Table Of ContentPrimacy Po liti cal
Th e of the
Columbia Studies in
Po liti cal Thought / Po litic al History
Columbia Studies in
Po liti cal Thought / Po liti cal History
Dick Howard, General Editor
•
Columbia Studies in Po liti cal Th ought / Po liti cal History is a series dedicated to exploring the possi-
bilities for democ ratic initiative and the revitalization of politics in the wake of the exhaustion of
twentieth- century ideological “isms.” By taking a historical approach to the politics of ideas about
power, governance, and the just society, this series seeks to foster and illuminate new po liti cal spaces
for human action and choice.
•
Pierre Rosanvallon,
Democracy Past and Future, edited by Samuel Moyn (2006)
Claude Lefort,
Complications: Communism and the Dilemmas of Democracy, translated by Julian Bourg (2007)
Benjamin R. Barber,
Th e Truth of Power: Intellectual Aff airs in the Clinton White House (2008)
Andrew Arato,
Constitution Making Under Occupation: Th e Politics of Imposed Revolution in Iraq (2009)
Dick Howard
•
Th e
Primacy
of the
Po liti cal
◆
A History of
Po liti cal Thought
from the Greeks
to the
French & American
Revolutions
•
Columbia University Press
New York
Columbia University Press
Publishers Since 1893
New York Chichester, West Sussex
Copyright © 2010 Columbia University Press
All rights reserved
Library of Congress Cataloging- in- Publication Data
Howard, Dick, 1943–
Th e primacy of the political : a history of political thought from the Greeks to the French
and American revolutions / Dick Howard.
p. cm. — (Columbia studies in political thought / political history)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-231-13594-8 (cloth : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-0-231-13595-5 (pbk. : alk.
paper) — ISBN 978-0-231-50975-6 (ebook)
1. Political science—History. I. Title. II. Series.
JA81.H648 2010
320.01—dc22
2010010726
Columbia University Press books are printed on permanent and durable acid- free paper.
Th is book is printed on paper with recycled content.
Printed in the United States of America
c 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
p 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
References to Internet Web sites (URLs) were accurate at the time of writing. Neither the
author nor Columbia University Press is responsible for URLs that may have expired or
changed since the manuscript was prepared.
Contents
•
A Note to the Reader vii
Ac know ledg ments xv
•
Introduction 1
Democracy and the Renewal of Po liti cal Th ought
1. The Rise and Fall of Athenian Democracy 21
Th e Origins of Athenian Democracy 24
Th e Ideal and the Reality of Athenian Democracy:
Pericles’ Funeral Oration 32
Plato’s Philosophical Antipolitics 35
Aristotle and the Properly Po liti cal 59
Philosophy Goes Private 79
2. The Rise and Fall of Roman Republicanism 86
Livy and the Origin of the Republican Spirit 91
Polybius and the Structure of Republican Institutions 101
Cicero and the Moral Th eory of Republican Politics 110
Th e Empire Turns Inward: Th e Emergence of Pauline Christianity 117
3. The Conflict of the Sacred and the Secular 125
Th e Two Cities in Th eory and Practice 126
Th e Confl ict of the Two Cities Becomes a Reality 137
Natural Law and the Dynamic Integration of the Two Cities 144
Piety, Th eology, and the Birth of Modern Man 155
Contents
4. Facing the Challenge of Modernity 162
Luther’s Soteriological Politics: Spiritual Democracy or Po liti cal Servitude 166
Calvin’s Po liti cal Ecclesiology: Conservative Republicanism 180
Machiavelli’s Po liti cal Realism: Th e Illusions of the Republican Prince 189
5. Modern Individualism and Pol iti cal Obligation 208
Hobbes’s Liberal Absolutism 210
Locke’s Constitutional Liberalism 227
Rousseau’s Defensive Republicanism 245
6. The End of Po litic al Philosophy? 270
A Po liti cal Economy? 274
Th e French Revolution and the Ambiguities of a Demo cratic Republic 289
Th e Legitimacy of Conservatism? 302
Th e United States as a Republican Democracy 312
Conclusion 327
Elements for a Demo cratic Renewal
•
Notes 335
Glossary 355
Index 377
vi
A Note to the Reader
•
B
efore beginning this voyage, the reader will want to know
how and why I myself have undertaken the journey. I am con-
vinced that a fateful break in the long history of Western pol itic al
thought took place at the end of the eight eenth century. Th e same year that
heard the splendid principles of the American Declaration of In de pen-
dence saw the publication of Adam Smith’s Th e Wealth of Nations, arguing
that the imperatives of po liti cal economy defi ned the goals of politics. Less
than two de cades later, the French revolutionaries sought to realize the
rights they had declared in 1789 by using the power of the state in what they
did not hesitate to call “the Terror.” Th e answer to this new mode of pol iti-
cal action was the invention of conservative po liti cal thought that turned
to the past for its pol itic al models. Although each of these late-e ighteenth-
century developments was a sign that a rupture had taken place in the
u nderstanding of the nature and the goals of politics, they can also be seen
as marking the culmination of a tendency that has been inherent in the
long history of Western pol itic al thought. I call that tendency “antipoli-
tics.” Its antithesis, I hope to show, is democ ratic politics.
