Statesmanship & Partisanship

Recommended Reading:

Edmund Burke, The Great Thinkers 

Readings:

• Winston Churchill, Excerpt from “Consistency in Politics” (1932)
• Burke, “Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies,” Select Works of Edmund Burke, vol. 1, pp. 225–28, 235–46, 253–56, 278–79, 284–89
• Burke, “A Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol,” A Philosophical Enquiry into the Sublime and Beautiful and Other Pre-Revolutionary Writings, pp. 399–441

Questions:

1. What is the source of Burke’s opposition to “refined policy”?
2. Why is it imprudent to try to subdue the Americans by force?
3. What does Burke say is the predominant temper and character of Americans? What are the six reasons he cites that made Americans this way?
4. What is Burke’s reasoning for complying with the American Spirit as a “necessary evil”?
5. Why is Burke uninterested in “the right of taxation” as a philosophical question? What does this suggest about his political and philosophical disposition overall?
6. In his “Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol,” why is Burke so concerned with the partial suspension of habeas corpus law? Why according to him is the partial suspension so insidious?
7. What is Burke’s attitude toward moderation?

Readings:

• Burke, Select Works of Edmund Burke, Vol. 2 (Reflections on the Revolution in France) [1790], 88–158

Questions:

1. What is the relationship between “circumstances” and “metaphysical abstraction”? Which does Burke prefer and why? (p. 93ff.) How is this related to his later claim (p. 118ff.) that revolution is not a matter to be settled by “positive rights”?
2. What does Burke mean by “a manly, moral, regulated liberty”? As opposed to what
3. How does Burke respond to the purported “three rights” that the English acquired during the Glorious Revolution? (p. 102ff.)
4. What can we deduce about Burke’s views on prudence from his claim that an exception from a principle is not the same as a principle? (p. 110ff.)
5. What does Burke’s metaphor of liberty as an “inheritance” (p. 119ff.) say about his politics more generally? What does he mean by “preserving the method of nature in the conduct of the state”?
6. Why does Burke argue against a government founded on “natural rights”? (p. 152ff.) He claims to support “real” rights and liberty. What does he mean? What are the foundations of British rights and liberties?

Readings:

• Burke, Reflections, pp. 158–211

Questions:

1. Why is the French revolution in manners and chivalry important to Burke? (p. 163ff.)
2. Burke prefers prudence to abstract reason and “barbarous philosophy” (p.171). What is the difference between the two? Why does Burke prefer prudence?
3. Can prejudice be good? Under what circumstances?
4. What is Burke’s view of the social contract, and how does it differ from those of other social contract theorists?
5. Why is Burke concerned about “political Men of Letters”? (p. 208ff.)

Readings:

• Burke, Reflections, pp. 211–30, 269–78, 292–94, 307–09, 361–65
• Burke, “Letters on a Regicide Peace,” Select Works of Edmund Burke, vol. 3, 62–64, 67–69, 75–78, 119–43, 170–72

Questions:

1. According to Burke, governmental power is not enough to stabilize society. How do property, religion, and prejudice help governmental power to stabilize society?
2. Is Burke opposed to all social and political change? Under what circumstances, if any, is revolution justified?
3. Is politics an art (a matter of practical know-how) or a science (a matter of theoretical knowledge)?
4. On p. 272, Burke draws a contrast between “the boasting of empirics” and the “vastness” of philosophical promises. Which side is he on, and why?
5. What is Burke’s case for moderation in political change (pp. 274-275 ff.)?
6. What are Burke’s standards for political change (p. 364ff.)?
7. In the “First Letter on a Regicide Peace” (pp. 63-64), why is it difficult to “find any proportion between the apparent force of any moral causes we may assign, and their known operation”? What is the significance of this observation for Burke’s politics?
8. How does Burke define Regicide, Jacobinism, and Atheism? (p. 124ff.)

