The American Founding, American Government Textbooks, and Civic Education

This article was downloaded by: [The University Of Melbourne Libraries]On: 11 October 2014, At: 00:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Political Science EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/upse20

The American Founding, AmericanGovernment Textbooks, and CivicEducationJim Franke a & Laurie M. Johnson Bagbya Kansas State UniversityPublished online: 01 Sep 2006.

To cite this article: Jim Franke & Laurie M. Johnson Bagby (2005) The American Founding, AmericanGovernment Textbooks, and Civic Education, Journal of Political Science Education, 1:2, 249-271,DOI: 10.1080/15512160590961766

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15512160590961766

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/upse20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/15512160590961766

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15512160590961766

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Review Essay

The American Founding, American GovernmentTextbooks, and Civic Education

JIM FRANKELAURIE M. JOHNSON BAGBY

Kansas State University

It is not at all unusual in an upper-division undergraduate class, or even on occasionin a graduate course, to discover that students view the founders in much the samecynical fashion as many tend to view public officials today. They are therefore sur-prised to discover that, for example, the founders spent considerable time discussingprevailing theories regarding human nature. More than once students haveresponded with something on the order of ‘‘you mean they actually thought aboutthis stuff?’’

The idea that the deliberations of the founders were serious, over substantive mat-ters, and highly reasoned, comes as a surprise to many students. To them it is quitestrange, and usually in the end quite a pleasant thought, to consider the Americanfounders as primarily thinking individuals who deliberated about the common goodwithin the context of sectional interests. The founders as men of ideas comes as arefreshing alternative to what students often perceive as the rough and tumble oftoday’s political figures and their functionaries, who seem more intent on image-making or shouting the opposition down than on true deliberation.

These types of exchanges with students over the years led us to wonder what theywere being taught about the founding in college level United States government text-books. The introductory course in U.S. politics may be the only course many collegestudents ever take on the subject. It is intrinsically important and interesting to knowwhat they are taught in those textbooks and to think about how what they are taughtmay impact on their general view of citizenship, their ‘‘civic education’’ if you will.

To that end, we have developed a typology of three different approaches to thestudy and interpretation of the American founding. These approaches include anemphasis on economics and=or class, the revolution of ideas, and power politics.We have examined the treatment of the founding in the top fifteen (in terms ofsales) introductory U.S. government textbooks relative to this typology.

Ideas provide the organizing framework in only about 25% of these texts. Morethan half present the founding as an exercise in power politics. We believe that notonly is this power politics emphasis at odds with the founders’ deliberations, butit also diminishes their accomplishments in the eyes of college students and mayengender, or at least contribute to, cynicism rather than a healthy skepticismregarding U. S. government and politics.

Address correspondence to Jim Franke, Department of Political Science, Kansas StateUniversity, Manhattan, KS 66506 USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Political Science Education, 1:249–271, 2005Copyright # 2005 Taylor & Francis Inc.ISSN: 1551-2169DOI: 10.1080/15512160590961766

249

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Introduction

There is a growing sentiment among scholars and educators that young people needmore civic education. This is because of a precipitous decline in civic participationand interest that began in the 1970s and continues today. In 1995 Robert Putnam’sarticle, ‘‘Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital,’’ started a nationalconversation concerning the state of America’s civil society and the need for arenewal of civic values. Putnam’s (2000) subsequent book painstakingly documentsthe dramatic decline in meaningful civic associations and other forms of partici-pation in the larger community. The dwindling support for local civic organizationsand efforts, the increasing disconnect among families and neighborhoods, the socialimpact of the Internet, all indicate that American society is becoming more and moredetached from a sense of community and civic responsibility.

William Galston and Peter Levine (1997) point out that traditional civic organi-zations such as the American Legion, Kiwanis, Optimists and Rotary Internationalhave experienced huge membership losses since 1974, despite opening their doors towomen. Unions, which gave so many ordinary people the experience of organizedpolitical activity, have also declined dramatically in membership. Due to the shiftfrom mainline to evangelical church-going, more people are becoming active in civicand political matters through their churches. However, Galston argues that manyevangelicals are motivated by a distrust of the larger community, which is not neces-sarily conducive to broader civic participation. As membership in local fraternal andauxiliary groups has declined, membership in what he calls mailing-list associationshas grown, but these give no meaningful experience in civic participation, and indeedmay serve as sort of an escape from politics. Galston concludes that there is cause tobe concerned about America’s civic health.

Putnam and Galston reflect the idea that civic health depends on participationand that participation is difficult to obtain in an atmosphere of cynicism and distrustof government. However, any thought along these lines inevitably falls prey to thecriticism that proposals for fosteringmore idealism and trust often sound too intrusive,too propagandistic, too top-down. Critics point out that distrust of government is acornerstone of American politics, whereas too much trust in government is usually aboon to those who would like to rule unchecked. However, distrust and cynicism aretwo different things. The criticisms are well taken, and yet, it remains true that cyni-cism can generate apathy and a retreat from civic participation.

In teaching our courses, political scientists need to bear in mind the distinctionbetween distrust, or skepticism if you will, and cynicism. On occasion we mayfocus so much on conveying the latest theoretical frameworks on our subjects thatwe may forget how alien and even irrelevant this may seem to our students. InAmerican government, we can come at the subject matter in this way even in anintroductory class, inadvertently turning one of the most compelling topics in polit-ical science for most undergraduates into a dry exercise in understanding theproper framework(s). Even the American founding, with the personal oddities ofmany of the principal actors, their often impassioned arguments, and the uniqueinternational circumstances, can be turned into something of little interest tostudents. Either it can be given little time and attention in favor of subjects ofseemingly more contemporary significance, or it can be treated, not as a uniqueand formative event in American history but as a product of impersonal economic,social, and cultural forces.

250 J. Franke and L. M. Johnson Bagby

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Treatment of the American founding as not inspired and driven by human idealsand worthy goals, but as a product of economic, social, and cultural forces, maycontribute to the cynicism many young people feel toward their government. Theproblem with cynicism, as opposed to skepticism or critical thinking, is that manyyoung people may opt out of the political process, not participating because theybelieve they can have no particular impact.1

At the university level, we have found that students are often surprised, and thenquite fascinated, when we deal with the American founding as a human enterprise inwhich individuals got together, sat down with each other and deliberated at lengthabout every aspect of the new constitution. The idea that the deliberations of thefounders were serious, over substantive matters, and highly reasoned, comes as a sur-prise to many students. As a matter of fact, the founders as men of ideas comes as aninteresting alternative to what students often perceive as the rough and tumble beha-vior of today’s political figures, who seem more intent on image-making or shoutingthe opposition down, than on true deliberation. Students often see today’s politicalprocess as mainly about competing economic interests and find it difficult at first toeven imagine politics being about more than the greed of various factions.

What students are taught about the American founding arguably becomes amodel for their understanding of our government and their relationship to it. If theyare taught the founding as a process of clashing economic or power interests, theywill be well exposed to the prevailing tendencies in the discipline of political science.For decades, political science has followed the trend of social sciences generallytoward value-neutrality. The purpose has been noble: to eliminate bias in politicalscience research. This more scientific approach, however, tends to exclude fromstudents’ serious consideration of the arguments, whether of the founders or ofcontemporary political figures, that are primarily moral or ethical in nature (thatis to say, most of their arguments).

David M. Ricci described this process in his path-breaking The Tragedy ofPolitical Science, when he noted, ‘‘In sum, political studies suffer from overempha-sizing science while paying insufficient attention to the realm of morals, where menmay be impelled to behave well and inspired to resist wrongdoing’’ (Ricci 1984, 304).For Ricci, this trend had serious implications for American civic education.

In the past decade, more consideration has been paid to the implications forcitizenship training in our educational process. In some public schools, experimentalcurricula have been introduced in an attempt to find out how to better teach goodcitizenship values and habits. Evaluating how the American founding is taught thereas well as in our colleges and universities would appear to be a crucial component inany attempt to improve citizen education. Gary Wills, in his Inventing America:Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence (1978) indicates just how important he thinksa proper understanding of the founding is for American citizens. For Wills, the foun-ders and other great American figures will naturally serve as models of good citizenvalues and behavior. Such modeling is so important to Wills that he rather con-sciously emphasizes what he considers to be their truly good qualities, those thatwe should be proud of and emulate, and de-emphasizes their less appealing qualities,such as their ambiguity on race. For Wills the most important thing is that thefounding fathers reflect civic virtue as we need it now, that they help us form ourmodern civil religion.

