Spring 2010 - Interpretation

3 3 0
I n t e r p r e t a t i o n
Here, then, is where the Dilemma of Progressivism becomes
apparent; for Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson specifically “reshape the American
regime of self-government” by discrediting the people’s claim to authority
and rather figure the government as the source of the people’s success than
the people as the source of the government’s success. Washington as the referee
between Davis and Lincoln must, in turn, referee the claims of Davis’s
and Lincoln’s successors.
Morrisey almost silently conveys this turn early in Dilemma,
when he writes,
Can a people govern itself? Must it not almost immediately run to
majoritarian passions ruling minorities without reciprocally being
ruled by them—without, in a word, reasonably sharing rule? Government
by consent means government by reasonable assent, government
by reflection and choice instead of accident and choice. Can such government
prevail among a sovereign people? (x)
Because Morrisey knows that Hamilton opposed “reflection
and choice” to “accident and chance” (choice, after all, succeeds deliberation),
this signals a reading of Hamilton that regards chance as choice guided
merely by passion rather than reason (Federalist 1).
Morrissey constructs the foundations of progressivism in
reference to the project(s) of modern science.
Modern science conquers fortune and nature slowly but surely; it
progresses toward complete human freedom, now said to be human
control over fortune and nature. The leader or guide shows the way
toward this human mastery. He seeks not to rule by moderating passions
but by fulfilling them; reason and the science it brings now serve
spiritedness, or libido dominandi. (xvii, original emphasis)
Dilemma of Progressivism, therefore, consists in determining
whether the architects of progressivism pursue the goals of modern science
or the goals of the “improved science of politics.” And Roosevelt, Taft, and
Wilson are the political architects of progressivism, willingly or unwillingly.
Morrissey’s careful construction of Taft’s statesmanship
demonstrates that Taft agreed with Hamilton’s caution against empowering
majoritarian passion, while separating from both Roosevelt and Wilson. In
that sense, the central figure in this account bears the weight of providing
the counter-argument to progressivism, despite Taft’s self-understanding as
a “progressive conservative.” Considerable irony attends the demonstration,