SOME SECOND THOUGHTS ON PROGRESSIVISM AND RIGHTS

2012 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 196-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eldon J. Eisenach
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Popular Sovereignty ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
World War ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
War Experience ◽  
Governing Institutions

AbstractAfter summarizing the ways in which Progressive intellectuals attacked individualist understandings of rights and mechanistic understandings of constitutional government, a series of second thoughts on this argument are pursued. The first centers on the ways in which progressivism differed from New Deal liberalism, especially regarding “big government.” Progressive understandings of politics rest on a distinction between “government(s)” and “state,” derived from Tocqueville and Lincoln’s understandings of popular sovereignty. Secondly, this distinction is reinforced by their stress on an articulate and coherent public opinion that would provide democratic legitimacy to all forms of governing institutions, both “public” and “private,” that serve the common good. The Civil War experience was their model, one which they first thought would be reincarnated in the preparation for World War I. Given both private and public assaults on free speech, Progressives in the 1920s often led the movement for protections of civil liberties and for a new respect paid to the First Amendment. The conclusion examines the continuities and discontinuities of Progressive political thought in contemporary political discourse.

World War I and the Origin of Civil Liberties in the United States

1981 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
pp. 165
Author(s):  
Arthur S. Link ◽  
Paul L. Murphy
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
World War I ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
The United States ◽  
World War

Understanding Private and Public Partnerships

2018 ◽  
pp. 159-168
Author(s):  
Luke Strongman
Keyword(s):  
Public Management ◽  
New Public Management ◽  
Second World War ◽  
World War ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
New Public ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
Public And Private Partnerships ◽  
Second World

New public management organisations tend to import managerial processes and behaviour from the private sector, and have been doing so in the post-Keynsian era. Increasingly those economies that were nationalised for large collective rebuilding programs after the Second World War were being deregulated and new models of management based on private enterprise and monetary accountability became the norm. This chapter provides an overview and contextual commentary on the origins of the public and private, the current era of public management, describes the characteristics of public and private partnerships; the factors of partnership performance, the characteristics of success and limitations, and concludes with a contextual discussion of Public and Private Partnerships.

Ernest Hemingway

2020 ◽  
pp. 154-185
Author(s):  
David A. Rennie
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
Social Inequality ◽  
Ernest Hemingway ◽  
Complex Nature ◽  
World War ◽  
Public Writing ◽  
Private And Public

Hemingway’s World War I writing developed, first, as he honed his distinctive style and progressed toward completing his first novel. In the 1930s, Hemingway shifted approach, however, and his World War I-related writings came under the influence of his interest in social inequality (To Have and Have Not); his shift toward showing instead of implying interiority in Across the River and into the Trees; and the general imposition of his ego into his private and public writing. He remained committed, however, to the idea of the inherently complex nature of warfare.

“In My Extremity I Turned to Gandhi”: American Pacifists, Christianity, and Gandhian Nonviolence, 1915–1941

2003 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 361-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leilah C. Danielson
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
Direct Action ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Civil Disobedience ◽  
World War ◽  
Reinhold Niebuhr ◽  
The Social ◽  
Nonviolent Direct Action ◽  
The Face ◽  
Nuclear Arms Race

American pacifists first heard of Mohandas Gandhi and his struggles in South Africa and India after World War I. Although they admired his opposition to violence, they were ambivalent about non-violent resistance as a method of social change. As heirs to the Social Gospel, they feared that boycotts and civil disobedience lacked the spirit of love and goodwill that made social redemption possible. Moreover, American pacifists viewed Gandhi through their own cultural lens, a view that was often distorted by Orientalist ideas about Asia and Asians. It was only in the 1930s, when Reinhold Niebuhr and other Christian realists charged that pacifism was impotent in the face of social injustice, that they began to reassess Gandhian nonviolence. By the 1940s, they were using nonviolent direct action to protest racial discrimination and segregation, violations of civil liberties, and the nuclear arms race.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document