Since we had to narrow the possibilities of our investigation of students’ civiceducation regarding the founding, we thought a fairly good place to start would

The Founding and American Government Textbooks 251

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4

be with an analysis of college-level U.S. government textbooks. The introductorycourse in U.S. politics may be the only course many college students ever takeon the subject. It is important to know what they are taught in these textbooksand to think about how what they are taught may impact their general view ofcitizenship, their ‘‘civic education.’’

The Textbooks

Our data involve U.S. Government textbooks and authors commonly used inintroductory college courses. Although those of us who teach these courses regularlycould rather easily come up with the top textbooks, we decided to rely upon salesdata to identify these texts. The most recent data we could obtain was for the2001–2002 academic year. Based upon these sales data we selected fifteen textbooksthat represent collectively 50.6% of book purchases (new plus used) during this timeperiod.2 In addition to these specific texts, most of these authors were involved withthe production of the same text in a different size or format. For example, a givenbook may be sold in a full-length and a shorter version or the same text might besold by itself and bundled with some software or a study guide. To the best of ourknowledge these different sizes and formats contained if not exactly the samediscussion of the founding as in the texts we have examined in detail, it containedsomething quite close. When we add in these additional sizes and formats producedby the authors mentioned below, we arrive at 80.5% of the new and used bookmarket.

As is evident from Table 1, the top fifteen texts involved in this research are quitefamiliar to those of us who teach these introductory courses. For ease of interpret-ation we have scaled these proportions to 100%. In an effort not to misrepresent anyrecent changes that may have occurred in these texts, we obtained the most recentavailable editions. We then identified the sections that dealt directly with the foun-ding and undertook an analysis of the content based on the categories of scholarlyinterpretations of the founding described below. Normally the material concerningthe founding appeared together in a separate chapter. Sometimes it stretched acrosstwo chapters (the second chapter usually dealing with Federalism) or even three (theIntroduction). Although this is not an ideal sampling plan, we are confident thatmost of what students are reading in introductory U.S. Government courses isincluded in our data.

Interpretations of the Founding

We have relied upon three general interpretive frameworks that are clearly dis-tinguishable, each of which provide students with a fairly different outlook on theAmerican founding and upon their government, and each of which is probably quitefamiliar to serious students of the American founding. These three frameworks are 1)a revolution of ideas; 2) economic=class influence; and 3) power politics. The‘‘revolution of ideas’’ approach characterized our interpretation of the foundingthroughout most, if not all, of the nineteenth century. Early in the twentieth century,especially associated with the scholarship of Charles Beard (1913), the economic=class influence school first appeared. Later in the 20th century through the workof first Max Farrand (1913) and more recently John Roche (1961), the power politicsnotion takes shape. In turn, each of these frameworks are the product of moregeneral developments of an ideological naturewithin the discipline of political science.3


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4

The Revolution of Ideas: The Founders as Philosophers

In one form or another this is the interpretation of the founding that prevailedthroughout most of the nineteenth century. This viewpoint begins from the prop-osition that the founders were serious thinkers dealing with enduring issues in aforthright manner. More specifically, the founders are presented as endeavoring toshape the new republic in harmony with 18th century liberal ideas, especially ideas

Table 1. Introductory U.S. government textbooks, new and used, GTE 1.6%marketshare, academic year 2001–2002

Burns, James MacGregor, J. W. Peltason, Thomas E. Cronin, David B. Magleby,David M. O’Brien, and Paul C. Light. 2004. Government By The People:Basic Version, 20th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson,Prentice-Hall Inc.

Cummings, Milton C. Jr. and David Wise. 1997. Democracy Under Pressure:An Introduction to the American Political System, 8th Edition. Fort Worth, TX:Harcourt Brace.

Dye, Thomas R. 1999. Politics in America, 3rd Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice-Hall Inc.

Dye, Thomas R. and Harmon Zeigler. 2000. The Irony of Democracy: An UncommonIntroduction to American Politics-Millennial Edition. Fort Worth, TX: HarcourtBrace College Publishers.

Edwards III, George C., Martin P. Wattenberg, and Robert L. Lineberry. 2004.Government in America: People, Politics, and Policy, 11th Edition. New York:Pearson Longman.

Ginsberg, Benjamin, Theodore J. Lowi, and Margaret Weir. 2003. We thePeople: An Introduction to American Politics, 4th Edition. New York:W.W. Norton.

Greenberg, Edward S., and Benjamin I. Page. 2001. The Struggle for Democracy, 5thEdition. New York: Longman.

Janda, Kenneth, Jeffrey M. Berry, and Jerry Goldman. 2002. The Challenge ofDemocracy: Government in America–Post 9=11 Edition, 7th Edition. Boston:Houghton Mifflin Company.

Kernell, Samuel, and Gary C. Jacobson. 2000. The Logic of American Politics.Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Lowi, Theodore J., Benjamin Ginsberg, and Kenneth A. Shepsle. 2002. AmericanGovernment: Power & Purpose, 7th Edition. New York: W.W. Norton.

O’Connor, Karen and Larry J. Sabato. 2004. American Government: Continuity andChange– Alternate 2004 Edition. New York: Pearson Longman.

Patterson, Thomas E. 2001. The American Democracy, 5th Edition. Boston:McGraw Hill.

Schmidt, Steffen W., Mack C. Shelley, and Barbara A. Bardes. 2003. AmericanGovernment and Politics Today. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth=Thomson Learning.

Welch, Susan, John Gruhl, John Comer, and Susan M. Ridgon. 2001. AmericanGovernment, 8th Edition, Belmont. CA: Wadsworth=Thomson Learning.

Wilson, James Q. and John J. DiIulio, Jr. 2004. American Government: Institutionsand Policies, 9th Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4

involving a concern for liberty broadly understood. This approach rather self-consciously takes political philosophy per se seriously.

Textbooks adopting this approach emphasize the philosophic ideas that influ-enced the founders and the specific ways in which these ideas are reflected in theConstitution. The ideas of the founders would be linked with the ideas of westernpolitical philosophers such as Locke, Hobbes, and the writers of the ScottishEnlightenment. Notions of natural right, property, social contract, constitution-alism, and limited government would receive detailed attention. These ideas wouldnot be presented in a disconnected, post hoc fashion.

As is the case for all three interpretations, this perspective recognizes the foun-ders as an unusual group. Attention is focused in a positive fashion upon their intel-lectual training and capabilities, and political experiences. We would understand, forexample, that the founders were exceptionally well educated and generally familiarwith a common, and relatively small, core of ancient and modern thinkers. Unliketoday’s typical education that does not usually contain such a common core,this allows the founders to speak a common philosophical language and to translatethat language readily into the Constitution.

In terms of our ‘‘understanding’’ of the founders’ motivations, this interpret-ation takes their public commentary at face value. Therefore the best evidence ofwhat they are attempting to accomplish is the written record of the day. We needonly look closely at what the written record has to say, or at the work of philoso-phers they drew upon, in order to appreciate their handiwork, and to understandthe ‘‘real’’ motivations behind the founding. This is done by investigating excerptsfrom the Federalist Papers, the writings of the anti-federalists, the notes from theconstitutional convention, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution,and the personal written communications among the principal participants.

The Federalist Papers tend to be treated as especially pertinent and presented asserious, perhaps the most serious, works of American political thought. Just as theconcepts developed by great western thinkers are closely detailed, we would expectthat the most ‘‘important’’ of the Papers to be carefully parsed.