Antipolitics is the expression of a paradox that is present in all po liti cal
thought. Po liti cal actors claim that their intervention will produce mea-
sures that will resolve the age- old task of determining the best way for men
and women to live together. But if such po liti cal action were to succeed,
it would put an end to the need for politics. In this sense, antipolitics is a
politics whose goal is the elimination of politics. Providing ultimate an-
swers, it eliminates the need to pose new questions. Solving problems, it
reduces the rich complexity of human possibilities. Overcoming confl ict,
A Note to the Reader
its unspoken intention is to put an end to history. It is a pol itic al theory that
denies the need for pol itic al thought. If we remain with the examples with
which we began, the imperatives of a free- market po liti cal economy based
on the quest for wealth are no more “self-e vident” than the Americans’
claim that “all men are created equal.” Th e French att empt to impose the
reign of virtue by force was no more truly just than the conservative’s con-
fi dence in the moral lessons of traditional society. To understand the
t riumph of antipolitics, it is necessary to rethink the history of pol itic al
thought.
Th e history of po liti cal thought begins with the creation of democracy
in Greece. Its basis was the citizens’ freedom to participate in the decisions
that determined their lives. Th e life of democ ratic politics has not been
easy. Freedom can be felt as a burden; the responsibility of legitimating the
choices we make weighs heavy at times. Th e individual’s freedom in demo-
cratic societies is not unlimited; my freedom exists only insofar as yours is
recognized as well. Our choices may clash; I may fi nd myself in the minor-
ity. But the majority may be wrong, caught up in its own passions, blinded
by self- interest, its members having sacrifi ced their own judgment to the
rush of public opinion. Men and women over the ages have been inclined
to give in to the temptation of antipolitics. Indeed, for long periods in the
previous two and a half millennia of Western pol itic al life, antipolitics was
the dominant att itude among the population. Th e history of real democ-
racy has been a series of all too brief and at times tragic episodes because
the freedom to choose includes the right to err. But the history of pol itic al
thought has kept alive the questions that have motivated men and women
as they try to invent more just ways of living together.
My claim is that the increasing prevalence of antipolitics during the
past two centuries is a threat to the renewal of Western democracy. “De-
mocracy” has become a value that is preached rather than practiced; its
virtue is unquestioned, taken for granted, and for that reason misunder-
stood. As a result, its self- destructive possibilities— which are manifesta-
tions of the antipo liti cal temptation— are ignored. Th is danger existed
in previous moments of pol itic al eff ervescence, but the threat was held
in check and the possibility of pol itic al renewal kept alive by the fact that
the history of po liti cal thought remained alive. Today, when antipolitics
has incrusted itself deeply in the public’s conscience and the politicians’
calculations, the chances for renewal seem faint. Even those who feel the
viii
A Note to the Reader
need for reform have lost touch with the resources of po liti cal thought.
It is no surprise that pol itic al science has replaced pol itic al theory. Th e
unconscious power of antipolitics leads us to look to pol itic al science
for answers rather than to att empt to understand the questions that
have motivated po liti cal thinkers since the dawn of Western history.
Something more radical is needed. My claim is that the renewal of
d emocracy and the recovery of true freedom as well as social solidarity
demand that antipolitics be recognized as a threat to democ ratic pol iti-
cal life. Th is recognition, in turn, can be achieved only by the retrieval of
the history of po liti cal thought.
Writing a history of pol itic al thought was not something that came
naturally to me (any more than democracy is a natural way for people to
live together). My instincts and my interests did not point me to the past,
but to the present and its problems. My education was pragmatic rather
than classical or historical. A de cade ago I could not have imagined writ-
ing this book. Although I have taught pol itic al philosophy for nearly four
de cades, I have writt en and spoken mostly about contemporary politics,
at home and abroad. When I did turn to the past, I found inspiration in
the nineteenth-c entury tradition of German idealism that began with
Kant, was developed by Hegel and Marx, and continued to inspire criti-
cal theorizing in the twentieth century. Th ese historical fi gures inter-
ested me because their thought lay at the basis of what I considered the
most radical theories and the most critical practices. Th e public to whom
I wanted to speak had similar concerns. Th at congruence of interests had
an unintended consequence, however. My writing became more convo-
luted, self- referential, and academic. “Doing” theory had become a kind
of practical engagement of its own. Criticism became an end in itself. Radi-
calism was its own reward. It was time to look elsewhere.
Although there is a great deal of oft en excellent practical debate
among pol itic al theorists working within the normative framework
i nspired by John Rawls’s path-b reaking Th eory of Justice, my pragmatic
interests turned me instead to the study of history. I spent nearly a de-
cade reading and writing about the American Revolution and its French
cousin. Th e unintended consequence of that work was a new apprecia-
tion of the traditional questions posed by classical po liti cal thought. Th e
revolutionaries, aft er all, took their inspiration from that history and
couched their debates in its conceptual language. Th ey used it against
ix
