Notes

  1. . On scarcity generally see Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Population: Resources: Environment (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1970); and Donella H. Meadows, Dennis Meadows, Jorgen Randers, and William W. Behrens 111, The Limits to Growth (New York: Universe Books, 1972). See also Lester Brown, World Without Borders (New York: Random House, 1972); Barbara Ward and Rene Dubos, Only One Earth (New York: W. W. Norton, 1972); and Allan Schnaiberg, The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980). For opposing points of view see Melvin Grayson and Shepard Thomas, The Disaster Lobby (New York: McGraw–Hill, 1973); John Maddox, The Doomsday Syndrome (New York: McGraw–Hill, 1972); and especially H. S. D. Cole et al., Models of Doom: A Critique of the Limits to Growth (New York: Universe Books, 1973). On possible social consequences of scarcity see Paul Blumberg, Inequality in an Age of Decline (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980); Robert Fuller, Inflation: The Rising Cost of Living on a Small Planet (Washington, D.C.: World watch Institute, 1980); Richard Barnet, The Lean Years: Politics in the Age of Scarcity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1980). See also Bruce M. Shefrin, The Future of U.S. Politics in an Age of Economic Limits (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1980). On the problem of money shortage see James Chace, Solvency: The Problem of Suruival (New York: Random House, 1981).
  2. . On Hobbes as the real founder of liberalism see David Minar, Ideas and Politics (Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey, 1964), p. 43; and Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr., “Disguised Liberalism,” Public Policy 18 (1970): 621. On Locke see C. B. Macpherson, The Political Philosophy of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962); Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), pp. 202–51; Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, eds., History of Political Philosophy (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963), pp. 43–68; and Sheldon Wolin, Politics and Vision (Boston: Little, Brown, 1960), pp. 286–351. For a different interpretation of Locke's ideas see Martin Seliger, The Liberal Politics of John Locke (New York: Praeger, 1969). There is even a small revisionist school that argues against Locke's primacy in inspiring American ideals, for which see Garry Wills, Inventing America: Jefferson's Declaration of Independence (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1978). For the conventional view see Louis Hartz, The Liberal Tradition in America (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1955).
  3. . See Lester Thurow, The Zero Sum Society: Distribution and the Possibilities of Economic Change (New York: Basic Books, 1980).
  4. . On liberalism see William A. Orton, The Liberal Tradition (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1945); Guido de Ruggiero, The History of European Liberalism (Boston: Beacon Press, 1961); Frederick W. Watkins, The Political Tradition of the West (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1948); John Dunn, Western Political Theory in the Face of the Future (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), pp. 28–54. On American liberalism see Harry Girvetz, From Wealth to Welfare (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1950); and Hartz (n. 2 above). On the problem of defining liberalism in the American context see Kenneth M. Dolbeare, Directions in American Political Thought (New York: John Wiley, 1969), pp. 15–25. Gary Wills describes Richard Nixon as a classical liberal in his Nixon Agonistes (New York: Signet Books, 1971).
  5. . Thus the Nobel prize‐winning economist F. A. Hayek, sometimes erroneously referred to as conservative, writes, “The more I learn about the evolution of ideas, the more I have become aware that I am simply an unrepentent Old Whig—with the stress on the 'old'!” Postscript, “Why I am Not a Conservative,” to The Constitution of Liberty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), p. 409.
  6. . William Greider, “Welcome to the Marketplace that is Washington, Mr. President….” Washington Post, January 20, 1981. This was a reprint of an article which first appeared on January 20, 1977, with only the name of the president changed.
  7. . See ScottParadise, “The Vandal Ideology,” The Nation  209 (1969): 729.
  8. . A note on usage. Many social philosophers would of course deny that the adjective “special” adds anything to the concept of interest, since all interests are by definition special, there being no such thing as a general interest. That is a question the answer to which can only emerge from a discussion of the nature of the good society as such, an answer which is implicit in this whole paper.
  9. . See Robert L. Heilbroner, An Inquiry into the Human Prospect—Updated and Reconsidered for the 1980s (New York: W. W. Norton, 1980).
  10. . On relativism generally see A. D.Nelson, “Ethical Relativism and the Study of Political Values,” Canadian Journal of Political Science  11 (1978): 3–32. Nelson holds, and I would agree, that the relativist doctrine “is quite problematical, especially from an empirical and experiential standpoint” (p. 31). See also J. DonaldMOOR, “Values and Political Theory: A Modest Defense of a Qualified Cognitivism,” The Journal of Politics  39 (1977): 877–903; Walter B. Mean, “A Call for Conceptual Clarification in Value Theory: A Response to Prof. Moon.” ibid, pp. 904–12; and Moon, “Response to Prof. Mead,” ibid., pp. 913–15. I recognize of course that conviction as well as lack of conviction can lead to intolerance.
