A Faith for Modern Regimes

Montesquieu’s Philosophy of Liberalism, by Thomas L. Pangle (University of Chicago, 336 pp., $10)

At the time of the American founding, Montesquieu was the leading theorist cited as authority—he whose authority one could ill afford to cede to the political opposition. Today, Montesquieu appears as little more than a footnote between Hobbes-Locke and Hegel-Marx and is only remembered for a few practical proposals such as the confederated republic. Among the Founders, Alexander Hamilton, in his defense of the federalism of 1787, insisted that Montesquieu had transformed the meaning of federalism. It was Hamilton’s claim that federalism was compatible with the large commercial republic and that this thesis came to light in its modern sense only when Montesquieu’s practical proposals were considered in theoretical terms. Thus, he accused his adversaries, who also cited Montesquieu, of having grasped the “observations” in one part of the philosopher’s masterwork without adverting to his “sentiments in another part.” Not since Hamilton have we seen anyone take so seriously the uniqueness of Montesquieu’s achievement as Professor Pangle, who similarly maintains that Montesquieu “portrays with attractive clarity many key practical proposals” while “veiling the first principles of politics.”

WB

About the Author

William B. Allen

William B. Allen is emeritus dean and professor of political philosophy at Michigan State University.

Featured Tags

Manage following

Philosophy

Alexander Hamilton

Alexis de Tocqueville

Montesquieu’s Philosophy of Liberalism, by Thomas L. Pangle (University of Chicago, 336 pp., $10)

At the time of the American founding, Montesquieu was the leading theorist cited as authority—he whose authority one could ill afford to cede to the political opposition. Today, Montesquieu appears as little more than a footnote between Hobbes-Locke and Hegel-Marx and is only remembered for a few practical proposals such as the confederated republic. Among the Founders, Alexander Hamilton, in his defense of the federalism of 1787, insisted that Montesquieu had transformed the meaning of federalism. It was Hamilton’s claim that federalism was compatible with the large commercial republic and that this thesis came to light in its modern sense only when Montesquieu’s practical proposals were considered in theoretical terms. Thus, he accused his adversaries, who also cited Montesquieu, of having grasped the “observations” in one part of the philosopher’s masterwork without adverting to his “sentiments in another part.” Not since Hamilton have we seen anyone take so seriously the uniqueness of Montesquieu’s achievement as Professor Pangle, who similarly maintains that Montesquieu “portrays with attractive clarity many key practical proposals” while “veiling the first principles of politics.”