Federalist Ten and Fifty-One are particularly important for this interpretation.The founders’ comments regarding human nature—critical to any thoughtfulscheme of government are the starting point in any analysis. Self-interest is criticalto understanding human behavior. It drives the formation of citizen factions andthe ambition of public officials. Federalist Ten is seen as including much more thanthe argument about diversity leading to toleration and moderation. We would seethat the founders were concerned about factions other than those based upon pro-perty and that they took a decidedly ‘‘modern’’ approach to the problem of factionby dealing with the ‘‘effects’’ rather that the ‘‘causes’’ of their development.4 Interms of Federalist Fifty-One, besides an emphasis upon the ‘‘constitutional means’’for dealing with tyranny we would also be told about the ‘‘personal motives’’involved.

Chief among the theorists who see the founding as mainly about ideas is MartinDiamond (1970, 1979, 1981). Indeed, Diamond’s (1970) own U.S. government text-book was written largely as a response to the Beardian approach, which Diamondbelieved prevailed in U.S. Government textbooks of his time. Diamond thought thatthe economic approach to the founding was misleading from a factual standpointand also was detrimental to developing good citizenship values in students becauseit promoted cynicism.5


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Debunking the Founders

Recent generations of political scientists, especially those outside the subfield ofpolitical thought, may not be particularly familiar with the ‘‘ideas’’ interpretiveframework. Many of us, especially those with fields in American Politics, were raisedprofessionally on the arguments of those who reacted against the revolution of ideasperspective. While the names of scholars such as Diamond may be foreign to manycontemporary political scientists, few among us do not instantly recognize the namesand the ideas of Charles Beard and John Roche. Although their work ends up goingin decidedly different directions, these two scholars take the lead in what amounts toa disciplinary revolution in opposition to understanding the founding in terms of theliberal political philosophy of the founders. Beard is an especially critical figure.Gordon Wood (1980, 2), speaking to the nature of the book’s impact characterizedBeard’s book as the most ‘‘important work of American history.’’ In effect, Beardopens the floodgates for subsequent revisionists’ academic and political perspectiveson the founding. The reverence for the role of ideas, for the founder themselves, per-haps even for political philosophy, are all casualties to one degree or another of thedebunking of the ideas perspective and the elevation of more ‘‘pragmatic’’ and=or‘‘realistic’’ approaches emphasizing process and behavior in the twentieth century.

Economic=Class Influence: The Founders as Reactionary Elitists

This approach presents the American founding as largely a product of economicand=or class interests. The Constitution is viewed as protecting the interests of therich, or of particular sectors of the nascent economy. This approach has become syn-onymous among writers of American government textbooks with the scholarship ofCharles Beard (1913) from the early portion of the twentieth century. Beard arguedthat behind the debates and writings of the founders were economic and class inter-ests that fundamentally influenced their proposals.

Textbooks employing this framework diminish the importance of the founders’liberal ideas. In essence, these ideas are reduced to mere rhetoric designed to hood-wink the public during the ratification struggle. This is not to say, however, that thisapproach to the founding denies the relevance of ideas per se. Rather, and this oftengets lost in the scholarly rhetoric, this perspective actually argues that the foundershave very different ideas from those normally attributed to them. Moreover, these‘‘real’’ ideas are substantially hidden from public view.

Beard, for example, does not maintain that the founders were rudderless interms of guiding principles, although these ‘‘principles’’ are usually reduced to thenarrow, venal, and economic. That is, we are usually told that most of the foundershad particular sorts of investments that would prosper if the new government wasstructured in a particular manner. A somewhat more nuanced interpretation of this‘‘elite’’ argues that the founders were actually classical conservatives who believedthat the few should rule, not just because they are the wealthy, but because theyare more worthy.

Regardless of the exact nature of the ‘‘real’’ ideas of the founders according tothis interpretation, of necessity they had to be kept from the view of the general pub-lic. In an environment in which the new government was going to be based uponsome manner of popular consent, the founders could hardly appeal to the ‘‘many’’for support by articulating a set of principles that assumed basic inequality and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4

worked to the direct financial benefit of the ‘‘few’’. Hence the founders needed tomask their true ideas with republican and=or democratic rhetoric. The written publicrecord is thus not a reliable source for understanding the intentions of the founders.By implication, the Federalist Papers and the arguments they contain are mere posthoc rhetoric designed to obscure the class motivated interests of the founders.

Michael Parenti’s scholarship is a good example of what might be called the con-temporary Beardian school. Parenti argues, for instance, ‘‘The nationalist convictionthat arose so swiftly among men of property during the 1780s was not the product ofa strange transcendent inspiration; it was not a ‘dream of nation-building’ thatsuddenly possessed them as might a collective religious experience.’’ Instead, itwas ‘‘a practical and urgent response to material conditions affecting them in themost immediate way’’ (Parenti, 1980). Parenti’s (2001) own textbook takes anextremely critical view of all aspects of the American experience, from the foundingto contemporary politics, with the pertinent chapter entitled ‘‘A Constitution for theFew.’’ Historian Gordon Wood’s thesis is somewhat similar to Beard’s, since it toosees a secretive elite working on its own agenda behind the scenes.6

What then becomes the best evidence of the founders’ intentions? Beard, anearly behaviorialist, tells us that we need to focus upon ‘‘objective’’ indicators begin-ning with the economic background of the founders. As opposed to the ‘‘ideas,’’advocates who, while they grant that the founders were an unusual lot, focus uponthe founders’ intellectual prowess, the class orientation directs our attention to theeconomic backgrounds of the founders. ‘‘Data,’’ such as the number who were plan-ters, merchants, etc. and the number who held public paper under the Articlesof Confederation are emphasized. Such textbooks tie this sort of background toparticular class interests and to the economic problems arising in the colonies underthe Articles of Confederation. The final step in the argument is to emphasize theso-called ‘‘undemocratic’’ elements of the Constitution. The conclusion is thatthe founders were the colonial economic elite that was made desperate by exploitsof such folks as Daniel Shays. As a consequence, they authored a Constitution thatnot only protected, but enhanced their particular property.7

Democratic Power Politics: The Founders as Movers and Shakers

The third and most recently articulated approach to understanding the founding isas an example of democratic politics. The general idea here is that the founders wereattempting to shape the new republic in a manner consistent with popular sentiment.The best example of a political scientist who follows this approach is John Roche(1961). He argues that political scientists are wrong if they see the founding as a pro-duct of high-minded ideals and philosophical dialogue, but they are equally wrong ifthey see the founding in terms of economic interest or social forces. In other words,Roche has little use for either the ‘‘ideals’’ or the ‘‘economics’’ approach. For him,there is plenty of evidence that the founding was much more down to earth than that.The constitutional convention was a political process in which the delegates, comingfrom different areas with divergent material and power interests, competed for apiece of the pie. Roche’s often-quoted description of the events in Philadelphia in1787 is that ‘‘. . . it was not a College of Cardinals or a council of platonic guardiansworking in a manipulative, pre-democratic framework; it was a nationalist reformcaucus that had to operate with great delicacy and skill in a political cosmos fullof enemies . . .’’ (Roche 1961, 799).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Textbooks taking this approach downplay the importance of the philosophicalideas of the founders and tend to question their relevance. Instead, this frameworkemphasizes the different interests among the founders that necessitated politicalcompromise. Particular attention is given to the process of the convention andthe politics that were going on around it. This perspective stresses the series ofcompromises—the Connecticut and the Three-Fifths compromises receiving themost attention—that occurred at the Constitutional convention.

As was the case with the Beardian approach, matters are not what they seem interms of any written record that endeavors to explain the Constitution in terms ofprinciple or political theory. As far as the impact of prominent political thinkerswas concerned, Roche only allows that the founders had ‘‘. . . some acquaintancewith the history of political thought’’ and that it would have been a ‘‘poor rhetor-ician indeed who could not cite Locke, Montesquieu, or Harrington in support ofa desired goal’’ (Roche 1961, 809). Connections would not be made between sayMontesquieu’s ideas and the separation of powers argument. Rather the separationof powers would merely be portrayed as a tool for the founders to deal with thedistrust that existed among various interests.

In its purest form, this interpretation of the founding spares none of the period’sicons. The Federalist Papers are characterized as some manner of post hoc rationa-lization of what finally emerged from the rough and tumble politics at the Philadelphiaconvention. Madison and Hamilton are portrayed as political hacks. According toRoche, ‘‘The Federalist Papers is probative evidence for only one proposition: thatHamilton and Madison were inspired propagandists with a genius for retrospectivesymmetry’’ (Roche 1961, 804). The bottom line for Roche is that: ‘‘Drawing on theirvast collect political experience, utilizing every weapon in the politician’s arsenal,looking constantly over their shoulders at their constituents, the delegates puttogether a Constitution. It was a makeshift affair. . .’’ (Roche 1961, 812).