Readings:

• Burke, excerpts from “An Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs,” Further Reflections on the French Revolution, pp. 88–93, 99–116, 146–201

Questions:

1. Who are the “New Whigs,” and how do their political ideals differ from the “Old Whigs” with whom Burke identifies?
2. What does Burke mean in saying that “nothing universal can be affirmed” in politics and morals? (p. 91) Does this mean he is a moral relativist?
3. Does Burke oppose republican government? Why or why not?
4. What is Burke’s case for his consistency between his early positions on America and his later ones on France?
5. How do we incur obligations to others (p. 161ff.)? What political conclusions can we draw from Burke’s view?

READINGS:

• Edmund Burke, “Thoughts on the Present Discontents,” pp. 150-51, (selection: “Party is a body of men united…” to end of paragraph)
• Russell Muirhead, “A Defense of Party Spirit,” Perspectives on Politics 4(4) (December 2006)
• A. James Reichley, Ch. 2: “From the Founding to the Civil War,” The Life of the Parties (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000)
• Frances McCall Rosenbluth and Ian Shapiro, Chs. 1–2, Responsible Parties: Saving Democracy from Itself (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019)
• Edward C. Banfield, “In Defense of the American Party System,” in Here the People Rule, 2nd edition (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1991), pp. 54–71
• Morris Fiorina, “Gridlock is Bad. The Alternative is Worse,” Washington Post, February 25, 2014

QUESTIONS:

1. What are parties?
2. Is partisanship a good thing? Is being a partisan defensible?
3. What were the American Founders’ objections to political parties?
4. What is the ideal or best party system?
5. By what criteria should we judge party systems?

READINGS:

• James W. Ceaser, “Political Parties and Presidential Ambition,” Journal of Politics 40 (1978): 708–39
• Edward C. Banfield, “Party Reform in Retrospect,” in Here the People Rule 2nd edition (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1991), pp. 72–86
• Jonathan Rauch, “How American Politics Went Insane,” Atlantic Monthly, July/August 2016

QUESTIONS:

1. What are the different models of parties that have been proposed in American politics since the Founding?
2. Can political parties be made to serve the Founders’ objectives—at least in terms of presidential selection?
3. What have been the consequences of the “democratizing” or “decentralizing” reforms of the 1970s?

READINGS:

• Michael Barber and Nolan McCarty, “Causes and Consequences of Polarization,” Solutions to Polarization in America, Nathaniel Persily (Cambridge University Press, 2015)
• James M. Curry and Frances E. Lee, “Non-Party Government: Bipartisan Lawmaking and Party Power in Congress,” Perspectives on Politics 17 (2019)
• Frances E. Lee, “How Party Polarization Affects Governance,” Annual Review of Political Science 18 (June 2015)
• Pietro Nivola, “Partisanship in Perspective,” National Affairs (2010)

QUESTIONS:

1. What are the causes of party polarization?
2. Has polarization resulted in policies favoring one party or the other?
3. What is the character of party discipline in Congress?
4. Is party polarization all bad? Can a polarized party system be healthy?

READINGS:

• “Political Polarization in the American Public,” Pew Research Center (2014)
• Alan I. Abramowitz and Steven W. Webster, “Negative Partisanship: Why Americans Dislike Parties but Behave like Rabid Partisans,” Advances in Political Psychology 39 (2018), 119–215
• Morris P. Fiorina, “The Political Parties Have Sorted,” Hoover Institution, September 2016
• Douglas J. Ahler, “The Group Theory of Parties: Identity Politics, Party Stereotypes, and Polarization in the 21st Century,” The Forum 16, No. 1 (April 2018)
• Rishabh Bhandari and Thomas Hopson, “Strangled by Identity,” National Affairs (2018)

QUESTIONS:

1. What is party identification and why is it important?
2. Is the American public polarized or do most voters remain political moderates?
3. How, if at all, are party and personal identity related?

READINGS:

• Raymond J. La Raja, “Campaign Finance and Partisan Polarization in the United States Congress,” Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy (2014)
• Jeffrey Anderson and Jay Cost, “A Republican Nomination Process,” National Affairs (Summer 2013)
• Henry Olsen and Thomas Edsall, “Can the Parties Survive?” City Journal (Autumn 2017)

QUESTIONS:

1. How might changing campaign finance law reduce polarization?
2. What steps might improve the presidential nomination process?
3. What challenges do the parties face to secure their bases and expand their coalitions?