H. Lee Cheek, Jr., is Dean of the Social Sciences and Professor of Political Science and Religion at East Georgia State College, and a Senior Fellow of the Alexander Hamilton Institute. Dr. Cheek's latest book is Patrick Henry-Onslow: Liberty and Republicanism in American Political Thought (Lexington Books, 2013).

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

GPSA Hosts Roundtable on EGSC Dean’s Book

by Katelyn Moore | November 23, 2016


   The annual meeting of the Georgia Political Science Association included a panel devoted to analyzing an East Georgia State College dean and professor’s recent book. The decision to organize a panel on a recently scholarly book at a professional meeting signifies the importance of the work, as well as the timeliness of the issues contained in the book. The professor, Dr. Lee Cheek, and his newly edited book, A Theory of Public Opinion, published by Transaction Books at Rutgers University, an internationally-respected publisher, was featured at the meeting. Dr. Cheek edited the volume, which surveys the limitations of public opinion research in today’s politics.

   In support of the conference theme "The Relevancy of Political Science?," this panel examined the relationship between political theory and the study of public opinion, as well analyzing the tension between these two “subdisciplines” of political science in contemporary scholarship. As the basis for the panelists’ comments, the relevance of the study, A Theory of Public Opinion, was surveyed, which is perhaps the last major reappraisal of theory’s potential contribution to understanding public opinion, as well as a novel critique of the academic study of public opinion.

   Panelists traced the emergence of the ideas and institutions that evolved to give people mastery over their own destiny through the force of public opinion. The Greek belief in citizen participation, for example, was described as the ground upon which the idea of public opinion began and upon which it grew. Cheek’s argument that public opinion is always an "orderly force," contributing to social and political life, was critiqued, especially in light of the Election of 2016.

   The annual meeting of the Georgia Political Science Association took place from November 10-12 in Savannah, Ga. The panel also included Professor Hans E. Schmeisser (Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College), Professor Daniel Mancill (East Georgia State College), Dr. Craig Albert (Augusta University), Dr. James LaPlant (Valdosta State University), and Dr. Brett Larson (East Georgia State College).  EGSC’s Dr. Tom Caiazzo and Professor Randy Carter also provided commentary on the book at the conference.

   Dr. Cheek is the Dean of the Social Sciences and Professor of Political Science and History at East Georgia State College in Swainsboro, Ga. His many publications include Calhoun and Popular Rule (2001) and Order and Legitimacy (2004).













Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Dean Joins Editorial Board of 18th Century Studies Journal

by Katelyn Moore | August 30, 2016




Dr. Lee Cheek, Dean of the School of Social Sciences at EGSC, was recently invited to join the Editorial Advisory Board Studies of Studies in Burke, a leading interdisciplinary academic journal dedicated to the study, interpretation, and application of the life and thought of Edmund Burke.  Its guiding principle is that the substance of Burke’s political thought should remain the subject of vigorous discussion and debate, and that an interest in his thought and in its significance historically is of vital importance to the academic community.

   According to Dr. Ian Crowe, the Executive Editor of Studies in Burke, the journal attempts “through its activities and publications, to present the perennial insight and wisdom of Edmund Burke to a new generation as a salutary guide for action, reform, and renewal.”  Crowe noted that Cheek was asked to join the editorial board as the result of his “academic accomplishments and scholarly devotion to the study of Burke and 18th century political thought.”

   Before assuming his duties at EGSC, Dr. Cheek previously served as Dean of the School of Social Sciences at the  University of North Georgia, as Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs at Athens State University in Alabama, and Vice-President for College Advancement and Professor of Political Science at  Brewton-Parker College in Mt. Vernon, Georgia. Dr. Cheek taught at Brewton-Parker College from 1997-2000, and from 2005-2009. In 2000, 2006, and 2007, the student body of Brewton-Parker College selected Cheek as Professor of the Year; and, in 2008, the Jordon Excellence in Teaching   award was bestowed upon him by the College's faculty and administration. From 2000 to 2005, Dr. Cheek served as Associate Professor of Political Science at Lee University. In 2002, Dr. Cheek was given Lee University’s Excellence in Scholarship award; and in 2004, he received  Lee University's Excellence in Advising award. In 2008, Western Carolina University presented Dr. Cheek with the University's  Distinguished Alumni Award for Academic and Professional Achievement.

