by John Marini
4 Hannah Arendt, “Race-Thinking Before Racism” in The Origins of Totalitarianism (San Diego, CA: Harcourt, 1976), 159.
5 Henry Adams, The Education of Henry Adams, ed. Henry Cabot Lodge (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1918), 411–12.
6 Thomas Paine, himself an immigrant, called America “the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe.” George Washington, in a letter to Lucretia Van Winter, noted, “At best I have only been an instrument in the hands of Providence, to effect a revolution which is interesting to the general liberties of mankind, and to the emancipation of a country which may afford an Asylum, if we are wise enough to pursue the paths wch. lead to virtue and happiness, to the oppressed and needy of the Earth. Our region is extensive, our plains productive, and if they are cultivated with liberality and good sense, we may be happy ourselves, and diffuse happiness to all who wish to participate.” Paine and Washington quotes are in Immigration and the American Tradition, ed. Moses Rischin (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1976), 34, 43–44. George Washington noted his reason for fighting the British: “The establishment of Civil and Religious Liberty was the motive which induced me to the Field.” Quoted in Charles Kesler, “The Promise of American Citizenship,” in Immigration and Citizenship in the Twenty-First Century, ed. Noah M. J. Pickus (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1998), 12.
7 Alexis de Tocqueville, too, had grasped the importance of the ability of Americans to reconcile “the spirit of Religion and the spirit of Liberty.” He pointed to the reason why it had become possible to reconcile religion and politics, and morality and liberty. He observed that “religion perceives that civil liberty affords a noble exercise to the faculties of man, and that the political world is a field prepared by the Creator for the efforts of mind. Free and powerful in its own sphere, satisfied with the place reserved for it, religion never more surely establishes its empire than when it reigns in the hearts of men unsupported by aught beside its native strength. Liberty regards religion as its companion in all its battles and its triumphs,—as the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims. It considers religion as the safeguard of morality, and morality as the best security of law, and the surest pledge of the duration of freedom.” Democracy in America Vol. I, trans. Henry Reeve (New York: Barnes & Noble Publishing, 2003; originally published in Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1862), 27–28.
8 Religion, consequently, always played an important role in civil society, even after it had ceased to establish the ground of citizenship. As John Higham has noted, “By far the oldest and—in early America—the most powerful of the anti-foreign traditions came out of the shock of the Reformation. Protestant hatred of Rome played so large a part in pre-Civil War nativist thinking that historians have sometimes regarded nativism and anti-Catholicism as more or less synonymous.” Strangers in the Land (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1955), 5.
9 Kesler, “The Promise of American Citizenship,” in Immigration and Citizenship in the Twenty-First Century, 13.
10 Ibid., 14.
11 Quoted in Thomas G. West, Vindicating the Founders (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1997), 149.
12 Kesler, 13.
13 Quoted in West, Vindicating the Founders, 147.
14 John Quincy Adams, quoted in Immigration and the American Tradition, ed. Moses Rischin (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1976), 46.
15 It is in the notion of self-perfection, or perfectibility, that the prospect of a glorious future finds its justification. Charles Beard provides an example of the extravagant hope placed upon a new understanding of the future and its vehicle, the rational state. Beard insisted that “the highest type of modern citizen [is one] who surrenders the hope of private gain that he may serve the state.… The eighteenth century philosophers were wrong. We have not been driven from a political paradise; we have not fallen from a high estate, nor is there any final mold into which society is to be cast. On the contrary, society has come from crude and formless associations beginning in a dim and dateless past and moves outward into an illimitable future, which many of us believe will not be hideous and mean, but beautiful and magnificent. In this dynamic society, the citizen becomes the co-worker in that great and indivisible natural process which draws down granite hills and upbuilds great nations.” Charles A. Beard, Politics: A Lecture Delivered at Columbia University in the Series on Science, Philosophy and Art, February 12, 1908 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1908), 9. Woodrow Wilson, too, believed that the idea of progress was a modern discovery. Unlike previous generations, Wilson noted, “We think of the future, not the past, as the more glorious time in comparison with which the present is nothing.” “What Is Progress?,” in The New Freedom (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1913), 42.
16 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Second Discourse, ed. and trans. Roger Masters (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1964), 114.
17 Herbert Croly, The Promise of American Life (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1911), 400.
18 Ibid, 418.
19 Ibid.
20 Mary Parker Follett, “Democracy Not ‘Liberty’ and ‘Equality’: Our Political Dualism,” in The New State: Group Organization the Solution of Popular Government, (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1923 [originally published in 1918]), 137–38.
21 Ibid, 138.
22 John Dewey, The Ethics of Democracy (Ann Arbor: Andrews and Company, 1888), 6, 7, 13–14, 15.
23 Follett, 60.
24 Quoted in John G. Gunnell, The Descent of Political Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 99.
25 See Daniel J. Tichenor, Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002), 75–97.
26 Charles Edward Merriam, A History of American Political Theories (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1910), 339.
