Papers by Charles U Zug
American Political Thought
Journal of Law and Courts, 2021
House deliberations over healthcare legislation in 1798 show members of the Fifth U.S. Congress d... more House deliberations over healthcare legislation in 1798 show members of the Fifth U.S. Congress debating the constitutional basis of small government assumptions about States’ rights and federal power, asking why the regime’s principles should not be understood as requiring direct federal intervention in the lives of socially and economically vulnerable groups irrespective of States’ authority. Extending the current scholarly debate over nationalization and state building in early American thought, I suggest that questions alleged by many scholars to have been excluded from political and constitutional debate in the early republic were, in cases like this, robustly contested.
Commentary Magazine, 2021
Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society, 2018
This article revisits Jeffrey Tulis’s The Rhetorical Presidency in the age of Trump, discussing t... more This article revisits Jeffrey Tulis’s The Rhetorical Presidency in the age of Trump, discussing the debates to which it originally responded, its core thesis and empirical evidence, as well as its impact on political science in the last three decades. The article’s second half turns to a recent critique of Tulis’s thesis by Ann C. Pluta, which manifests many of the misunderstandings that have persisted since The Rhetorical Presidency’s original publication. Habits of thought revealed in Pluta’s misunderstandings, I argue, are emblematic of the political culture that is amenable to the simplistic yet politically effective appeals characteristic of rhetorical presidents like Donald Trump. Elements of the broader political-science world that are on display in Pluta’s article are symptomatic of political pathologies sustained and aggravated by the culture of the polity that political scientists inhabit and purport to study—the culture of the rhetorical presidency.
Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society, 2019
Anne C. Pluta’s reply to my critique perpetuates the errors that undermined the article I critici... more Anne C. Pluta’s reply to my critique perpetuates the errors that undermined the article I criticized. Pluta dismisses out of hand my suggestion that her mistakes are the result of the particular lens through which she and much of the political science community view the American presidency. Yet this suggestion has the merit of explaining why she contends that piling up nineteenth-century instances of presidential public “speech” undermines Jeffrey Tulis’s contention that the nature of presidential speech changed decisively at the beginning of the twentieth century, such that rhetorical, often-demagogic appeals over the heads of Congress displaced public speech that affirmed the values of republican, constitutional government.
Australian Journal of Politics & History , 2020
For almost four decades preceding the 1787-88 ratification debates — during which American Federa... more For almost four decades preceding the 1787-88 ratification debates — during which American Federalists drew severe criticism from the Anti-Federalists — Enlightenment politics in Europe had been undergoing equally severe criticism from Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Though largely unaware of each other, both of these critics advanced distinctive republican theories based on civic virtue and individual liberty. Rousseau argued for a republic which would require the near-total alienation of retained natural rights, abstention from bourgeois commerce, and complete conformity to the general will. The Anti-Federalists, by contrast, envisioned a republic based on retained natural rights, one that would reconcile the communitarian spirit of antiquity with the commercial values and individual rights of modernity. By comparing and contrasting the most salient features of these contending visions, whose theoretical trajectories are — I argue — crucially opposed, we can glimpse the inherent conflicting requisites of republican government and therewith some of the enduring dilemmas of republican theory.
Interpretation: A Journal of Political Philosophy, 2018
Michael Gillespie has obviously spent a good many years thinking about Nietzsche and reflecting o... more Michael Gillespie has obviously spent a good many years thinking about Nietzsche and reflecting on the seductiveness of his works as well as what makes that seductiveness so dangerous. As goes without saying, this book exhibits the same clarity, thoughtfulness, and wide learning that are on display in Gillespie's previous books. I n t e r p r e t a t i o n Volume 44 / Issue 3 1 Selected Letters of Friedrich Nietzsche, ed. Christopher Middleton (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969), 297.
Perspectives on Political Science, 2018
Political philosophers and their commentators frequently analogize human bodies and bodies politi... more Political philosophers and their commentators frequently analogize human bodies and bodies politic, evaluating individual cities and empires in terms of health and sickness much the way a doctor would evaluate a patient. Today, however, the field of political science has all but renounced the task of which its ancient counterpart held itself worthy. Accordingly, many scholars have explained why political science, once prescriptive, gradually turned descriptive, concentrating above all on the turn to “value-free” social science. By contrast, the following paper examines the possibility of, and tries to sketch out, a diagnostic approach to politics, one that would restore to the study of politics its pre “value free” practical task: advising particular regimes on the basis of their particular political needs.
Perspectives on Political Science, 2019
The End of Europe by James Kirchick and The Strange Death of Europe by Douglas Murray evince many... more The End of Europe by James Kirchick and The Strange Death of Europe by Douglas Murray evince many of the very same political and discursive pathologies which they successfully diagnose in European politics. Both authors have discovered that Europe’s current situation is as much a result of irresponsible public policies and mismanaged crises as of a decay in European political thinking, a decay manifested in Europe’s ever-more simplistic, anti-deliberative—in a word, demagogic—public discourse. And yet, Europeans of today find themselves in a social, political, and economic crisis in part because they lack the discursive means to recognize and deliberate on the very crisis they are in. The result is a damaging political state of affairs which makes escape from itself nearly impossible—a political pathology. Kirchick and Murray do a fine job of capturing the true character of this discourse in their books, yet they do so by unwittingly reproducing it themselves, thereby revealing the difficulties inherent in reforming a political culture from within.