   He has also been a congressional aide and a political consultant. Dr. Cheek's books include Political Philosophy and Cultural Renewal (Transaction/Rutgers, 2001, with Kathy B. Cheek); Calhoun and Popular Rule, published by the University of Missouri Press (2001;  paper edition, 2004); Calhoun: Selected Speeches and Writings (Regnery, 2003); Order and Legitimacy (Transaction/Rutgers, 2004); an edition of Calhoun's A Disquisition on Government (St. Augustine's, 2007); a critical edition of W. H. Mallock's The Limits of Pure Democracy (Transaction/Rutgers, 2007); a monograph on Wesleyan theology (Wesley Studies Society, 2010); an edition of the classic study, A Theory of Public Opinion (Transaction/Rutgers, 2013); Patrick-Henry Onslow Debate: Liberty and Republicanism in American Political Thought (Lexington, 2013); and, The Founding of the American Republic (Bloomsbury, 2017). He has also published dozens of scholarly articles in academic publications, and is a regular commentator on American politics and religion. Dr. Cheek’s current research includes completing an intellectual biography of Francis Graham Wilson (I.S.I. Books), and a book on Patrick Henry's constitutionalism and political theory. He currently serves on the editorial boards of Humanitas, The Political Science Reviewer, Anamnesis, and The University Bookman, as a Senior Fellow of the Alexander Hamilton Institute, and as a Fellow of the Academy of Philosophy and Letters (elected). Dr. Cheek has been a Fellow of the Wilbur Foundation, the Earhart Foundation, the Center for Judicial Studies, and the Center for International Media Studies.

Friday, July 29, 2016

Dean Contributes to International Festschrift




EGSC’s Dean of the School of Social Sciences, Dr. Lee Cheek, recently contributed a book chapter to a volume honoring the life and scholarship of Dr. Tom Darby, an internationally respected political scientist on the faculty of Carleton University in Canada. The book was announced at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, and is being published next month by Fermentation Press, a leading publisher in the social sciences, located in Quebec, Canada.
   Cheek’s chapter in the collection, entitled “Confronting Nihilism: Towards a Political Theory of the Psalms,” continues a decade of scholarship by Cheek on the political meaning of the Psalms.  According to Cheek, the “writer [of the Psalms] is a political and spiritual reformer who argues that life can have meaning.  The Psalmist is no longer a messenger of the divine reality, but an actual participant. Most importantly, the psalmist urges a spirit of restraint in social and political life.”
   Before assuming his duties at EGSC, Dr. Cheek previously served as  Dean of the School of Social Sciences at the  University of North Georgia), as Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs at Athens State University in Alabama, and Vice-President for College Advancement and Professor of Political Science at  Brewton-Parker College in Mt. Vernon, Georgia. Dr. Cheek taught at Brewton-Parker College from 1997-2000, and from 2005-2009. In 2000, 2006, and 2007, the student body of Brewton-Parker College selected Cheek as Professor of the Year; and, in 2008, the Jordon Excellence in Teaching   award was bestowed upon him by the College's faculty and administration. From 2000 to 2005, Dr. Cheek served as Associate Professor of Political Science at Lee University. In 2002, Dr. Cheek was given Lee University’s Excellence in Scholarship award; and in 2004, he received  Lee University's Excellence in Advising award. In 2008, Western Carolina University presented Dr. Cheek with the University's  Distinguished Alumni Award for Academic and Professional Achievement.
   He has also been a congressional aide and a political consultant. Dr. Cheek's books include  Political Philosophy and Cultural Renewal (Transaction/Rutgers, 2001, with Kathy B. Cheek); Calhoun and Popular Rule, published by the University of Missouri Press (2001;  paper edition, 2004); Calhoun: Selected Speeches and Writings (Regnery, 2003); Order and Legitimacy (Transaction/Rutgers, 2004); an edition of Calhoun's A Disquisition on Government (St. Augustine's, 2007); a critical edition of W. H. Mallock's The Limits of Pure Democracy (Transaction/Rutgers, 2007); a monograph on Wesleyan theology (Wesley Studies Society, 2010); an edition of the classic study, A Theory of Public Opinion (Transaction/Rutgers, 2013); Patrick-Henry Onslow Debate: Liberty and Republicanism in American Political Thought (Lexington, 2013); and, The Founding of the American Republic (Bloomsbury, 2017). He has also published dozens of scholarly articles in academic publications, and is a regular commentator on American politics and religion. Dr. Cheek’s current research includes completing an intellectual biography of Francis Graham Wilson (I.S.I. Books), and a book on Patrick Henry's constitutionalism and political theory. He currently serves on the editorial boards of Humanitas, The Political Science Reviewer, Anamnesis, and The University Bookman, as a Senior Fellow of the Alexander Hamilton Institute, and as a Fellow of the Academy of Philosophy and Letters (elected). Cheek has been a Fellow of the Wilbur Foundation, the Earhart Foundation, the Center for Judicial Studies, and the Center for International Media Studies.

