Search

You searched for: Publishing Institution The Center for the Study of Statesmanship, Catholic University Remove constraint Publishing Institution: The Center for the Study of Statesmanship, Catholic University
Number of results to display per page

Search Results

  • Author: Luke C. Sheahan
  • Publication Date: 12-2019
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Humanitas
  • Institution: The Center for the Study of Statesmanship, Catholic University
  • Abstract: Traditionalist conservatives have often expressed hostility to the Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence, perceiving it as an attempt to accomplish social change undertaken by the court’s current justices while disregarding the original meaning of the Bill of Rights.1 According to this account, rather than recognizing the provisions of the First Amendment to be part of a larger constitutional project that upholds social order and traditional institutions, the court interprets First Amendment clauses so as to undermine the basic structural logic of the Constitution itself. An advocate of this position is the figure many consider to be the godfather of American intellectual conservatism, Russell Kirk.
  • Topic: Law, Domestic politics, Conservatism
  • Political Geography: United States
  • Author: Kari Konkola
  • Publication Date: 12-2019
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Humanitas
  • Institution: The Center for the Study of Statesmanship, Catholic University
  • Abstract: Sin used to be among Christianity’s most important concepts. This is understandable. The New Testament says God sent His only son, Christ, to liberate fallen humans from the suffering caused by Adam’s original sin. The importance of overcoming sins is emphasized by the Bible’s oft-repeated warnings about God’s sometimes ferociously punishing sinners. In spite of the central role of sin in the Bible, worry about the cardinal sins—pride, envy, anger, greed, and lechery—has largely disappeared among modern Christians.1 The reaction of most of today’s Christians can be summarized by the expression “good riddance.” The “let’s talk about something else” attitude toward sin has become the prevailing paradigm even among theologians.
  • Topic: Religion, International Relations Theory, Psychology
  • Political Geography: Britain, United States
  • Author: Luigi Bradizza
  • Publication Date: 12-2019
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Humanitas
  • Institution: The Center for the Study of Statesmanship, Catholic University
  • Abstract: Russell Kirk has three interlocking intentions in writing The Roots of American Order.1 First, he would draw our attention to the appearance of modern tyranny, particularly as established by the French and Russian revolutions, and have us see this form of tyranny as a new and especially dangerous type of political evil. Second, he aims to keep America from succumbing to a similar modern tyranny by arguing that America is largely the result of premodern strains of thought and historical and cultural experiences that have combined to give us an ordered liberty that, if properly understood and attended to, insulates us from modern tyranny.2 Third, in recovering an understanding of our ordered liberty, Kirk would also have us renew our loyalty to it on its own terms (apart from the protection it offers us from modern tyranny) and retain it as the substantial political goal toward which Americans can and should aim. In recovering an appreciation of the premodern roots of American order, Kirk sets himself against the position that America can be understood as a fundamentally early-modern liberal nation. Though recent scholarly work on the place of natural rights in the American Founding has raised questions about Kirk’s analysis of the Founding, it is my argument that Kirk’s analysis is largely sound because America’s political culture does indeed have deep roots in premodernity. Furthermore, Kirk’s analysis of modern tyranny is also sound. Despite the fact that debate over the character of the Founding is very much alive, and regardless of how it turns out, loyalty to Kirk’s understanding of ordered liberty is vital because the American ordered liberty that he describes is a precondition of human flourishing.
  • Topic: Religion, Political Theory, Domestic politics, Conservatism
  • Political Geography: United States
  • Publication Date: 12-2019
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Humanitas
  • Institution: The Center for the Study of Statesmanship, Catholic University
