Stage Left and Right: Modeling Civil Discourse in the Classroom Through Fictional Presidential Debates Between FDR and Reagan

Franklin Roosevelt—the arch liberal president of the twentieth century—and Ronald Reagan—the face of modern conservatism—remain two of the most influential presidents in American politics. Both impacted policy and politics for decades and in ways that continue to reverberate today. In an attempt to examine the influence of FDR and Reagan in ways that are accessible to our students, we twice taught a class titled FDR and Reagan: What the Greatest Presidential Debate in History Can Teach Us About American Politics ... and How We Can All Get Along. This class asked students to perform fictional presidential debates between the two presidents on foreign, economic, and social policies. The emphasis on role-playing and debate allowed students to conduct deep background research while also encouraging them to inhabit the character of each president. Thus, they were able to immerse themselves in each one’s vision for the nation. Most importantly, this method allowed them to explore how it is both possible and necessary to have rational and respectful political discourse: FDR and Reagan came from opposite ends of the political spectrum and yet, by the end of the course, our students could appreciate that they were both transformative and effective leaders. Both were great communicators able to articulate their visions for the United States. Exploring the meanings of liberalism and conservatism through these methods encouraged greater empathy for opposing political viewpoints in our students. By analyzing the methods and outcomes of our course in this paper, we hope that history teachers might consider similar models to help our students bridge the current political divides which afflict the nation.

Reconsidering Burke’s and Arendt’s Theories on “The Rights of Man”: A Surprising Plot Twist?

Edmund Burke can perhaps be considered as the father of modern conservatism. Hannah Arendt was a very eclectic thinker who embraced ideas from the traditions of liberalism and republicanism. They both commented on the issue of the “Rights of Man” and rejected their abstract and metaphysical nature. And, it was Arendt who saw a ‘certain pragmatism’ in Burke’s ideas. Is this coincidence of opinion a surprising plot twist? An unintentional ‘alliance’ against the naturalness of the “Rights of Man?” This paper first discusses the real relationship between Burke’s and Arendt’s theories on human rights. In the first part, the ideas of the two thinkers are presented and examined. In the second part, the main convergences and divergences are identified. Through a careful reading of the Burkean and Arendtian corpus, it is shown that Arendt agreed with Burke that human rights cannot be abstract or metaphysical. On the other hand, Arendt, being autonomous in her critique, argued for one universal and inalienable right, that is ‘the right to have rights,’ i.e. the right to belong to political community. In overall, the analysis endeavors to provide an answer to the question as to what degree did Arendt endorse Burke’s theories on the “Rights of Man.”

REACTION TO THE BLACK CITY AS A CAUSE OF MODERN CONSERVATISM

Social scientists in a variety of fields have long relied on economic-structuralist theories to understand the ascendance and hegemony of the modern Conservative Movement in the United States. In the materialist theory of political change (MTPC), structural crisis in the 1970s destabilized Keynesian-managerialism, and paved the way for neoliberalism. Key weaknesses of this approach include its relatively aspatial scope—comparatively less attention to the spatial variation of neoliberalism’s popularity—and its demotion of other elements of the Conservative Movement into a veritable super-structure of secondary movements. This paper offers a “racial amendment” to the MTPC, and an application to electoral geographies in the state of Ohio since 1932. This amendment synthesizes group threat theory, critical historiography, and Du Boisian theories of Whiteness to suggest that the growing influence of suburban conservatism is not reducible simply to class interest.

I. Kant’s conservative liberalism from the standpoint of E. Burke’s liberal conservatism

I. Kant and E. Burke both presented and developed their political views in 1790s in the common context of the French Revolution. We compare their views in two aspects. First, we consider the question whether Kant in his writings has implicitly referred to Burke’s pamphlet “Reflections on the Revolution in France”. In our view, it remains unproven and doubtful that Kant had read this book (in German translation). Second, we consider Kant’s political views as liberal and Burke’s ones as conservative. We rely on those scholars who distinguish liberalism and conservatism building on the anthropological foundations of political philosophy. Some scholars define Kant’s moderate liberalism as a variation of conservatism, although Kant explicitly criticizes a number of ultra-conser­vative views. Burke is widely known as the founder of modern conservatism but also has substantial liberal points in his views. Both philosophers sought to find balance between stability and improvement of a political order, but they propose completely different cri­teria for a reform policy. For Kant, all reforms should aim to realize the abstract ideal of universal law. Alongside, Kant recommends only moderate and prudent reforms in or­der to preserve the freedom and safety of states as political organisms. Burke views re­forms as a means of reconciling traditions and customs with changing circumstances. Our conclusion is that Burke cannot be named among the prototypes of those ultra-con­servatives whom Kant describes as the most implacable opponents of his views. We sup­port the assessment of Kant’s position as conservative liberalism and Burke's position as liberal conservatism. This perspective reveals a certain similarity of their views despite their fundamental differences.

China’s Deng Development Model

This article is a form of reflection on the Chinese development model. In the ongoing discussion on this subject, the view seems to prevail that the source of the country’s economic success is the use of evidence-based policy, understood as “scientific development,” that is, basing economic policy on the most recent findings of development economics. The conclusion of this article is quite the opposite. It turns out that the foundations of the Chinese development paradigm are assumptions that are very similar to the principles around which Edmund Burke's concept of modern conservatism is built. A specific core of this concept is aversion and skepticism toward scientific theories, combined with the postulate of the gradual nature of all economic and social changes. Ultimately, however, it turns out that modern conservatism alone is also not sufficient in explaining the Chinese development success. The second pillar is the relevant set of development goals and their proper sequence.