Original posting: http://www.ega.edu/articles/detail/dr.-cheek-contributes-to-international-festschrift

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

Rising Tide of Kirk Scholarship

A Project of Liberty Fund
A Kirkian Renaissance


No other major figure in 20th century American social and political life has deserved study more than Russell Amos Kirk (1918-1994). The existing studies of Kirk are excellent, but the latest effort, by Professor Brad Birzer, surpasses all previous attempts to appreciate the magnitude of Kirk’s personal mission and scholarly opus. Birzer has a command of the primary sources that is truly amazing, and his archival labors evince the work of a superior scholar and world-class historian. In other words, a significant advance in scholarly knowledge is upon us, as well as an advance in evaluating Kirk as a political thinker.[1]
Before I turn to Birzer’s 2015 book (which was reviewed for Law and Liberty by Mark Pulliam), let me discuss the previous works, both their virtues and their limitations.
The first sustained study of Kirk to appear was James E. Person, Jr.’s highly accessible and readable introduction to the life and works of the Duke of Mecosta, Russell Kirk: A Critical Biography of a Conservative Mind. Person provides a coherent and convincing analysis of Kirk’s enduring significance to American politics and humane learning. Originally published in 1999, and reprinted in 2016, the volume has not been revised, although it remains an excellent contribution to scholarship. Person’s mission is to introduce a new generation of readers to “one of the greatest minds this nation has produced during the twentieth century.”
The book is organized in four sections that outline Kirk’s achievement. The first section is devoted to interpreting Kirk’s background, use of historical consciousness, views on education, and constitutionalism. The second section critiques Kirk’s devotion to the importance of literature and social criticism. The last two sections survey Kirk’s economic thought and his lasting importance as a political thinker. The greatest contribution of this worthwhile volume can be found in the author’s review of Kirk’s defense of a social order grounded in justice and the diffusion of political power.
Person’s biography is written for the general reader, with the intent to elucidate the life and work of Kirk, while avoiding the arcane scholarly controversies and personages that often dominate such academic efforts. In a similar vein, John M. Pafford’s Russell Kirk, a volume in Bloomsbury’s “Major Conservative and Libertarian Thinkers,” published in 2013, provides a clear and sympathetic account of Kirk’s continued importance as a political thinker.
As the first purely academic treatise on Kirk to appear in this revival, my late friend Wesley McDonald’s book on Kirk’s political thought, Russell Kirk and the Age of Ideology, initially faces the challenge of his imposed, direct framework of transference of ideas—from Burke to Babbitt to Kirk.[2] The influence of Babbitt is significant and should not be minimized, although the propensity to incorporate the insights of Irving Babbitt when Kirk’s own critique would be preferable has manifested itself on occasion among Kirk scholars.  Secondly, the role of literature and humane letters was even more of an overwhelming influence upon Kirk than McDonald initially suggested.
Contrary to the claim that the role of literature became important to Kirk in midlife, it was actually central to his thought as early as the 1940s: witness, for example, Kirk’s early writings on tragedy (1940), George Gissing (1950), and Sir Walter Scott (1952). To his great credit, McDonald provides a close reading and explication of the very extensive corpus of Kirk’s writings. McDonald’s exegesis of Kirk’s Enemies of the Permanent Things (1969) should encourage interest anew in a work that outlines many of the most important themes of the Kirkian enterprise.
McDonald brilliantly articulates Kirk’s use of history as a tool of analysis for his political thought. His depiction of the errors of Leo Strauss’s view of Burke, especially in Natural Right and History (1950), as compared to Kirk’s own critique, are groundbreaking as well. Kirk often noted that Strauss had reconsidered his original assessment of Burke. According to Kirk, Strauss offered these comments to him while Kirk was a guest lecturer under the auspices of Strauss at the University of Chicago. Kirk noted that Strauss moderated his earlier criticism of Burke, suggesting he was more receptive to Kirk’s own analysis.[3]
The more precise contours of this dialogue and related issues remain opaque in nature, but continue to receive great attention from the epigones of Strauss, as well as from Burke scholars.[4] Finally, McDonald’s discussion of technology in relation to Kirk’s thought is a seminal contribution to our knowledge of Kirk as a critic of contemporary culture.[5]