Analysis

Table 2 indicates our assessments of the interpretive categories into which each ofthe fifteen treatments of the founding fall. Some were easy to place, most werenot. Perhaps not surprisingly given that these authors are political scientists, themost popular approach is the power politics perspective. We have placed six ofthe authors, accounting for about half of the market share reflected by these authors,

Table 2. Market shares, new and used introductory U. S. government textbooks byfounding interpretive framework, academic year 2001–2002

Ideas (23.4)% Class (25.6%) Politics (51.0%)

Edwards Dye BurnsPatterson Dye & Ziegler CummingsWelch Ginsberg JandaWilson Lowi Kernell

O’ConnorSchmidt

Total actual market share for these 15 authors is 80.5%. Figures were scaled to 100% foreasier interpretation.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4

into this category. Both the ideas and the class perspective are less popular, approxi-mately splitting the rest of the market attributable to these authors. Much of whatwe expected to see in each category was reflected by these authors. However, therewere some surprises.

The Revolution of Ideas Perspective

As is the case in all three categories, in our opinion some of the authors are morethoroughly qualified for inclusion than others. Regardless, all four authors seemself-consciously to emphasize the importance of ideas as an explanatory variablewith respect to the document produced in 1787.

To begin with, the founders are presented in very positive terms and the reader’sattention is drawn to their familiarity with both philosophy and history. Edwardset al. (2004, 30) tell us, for example, that they were ‘‘learned and widely-read men,familiar with the works of English, French, and Scottish political philosophers.’’Welch et al. (2001, 37) expand on this theme by saying that the framers ‘‘reflected theideals of the Enlightenment, a pattern of thought emphasizing the use of reason, ratherthan tradition or religion, to solve problems; they studied past governments to deter-mine why they had failed in the hope they could apply these lessons to the present.’’

One of the criticisms leveled at the ideas interpretation of the founding focusesupon the lack of specific references to this or that philosopher or to this or thatphilosophical concept. These scholars point, however, to the common intellectualunderstanding shared by most of the founders that would have allowed them to com-municate in what amounts to philosophical shorthand. For instance, Wilson andDiIulio comment that although ‘‘the speeches of the delegates did not explicitly drawupon political philosophy or quote from the writings of philosophers. Everybodypresent was quite familiar with the traditional arguments and, on the whole, wellread in history.’’ (Wilson and DiIulio 2004, 24). Welch et al. are equally to the pointas they ague that:

The founders were exceptionally well-educated intellectuals whoincorporated philosophical ideas into the Constitution. At a time whenthe average person did not dream of going to college, a majority of thefounders graduated from college. As learned men, they shared a commonlibrary of writers and philosophers. (Welch et al. 2001, 37)8

Besides arguing on behalf of the direct influence of various philosophers on thefounders and on the Constitution, we see these authors parsing the arguments usedby a philosopher. Wilson and DiIulio, for example, comment on the impact of JohnLocke generally and specifically upon the founders’ articulation of a natural rightsposition. Most authors falling into the other categories would not go beyond simplystating that Locke and the founders believed that folks have natural rights. Wilsonand DiIulio (2004, 25), however, go on to talk about the state of nature and Locke’sargument to the effect that such rights are discoverable by reason.

As expected, the Federalist Papers are highly regarded. Edwards et al. (2004, 48),for example, comment that the Federalist Papers ‘‘. . . not only defended theConstitution detail by detail, but also represented an important statement of politicalphilosophy.’’ Once again as we expected, the more famous of the papers are dis-cussed at length. The treatment by these authors of Federalist Ten is especially


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4

instructive. Specifically, they address to one degree or another the range of optionsconsidered for dealing with the violence of faction, the sense in which Madison’schoice is a ‘‘republican remedy for the defects of republicanism’’, and the fact thatthis is a decidedly novel and ‘‘modern’’ solution to the problem.

Looked at somewhat differently, authors taking this approach to the foundingemphasize and discuss the ‘‘big’’ ideas that have always puzzled political philoso-phers. Such discussions typically begin by addressing the founders’ assumptionsregarding human nature. In a very real sense, this is the raw material with whichthe founders were working and upon which many of the features of the new Consti-tution would be based. For the founders, humans were fundamentally motivated byself-interest. Wilson and DiIulio make clear that governments cannot abide this typeof unrestrained selfishness. The enduring question becomes what to do about thissituation. We are told that the ancients took a particular tack as ‘‘Ancient politicalphilosophers such as Aristotle believed that the first task of government was to cul-tivate virtue among the governed’’ (2004, 29). In effect, what has happened here is tointroduce students to the rather novel notion that virtues are good things and thatgovernments of the past had seen it as their principal purpose to promote virtue.Wilson and DiIulio next go on to point to the fact that at least some of the foundersthought it would be a good strategy to use government to promote virtue—that is, tohelp to make people better people.9

However, Wilson and DiIulio (2004, 30) explain that the founders did not takethis approach because of their principal concern with liberty. Instead, we are intro-duced to the idea that vice (self-interest) is to be harnessed in order to produce anarguably virtuous result. This harnessing is then described within the context ofthe clash of other ‘‘big’’ ideas in the conflict between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. Anti-Federalists take the so-called ‘‘small republic’’ position by arguingthat liberty will only be safe in small republics certainly no larger that the individualstates=colonies. Madison’s counter to this argument—few factions exist that allow amajority faction to form without coalition-building—is addressed and his solution—the large or extended republic position—is presented in understandable detail.

The Founding as Class Warfare

Roughly the same proportion of market share falls into this category as into theideas-based approach to presenting the founding. Although there are five differenttextbooks (and their derivatives) at issue here, there is considerable overlap amongthe authors. We should point out that these texts do vary in terms of how forcefullythey present the class analysis. Dye and Ziegler (2000), and Lowi et al. (2002) are themost consistent in their approach. Economics and class are central to their presenta-tions, and there is no attempt to be subtle. On the other hand, Dye (1999), perhapssurprisingly given his involvement in the ‘‘Irony’’, and Greenberg and Page (2001)are much less orthodox. Dye self-consciously throughout the text endeavors to pro-vide the student with various perspectives. In some ways Greenberg and Page try tohave it both ways before settling on the Beardian interpretation. They do a fine jobpresenting the ideas attributed to the founders by the ideas-based analysis beforeconcluding that Beard was generally on the right track.

As expected, authors taking this class analysis approach argue for the need tolook beyond much of what the founders actually have to say in order to understandtheir intentions. Instead, these authors point to the need to focus upon the founders’


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4

background (who they were as opposed to what they said) as indicative of theinterests with which they must have identified, and therefore of the motivationsunderlying the new Constitution. The most obvious reasons for the founders to‘‘spin’’ their public statements would be to hide their class bias from the publicand to disguise their distrust of the masses. In addition, Lowi et al. (2002) arguefor a more general need to look beyond what they characterize as the usual sortof ‘‘myth and rhetoric’’ that surrounds any nations’ founding. We are told that:

people of every nation tend to glorify their own history and especiallytheir nation’s creation . . . the document establishing the system of govern-ment that ultimately emerged from this struggle—is often seen as aninspired, if not divine, work, expressing timeless principles of democraticgovernment. (Lowi et al. 2002, 31)

Dye and Ziegler’s (2000, 35) methodology is quite reminiscent of Beard’s as theypresent a full-page table entitled ‘‘Founding Fathers’ Known Membership in EliteGroups’’ indicating which of the Convention delegates was involved in variousfinancial activities. Here as elsewhere Lowi et al.’s analysis is more involved. Theyidentify five different interests organized and relevant to the revolutionary and con-stitutional periods. They then go on to portray the debate around the Constitution of1787 as basically a conflict between a coalition of the New England merchants andsouthern planters (who would ultimately prevail) on the one hand and the ‘‘moreradical forces representing shopkeepers, artisans, laborers, and small farmers onthe other hand’’ (Lowi et al. 2002, 33). Although admittedly more nuanced thanDye and Ziegler’s argument, the point is the same, which is that class interest isthe critical explanatory variable.

