No abstract

No abstract

The author argues that Machiavelli's political theory provides us with a framework that can be used to illuminate the words and deeds of Abraham Lincoln. He draws primarily on the competing interpretations of Machiavelli offered by J.G.A. Pocock, on one hand, and Harvey Mansfield on the other. According to the author, Pocock's and Mansfield's very different readings of Machiavelli can both be employed to shed light on Lincoln's multifaceted statesmanship. This conclusion is at odds with the interpretation of Lincoln offered by John Patrick Diggins in The Lost Soul of American Politics. According to Diggins, there may be some similarities between Lincoln and Machiavelli, but “such similarities… are far less telling than the contrasts.” The author hopes to convince the reader that a Machiavellian interpretation of Lincoln is, in fact, far more compelling than Diggins would have us believe.

I argue in this article that Robert Putnam's primary strategy for reviving civil society in Bowling Alone is an example of “the doctrine of self‐interest properly understood,” a doctrine that Alexis de Tocqueville found prevalent among “American moralists.” By considering him to be a modern version of the American moralist discussed by Tocqueville, new light can be shed on both the merits and the limitations of Putnam's achievement. In addition to using Tocqueville's writings to critically interpret Putnam, I also use Bowling Alone as an occasion to explore—and better understand—Tocqueville's own deep ambivalence toward the “doctrine of self‐interest properly understood.” I contrast Putnam's Bowling Alone with Robert Bellah and others' Habits of the Heart. Understanding the important differences between these two self‐proclaimed neo‐Tocquevillians can help illuminate the promise and the peril of contemporary arguments for reviving civil society that employ the language of self‐interest properly understood.

No abstract