CHOICE
Social & Behavioral Sciences
Political Science - Political Theory
With the increased public and scholarly interest in the
meaning and endurance of democracy, this tome by Jason Brennan (Georgetown) provides a lucid and accessible
introduction to the concept. The older,
negative assessments (for example, Plato) of democracy to the modern defenders
of the centrality of democracy as the “best form of government” are chronicled
with care, and in a manner that will appeal to a wide readership (p. 1). The author offers a “sixth grade model of
democracy” to provide a “basic model of how democracy works” (p. 6). Five core democratic values are explicated to
provide for a greater understanding of the concept, including stability,
virtue, wisdom, liberty, and equality. Two
chapters are devoted to each democratic value, with a chapter affirming each core
value, followed by a closely related chapter that is “skeptical and critical”
of the value. At the end of each chapter
a clear and lucid summary is provide. The
treatment of virtue (chaps. 3 and 4) and liberty (chaps. 8 and 9) as democratic
values, and as part of democratic theory, also make a significant contribution
to the understanding of democracy in practice.
Hilton, Adam. True
Blues: The Contentious Transformation of the Democratic Party.
Pennsylvania, 2021. 280p bibl index ISBN 9780812252996, $55.00; ISBN
9780812297966.
In this imaginative,
lively book on the history of the Democratic Party, Hilton (Mount Holyoke
College) offers a challenge to existing scholarship on the evolution of the
Democratic Party since the end of the New Deal. Instead of affirming the role
of party leaders and officeholders as the main force in shaping the party’s
direction, this book argues that "conflict between extra-party
groups" (p. 2) controlled political changes. Over time, a
different type of political party was created—an advocacy party—that
diminished older sources of political authority. The advocacy party is the
result of several developments: the rise of political entrepreneurs, reform
movements that sought to overcome the limitations of the old party structure,
and persistent conflict among factions to define the party’s focus and
electoral strategies. The second half of the book provides exemplary case
studies of group activity related to the overall theme of the volume. This
study allows for a greater understanding of the change that has taken and
continues to take place in the Democratic Party.
--H. L. Cheek Jr., East Georgia State College
(Forthcoming, Choice, November 2022, Vol. 60 No. 3)
By H. Lee Cheek and Sean Busick
(This commentary is co-authored by H. Lee Cheek Jr., a
political science professor at East Georgia State College in Swainsboro, and
Sean Busick, a professor of history at Athens State University in Alabama.
Cheek is a Tybee Island resident.)
America’s Founders did not agree on much. They were not a
monolithic group of men. Further, some of the things they did agree on make us
uncomfortable today. Those who are in the habit of citing what “The Founders”
thought as gospel would do well to keep this in mind.
Here is one thing most of the Founders did agree on:
political partisanship is unhealthy and a danger to the country. They believed
that republics were fragile and that civic virtue was necessary to prevent them
from collapsing into anarchy or despotism.
Partisanship thrived where civic virtue was lacking. Whereas
partisanship divides us and threatens effective governance, civic virtue unites
us as citizens with a common interest
According to a famous anecdote, upon encountering Ben
Franklin in Philadelphia in 1787, a woman asked him what the delegates in the
Constitutional Convention had been busy creating. “Have we got a republic or a
monarchy?” she asked. Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
A threat from the nation's beginning
The Constitution was designed to establish a republic which,
like all republics, depended upon civic virtue in order to survive. Citizens
and elected officials alike would have to behave responsibly; if we cared about
our republic we would have to place the good of the country above selfish
aggrandizement, above partisanship.
The degree to which we are disconnected from the Founders
can easily be measured in our political partisanship. They, being human, often
failed to live up to their own ideals.
Yes, they decried political parties, but they also split
into Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians and founded our first political parties.
However, they at least tried to temper their partisanship with civic-mindedness
and were capable of feeling shame about their shortcomings.
Early American politicians seldom campaigned for themselves,
leaving that bit of dirty work to their subordinates. For example, presidential
aspirants confidentially sought out supporters to endorse their candidacy and
write political biographies of themselves for public consumption.