Dye personalizes his class-based theory by introducing some of the mostprominent of the founders in terms of their economic background. For example,he introduces George Washington as:

A wealthy plantation owner and a land speculator who owned more than30,000 acres of land upstream on the Potomac, Washington was keenlyinterested in commercial problems under the Articles of Confederation.(Dye 1999, 66)

In case students have missed the point, Dye goes on to say that Washington was:

Not only preeminent as a military leader and respected hero, but was alsoone of the richest people in the United States. In addition to his largeestate on the Potomac, he possessed many thousands of acres of undevel-oped land in western Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, andthe Northwest Territory. He owned major shares in the Potomac Com-pany, the James River Company, the Bank of Columbia, and the Bankof Alexandria. . . . Thus he was personally concerned about obstacles tointerstate commerce, unstable currencies, and the inability of Congressto pay its debts. (Dye 1999, 67)10

For these commentators, the founders are not primarily unusual in terms oftheir intellect or their practical political experience. Rather, the unique and unifying


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4

characteristic motivating their approach to the Constitution of 1787 was theirwealth—their economic class status. All agree that the founders were not simply landspeculators or holders of government securities as Beard argued. Rather, as Dye(1999, 67) puts it, they shared a ‘‘continental economic vision’’ or in the words ofGreenberg and Page (2001, 43) the framers were ‘‘concerned that the obstacles totrade allowed under the Articles of Confederation were threatening to block theemergence of a vibrant national economy in which most of them was involved.’’11

Perhaps the comments of Lowi et al. best represent this point of view:

Though the delegates representing these groups did not all hope to bene-fit personally from an increase in the value of their securities as Beardwould have it, they did hope to benefit in the broadest political and econ-omic sense by breaking the power of their radical foes and establishing asystem of government more compatible with their long-term economicand political interests. Thus the framers sought to create a new govern-ment capable of promoting commerce and protecting property fromradical state legislatures. (Lowi et al. 2002, 40)

We were surprised to some degree to observe that authors falling into this cate-gory do not entirely ignore the ideas expressed by the founders or by other westernpolitical thinkers. Most of them, for example, do mention Locke and his impactupon the thinking of the founders generally and, in particular, upon the Declarationof Independence.12 However, it would be incorrect to say that these authors believethat the philosophical ideas expressed by the founders should be taken as seriousexplanations of their handiwork. The founders clearly are not presented as strugglingwith ageless philosophical ideas having to do with deficiencies in human nature andwhat governments should do about it.

All these authors also do mention The Federalist Papers, usually within thecontext of the campaign for ratification of the Constitution. Dye (1999, 83) forexample characterizes them as ‘‘a series of eighty-five press releases’’ collectivelyconstituting a ‘‘very professional media campaign in support of the Constitution.’’Greenberg and Page (2001, 45) are more complimentary as they describe thepapers as ‘‘. . . the most impressive commentaries ever written about the U.S.Constitution.’’ However, few are actually addressed by these authors and thosethat are tend to be treated in a casual manner or selectively interpreted so as tosupport the class viewpoint.13

In fact, only Federalist Ten is treated with a degree of thoroughness. However,Madison’s broader discussion of the sources of faction—religious differences andemotional attachments to charismatic leaders—is ignored in favor of the economicclass warfare language having to do with property-based factional conflicts.

Lowi et al. (2002, 55–56) are typical as they mention the issue of majoritytyranny within a more general discussion of the ratification battle between theFederalists and Anti-Federalists. The Federalist solution as presented in FederalistTen is, of course, to expand the scope of the republic and the authors present thefamiliar quote from Madison describing that with small republics you get few fac-tions and ‘‘the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party’’, and withlarge republics you get lots of factions and coalition building is the order of the day.This is all accurate and to the point, but we are struck by the authors’ failure toexplain the argument. If this is serious stuff, why not take the time to elaborate?


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Why more factions in the large republic? Is it only the ‘‘largeness’’ that is relevant tothis multiplicity? What dynamic (self-interest perhaps) dictates that the partners inthese coalitions will compromise? What about the other bases of faction—religionand charismatic politicians?

Although it is apparent to us that each of these texts accepts Beard’s basic classconflict premise, each does endeavor to distinguish themselves from Beard to agreater or lesser degree. Hence, it is more appropriate to think of these scholars asneo-Beardians. Dye and Ziegler, and Lowi et al., go to especially great lengths toexpand upon the basic Beardian point of view.

Dye and Ziegler are, of course, interpreting the founding within the more generalcontext of their theory of democratic elitism. They argue that all societies, even thosethat are nominally democratic, are ultimately managed by elites. Their ‘‘Irony ofDemocracy’’ is that elite intervention, leadership, and management are required inorder for democracy to survive. Their specific difference with Beard lies in the factthat Beard’s interpretation has an exploitive element to it and Dye and Ziegler’sargument does not. Beard believed that the colonial economic elites supported theConstitution and the masses opposed it. Dye and Ziegler argue that the elites didsupport the document, but the document was not opposed by the masses. They seemto be saying that Beard’s interpretation is Marxian in nature whereas theirs is morealong the lines of classical conservative thought. They thus appear to be arguing onbehalf of a sort of ‘‘politics of deference’’ whereby the ‘‘founders expected the massesto consent to be governed by their leaders—men of principle and property with abil-ity, education, and a stake in the preservation of liberty’’ (Dye and Zeigler 2000, 70).

Lowi et al. (2002) endeavor to stake out a middle ground between the theory ofBeard and the position of those who see the founders as motivated by ideas. This isno small challenge as Beard’s class conflict argument sees the founders as motivatedby the venal, material, and immoral whereas the ideas perspective sees the foundersas making moral decisions in the public interest.

Nonetheless, Lowi et al. (2002, 40) argue that the two views can be joined viawhat they characterize as a ‘‘marriage of interest and principle’’ whereby great prin-ciples emerge from, and provide support for, particular economic interests. In turn,these principles endure across time and virtue arising originally out of interestthereby finds its way into public life. For example, they argue that a call by somefor a Bill of Rights to accompany the Constitution of 1787 was merely a ploy toblock ratification and not a concern for limiting the reach of the new government.However, concern for a Bill of Rights continues, one is added in 1789, and it has pro-vided critical protection of various civil liberties ever since. In such a way, ‘‘even if aprinciple is invented and initially brandished to serve an interest, once it hasbeen articulated it can take on a life of its own and prove to have implications thattranscend the narrow interests it was created to serve’’ (Lowi et al. 2002, 53).

Lowi et al. (2002, 54) thus present us with a rather novel attempt to have it bothways, as we are told that ‘‘Truly great principles can surmount the interests thatinitially set them forth.’’ Their theory does provide an explanation of sorts of howmoral principles that have become institutionalized came to find their way into apolitical culture driven by interest. By the same token, the founders are still pre-sented as less than thoughtful representatives of competing economic interests. Inaddition, this explanation adds an element of pure luck to the enterprise of thefounding. It is as if the framers simply stumbled on to a set of principles that hasendured for a couple of hundred years. More generally it questions the ability of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4

public servants to look beyond the narrow and economic—a point that would not belost on our students.