  11. . On the need for a substratum of society see Talcott Parsons, The Structure of Social Action (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1949), pp. 715–17. On community in America see Willmoore Kendell and George Carey, The Basic Symbols of the American Political Tradition (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1970).
  12. . On community see Carl J. Friedrich, ed., Nomos II: Community (New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1959). For a critical view of the concept see Raymond Plant, “Community: Concept, Conception and Ideology,” Politics and Society 8 (1978): 79–107.
  13. . See BruceDouglass, “The Common Good and the Public Interest,” Political Theory  9 (1980): 103–17.
  14. . Bertrand de Jouvenel, Sovereignty: An Inquiry into the Political Good, trans. J. F. Huntington (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 129.
  15. . Ibid., p. 165.
  16. . Claude E.Cochran, “Yves R. Simon and 'The Common Good: A Note on the Concept,” Ethics  88 (1978): 237.
  17. . Quoted in Mortimer J. Adler, The Common Sense of Politics (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971), p. 7. On the common good generally see Victor Ferkiss, The Future of Technological Civilization (New York: George Braziller, 1974), pp. 186–205.
  18. . See Isaiah Berlin, Two Concepts of Liberty (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1958). See also Ralph Pettman, Biopolitics and International Values: Investigating Liberal Nom (New York: Pergamon Press, 1981), pp. 100–6.
  19. . “LIBERTY, or FREEDOME, signifieth (properly) the absence of Opposition…. But when the impediment of motion, is in the constitution of one thing it selfe, we use not to say, it wants the Liberty; but the Power to move; as when a stone lyeth still, or a man is fastened to his bed by sickness.” Leviathan (London: J. M. Dent & Sons, 1914), p. 110.
  20. . On positive freedom see Victor Ferkiss, “Creating Chosen Futures: The New Meaning of Freedom in America's Third Century,” in Norman A. Graebner, ed., Freedom in America: A ZOO‐Year Perspective (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1977), pp. 249–64. See also Peter J.Stillman, “Freedom in Participation: The Revolutionary Theories of Hegel and Arendt,” American Behavioral Scientist  20 (1977): 477–92. Voltaire defined freedom thus “to be truly free is to have power to do. When I can do what I want to do, there is my liberty for me.” Quoted in de Jouvenel (n. 14 above), p. 248. Hume wrote “By liberty, then we can only, mean a power of acting or not acting, according to a determination of the will.” Quoted in Hayek (n. 5 above), p. 439. See also Frank H.Knight, “Discussion: The Meaning of Freedom,” Ethics  52 (1941 1942): ca. 93.
  21. . On human needs see Ferkiss, Future of Technological Civilization, pp. 165–85. See also James C. Davies, Human Nature in Politics (New York: John Wiley, 1963). For Abraham Maslow's ideas see his Toward a Psychology of Being, 2nd ed. (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1968). See also ChristianBay, “Needs, Wants and Political Legitimacy,“Canadian Journal of Political Science  1 (1968): 241–60, and StanleyLeese, “Human Needs: The Conditioning Factors,” Futures  8 (1976): 531–37. See also RamashrayRoy, “Human Needs and Freedom: Three Contrasting Perceptions and Perspectives,” Alternatives: A Journal of World Policy  5 (197980): 195–212.
  22. . This point is brilliantly developed in an ecological context in William Leis, The Limits to Satisfaction: An Essay on the Problem of Needs and Commodities (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1976).
  23. . See Robert E.Goodwin, “Symbolic Rewards: Being Bought off Cheaply,” Political Studies  25 (1979): 383–96.
  24. . On the concept of interests see Carl Friedrich, ed., Nomos 5: The Public Interest (New York: Atherton Press, 1962); Robert Paul Wolff, The End of Liberalism (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968), pp. 162–95; S. I.Benn, “Interest in Politics,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society  601960: 128; TheodoreBendett, “The Concept of Interest in Political Theory,” Political Theory  3 (1975): 245–58; ChristineSwanton, “The Concept of Interests,” Political Theory  8 (1980): 83–102; GrenvilleWall, “The Concept of Interest in Politics,” Politics and Society  5(1975): 487–510; and Brian Barry, “The Public Interest” in Political Philosophy, ed. Anthony Quinn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967), pp. 112–28. Note also Walter Lippmann's classic definition of the public interest: “what men would choose if they saw clearly, thought rationally, acted disinterestedly and benevolently,” The Public Philosophy (New York: Mentor Books, 1956), p. 40. See also William E. Connolly, The Terms of Political Discourse (Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1974), pp. 45–83; Richard Flathman, The Public Interest (New York: John Wiley, 1966); IsaacBal‐bus, “The Concept of Interest in Pluralist and Marxist Analysis,” Politics and Society  1 (1971): 151–78; Clarke E.Cochran, “Political Science and The Public Interest,” Journal of Politics  36 (1974): 327–55; and BrianBarry, “The Public Interest,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplement  38 (1964): 1–18.