Our politicians do not know how to stop campaigning and just
might feel shame if it appeared they took a break from self-promotion and
political warfare. Among the Founders it was an insult to be accused of
partisanship or factionalism. We proudly announce our partisanship on our
clothes, bumper stickers, and Facebook profiles.
In fact, some of our fellow citizens become so attached to a
new, more dangerous partisanship that they are willing to attempt to disrupt
our democratic way in pursuit of keeping their party in office.
Disagreement makes for good decisions
In terms of the “real world” of American politics, the
Founders believed civic virtue in a republic also required deliberation and
compromise.
These qualities allow leaders and citizens to listen to each
others’ ideas. The Founders believed disagreement was not only good, but the
interplay of ideas actually provided the basis for making the decisions that
were in the best interest of the country.
Our Constitutional Convention and the state ratifying
conventions that followed are the world’s best example of working through
complicated issues, and compromising, in the pursuit of a higher purpose than
self-interest.
George Washington warned us against partisanship in his
Farewell Address, which is read to the Senate every year on his birthday. “Let
me now . . . warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of
the spirit of party generally,” he wrote.
Partisanship is the “worst enemy” of popular government. “It
serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public
administration,” Washington cautioned. “It agitates the community with
ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part
against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door
to foreign influence and corruption.” If we want to keep our republic we need
to guard against our partisan impulses.
Successful governance is serious work and often requires
deliberation and compromise for the common good. It is not a sport, there
should not be teams. Our fellow citizens are not our enemies, nor should they
be. When politics becomes a game of winners and losers we all are the losers.
This article originally appeared on Savannah Morning News and on Yahoo News.
In times of
crisis, countries naturally yearn for leaders who can defend the public good
within the sphere of politics and governance, and in less turbulent periods,
the sound political management of a country is also valued. The term
typically used to describe these abilities among national leaders is
statesmanship. In November the University of Notre Dame Press will
publish a long-awaited volume on political leadership entitled American
Statesmanship, edited by Joseph R. Fornieri, Professor of Political Science at
Rochester Institute of Technology. The volume will include a chapter on
John C. Calhoun by East Georgia State College professor, Dr. Lee Cheek.
He is Professor of Political Science and the former Dean of the School of
Humanities and Social Sciences at the College. Dr. Cheek also directs the
College's Correll Scholars Program.
According
to Fornieri, “Our project was greatly enhanced by Dr. Cheek’s
contribution. As a leading scholar of American political thought,
especially the political thought of the American South, his work balances our
understanding of statesmanship and political leadership.”
The book,
including Cheek’s scholarship, suggests the principles of statesmanship should
view leaders’ commitment to the common good versus private interest; a
sacrificial view of public service; and, the ability to distinguish between the
proper use of persuasion and coercion.
Cheek’s
previous books include Political Philosophy and Cultural Renewal
(Transaction/Rutgers, 2001; reprinted, Routledge, 2018 [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; reprinted, Routledge, 2017);
an edition of Calhoun's A Disquisition on Government (St. Augustine's, 2007;
reprinted, 2016); a critical edition of W. H. Mallock's The Limits of Pure
Democracy (Transaction/Rutgers, 2007; reprinted, Routledge, 2017); Confronting
Modernity: Towards a Theology of Ministry in the Wesleyan Tradition (Wesley
Studies Society, 2010); an edition of the classic study, A Theory of Public
Opinion (Transaction/Rutgers, 2013; reprinted, Routledge, 2017); Patrick-Henry
Onslow Debate: Liberty and Republicanism in American Political Thought
(Lexington, 2013); and, The Founding of the American Republic (Notre Dame
University Press, 2023 [forthcoming]).
With the certification of the results of the U. S. Senate election run-off, Georgia has elected Raphael Warnock to the world’s most elite club, American’s upper legislative chamber, the Senate. Senator-elect Warnock will join Senator James Lankford as the only two ordained clergy in the Senate. Warnock and Lankford are out-numbered by the majority of Senators who were lawyers and business people before being elected to the Senate, but in many important ways, having the calling, training, and mission of a pastor prepares Warnock more thoroughly for the work ahead.