The Power Politics Crew

Since all these textbooks are authored by political scientists it is perhaps to be expectedthat the power politics interpretation of the founding is more popular than the ideasand class conflict orientations combined. These six texts and their derivatives com-prise about 52% of the market share. Burns et al. (2004), O’Connor and Sabato(2004), and Schmidt et al. (2003) are the most popular of these texts as they collectivelycomprise almost 70% of the power politics category. As was the case for the other twocategories, these texts do vary in terms of how clearly they pursue the politicsapproach.14 The clearest example is the work of Kernell and Jacobson (2000). Theyelevate politics to a science by virtue of their reliance upon a collective action frame-work for explaining the founding in particular and U. S. Government and Politicsmore generally. Nevertheless, each text in its own way prefers political explanations.15

The politics of the founding is the principal focus of these texts. In order to makethe politics understandable, most of these texts (Burns et al. 2004 being the mostnotable exception) include ample historical detail of the events leading up to the rev-olution, the war itself, the period and the problems experienced under the Articles ofConfederation, and the negotiations and machinations at the Philadelphia conven-tion, as well as during the campaign for ratification. Section headings such as ‘‘Poli-ticking and Compromise’’ typify the work of these authors. Especially characteristicof this school of thought is a thorough treatment of various compromises such as the‘‘Great Compromise’’ and the ‘‘Three-Fifths Compromise’’ that played out at theConstitutional Convention. Janda et al.’s concluding description of the GreatCompromise is characteristic of the power politics interpretation:

The committee’s solution was a Solomon-like compromise in which eachside got one of the two legislative chambers fashioned to its liking . . .Butthe nationalists also recognized that this was the best deal they could get.(Janda et al. 2002, 41)

As we observed for the other two approaches to interpreting the founding, thisschool of thought likewise treats the founders as a highly unusual collection of indi-viduals. Since the founding is primarily about politics, the founders are portrayed ashighly polished politicians. Especially important is their talent with respect to thearts of negotiation and compromise developed as a result of their personal experi-ences in colonial assemblies and=or the Continental Congress. According to Kernelland Jacobson (2000, 28):

In addition to experience in self-government, the state assemblies sup-plied the nation with another vital resource: elective politicians experi-enced in negotiating collective agreements. As the vanguard of theindependence movement, these politicians provided the nation with anera of exceptional leadership.

These authors also elaborate upon the founders’ unique attribute bydescribing the most notable of the founders in those terms. Madison is therefore


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4

frequently presented as the ultimate politician. We are told, for example, thathis concern about majority tyranny has nothing to do with his study of the clas-sics of political thought. Rather, it results from his experience with majoritytyranny during the pre-1787 period, especially involving pressures from indebtedfarmers (Kernell and Jacobson 2000, 37). Madison’s willingness to compromiseis illustrated by reference to his abandonment of certain elements of the Virgi-nia Plan, in particular turning away from a legislatively dominated nationalgovernment in favor of a balanced and separated system (Kernell and Jacobson2000, 42).

This is not to say that the founders’ education and intellectual prowess is entirelyignored. Rather, while these virtues are mentioned in usually flattering terms, intel-lect and ideas simply give way to political expedience when the two come into con-flict. Janda et al.’s (2002, 65) remarks are especially interesting. They begin bypraising the founders’ intellect as they tell us that ‘‘they were not demigods, butmany historians believe that a like-assembly will not be seen again. Highly educated,they typically were fluent in Latin and Greek. Products of the Enlightenment, theyrelied on classical liberalism for the Constitution’s philosophical underpinnings.’’However, they go on to say that ‘‘Although well-versed in ideas, they subscribedto the view expressed by one delegate that ‘experience must be our only guide,reason may mislead us’.’’ Along these same lines, in a section entitled ‘‘TheConstitution: Borne of Sweet Reason or Politics?’’ Kernell and Jacobson (2000,56) perhaps best represent this school of thought when they write:

. . .The Constitution is, in other words, a fine document arising not fromthe application of sweet reason but from politics. The document pro-duced by the Constitutional Convention was a plan no delegate favoredor could even have imagined on the opening day of the convention. Itwas, however, a plan a substantial majority favored over the status quoand all could live with.

We had expected that, unlike the other two approaches to interpreting thefounding, the power politics perspective would not paint the framers as an entirelycohesive group of elites. We expected our attention to be drawn more to the foundersdifferences than to their similarities because of the focus on negotiation and compro-mise. It turns out to be more complicated than this, however.

The differences among the founders involving such things as region and occu-pation are emphasized. However, one does detect a level of agreement more generalin nature among the founders involving what pluralists commonly refer to as the‘‘rules of the game.’’ Property was going to be protected, for example. Janda et al.(2002, 76) argue that the driving motivation shared by the framers was a desireto restore and guarantee order. Also, after having delivered an excellent responseto Beard’s position, Janda et al. nevertheless go on to comment that ‘‘. . . there canbe no doubt about the general homogeneity of the delegates or about their concernfor producing a stable economic order that would preserve and promote the interestsof some more than others.’’ In a sense then, what these scholars seem to be arguing isthat the political debate was substantially about the details of cooperation ratherthan about political and economic fundamentals.

Perhaps the most striking feature of almost all the texts falling into this categoryis their extensive attention to historical detail. O’Connor and Sabato, Schmidt et al.,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4

along with Kernell and Jacobson are especially rich in the history of the period.16

Perhaps as a result of the historical bent of these scholars, ideas, western thinkersand the Federalist Papers receive more attention than we had expected. Howeverthe treatment is descriptive for the most part, often beside the point of the mainargument being made, and each author makes it quite clear that politics was themore critical explanatory variable. Janda et al. (2002, 38) do the best job overallof dealing with ideas. Hobbes, Locke, and Montesquieu for example are addressed.O’Conner and Sabato (2004, 5–7) mention everyone from the Greeks to Aquinas toNewton to Hobbes and Locke, but they do so in a relatively brief fashion. Schmidtet al. also mention prominent philosophers but seem to dismiss their importance.For example, Schmidt et al. (2003, footnote 6, 38) tell us that:

Not all scholars believe that Jefferson was truly influenced by JohnLocke. For example, Jay Fliegelman states that ‘‘Jefferson’s fascinationwith Homer, Ossian, Patrick Henry, and the violin is of greater signifi-cance than his indebtedness to Locke.’’

Burns et al. is at the other extreme as none of the usual western thinkers ismentioned at all. Unexpectedly, Burns et al. (2004, 9) do raise a number of the‘‘big ideas.’’ They tell us that theocracy, generally, and Puritanism, in particular,were instrumental in developing the philosophy of the founders. In addition, theydraw attention to the fact that the framers felt that they had ‘‘secured all the advan-tages of a direct democracy while curing its weaknesses’’ (Burns et al. 2004, 3).However, and this is a common characteristic of these scholars, they offer nofurther explanation.

This is likewise the case for O’Connor and Sabato (2004, 28) who raise one ofthe more dramatic concerns separating philosophical modernity from the classicsand ancients in a section entitled ‘‘A Missing Appreciation of the Good.’’ They pointout that government is no longer perceived as central to the achievement of the good,yet go no further. No elaboration is presented as to why premodern governmentwould play such a role or why modern ones do not. An opportunity is thereby lostto address the highly controversial role that governments play in terms of helpingcitizens to be ‘‘better’’ people.

This same pattern of variation is evident with respect to these scholars’ treat-ment of the Federalist Papers. Janda et al.’s (2002, 80) presentation is once againquite thoughtful as far as it goes. For example, they provide a very clear explanationof Madison’s argument in Federalist Ten concerning the virtues associated with largenumbers of factions in the large republic. More general issues having to do withhuman nature, liberty, causes versus effects of faction, and the other bases of factionare not addressed. Burns et al. (2004, 17) tell us that the Federalist Papers are‘‘masterly works in political science’’ and suggest that students read them, but offerno further discussion. O’Connor and Sabato, and Schmidt et al. agree that, despitebeing widely distributed, the Federalist Papers had very little impact on the ratifi-cation debate. For example, O’Connor and Sabato (2004, 57) comment that theywere ‘‘far too theoretical to have much impact on those who would ultimately voteon the proposed Constitution. Dry and scholarly, they lacked the fervor of much ofthe political rhetoric that was then in use.’’17

O’Connor and Sabato’s (2004, 58–59) treatment of Federalist Ten and Fifty-Onelacks detail as reflected by the fact that both papers are handled in a single


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4

paragraph. Without elaboration, for example, we are reminded that ‘‘the new Con-stitution was called a ‘republican remedy of the disease incident to republicangovernment.’’’ In a similar vein in a section entitled ‘‘The Madisonian Model,’’Schmidt et al. (2003, 46–47) only mention Federalist Fifty-One thereby reducingMadison’s entire theory to checks and balances. Federalist Ten is treated brieflyand entirely separately in a ‘‘critical perspective’’ box (Schmidt et al. 2003, 49).

