Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T19:20:20.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Twentieth-Century Enlightenment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Cushing Strout
Cushing Strout
Affiliation:
Yale University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is no longer the rule among American intellectuals that to describe oneself as a conservative is to confess to intellectual bankruptcy. The new conservatives, on the contrary, make much of their sophistication in matters of philosophy and history, compared with the naiveté of the liberals. That such a reversal of roles has been possible says much about what has passed for liberalism in modern America, for if the liberals had been historically realistic, profoundly humanistic, and uncompromisingly individualistic, the present case for conservatism would lose much of its force. One is tempted to say, if only there had been more liberalism among the liberals, there would be less need for conservatism. To understand this curious situation it is essential to realize that it has been not the liberal but the progressive mentality that has held sway.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , June 1955 , pp. 321 - 339
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1955

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Social Thought in America: The Revolt against Formalism (New York, 1949)Google Scholar.

2 “The Preconceptions of Economic Science,” The Place of Science in Modern Civilization and other Essays (New York, 1919), pp. 96–97Google Scholar.

3 The Theory of Business Enterprise (New York, 1904), p. 319Google Scholar.

4 Ibid., p. 359.

5 Dorfman, Joseph, Thorstein Veblen and His America (New York, 1934), p. 500Google Scholar. On Veblen's interest in socialism, see also Feuer, Lewis, “Thorstein Veblen: The Metaphysics of the Interned Immigrant,” American Quarterly, Vol. 5, pp. 99–112 (Summer, 1953)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 The Engineers and the Price System (New York, 1921), p. 156Google Scholar.

7 For Veblen's relation to technocracy, see Dorfman, pp. 453–55, 459–60, and 510–18.

8 Gasset, José Ortega y, “Man the Technician,” Toward a Philosophy of History (New York, 1941), pp. 100, 151Google Scholar.

9 Reconstruction in Philosophy, enlarged. (Boston, 1948), pp. 48–49Google Scholar.

10 Dorfman, p. 450.

11 Human Nature and Conduct: An Introduction to Social Psychology (New York, 1922), p. 282Google Scholar.

12 “Philosophy,” Whither Mankind: A Panorama of Modern Civilization (New York, 1928), p. 328Google Scholar.

13 Reconstruction in Philosophy, pp. 211, 213.

14 “What Is Historiography?,” American Historical Review., Vol. 44, pp. 20–28, at p. 22 (Oct., 1938)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 The New History (New York, 1912), p. 24Google Scholar.

16 Ibid., p. 265.

17 Whither Mankind, p. 286.

18 The Mind in the Making: The Relation of Intelligence to Social Reform (New York, 1921), p. 154Google Scholar.

19 Ibid., p. 227.

20 Barnes, , The New History and the Social Studies (New York, 1925), p. 401Google Scholar.

21 “James Harvey Robinson,” American Masters of Social Science, ed. Odum, Howard (New York, 1927), p. 405Google Scholar.

22 “James Ford Rhodes,” New Republic, Vol. 21, p. 83 (Dec. 17, 1919)Google Scholar. Becker's and Beard's historical relativism is most familiarly set forth in Becker's, “Everyman His Own Historian,” Everyman His Own Historian (New York, 1935), pp. 233–55Google Scholar and Beard's, “Written History as an Act of Faith,” American Historical Review, Vol. 39, pp. 219–29 (Jan., 1934)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Progress and Power (Stanford, 1936), p. 96Google Scholar. See Gershoy, Leo, “Carl Becker on Progress and Power,” American Historical Review, Vol. 55, pp. 22–35 (Oct., 1949)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Progress and Power, pp. 97–98.

25 Beginnings of the American People, The Riverside History of the United States, ed. Dodd, William E. (Boston, 1915), Vol. 1, p. 253Google Scholar.

26 “Afterthoughts on Constitutions,” New Liberties for Old (New Haven, 1941), p. 93Google Scholar.

27 “New Liberties for Old,” Ibid., p. 43.

28 “What We Didn't Know Hurt Us a Lot,” Yale Review, Vol. 33, pp. 385–404, at p. 391 (March, 1944)Google Scholar.

29 American Historical Review, Vol. 48, pp. 691–706, at p. 706 (July, 1943)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. “Some Generalities that Still Glitter,” New Liberties for Old, p. 150Google Scholar.

30 “Benjamin Franklin,” Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences (1931), Vol. 6, p. 421Google Scholar.

