For more information
Call 1-800-351-0222
Call 1-800-351-0222
"LIBERAL TRADITION IN AMERICA, THE" (LOUIS HARTZ) & "THE STORY OF AMERICAN FREEDOM" (ERIC FONER).
Term Paper ID:26737
Get This Paper Free! or
Essay Subject:
Compares two works on background & development of U.S, poltical culture, social evolution, liberty.... More...
8 Pages / 1800 Words
2 sources, 10 Citations,
MLA Format
$32.00
More Papers on This Topic
Paper Abstract:
Compares two works on background & development of U.S, poltical culture, social evolution, liberty.
Paper Introduction:
This paper compares and contrasts two ruminations on the American experience. The first, Louis Hartz's The Liberal Tradition in America, looks at the uniqueness of American history through the concept of the nation's liberal tradition, while the second, Eric Foner's The Story of American Freedom, examines the changing meanings of freedom throughout history. Both try to consider the uniqueness of the American experience through the prism of the word they have chosen as most useful to an examination of history. Both words are variations on the same approach, an attempt to consider American history by looking at one key concept that has shaped that history and been influenced by it.
Louis Hartz first published The Liberal Tradition in America in 1955, during the heart of the Cold War. His exploration of
Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.
Withoutunderstanding how the American political evolution differs from those thatbegan with a feudal system and eventually struggled to escape it, throughtheir own forms of democracy or through various configurations ofsocialism, Marxism, and communism, the American system seems more ordinaryand at the same time seems like a curious anomaly. "Liberal" has come to connotethose who go against the idea of the American Dream, in which the pursuitof happiness is promised but in which happiness itself is up to theindividual to actually achieve or avoid. Norton, 1998.Hartz, Louis. New York: W. The 1991 edition includes an introduction by Tom Wicker that attemptsto briefly update the evolution that the liberal tradition has undergonesince 1955, but the trends that Hartz initially outlined are easy enough toextrapolate to a modern world in which "liberal" is sometimes used as adirty word, and not merely by strict conservatives. This tradition, starting from the position that "all men are createdequal," entitled to certain rights and afforded certain liberties ofthought an action, of course began with a narrow definition of "all men," adefinition that, of necessity, expanded as the nation matured. This was the general sense of the wordwhen the nation was founded, before it became "clouded as it is by allsorts of modern social reform connotations" (4). San Diego; Harvest, 1991.----------------------- 1 The first, Louis Hartz's The Liberal Tradition in America,looks at the uniqueness of American history through the concept of thenation's liberal tradition, while the second, Eric Foner's The Story ofAmerican Freedom, examines the changing meanings of freedom throughouthistory. Both words are variations on the same approach, anattempt to consider American history by looking at one key concept that hasshaped that history and been influenced by it. Their arguments are provocative and fresh, and bothsuggest new ways of looking at familiar material. The American political tradition is a unique phenomenon in the storyof world politics. Although the American Revolution is often comparedto its French counterpart, the two events are actually quite separate.France was overthrowing centuries of royal rule and the existence of anaristocratic class that oppressed the workers and considered them in manyways as subhuman. Foner agrees with this assessment. Works CitedFoner, Eric. Both try to consider the uniqueness of the American experiencethrough the prism of the word they have chosen as most useful to anexamination of history. He is, in fact, using the word in one of its oldersenses, "the classic Lockian sense" (4), that of an openness to political,religious, and economic freedom. The Cold War made America leader of "the Free World," butironically restricted the freedom of its own people to question thatauthority or to consider whether communism might in fact have something tooffer to the world. In the traditional sense,liberalism began as a moderate position, advocating neither theconservatist argument for maintaining the strict status quo, nor theradical call for revolutionary change. This, he contends, is one of the basic traps of liberalism: "When aliberal community faces military and ideological pressure from without ittransforms eccentricity into sin" (12), and eccentricity in thiscircumstance is not only the alien politics of communism as practiced inother nations but also the liberal willingness to consider its merits anddebate its possibilities. W. It had no long-standing traditions to rebelagainst and overthrow. Yet it is preciselythe freedom that, in whatever form, continues to define his society thatallows him the opportunity to explore its continuing evolution. While both books offer intriguing insights into the evolution ofAmerican politics and American society, Hartz's suffers from being an "old-fashioned" text, putting forward a radical and intriguing thesis but doingso in a way that limits its accessibility to many modern readers. He writes, "Despite thecelebration of liberty as the foundation of the American way of life, theright to dissent inevitably came under attack as the Cold War intensified"(255). It is, therefore, more general in some respectsand less able to support his central argument than it might have been hadhe taken the time to rewrite and restructure it. Thisexpansion was possible precisely because of the liberal tendency to be opento and tolerant of a wide range of ideas. Unlike the European model, the American system did notreally grow out of feudalism. His exploration of the word "liberal"is, therefore, written during a time before its meaning had evolved into amore pejorative term. These two books form a remarkable dialogue about the unique nature ofAmerican society. Its evolution and the ongoing discussion that hasshaped and changed it makes a fascinating study. In somerespects, his perspective provides a focus and framework for Hartz'sargument, making Foner's the broader conversation. This isnot the result of his insistence of using classical definitions orattributions, but is instead the fault of a writing style that constantlyrefers to previous sources by assuming that his readers share every one ofhis points of reference. The organization of hischapters is more organic than is Hartz's; Hartz admits that his writings onthe Revolution were actually a separate essay, conceived and written beforehis underlying thesis was fully formed and unedited since the decision toinclude it in the book. For better or for worse, it has become a distinctive,powerful entity, through its application of liberal philosophy within thecontext of ongoing freedom. However, since both argue that American democracy and itsconceptions of liberalism and freedom are continually evolving, a solidargument could be made for Hartz's