  25. . On the problems of consensus in contemporary America, see Stephen R. Graubard, ed., “The End of Consensus?” a special issue of Daedalus 109 (Summer 1980).
  26. . See James Q.Wilson, “The Riddle of the Middle Class,” The Public Interest  39 (Spring 1975): 125–29.
  27. . For a dissent from a “liberal” point of view see Hayek (n. 5 above), p. 372.
  28. . On conservation from a political theory standpoint see ChanningKury, “Prolegomena to Conservation: A Fisheye View,” Natural Resources Journal  17 (1977): 493–509. See also R. KennethGodwin and W. BruceShepard, “Forcing Squares, Triangles and Ellipses into a Circular Paradigm: The Use of the Commons Dilemma in Examining the Allocation of Common Resources,” Western Political Quarterly  32 (1979): 265–77, which argues that the thesis of Garrett Hardin is much too simplified. See also Richard L.Meier, “Preservation: Planning for the Survival of Things,” Futures  12 (1980): 128–41; and Kimon Valaskis et al., The Conserver Society: A Workable Alternative for the Future (New York: Harper & Row, 1979).
  29. . See Theodore Lowi, The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States, 2nd ed. (New York: W. W. Norton, 1979). See also Robert C.Grady, “Interest–Group Liberalism and Juridical Democracy: Two Theses in Search of Legitimation,” American Politics Quarterly  6 (1978): 213–33.
  30. . “For the ultimate cost of judicial policy‐making is that judges are essentially irresponsible,” writes Martin Shapiro in “Judicial Activism” in The Third Century: America as a Post–Industrial Society, ed. Seymour Martin Lipset (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. 129.
  31. . Actually a good argument can be made on principle that smaller units of government are preferable in that they permit greater individual impact on decisions. See Andrew Greeley, No Bigger Than Necessary: An Alternative to Socialism, Capitalism and Anarchism (New York: New American Library, 1977).
  32. . The perennial issue of the desirable role for strong parties in the American political system is discussed in E. E. Schattschneider, Party Government (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1942); Everett Carl Ladd, Jr., “The American Party System Today” in Lipset, pp. 153–82; Bruce A. Campbell and Richard J. Trilling, eds., Realignment in American Politics: Towards a Theory (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1979); John Herbers, “The Party's Over for the Political Parties,” The New York Times Magazine (December 9, 1979): 158–82; and Michael T.Hayes, “The Semi‐sovereign Pressure Group: A Critique of Current Theory and an Alternative Typology,” The Journal of Politics  40 (1978): 134–61. On the relationship of such problems to environmentalism specifically see Frederich H. Buttel and William L. Flinn, “Environmental Politics: The Structures of Partisan and Ideological Cleavage in Mass Environmental Attitudes,” Sociological Quarterly 17 (1976): 447–90.
  33. . On centralization and decentralization in contemporary politics see Daniel J. Elezar, “Constitutionalism, Federalism and the Post‐Industrial American Policy,” in Lipset, pp. 79–107.
  34. . On new views of nature see Fritjof Capra, The Tao of physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism (Boulder, Colo.: Shambhala, 1975); and Gary Zukav, The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics (New York: William Morrow, 1979).
  35. . “We can now realistically speak of decentralization and participation within a common framework of macro control.” David W. Orr and Stuart Hill, “Leviathan, The Open Society, and the Crisis of Ecology,” Western Political Quarterly 30 (1978): 468.
  36. . On problems of contemporary leadership see Robert E.Lane, “Interpersonal Relations and Leadership in a 'Cold Society,”' Comparative Politics  10 (1978): 443–59.
  37. . Two recent books which address the problems of the American presidency, one suggesting constitutional reform as a means of 'strengthening his position and the other primarily political measures are Charles M. Hardin, Presidential Power and Accountability: Toward a New Constitution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974); and Godfrey Hodgson, All Things to All Men: The False Promise of the Modern American Presidency (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1980).
  38. . On authority see Carl J. Friedrich, ed., Nomos I. Authority (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958).
  39. . On legitimacy see John H.Herz, “Legitimacy: Can We Retrieve It?Comparative Politics  10 (1978): 317–44.
  40. . On global aspects of these problems see Ferkiss, “Nature, Technology and Politics in a Global Context,” Zygon 16 (June 1981): 127–49. See also Bart van Steenbergen and Gordon Feller, “Emerging Lifestyle Movements: Alternative to Overdevelopment?” Alternatives 5 (1979): 275–305; Dennis Pirages, ed., “International Politics of Scarcity,” special issue of International Studies Quarterly 21 (1977): 561–724; and George Kennan, “Cease This Madness,” Atlantic 247 (January 1981): 25–28.