31 The Rise of American Civilization, revised enlarged ed. (New York, 1934), Vol. I, p. 596Google Scholar. The quotation immediately following is from the same work, Vol. 2, p. 62. This work was written in collaboration with his wife, Mary R. Beard, and it is impossible to say which author is directly responsible for particular parts. Technically, one might refer to the Beards' views, but Charles A. Beard developed his relativism and his economic interpretation under his name alone in other books.

32 Ibid., Vol. 2, p. 831.

33 The Industrial Revolution (London, 1901), p. 42Google Scholar. The quotation immediately following is from the same work, p. 91.

34 “Time, Technology, and the Creative Spirit in Political Science,” this Review, Vol. 21, pp. 1–11, at p. 5 (Feb., 1927)Google Scholar.

35 Introduction to Bury, J. B., The Idea of Progress: An Inquiry into Its Growth and Origin (New York, 1932), p. xlGoogle Scholar.

36 “That Promise of American Life,” New Republic, Vol. 81, pp. 350–52, at p. 352 (Feb. 6, 1935)Google Scholar.

37 Introduction to Bury, p. xxv.

38 For Beard's advocacy of centralized planning, see his introduction to Toward Civilization, ed. Beard, C. A. (New York, 1930), p. 17Google Scholar; “A ‘Five-Year’ Plan for America,” Forum, Vol. 86, pp. 1–11 (July, 1931)Google Scholar; “A Search for the Center,” Scribners, Vol. 91, pp. 2–7 (Jan., 1932)Google Scholar; and The Open Door at Home: A Trial Philosophy of National Interest, collab. Smith, G. H. E. (New York, 1935), pp. 216 ffGoogle Scholar.

39 “National Politics and War,” Scribners, Vol. 97, pp. 65–70, at p. 70 (Feb., 1935)Google Scholar. For Beard's defense of Wilson's intervention and his criticism of Barnes' revisionism see “Heroes and Villains of the World War,” Current History, Vol. 24, pp. 730–35 (Aug., 1926)Google Scholar. For all his polemic against dogmatism about historical causality, he concluded by 1936 that the “President of the United States avoided an immediate domestic crash by leading the country into war.” See The Devil Theory of War (New York, 1936), pp. 107Google Scholar. Beard then became a passionate pamphleteer and advocate before congressional committees of an isolationist policy which he expounded as “continentalism” in such works as The Idea of National Interest: An Analytical Study in American Foreign Policy, collab. Smith, G. H. E. (New York, 1934)Google Scholar; Giddy Minds and Foreign Quarrels: An Estimate of American Foreign Policy (New York, 1939)Google Scholar; and A Foreign Policy for America (New York, 1940)Google Scholar.

40 American Foreign Policy in the Making 1932–1940: A Study in Responsibilities (New Haven, 1946)Google Scholar and President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War: A Study in Appearances and Realities (New Haven, 1948)Google Scholar. For cogent criticisms of Beard's errors see Rauch, Basil, Roosevelt from Munich to Pearl Harbor: A Study in the Creation of a Foreign Policy (New York, 1950)Google Scholar and Morison, Samuel Eliot, “Did Roosevelt Start the War? History through a Beard,” Atlantic, Vol. 182, pp. 91–97 (Aug., 1948)Google Scholar. Unfortunately, both Rauch and Morison imply that Beard distorted his evidence dishonestly, but this is to attack one devil theory with another. Beard's point of view simply blinded him to the non-invidious implications of his evidence.

41 From Beard's testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, put into the Record by Wheeler, Senator Burton K.. Congressional Record, 77th Cong., 1st sess., Vol. 87:10, p. A627 (Feb. 13, 1941)Google Scholar.

42 The Open Society and Its Enemies, rev. ed. (Princeton, 1950), p. 288Google Scholar.

43 “Rationalism in Politics,” Cambridge Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 145–57 (Dec., 1947)Google Scholar.

44 “Philosophy,” Whither Mankind, p. 330Google Scholar.

45 “Rational Conduct,” Cambridge Journal, Vol. 4, pp. 3–27, at p. 14 (Oct., 1950)Google Scholar.

46 Hartz, Louis, “American Political Thought and the American Revolution,” this Review, Vol. 46, pp. 321–42 (June, 1952)Google Scholar; Boorstin, Daniel J., “The American Revolution: Revolution without Dogma,” The Genius of American Politics (Chicago, 1953), pp. 66–98Google Scholar.

47 Kentucky Resolutions, November 16, 1798. See Documents of American History, ed. Commager, Henry Steele, 5th ed. (New York, 1949), p. 181Google Scholar.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.