agreement with Foner's conclusion: "Allone can hope is that in the future, the better angels of our nature (toborrow Lincoln's words) will reclaim their place in the forever unfinishedstory of American freedom" (332). The freedom that makes such a liberal perspective possible is thecrux of Eric Foner's argument in The Story of American Freedom. Because Foner's book was written more than 5 years later thanHartz's, he is able to extend his discussion beyond the Cold War, beyondthe activism of the 196 s, into the present day, when "conservativefreedom" has become the ruling force in American politics, eclipsing anddiminishing liberal viewpoints as being so "'obsessed with liberty' whenthey ought to be concerned with duty, responsibility, and moral order"(Foner 31 ). Louis Hartz first published The Liberal Tradition in America in 1955,during the heart of the Cold War. Bythe same token, the liberal tradition encouraged an expanding concept offreedom: "Changes in economic and religious life strongly encouraged thespread of a liberal understanding of freedom as the absence of externalconstraints upon autonomous, self-directed individuals" (Foner 55). Together, however, these two books form an interesting pair ofarguments for looking at central concepts as a means of understandinghistorical and political development. While Foner is careful to use full names inreferring to historical sources, Hartz rarely does. This paper compares and contrasts two ruminations on the Americanexperience. America was overthrowing traditions that had not been inplace for very long and were, at best, imported and modeled on thetraditions of entirely different societies. Foner argues that freedom, more than any other quality, was thefounding force behind the American political system and continues to moldthe evolving state. Foner, on the other hand, does not assume that his readers understandthe same sources of information which he alludes to and fills his text withclear references. Both Louis Hartz and EricFoner contribute to this continuing discussion in intriguing, thought-provoking ways. Other nations have come to embrace the concept of freedom, eachgiving it a distinctive identity and specific definition, according to thetimes and national needs. It does not follow theother political models, a fact which can only be explained when the uniquetradition from which it arises is clearly understood. Hartz approaches his subject in a classical way, and his writings continuethe dialogue begun by other classicists, including John Locke and ThomasJefferson, the originators of the idea of liberalism that helped found anew nation. "Freedom" in other contexts does notautomatically embrace related concepts such as "free speech," not even, attimes, in the American definition of the word. Foner joins Hartz in arguing for looking at American history withinthe context of other nations, precisely because the American experience isso unique. The index provides clues (and first names), but thisobtuseness makes his otherwise intriguing writing much less accessible thanit might be. Freedom made liberalism possible, allowedindividuals the possibility of considering other points of view and otherdesires. Witness, for example, the German concept offreedom, one that finds persecution and restriction of groups thegovernment has trouble with, such as Scientologists, an acceptablecomponent to a free society. The original concepts on whichthe nation was founded were liberal in the oldest, most classic sense ofthe word; in recent times, the word has come to mean virtually the completeopposite. "Liberal" has become something of a negative label, one that oftenaccuses its followers of a sloppy disregard for social responsibility andtries to provide government solutions for situations that ought to insteadbe taken care of on an individual level. He observes that the three most significant processes inthe growth of America were "territorial expansion, politicaldemocratization, and the rapid spread of market relations" (48), all ofwhich were powerfully affected by the idea of freedom and all of whichinfluenced the ways in which freedom was looked at during this time. Foner is a product of the modern world, and his thinking isconsequently contemporary and even slightly cynical. It argues that the traditional way ofstudying history - looking at American history as a separate entity, adifferent curriculum entirely, usually studied at different points in anacademic career - misses a full appreciation of this uniqueness. In a liberal society, the threat of communismmakes the backlash of McCarthyism almost inevitable. It is an interesting concept. The Liberal Tradition in America: An Interpretation of American Political Thought Since the Revolution. The result isunnecessarily confusing: one can assume, for instance, that "Roosevelt" isFranklin Delano (p. To Hartz's way of thinking, the threat ofcommunism is an essential threat to the essence of the American way oflife. By the time of the Cold War, both liberalism and freedom had come tomean quite different things, and both Hartz and Foner note the effects ofthese evolving definitions. 13), but the assumption interrupts the flow of hisargument unnecessarily; Hartz also makes numerous references to the earlierRoosevelt (Theodore). While Foner's choice of freedom isthe most obvious and, in some ways, the most comprehensive, Hartz'sselection of liberalism may be even more interesting, especially in lightof events and political trends since his initial publication. Each, like the concepthe puts forward, is a product of his own particular age and the perspectiveof history and writing about history that springs from that particular age. Hartz makes a convincing argument for studying the unique situationof the American political system, one which grew from and was informed byEuropean tradition but, in some respects, was born with the founding of thecountry: "It has a quiet, matter of fact quality, it does not understandthe meaning of sovereign power, the bourgeois class passion is scarcelypresent, the sense of the past is altered, and there is about it all, ascompared with the European pattern, a vast and almost charming innocence ofmind" (7). Foner's writing, on theother hand, is conceived as a piece; it consequently makes a stronger caseoverall. Foner sees freedom as the guiding impulse behind all stages ofAmerican history. The nation that emerged had anentirely new, separate identity, while the new France still had ties inmany significant ways to its royalist, class-dominated past. Foner writes, "No ideais more fundamental to Americans' sense of themselves as individuals and asa nation than freedom" (xiii). He also buttresses his discussion with numerousillustrations that help support his argument for the universal and evolvingimportance of freedom as an American concept. The Story of American Freedom. In other words, the lack of political antecedents means thatthe American system began its life as a liberal society, rather thanevolving into one, making it unique among all the world's significantpolitical systems.
If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:
or
We can write a Custom Essay just for you.
Browse Essays by Subject