Law and Liberty, 2019
In recent years—particularly since Brexit, Trump’s 2016 election, and the rise of figures such as... more In recent years—particularly since Brexit, Trump’s 2016 election, and the rise of figures such as Marine Le Pen and Victor Orbán—the terms populism and demagoguery have come to be used with increased frequency in political discourse. And yet, the concepts which these terms refer to remain unclear—as testified by the emergence of books (scholarly and general-audience) purporting to clarify what it is, precisely, that makes a demagogue and a populist. Adding to, or perhaps resulting from, this general lack of clarity is the fact that demagoguery and populism tend to be used interchangeably, often to describe those now-familiar political figures whose characteristic attributes include raging against neo-liberalism and globalization in the name of ordinary people, condemning “elites” of all stripes, and advocating a return to traditional local or nationalistic values, particularly as these regard religion, gender, and race. The temptation to group these two concepts together is understandable, and in some ways, useful. Demagogues are often populists and populists frequently use demagoguery. Yet beyond their obvious similarities, these terms stand for distinct political concepts.
THE WASHINGTON POST, 2018
On Tuesday night, President Trump delivers his State of the Union address, as have scores of pres... more On Tuesday night, President Trump delivers his State of the Union address, as have scores of presidents before him. But the On Tuesday night, President Trump delivers his State of the Union address, as have scores of presidents before him. But the performance probably won't do what it was originally designed for: framing a productive debate between two branches of performance probably won't do what it was originally designed for: framing a productive debate between two branches of government about the nation's direction.
Law and Liberty, 2018
Brett Kavanaugh’s recent nomination to the Supreme Court has sparked renewed interest in the alte... more Brett Kavanaugh’s recent nomination to the Supreme Court has sparked renewed interest in the alternatives of “originalism” and “the living constitution”—what some conservatives are calling “A Battle of Two Constitutions.” Though it was written several months before Kavanaugh’s nomination, Carson Holloway’s eloquent and thought-provoking essay, “In Defense of Originalism” (published in Public Discourse April 3, 2018) constitutes a timely addition to this debate. Holloway’s particular defense of originalism bases that doctrine on the twin notions of “original intent” and “original public meaning.” While sound in many respects, Holloway’s defense contains several historical and theoretical weaknesses which defenders of living constitutionalism are likely to exploit—weaknesses which make an improved version of originalism more necessary than ever.
Claremont Review of Books, 2018
Claremont Review of Books Print, 2018
We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN, 2018
Book Reviews by Charles U Zug
Constitutional Redemption deserves as much attention from political theorists as from its intende... more Constitutional Redemption deserves as much attention from political theorists as from its intended audience of Constitutional lawyers and students of American Politics. Balkin makes a serious and compelling new case for the legitimacy of the Constitution of the United States--a case that, in principle, could be extended to constitutions of other nations, as well. That our Constitution requires such a case to be made on its behalf constitutes the philosophical pillar of Balkin’s argument. If this argument is to stand, that pillar must be solid; Balkin must prove the inadequacy of the most serious previous Constitutional interpretations--including that of the Constitution’s Framers--by proving the philosophical superiority of his own. Has he done this?
Thesis Chapters by Charles U Zug
University of Texas at Austin
In Xenophon’s Hellenica, or “Greek Affairs” from 404-362 BCE, both empire and its absence entail ... more In Xenophon’s Hellenica, or “Greek Affairs” from 404-362 BCE, both empire and its absence entail characteristic advantages and disadvantages. An international arrangement without empire is necessarily one of empire-seekers; and the quest for empire is, while impressive, also a risky and destabilizing enterprise. Xenophon illuminates these aspects of empire in the Hellenica by drawing our attention to the rise and fall of three empire-seekers, thereby revealing the considerable advantages that such human beings bring with them to political life. These advantages consist, above all, in dependable order, foresight regarding future contingencies, and the capacity on the part of rulers to anticipate such contingencies. By the same token, Xenophon reveals what political life lacks when empire is absent in the international sphere: A crucial cause of Greece’s confusion and disorder is the absence of any single man or city capable of imposing stable rule through empire. More specifically, however, Xenophon depicts surpassingly capable potential rulers—most notably, Alcibiades, Thrasybulus, and Jason of Pherai—coming to premature ruin. One of the core questions of the Hellenica, then, concerns why all of Greece’s empire-seekers fail in their ambitions, as well as how they achieve their successes initially. Is it by the “science of empire,” evinced most clearly by Cyrus the Great, the main character of Xenophon’s historical novel, The Education of Cyrus? Or do chance, or providential deities, play a greater role in the initial successes, as well as in the ultimate failures, of Xenophon’s failed imperialists than we might at first realize?
Talks by Charles U Zug
There was a time when all truly great thinkers agreed with each other that seeking and rationally... more There was a time when all truly great thinkers agreed with each other that seeking and rationally articulating nature was the most important philosophical task for human beings: one thinks of such classics as Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes. By the nineteenth century, however, things in philosophy had changed; Hegel and Nietzsche were emphasizing the singular importance of seeking and rationally investigating, not nature, but History. What happened in philosophy, then, with the result that the latter view came to predominate? My talk introduces this question by investigating three philosophical thinkers--Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Nietzsche--in whose works the study of history is central. My goal is to discern the ways in which these thinkers differ in respect to the importance of studying nature and history.
Uploads
Papers by Charles U Zug
Book Reviews by Charles U Zug
Thesis Chapters by Charles U Zug
Talks by Charles U Zug