Warnock’s ability to adjust to his new work environment is key to his potential re-election in 2022. Unlike most senators who have six years to learn the arcane rules of Senate and begin to influence legislation, Warnock has no time to waste. By the time he learns his way around the Senate, he will be on the campaign trail again.
Warnock’s background as a
pastor provides him with gifts and graces that the average newly-elected
senator does not possess. In theological
terms, Warnock has already accepted the “yoke of obedience” to follow the
divine calling, or mission, in his life.
The attachment to mission that has guided his life as pastor now expands
to a mission to support the citizenry of Georgia in a federal system with many
claims on power and resources.
Our new pastor-senator possesses the intellectual and pastoral gifts to assume these duties. Contrary to the wildly exaggerated ads against Reverend Warnock during the election process—and while a man of the Left--he is certainly within the mainstream of American Christianity and politics. He earned a Ph.D. at Union Theological Seminary, studying under the late James Cone, who was the leading black liberationist theologian in America. Warnock extended Cone’s work to include feminist theology, especially Warnock’s major academic work, The Divided Mind of the Black Church, published by New York University Press in 2013.
His intellectual gifts will need to be tempered by his pastoral gifts over time, allowing Warnock to witness to and work with the diverse constituencies that make up the Georgia electorate. In other words, as the pastor of one of America’s most famous churches, who already possesses the talent to relate to a congregation of differing views, Warnock as pastor-senator must now support and advance the needs of all Georgians as well. No one is better prepared politically or socially to accomplish such a complex task as is Pastor-Senator Warnock.
Can Senator Warnock accomplish his mission? Yes, if he attends to the needs of Georgians, just as a pastor concentrates on his or her congregation. In the language of the Congress, the pastor-senator must concentrate on constituency services, responding to basic needs of the individuals, communities and businesses he represents. Instead of attempting to become a cause célèbre for ideological groups, Warnock should rely on his natural spiritual and political gifts to promote the most critical and faith-based needs as a servant leader. He should avoid notoriety and concentrate on the hard work needed to promote public policy initiatives he supports, most often within the committee structure of the U.S. Senate, where most of the actual legislative work takes place. Finally, Warnock must seek resolution of issues close to his calling as a pastor, including alleviating poverty, support for education, and the like, by asking Senate Majority Leader Schumer (D-NY) for major committee assignments related to his and Georgia’s legislative priorities. If Pastor-Senator Warnock continues to follow his calling, his career in the U.S. Senate may be a long one indeed.
H. Lee Cheek, Jr., is a
United Methodist minister, and Professor of Political Science at East Georgia
State College, and a former congressional aide.
Dr. Cheek lives on Tybee Island.
Few terms in contemporary
politics are as bewildering to the average citizen and the scholar as populism. Now comes Professor Benjamin Moffitt to the
rescue. His recent tome, _Populism_
(Polity, 2020) is a helpful resource. In this engaging and lucid study,
Moffitt (Australian Catholic Univ.) offers a helpful guide to the
"veritable explosion" in the use and abuse of the concept of populism
in the existing literature, reviewing particular cases in six clearly defined
chapters. While incorporating the insights of earlier studies, Moffitt presents
novel insights from emerging fields of scholarly inquiry as well. Viewing the
term "populism" as representing a construct closely aligned with
political theory (alongside its use in political practice), Moffitt introduces
the major debates in chapter one. His second chapter surveys how particular
scholars have approached the topic, typically concentrating on the separation
of the "people" from the "elite." Chapters 3 and 4 explore
the differences between populism, nationalism, and nativism, and points to the
relationship between populism and socialism. Chapter 5 correctly demonstrates
how populists on both the Right and the Left share an attachment to
"illiberalism" when "institutions and procedures" are
considered. Moffitt's final chapter questions whether populism is a "good
or a bad thing for democracy," without offering any final judgment. The
book makes a solid contribution to understanding populism, while also tending
to affirm the concept’s conflation with common notions of popular rule.