27 Ibid., 346.
28 Herbert Croly, 81.
29 Merriam, A History of American Political Theories, 311.
30 Ibid., 311–12.
31 Ibid., 230.
32 Ibid., 312.
33 Ibid., 296–97.
34 Ibid., 297–98.
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid., 250–51.
37 Ibid., 248.
38 John William Burgess, Reconstruction and the Constitution, 1866–1876 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1902), ix.
39 Ibid., 133.
40 Thomas F. Gossett, Race: The History of an Idea in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 284. Quotations are from James Ford Rhodes, History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850 to the Final Restoration of Home Rule at the South in 1877 (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1893, 1906), seven volumes.
41 William Archibald Dunning, Reconstruction: Political and Economic, 1865–1877 in The American Nation: A History, vol. 22 (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1907), 213.
42 Hannah Franziska Augstein, Race: The Origins of an Idea, 1760–1850 (Bristol: Thoemmes Press, 1996), xxx.
43 Quoted in Gunnell, The Descent of Political Theory, 54.
44 Tichenor, 78.
45 Walker, “Immigration and Degradation,” quoted in Tichenor, Dividing Lines, 78.
46 Ibid.
47 Jay K. Varma, “Eugenics and Immigration Restriction: Lessons for Tomorrow,” Journal of the American Medical Association 275, no. 9 (March 6, 1996): 734, doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03530330075045.
48 Tichenor, 115.
49 Quoted in Higham, Strangers in the Land, 273.
50 Tichenor, 87–88.
51 Before the Progressive understanding of immigration and citizenship had been established on the ground of race, national and state laws had pursued prudential policies, which restricted immigration and citizenship on moral grounds. In 1882, the national government had tried to simplify the task of making prudential judgments by focusing on race. If race had not been taken into account as decisive, and if a restrictive immigration policy was desirable—as it woul
d come to be in a few years—it would have been necessary to establish immigration policy on other grounds. In that case, immigration and citizenship laws could have restricted those whose morals—using opium, pimping, maintaining allegiance to the Emperor or a foreign sovereign—were incompatible with the character necessary for good citizenship. Indeed, some states had attempted to pass legislation on similar moral grounds. The fundamental necessity of any immigration policy is that of preserving and perpetuating the social compact of free and equal citizens. It is possible to exclude anyone from immigration into a sovereign country. Indeed, the borders may be closed. But it is not possible to deny the principle of the regime—equality—without undermining the conditions of the social compact itself.
52 Frank Julian Warne, The Tide of Immigration (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1916), 135.
53 Tichenor, 114.
54 Quoted in Ibid.
55 Quoted in Ibid., 146–47.
56 Quoted in Stephen Jay Gould, The Mismeasure of Man (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1981), 231.
57 Quoted in Gossett, Race, 377.
58 Quoted in Tichenor, 144.
59 Ibid.
60 Abba Schwartz, The Open Society (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1968), 105–6.
61 Tichenor, 129.
62 See Tichenor, 143.
63 Mae M. Ngai, “The Architecture of Race in American Immigration Law: A Reexamination of the Immigration Act of 1924,” Journal of American History 86, no. 1 (1999): 71, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2567407.
64 Tichenor, 143.
65 Quoted in Peter H. Wang, Legislating Normalcy: The Immigration Act of 1924 (San Francisco: R and E Research Associates, 1975), 9.
66 Ibid., 126.
67 Ibid., 9, 91.
68 Quoted in Moses Rischin, Immigration and the American Tradition, 431.
69 Quoted in Ibid., 449.
70 Quoted in Ibid.
71 Tichenor, 220.
72 Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith, Citizenship Without Consent: Illegal Aliens in the American Polity (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985), 106–8.
73 Tichenor, 215.
74 Arendt, “Race-Thinking Before Racism,” 159.
CHAPTER 8: POLITICS, RHETORIC, AND LEGITIMACY: THE ROLE OF BUREAUCRACY IN THE WATERGATE AFFAIR
1 This chapter, containing minimal updates, was published in Political Communication 9, no. 1 (1992): 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.1992.9962930. See the author’s Afterword at the end of this chapter from the original.
2 Douglas Yates, Bureaucratic Democracy: The Search for Democracy and Efficiency (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982), 54.
3 John Wettergreen, “The American Voter and His Surveyors,” Political Science Reviewer 7 (Fall 1977): 223.
4 Walter Dean Burnham, “Insulation and Responsiveness in Congressional Elections,” Political Science Quarterly 90, no. 3 (Autumn 1975): 411–35, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2148294.
5 Henry Kissinger, Years of Upheaval (Boston: Little Brown, 1982), 1209.
6 Colin Seymour-Ure, The American President: Power and Communication (London: Macmillan Press Ltd, 1982), 134, doi:10.1007/978-1-349-04113-8.
7 Nelson Polsby, “A Critical Introduction,” Law and Contemporary Problems 40, no. 2 (Spring 1976): 6, https://scholarship.law.duke/edu/lcp/vol40/iss2/2.