Gerald J. Russello’s The Postmodern Imagination of Russell Kirk (2007) attempts to revise Kirk’s insights for the 21st century by examining five aspects of his thought: overall mission; interpretation of history; political life; jurisprudence; and his criticism of modern life (Kirk’s “counternarrative”). Kirk’s active engagement with society and politics is detailed, and those who have neglected his work—viewing Kirk as either an advocate of “nostalgia” or a “static version of some ideal past”—are introduced to the more engaging potentialities of his achievement. The vital role of tradition and history for Kirk are explored with great clarity and sensitivity, along with Kirk’s views of politics and statesmanship. The treatment of the interconnection between natural law and American constitutionalism in Kirk’s writings also deserves commendation. Most importantly, Russello provides a sagacious refutation of the often unreflective criticisms of Kirk, while affirming the vitality of his thought for contemporary politics.
As noted, all of these Kirk studies are outstanding efforts, but Birzer’s encyclopedic critique of the Duke of Mecosta is a masterwork. When approaching a study of the greatest figure in modern conservatism, it should be noted that Russell Kirk was a political thinker, historian, political theorist, journalist, and one who served in many other capacities. Kirk’s significance is also not limited to the conservative movement, and while he identified himself as a conservative, he was a man of humane learning who engaged the major political movements he encountered and all personages who crossed his path.
In Birzer’s first chapter, entitled “Desert Humanist,” the reader will discover a very useful survey of Kirk’s early life, and a critique of Kirk’s emerging plea for the return to traditional concepts of political order and power. Kirk’s early academic experiences, especially at Duke University as a graduate student under the influence of his two mentors, Jay Hubbell (English) and Charles Sydnor (history), are also important to the narrative Birzer constructs. Unfortunately, Hubbell does not receive mention in the text, but was a major influence upon the young Kirk in all matters literary.
Birzer appropriately spends a great deal of time on Kirk’s developmental defense of the moral basis of social and political life. Two problems arise, though: the overdependence on Catholicism to explain Kirk’s emerging worldview; and the unintentional effort to make Kirk more libertarian than he was, even in his earlier writings. Kirk was essentially a Christian ecumenist, although he did make his way to Rome. Of Kirk’s four greatest clerical friends, Canon Basil Alec Smith, Rev. Dr. Lynn Harold Hough, Canon Bernard Iddings Bell, and Father Martin D’Arcy, S. J., only one was Roman Catholic—and all four were major advocates of ecumenism, properly understood—Smith as a man of letters and leading Anglican clergyman, Hough as the Dean of Drew Divinity School, Bell as a leading cleric and President of what is now Bard College, and D’Arcy as an internationally respected intellectual.[6] Additionally, Kirk’s view of natural law is closer to the classical, consensual Christian tradition than other schools of interpretation.
Perhaps of greatest enduring importance to scholarship is Birzer’s very convincing and accurate depiction Kirk’s abiding humanism and the centrality of community to Kirk’s thought. Kirk believed that humankind’s primary obligation lies in his or her community.  Self-discipline and love of neighbor began with the individual, and spread to the community, and then to society as a whole. In other words, Kirk’s concept of community serves to define the limitations of society and politics for on one hand, while on the other it presupposes and defends the necessity of a properly constituted community for securing the moral and ethical results concomitant to society’s perpetuation.
With Birzer’s Russell Kirk, the academic community has the definitive assessment of Kirk as a social, historical, and political thinker. The work also encourages a much-needed reaffirmation of the vitality of the conservative intellectual tradition. With great clarity and erudition, this new study allows readers to appreciate Kirk as a defender of community and genuine diversity.
[1] Another exception to the inadequacy of thoughtful and scholarly engaged recent scholarship on Kirk is James McClellan’s “Russell Kirk’s Anglo-American Conservatism,” in History of American Political Thought, edited by Bryan-Paul Frost and Jeffrey Sikkenga (Lexington Books, 2003).
[3] Russell Kirk, Edmund Burke: A Genius Reconsidered (Sherwood Sugden and Company, 1988), p. 185.
[4] See Bradley J. Birzer, Russell Kirk: American Conservative (University Press of Kentucky, 2015), p. 190.
[5] Consider Kirk’s “Humane Learning in the Age of the Computer,” in Wise Men (republished in the posthumously published collection of essays, Redeeming the Time {1996}). Kirk’s response to the critical reviews of Wise Men may provide some additional commentary as well.
[6] Birzer neglects to integrate Father D’Arcy into his larger Kirkian narrative, but he is appreciative of his contribution to scholarship and Catholic social and political life.  See Bradley J. Birzer, “Order”: The Brief and Extraordinary Life of a Catholic Movement,” Catholic World Report, September 13, 2015.

