progressivism, individualism, and the public ... - Telmarc Group
progressivism, individualism, and the public ... - Telmarc Group
progressivism, individualism, and the public ... - Telmarc Group
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
The <strong>Telmarc</strong> <strong>Group</strong><br />
PROGRESSIVISM, INDIVIDUALISM, AND THE PUBLIC<br />
INTELLECTUAL<br />
indication can be found only in <strong>the</strong> fertility of <strong>the</strong> American mind <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> productivity of<br />
American industry everywhere throughout <strong>the</strong> United States. If America were not rich<br />
<strong>and</strong> fertile, <strong>the</strong>re would be no money in Wall Street. If Americans were not vital <strong>and</strong> able<br />
to take care of <strong>the</strong>mselves, <strong>the</strong> great money exchanges would break down. The welfare,<br />
<strong>the</strong> very existence of <strong>the</strong> nation, rests at last upon <strong>the</strong> great mass of <strong>the</strong> people; its<br />
prosperity depends at last upon <strong>the</strong> spirit in which <strong>the</strong>y go about <strong>the</strong>ir work in <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
several communities throughout <strong>the</strong> broad l<strong>and</strong>. In proportion as her towns <strong>and</strong> her<br />
country-sides are happy <strong>and</strong> hopeful will America realize <strong>the</strong> high ambitions which have<br />
marked her in <strong>the</strong> eyes of all <strong>the</strong> world.<br />
Yes, <strong>the</strong> United States is an amalgam. Yes, today as it was a century ago, Wall Street<br />
needs something to sell, to broker, to exist. Wall Street does do its business on <strong>the</strong> backs<br />
of Main Street, it makes fortunes doing that. The question is not just can Wall Street exist<br />
without Main Street, it also is can Main Street exist without Wall Street, in <strong>the</strong> largest<br />
most expansive sense. Does Wilson underst<strong>and</strong> this symbiotic relationship, one which<br />
goes both ways.<br />
4.6 BRANDEIS<br />
Br<strong>and</strong>eis is one of <strong>the</strong> intellectual cornerstones of Progressives. He is however a bit of a<br />
mixed bag for he was not totally doctrinaire. His views <strong>and</strong> opinions were logically<br />
reasoned by his razor sharp mind <strong>and</strong> unlike so many o<strong>the</strong>rs his have some substantial<br />
basis for holding. Melvin Urofsky has written a recent biography of Br<strong>and</strong>eis which we<br />
shall refer to. Urofsky in his book has written a detailed account of one of <strong>the</strong> most<br />
eminent lawyers <strong>and</strong> judges of our country, Br<strong>and</strong>eis. Br<strong>and</strong>eis was a brilliant <strong>and</strong><br />
perceptive jurist <strong>and</strong> he was part of what is now <strong>the</strong> bases of many of what we accept as<br />
common "rights" as citizens of <strong>the</strong> United States.<br />
The biography is long <strong>and</strong> detailed <strong>and</strong> is probably one of <strong>the</strong> best biographies on<br />
Br<strong>and</strong>eis that I have read. Ra<strong>the</strong>r than detail <strong>the</strong> book I want to use two episodes in<br />
Br<strong>and</strong>eis life as discussed in <strong>the</strong> book to make a few points.<br />
4.6.1 Privacy<br />
First, <strong>the</strong> issue of <strong>the</strong> right to privacy. On pp 99-102 <strong>the</strong> author describes <strong>the</strong> seminal<br />
paper by Warren <strong>and</strong> Br<strong>and</strong>eis entitled "The Right to Privacy" which as <strong>the</strong> author does<br />
state is in many ways a right to be left alone, a right to anonymity. The fact is that <strong>the</strong>re is<br />
no such right in <strong>the</strong> Constitution <strong>and</strong> that Warren <strong>and</strong> Br<strong>and</strong>eis, truly Br<strong>and</strong>eis alone if<br />
one underst<strong>and</strong>s <strong>the</strong> author, develops such "right" from well established common law<br />
principles. This was a brilliant paper <strong>and</strong> in many ways is as important today <strong>and</strong> it was<br />
over a hundred years ago. It would have been interesting for <strong>the</strong> author to detail this<br />
paper a bit more. The author returns to this topic of privacy in <strong>the</strong> discussion of <strong>the</strong><br />
Olmstead case on pp 628-632. This was <strong>the</strong> first wiretapping case where <strong>the</strong> Court ruled<br />
that <strong>the</strong>re was no need for a warrant <strong>and</strong> thus no 4th Amendment protection. Br<strong>and</strong>eis'<br />
Page 99