  • Abstract: By any conventional measure, Chief Justice John Marshall’s Life of George Washington (1804) was a flop. Intended to be the authoritative biography of the nation’s most celebrated general and president, the work was widely derided at the time of its overdue publication, and since then has been largely forgotten. Surely the sense of personal embarrassment Marshall experienced must have been keen, for he admired no public figure more than Washington. Amid his Supreme Court duties, he labored for years on the Life, digging deep into American military and political history in hopes of etching in the minds of his fellow citizens the memory of the republic’s foremost founder. Yet in spite of his efforts, on no other occasion were Marshall’s failures more total and public. At one point, Marshall expressed the desire to publish the work anonymously, and one wonders if his wish was motivated less by self-effacement than a faint premonition of the biography’s failure.
  • Topic: Law, Military Affairs, Domestic politics, Supreme Court
  • Political Geography: United States
  • Author: William J. Berger
  • Publication Date: 12-2019
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Humanitas
  • Institution: The Center for the Study of Statesmanship, Catholic University
  • Abstract: Ralph Waldo Emerson has a complicated political legacy owing at least in part to his own intermittent and hesitant political activism, crass racism, and fierce individualism. Despite this, a steady stream of political philosophers have attended to Emerson’s work, with the likes of John Dewey proclaiming him “the philosopher of democracy” (1903). But as his writings continually direct readers inwards—away from social and political life—recovering an Emersonian politics is not a straightforward task. A basic difficulty lies in the fact that Emerson “did not consider himself a political thinker and focused his energies on issues that seem, at first glance far removed from politics. . . . From first to last Emerson regarded politics as one of the practical applications of ethics or moral philosophy, and he insisted that all political questions were, at bottom, moral” (Robinson, 2004: 1). But politics is not just morality scaled up. It raises distinct collective concerns to which individuated moral philosophy cannot speak. As such, imputing a political theory to Emerson is not a simple matter. Jennifer Gurley may best summarize the difficulty of recovering a political Emerson, noting: “of all the nineteenth century American writers we might describe as political, he is perhaps the one who most despised politics, proclaiming they are ‘odious and hurtful’. . .” (Gurley, 2007: 323).
  • Topic: Political Theory, Philosophy
  • Political Geography: United States
  • Author: Kathleen Stephens
  • Publication Date: 12-2018
  • Content Type: Video
  • Institution: The Center for the Study of Statesmanship, Catholic University
  • Abstract: This, the 2018 John Oh Memorial Lecture, was delivered by U.S. Ambassador (Retired) Kathleen Stephens.
  • Topic: International Cooperation, Nuclear Weapons
  • Political Geography: United States, South Korea, North Korea
  • Author: Louis Fisher
  • Publication Date: 04-2017
  • Content Type: Video
  • Institution: The Center for the Study of Statesmanship, Catholic University
  • Abstract: The Center for the Study of Statesmanship at Catholic University hosted its first lecture on April 19, 2017, given by constitutional scholar Louis Fisher. Most recently Fisher has worked as a Senior Specialist in Separation of Powers at the Library of Congress, and lectured on the War Powers and unconstitutional wars.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, War, Peacekeeping
  • Political Geography: United States
  • Author: Andrew J. Bacevich
  • Publication Date: 11-2017
  • Content Type: Video
  • Institution: The Center for the Study of Statesmanship, Catholic University
  • Abstract: Which figures and organizations actually set the tone for American foreign policy? Do Congress and the executive still enjoy their constitutional powers, or has the authority of Madisonian institutions of government been eclipsed by the national security state? The Center for the Study of Statesmanship, in conjunction with the John Quincy Adams Society, hosted a panel discussion entitled “America’s Double Government: The Hidden Agenda of the National Security State” on November 29, 2017. This video is an edited highlight reel of that event. Featured scholars include: (1) Andrew Bacevich, a prominent author of several books on the American over-reliance on military intervention and professor emeritus of International Relations and History at Boston University and a Visiting Senior Fellow at CSS. (2) Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government and professor of international law at Tufts University. (3) Louis Fisher, who has served as a Senior Specialist in Separation of Powers at the Library of Congress and is a Visiting Senior Fellow at CSS.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, National Security, War
  • Political Geography: United States, Middle East