H. Lee Cheek, Jr., is Dean of the Social Sciences and Professor of Political Science and Religion at East Georgia State College, and a Senior Fellow of the Alexander Hamilton Institute. Dr. Cheek's latest book is Patrick Henry-Onslow: Liberty and Republicanism in American Political Thought (Lexington Books, 2013).

- See more at: http://www.libertylawsite.org/2016/03/29/a-kirkian-renaissance/#sthash.QtFIkjTh.dpuf

Thursday, March 17, 2016

Second edition of popular edited “classic” text by EGSC Dean to Appear


Second edition of popular edited “classic” text by EGSC Dean to appear
 

  EGSC’s Lee Cheek, Dean of the School of Social Sciences, has edited one of the major works on American politics, John C. Calhoun’s A Disquisition on Government. Cheek’s edited book is the most widely adopted version of the text among colleges and universities in America today, and a second edition of the book will appear next month.

   According Cheek’s publisher, Bruce Fingerhut, President of St. Augustine’s Press, “this volume provides the most economical and textually accurate version of Calhoun’s Disquisition available today. As a treatise, the Disquisition is one of the greatest and most enduring works of American political thought, and a text of seminal importance to all students of American politics, history, philosophy, and law.”

   In the Disquisition, Calhoun believed he had laid a “solid foundation for political science” through revitalizing popular rule. To complete his theoretical and practical mission, Calhoun attempts to explain the best example of the diffusion of authority and cultivation of liberty: the American Constitution.

   Dr. Cheek’s introduction to the classic edition notes that “Calhoun presents a theory of politics that is both original and in accord with the mainstream of the American political tradition. More than any other thinker of his period, Calhoun sought to explain the enduring qualities of American political thought in light of the troubled world of the mid-nineteenth century.”

   For Cheek, the book seeks to reconcile the good of popular rule with political ethics, and this has special importance to many nations in the twenty-first century, despite the ethnic animosities threatening their destruction.

Originally Posted: January 22, 2016 by Katelyn Moore
Last Edited: February 03, 2016 by Katelyn Moore

Monday, February 8, 2016

Dr. Cheek's Commencement Address at EGSC, 12 December 2015

Commencement address by Dr. H. Lee Cheek, Jr., Dean of the School of Social Sciences, at East Georgia State College, 12 December 2015, Swainsboro, Georgia.  The title of the address was "Where Are You Going?"https://youtu.be/jvFidZGb3lY