Without a doubt, the most innovative use of the Federalist Papers we observed isprovided by Kernell and Jacobson who use Federalist Ten to bolster their powerpolitics perspective. In effect, Madison’s theory is used to argue that the foundingactually had no coherent theory.

It is deeply ironic that the kind of national pluralism Madison and hisallies were trying to install already was at work at the convention, frus-trating their success . . .The absence of a dominant majority factionmeant intense bargaining resulting in shifting alliances that led to a novel,hybrid governmental system that is neither national nor confederate innature. Many of the Constitution’s provisions have no theoreticalrationale; they are simply hammered out products of compromise. . . (Kernell and Jacobson 2000, 56)

Discussion

In conclusion, our analysis indicates that the most popular approach to presentingthe American founding is the power politics perspective. It is roughly twice as preva-lent as either the economic class conflict or revolution of ideas perspectives. Onlyabout 25% of the texts evaluated in our research portray the founders as involvedin thoughtful deliberations concerned with the common good. We are, however,pleased to report that the ideas approach is not attacked as aggressively as it wasin the 1960s and 1970s by scholars such as John Roche. By the same token, it isour sense, again unlike the situation say thirty years ago, that textbooks no longersimply ignore either the ideas or the period of the founding. However, 75% of thesetexts ultimately do present the founders as driven by self-interest, grounded either ineconomics or political ambition. In our opinion, the historical record simply doesnot support such a cynical and unidimensional view of the founders.

What then about the question we began with concerning the implications of howwe teach the founding for civic education? It seems to us that analysis of America’sfounding as little more than a mechanism that allows economic elites to profit, ormerely the outcome of jockeying for power and position, is likely more conduciveto cynicism than skepticism. A healthy skepticism holds politicians up to high stan-dards and finds them wanting, and might well lead to more participation. Cynicismunfortunately leads to an attitude of despair towards the possibility of standards,apathy, and a decline in participation.

The most frequent solution proposed by a growing number of scholars, com-mentators, and organizations is to increase the amount of civic education. It is oftennoted that the American founding and its principles need to be taught, but also thatAmerican government institutions need to be better understood, and that studentsneed to be encouraged or required to engage in some sort of civic or political action.Most of this commentary is aimed at the primary and secondary education levels.Even the American Political Science Association’s work on civic education tends


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4

to focus primarily on education before college. However, the effect of receiving agood introduction to the founding principles and the workings of government inhigh school, only to have these principles effectively reduced to mere rhetoric inthe introductory college course on American government, might indeed producemore cynicism.

Even if we can agree that more civic education is a good idea, very difficult ques-tions remain. Specifically, what kind of civic education and for what purpose?In fact, Jay D. Wexler (2002) has identified two prevailing orientations towardcivic education, either one of which would allow for a serious discussion of thefounders’ ideas.

The ‘‘political liberal’’ approach emphasizes the idea that government is formaintaining a safe and neutral playing field in which various ideas of the good lifeand various political, religious, and other ideas can compete without persecutionand without government promoting some over others. Proponents of this viewinclude ‘‘John Rawls, Stephen Macedo, and William Galston,’’ who ‘‘generally sharethe view that, although the liberal state should not support or endorse any one com-prehensive vision of the good life, it must nonetheless instill in its citizens certainso-called ‘political virtues’ necessary for its own survival and flourishing’’ (Wexler2002, 1194). These virtues presumably would include tolerance and a strong respectfor equal rights and due process.

The republican or participatory version of civic education agrees with the liberalapproach on ‘‘the importance of teaching critical thinking, tolerance, mutual respect,and empathy, but they add to these a number of skills and virtues drawn specificallyfrom the civic republican tradition.’’ Advocates of republicanism ‘‘urge schools toequip students with the skills and the dispositions to forge a common culture, despitethe diversity that often makes such a common project so difficult to achieve’’(Wexler, 2002, 1197). Such education often emphasizes direct experience incommunity projects such as registration drives and voter education. With the righteducation and experience, students should be able to deliberate and participate ina meaningful way with their fellow citizens. ‘‘Prominent proponents of the republi-can approach to civic education include Professor Suzanna Sherry of the VanderbiltLaw School and the Center for Civic Education, the nation’s largest and most activecivic education organization and the publisher of both the National Standardsfor Civics and Government and Civitas, a 600-plus page ‘‘framework’’ for civiceducation.’’ (Wexler 2002, 1199).

Although it goes well beyond the scope of this analysis, in large part we believethe rejection of ideas when it comes to the founding reflects larger disciplinary ideo-logical battles between political philosophy and scientific behavioralism and is a partof what needs to be examined if we are to offer a better civic education and producemore motivated citizens. It may well be the case that unless and until political philo-sophy is taken more seriously by students of American politics, the ideas approachwill continue to be a minority perspective.

Notes

1. This has become enough of a concern that the National Conference of State Legisla-tures (2000) recently tried to counter youthful cynicism with a new program: ‘‘Trust forRepresentative Democracy’’ which includes the development of curriculum on the democraticprocess, the promotion of Legislators Back to School Days in all fifty states, civic educationawards, and a public education campaign. All this is proposed because of a growing concern


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4

that ‘‘the negative attitudes that prevail today among the media and the general public towardlegislators and their institutions undermine the very values of democracy.’’ The trust’s chiefaim, in addition to dispelling cynicism is to regain the ‘‘enthusiastic involvement’’ of citizensin political participation and public service. Obviously, there is growing concern among legis-lators that the negative attitude of the public toward civic life, especially in young people, isbecoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

2. These fifteen texts range in market share (this would include both new and used booksales) from a low of 1.6% to a high of 9.8%. Market share information was obtained in theform of the ‘‘College Textbook National Market Report’’ courtesy of Monument InformationResources. The interpretation, and therefore any misinterpretations, we offer of these data isentirely our own.

3. See for example, David Ricci (1984).4. For an exceptional treatment of Federalist Ten, see Martin Diamond, 1979.5. Two historians may also be associated with this point of view, Bernard Bailyn (1967,

2003) and Forrest McDonald (1974, 1982, 1986, 1987).6. For a discussion of similarities and differences between Wood and Beard see Shlomo

Slonim (1998) and Diggins (1987). Wood’s first book, The Creation of the American Republic:1776–1787 (1969) remains the most influential of his works on this thesis that the founderswere motivated by a concern to bring the quarreling and impotent states under control of acentral government in order to curb the democratic excesses spawned by the revolution (Seealso Wood 1980). The implication of Wood’s overall thesis is that the Federalists were hidingtheir true intentions behind the rhetoric of freedom in order to obtain a stronger centralgovernment. Wood essentially agrees with the Anti-Federalists that the Constitution was anaristocratic document calculated to create an undemocratic government benefiting the fewat the expense of the many. This thesis would seem to create the same effect of promoting cyni-cism about the founders. However, Wood’s thesis does not come through in any of the text-books we examined, even when he is mentioned in the text. When he is cited, it is usually todiscuss the founders’ ideas or the overall intellectual and social climate of the time. Nowheredid we see the Wood thesis about the intentions of the founders developed in the textbooksunder examination. Wood’s influence seems only to come in through his treatment of thefounders’ ideas and their intellectual milieu.

7. Beard is mentioned in almost every one of the textbooks examined. This is indeedironic in that Beard’s ideas have not been taken seriously by historians studying the foundingsince the late 1950s. To the credit of most of these authors, they do point out that Beard’s ideashave problems, perhaps of a serious nature. Regardless, by simply raising Beard, a knee-jerkreaction may be promoted among students.

8. Welch (2001, 39) also points out that the most frequently cited philosopher was actu-ally Montesquieu, rather than Locke. She explains this apparent anomaly by arguing that‘‘Locke’s views had so permeated American society that the founders considered them com-mon sense.’’

9. This raises all sorts of interesting discussion among students. It is our experience thatthe discussion becomes even more animated when one mentions the names of Samuel Adams,Benjamin Franklin, and especially Thomas Jefferson as advocates of this orientation.

10. Madison receives a similar treatment by Dye (1999, 84) as we are told that his familyowned a large plantation and that he had private tutors and attended exclusive preparatoryschools.