8 Ibid.
9 Aaron Wildaysky wrote just after Watergate, “Nixon, especially at the start of his second term, apparently set out to alienate every national elite—the press, Congress, the Republican National Committee—the fact that he had long been attacking his own federal bureaucracy has escaped notice.” “Government and the People,” in Watergate and the American Political Process, ed. Ronald E. Pynn (New York: Praeger, 1975), 36.
10 Theodore White, The Making of the President 1972 (New York: Atheneum, 1973), 107.
11 Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, 1972 (Washington: GPO, 1974), 1088.
12 Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, 1973 (Washington, 1975), vi.
13 James L. Sundquist, “Whither the American Party System?,” Political Science Quarterly 88, no. 3 (December 1973): 580.
14 White, Making of the President 1972, 107.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid., xvii.
17 Ibid., 108.
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid., xvii.
20 Public Papers 1973, 6.
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid.
23 Richard Nixon, A New Road for America: Major Policy Statements (Garden City: Doubleday, 1972), 7.
24 Federal Reorganization: The Executive Branch, Public Documents Series, ed. Tyrrus G. Fain (New York: R. R. Bowker, 1977), 23.
25 Ibid., 31.
26 John Hart, “Presidential Power Revisited,” Political Studies, vol. 25 (March 1977): 58.
27 Nixon, Memoirs, 761–62.
28 Ibid., 762.
29 Ibid., 767.
30 Richard Nathan, The Plot That Failed: Nixon and the Administrative Presidency (New York: Wiley, 1975), 61.
31 Nixon, Memoirs, 768.
32 Ibid., 769.
33 Ibid., 761.
34 Nixon had set the tone in his second inaugural. He noted, “I offer no solutions of a purely governmental kind for every problem. We have lived too long with that false hope.” Historic Documents (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1974), 83.
35 Nathan, The Plot That Failed, 70.
36 Public Papers 1973, 33.
37 Ibid.
38 Nixon, Memoirs, 769.
39 Ibid., 767.
40 Ibid.
41 Ibid., 771.
42 Ibid.
43 Ibid.
44 Ibid., 772.
45 Quoted in Larry Berman, The Office of Management and Budget and the Presidency (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979), 123.
46 Nixon, Memoirs, 772.
47 Philip Kurland, “The Watergate Inquiry, 1973,” in Congress Investigates, vol. 5, ed. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (New York: Chelsea House, 1975), 3926.
48 Nixon, Memoirs, 773.
49 Congressional Quarterly Report, vol. 23 (December 28, 1974).
50 White, Making of the President, 367.
51 Harold Seidman, Politics, Position, and Power (New York: Oxford University Press, 1975), 118.
52 Henry Kissinger, Years of Upheaval (Boston: Little Brown, 1982), 1209.
CHAPTER 9: TOCQUEVILLE’S CENTRALIZED ADMINISTRATION AND THE “NEW DESPOTISM”
1 Edward T. Gargan, De Tocqueville (London: Bowes & Bowes, 1965), 28.
2 Ibid., 27.
3 François Guizot, Historical Essays and Lectures, ed. Stanley Mellon and Leonard Krieger (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972), 257.
4 Gargan, De Tocqueville, 29.
5 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, trans. Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 52. Hereinafter cited as Democracy.
6 Ibid., 663.
7 Seymour Drescher, “Tocqueville’s Two Democracies,” Journal of the History of Ideas 25 (April–June 1964): 249.
8 Alexis de Tocqueville, The Old Regime and the French Revolution, trans. Stuart Gilbert (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Anchor Books, 1955), 158. Hereinafter cited as Old Regime.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid., 159.
11 Ibid., 163.
12 Ibid., 164.
13 Democracy, 84.
14 Ibid., 90.
15 Ibid., 88.
16 Henry Steele Commager, “Tocqueville’s Mistake,” Harper’s (August 1984), 71.
17 Ibid., 72.
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid.
20 Democracy, 83.
21 John Stuart Mill, “Centralisation,” Collected Works, ed. John M. Robson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977), 19:581. Hereinafter cited as Mill, “Centralisation.”
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid.
24 John Stuart Mill, Autobiography (New York: Lib
eral Arts Press, 1957), 124.
25 Ibid., 124–25.
26 Ibid., 125.
27 Mill, “Centralisation,” 582.
28 James T. Schleifer, The Making of Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980).
29 Alexis de Tocqueville, Journeys to England and Ireland, ed. J. P. Mayer (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Anchor Books, 1968), 63. Hereinafter cited as Journeys.
30 Schleifer, Making of Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America”, 177.
31 Democracy, 645.
32 Ibid., 650.
33 Ibid., 666.
34 Ibid., 646.
35 Quoted in Schleifer, Making of Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America”, 135. Schleifer is quoting manuscript drafts of Democracy. Yale, CV b, Paquet 13, 57–58.
36 Ibid., 87.
37 Ibid.
38 Ibid., 90.
39 Marvin Zetterbaum, Tocqueville and the Problem of Democracy (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1967), 99. Hereinafter cited as Zetterbaum, Problem.
40 John C. Koritansky, “Decentralization and Civic Virtue in Tocqueville’s ‘New Science of Politics,’” Publius 5 (Summer 1975), 68.