An American Prince
I just don't know what to say about this, from the Wall Street Journal. I'd be really interested to hear the reactions of the readers here.
Edited to Add:
I mentioned in the comments that I'd try to provide a summary of the linked article today. Upon further review (highlighter in hand), I don't think I can justly summarize Mansfield's argument. I can't make enough sense of it.
I can summarize his point. Basically, he's saying that the Constitution constructs a political system in which, during peace, the rule of law is dominant, but during crises, the rule of law gives way to the rule of "one man" -- the Executive.
A little background: Harvey Mansfield is a conservative political philosopher at Harvard. He's been there since Moses. His specialty is Machiavelli. He loves The Prince, which clearly shows in this article.
Edited to Add:
I mentioned in the comments that I'd try to provide a summary of the linked article today. Upon further review (highlighter in hand), I don't think I can justly summarize Mansfield's argument. I can't make enough sense of it.
I can summarize his point. Basically, he's saying that the Constitution constructs a political system in which, during peace, the rule of law is dominant, but during crises, the rule of law gives way to the rule of "one man" -- the Executive.
A little background: Harvey Mansfield is a conservative political philosopher at Harvard. He's been there since Moses. His specialty is Machiavelli. He loves The Prince, which clearly shows in this article.
posted by juvenal_urbino | 11:53 AM
5 Comments:
Hadn't had a chance to read the article, yet. But will. Honest.
I cannot tell a lie. I will not be reading the article. It's way too long, man. I have to read homework & finals soon. I'm prepping by not reading much of anything.
However, I must say the 1st paragraph looked interesting. Then I saw there were 40,000 more paragraphs and hit the back button.
So, if you're so inclined to give us a summary I would truly appreciate it. If not, I won't hold it against you.
I'll try to post a summary sometime today.
I haven't heard that distinction before -- that during a time of crisis our constitution gives way.
When do we determine that a crisis has reached the level where this happens? Who determines it? Has it happened before? If so, how'd that work out?
All good questions. Mansfield addresses none of them.
I would add the following ones to your list:
5) What would prevent an Executive from suspending or nullifying elections during one of these times of crisis, if s/he (though certainly a he in Mansfield's thinking) felt it necessary?
6) What would prevent an Executive, once his authority had superceded the rule of law, from simply never relinquishing control back to the rule of law?
As these questions and yours point out, there's nothing distinguishing Mansfield's notion of our constitutional system from a garden variety dictatorship. Mansfield maintains the possibility of the return of the rule of law, but it's nothing more than a figment, a useful fiction: useful because it makes the dictatorship sound like something other than what it is; fiction because there is nothing -- nothing -- in his system capable of forcing the Executive to reliquish control once having gotten it.
He complains about the history of pure republics, but, good god, look at the history of dictatorships, or of republics that gave way to dictatorial control, supposedly temporarily, in order to "save the republic."
All of these questions are why I have such a hard time understanding why Americans find this kind of thinking appealing. It's patent nonsense.
Post a Comment
<< Home