11. Having portrayed the founders in these economic terms, these texts typically go on totell the story of the founding in economic terms as well. For example, there tends to be a greatdeal of detail=discussion of the economic problems confronted under the Articles of Confed-eration and how the Shaysite drift in the colonies was greatly feared by the propertied classes.

12. However the treatment of Locke’s ideas is less than serious. Also, the only other thin-ker who comes up is Montesquieu, usually mentioned simply as the source of the notion of theseparation of powers.

13. In fact, the treatment of Federalist Ten in Dye and Ziegler (2000, 51), is, in ouropinion, quite far afield of Madison’s argument. Referring to the second to last paragraphof Federalist Ten, we are told that Madison identifies all ‘‘factious’’ issues as having to do witheconomic conflict. As a result of this construction of Madison, the authors go on to concludethat ‘‘In short, the Founding Fathers deliberately designed a new U.S. Constitution to make it


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4

difficult for any mass political movement to challenge property rights.’’ This is simply notthe case. Rather than expressing a concern only for property-based factions in this portionof Federalist Ten, Madison is repeating his earlier argument regarding the various bases offaction that include religious beliefs, attachments to demagogic and ambitious leaders, alongwith property-based factions.

14. It strikes us that for some of these texts their attention to the politics of the foundingreflects a more general commitment to explaining American government in a very practicalfashion. O’Connor and Sabato (2004, XVII), for example, tell us that the purpose of theirwork is to ‘‘transmit practical, useful information’’ and Burns et al. (2004, 2–3) emphasize that‘‘This book is about how our democracy works. When you finish reading it, we hope you willcome to see that politicians are essential to making democracy work and recognize that to getrid of politics from public affairs would be to get rid of democracy.’’

15. We would note, however, that none of these texts are as doctrinaire in their attack onthe ideas approach as is the work of Roche (1961) discussed earlier.

16. It is worth noting that they rely only to a very limited degree upon original docu-ments of the period. The work of prominent American historians such as Gordon Woodprovides the bulk of the detail offered by these scholars.

17. We encountered this argument in several different places. No authority was cited,however. One has to wonder why, if they were not having an impact on the ratification debate,were they so ‘‘widely distributed.’’

References

Bailyn, Bernard. 1967. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge:Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Bailyn, Bernard. 2003. To Begin the World Anew: The Genius and Ambiguities of the AmericanFounders. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Beard, Charles. 1913.AnEconomic Interpretation of theConstitution. NewYork: TheMacmillanCompany.

Burns, James MacGregor, J. W. Peltason, Thomas E. Cronin, David B. Magleby, David M.O’Brien, and Paul C. Light. 2004. Government By The People, Basic Version, 20thEdition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Prentice-Hall Inc.

Cummings, Milton C. Jr., and David Wise. 1997. Democracy Under Pressure: An Introductionto the American Political System, 8th Edition. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Diamond, Martin. 1981. The Founding of the Democratic Republic. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.Diamond, Martin. 1979. ‘‘Ethics and Politics: The American Way.’’ The Moral Foundation of

the American Republic, ed. Robert H. Horowitz. Charlottesville, VA: University ofVirginia.

Diamond, Martin, WinstonMills Fisk, and Herbert Garfinkle. 1970. The Democratic Republic:An Introduction to American National Government. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Diggins, JohnPatrick. 1987. ‘‘BetweenBailyn andBeard:ThePerspectives ofGordonS.Wood.’’The William and Mary Quarterly, 44, (July): 563–568.

Dye, Thomas R. 1999. Politics in America, 3rd Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Dye, Thomas R. and Harmon Zeigler. 2000. The Irony of Democracy: An UncommonIntroduction to American Politics – Millennial Edition. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt BraceCollege Publishers.

Edwards III, George C., Martin P. Wattenberg, and Robert L. Lineberry. 2004. Government inAmerica: People, Politics, and Policy, 11th Edition. New York: Pearson Longman.

Farrand, Max. 1913. The Framing of the Constitution of the United States. New Haven: YaleUniversity Press.

Galston, William A. and Peter Levine. 1997. ‘‘America’s Civic Condition: A Glance at theEvidence.’’ Brookings Review, 15(4):23–26.

Ginsberg, Benjamin, Theodore J. Lowi, and Margaret Weir. 2003. We the People: An Intro-duction to American Politics, 4th Edition. New York: W.W. Norton.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Greenberg, Edward S. and Benjamin I. Page. 2001. The Struggle for Democracy, 5th Edition.New York: Longman.

Goldwin, Robert A. and William A. Schambra, eds. 1980.How Democratic is the Constitution?Washington: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

Goldwin, Robert A. and William A. Schambra, eds. 1982.How Capitalistic is the Constitution?Washington: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

Janda, Kenneth, Jeffrey M. Berry, and Jerry Goldman. 2002. The Challenge of Democracy:Government in America – Post 9=11 Edition, 7th Edition. Boston: Houghton MifflinCompany.

Kernell, Samuel, and Gary C. Jacobson. 2000. The Logic of American Politics. Washington,DC: CQ Press.

Lowi, Theodore J., Benjamin Ginsberg, and Kenneth A. Shepsle. 2002. American Government:Power & Purpose, 7th Edition. New York: W.W. Norton.

McDonald, Forrest. 1982. Alexander Hamilton: A Biography. New York: W.W. Norton &Company.

McDonald, Forrest. 1965. E Pluribus Unum: The Formation of the American Republic. Boston:Houghton Mifflin.

McDonald, Forrest. 1986. Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution,reprint edition. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

McDonald, Forrest. 1974. The Presidency of George Washington. Lawrence: University ofKansas Press.

McDonald, Forrest. 1987. The Presidency of Thomas Jefferson. Lawrence: University of Kan-sas Press.

National Conference of State Legislatures. 2000. ‘‘Trust for Representative DemocracyBACivic Education Initiative.’’ State Legislatures, 26(8):1–2.

O’Connor, Karen, and Larry J. Sabato. 2004. American Government: Continuity and Change,Alternate 2004 Edition. New York: Pearson Longman.

Parenti, Michael. 1980. The Constitution as an Elitist Document. In How Democratic is theConstitution?, eds. Robert A. Goldwin and William A. Schambra. Washington: AmericanEnterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

Parenti, Michael. 1988. Democracy for the Few, 7th Edition. Belmont, CA: WadsworthPublishing.

Patterson, Thomas E. 2001. The American Democracy, 5th Edition. Boston: McGraw HillHigher Education.

Putnam, Robert D. 1995. ‘‘Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital.’’ The Journalof Democracy, 6 (January):65–78.

Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone. The Collapse and Revival of American Community.New York: Simon and Schuster.

Ricci, David. 1984. The Tragedy of Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Roche, John P. 1961. ‘‘The Founding Fathers: a Reform Caucus in Action.’’ American Polit-

ical Science Review, 55 (December):799–816.Schmidt, Steffen W., Mack C. Shelley, and Barbara A. Bardes. 2003. American Government

and Politics Today. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth=Thomson Learning.Slonim, Shlomo. 1998. ‘‘Motives at Philadelphia, 1787: Gordon Wood’s Neo-Beardian Thesis

Reexamined.’’ Law and History Review, 16(3):527–552.Welch, Susan, John Gruhl, John Comer, and Susan M. Ridgon. 2001. American Government,

8th Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth=Thomson Learning.Wexler, Jay D. 2002. ‘‘Preparing for the Clothed Public Square: Teaching About Religion,

Civic Education, and the Constitution.’’ William and Mary Law Review, 43(3):1161–1263.

Wills, Gary. 1978. Inventing America: Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. Garden City,NY: Doubleday.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Wilson, James Q. and John J. DiIulio, Jr. 2004. American Government: Institutions and Poli-cies, 9th Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Wood, Gordon S. 1980. ‘‘Democracy and the Constitution.’’ In How Democratic is the Con-stitution, eds. Robert A. Goldwin and William A. Schambra. Washington: AmericanEnterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

Wood, Gordon S. 1969. The Creation of the American Republic: 1776–1787. Chapel Hill: TheUniversity of North Carolina Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:16

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

The American Founding, American Government Textbooks, and Civic Education