Search Results

Any discussion on gun control that fails to address gun violence will ultimately fall short. Nickolas Cruz, the Parkland shooter who killed 17 of David Hogg’s classmates, captured on a security camera (credit: Wikimedia Commons) In advance of gun control activist David Hogg’s visit to the Athenaeum on February 4th, Shiv Parihar   published an article  in The Forum  titled, “David Hogg is No Human Rights Activist.” The piece admonishes Hogg for his strong stance on gun control and argues against the disarmament of American citizens. While the article raises important points, its distorted evidence and refusal to acknowledge the United State’s gun violence epidemic—all framed within a personal attack on Hogg—misleads readers. We believe that the piece overlooks critical factors that must be acknowledged in any solution-oriented conversation on the Second Amendment and gun violence. The piece states that guns “have historically served as a great equalizer” by helping victims, especially women, “resist crime.” Parihar cites two scientific   studies  to support these assertions but fails to acknowledge their flaws. The first study was led by the National Rifle Association (NRA), which casts suspicion on its motives and reliability. More notably, the National Research Council discredited  both studies for their reliance on a faulty self-reporting mechanism which likely overestimated instances of self-defense.  At the center of the article’s argument, though, is a nuanced point about firearms being a means for Black Americans to defend themselves against racial violence. Though this evidence is important and rarely brought up in Second Amendment debates, Parihar warps it to support a distorted conclusion. He argues that people like Hogg who believe in “systemic racial biases” should not entrust the government with gun violence prevention, as the implementation of such laws could disproportionately target communities of color. But the piece completely ignores the fact that gun violence disproportionately affects Black Americans, instead tokenizing the experiences of communities of color to advocate for a policy that is in direct contrast to the current policy agendas of organizations like the NAACP . A study  from UPenn Medicine shows that while Black individuals represent only 12.6% of the U.S. population, they are vastly overrepresented as gun violence victims, experiencing over 44.5% of total firearm injuries. Ultimately, the article fails to acknowledge that stricter gun control might protect these communities from the systemic harms they already suffer. More broadly, the article makes exactly zero mentions of gun violence. The most recent data  from the nonpartisan Pew Research Center shows that in 2021, a record-high 20,958 people died from gun murders (up 45% from 2019). Another recent study  from Johns Hopkins showed that in 2022, for the third year in a row, gun-related deaths were the leading cause of death among children and teenagers. While the article addresses the benefits of guns for self-defense, it fails to acknowledge the many offensive and unjustified uses of guns. Even if you believe that criminals rather than guns are responsible for violence, not mentioning the adverse impacts of firearms on any level is irresponsible from a journalistic standpoint.  Parihar—up to the very last sentence—levels his argument against disarmament, asserting that “we ought to be wary of those who seek to take [guns] away.” Earlier, the piece states that “When despots have sought to roll back human rights, they have inevitably targeted gun rights… Nazi Germany disarmed its Jewish population on the eve of the Holocaust.” This anecdote, made in relation to a larger argument about gun control, misconstrues disarmament as a serious possibility in present-day America when that is simply not the case. The article fails to provide a single piece of evidence to support the claim that large-scale disarmament is a credible threat, much less the policy agenda of David Hogg.  Though Hogg did say on X—as the article correctly cites—that, “You have no right to a gun,” he has never supported a government program of mass disarmament. In reality, his activism is centered around passing universal background checks  by registering voters  and promoting young progressive candidates . Generally, the framing of the article as an attack on Hogg, a survivor of the Parkland shooting  (in which 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz, walked into his high school with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle and multiple magazines, killing 17 people and wounding 14 more) seems, at best, tone-deaf.  As two Claremont students whose shared Portland community has been impacted by multiple instances of gun violence, resulting in the deaths of at least four of our former high school classmates, we were upset that the article failed to mention victims of gun violence. Considering the destructive impacts that guns have had on too many communities like ours, we believe that gun control discussions should be centered on solutions to address the epidemic.  When it comes to such a complex issue, we believe that more conversation is needed to both protect liberties and address gun violence. Any reporting on this issue should seek to reconcile both those interests. While we respect Parihar’s contribution to the conversation, we believe he ultimately misrepresented the nature of the gun control debate by taking it out of its present context. Even in the present day, it would be silly to impose or advocate for a one-size-fits-all solution to this issue. With this said, there are some promising proposals to address the gun violence epidemic that we support, including federal laws to ban AR-15-style rifles and close background check loopholes. We do not believe that it is a human right to own assault rifles, weapons of war designed specifically for the military . As for background checks, under the current federal law , they are only required for licensed gun dealers, not unlicensed sellers, including those who sell firearms online or at gun shows. This loophole has been abused by illegal firearm trafficking operations . Moreover, social services should be marshaled to address the mental health crisis sweeping our country. While these measures alone will not stop gun violence, we believe that they are a necessary first step to address the issue. This crisis cannot be swept under the rug, and any discussion on gun control that fails to address gun violence will ultimately fall short.

Prison Abolition Collective hosted “Jalil Muntaqim” at Pitzer. Joseph A. Piagentini and Waverly Jones, murdered by Anthony Bottom in 1971. (Credit: NYPD) Former militant Anthony Bottom, better known by his alias Jalil Muntaqim, delivered a talk for the 5C Prison Abolition Collective on Wednesday, February 5th, at Pitzer College’s Benson Auditorium. Sponsors included the Pomona departments of Media Studies, Religious Studies, Politics, Theater, Art History, Middle Eastern Studies, Gender and Women’s Studies; the Scripps departments of Anthropology and Religious Studies; the Motley Coffeehouse; and the CMC Department of Modern Languages and Literature.  Bottom, previously a member of the Black Panther Party (BPP) and affiliated Black Liberation Army (BLA), served 49 years in prison between 1971 and 2020 for the murder of two NYPD officers. On May 21st, 1971, officers Waverly Jones and Joseph A. Piagentini responded to a domestic disturbance call at an apartment building where the militants intentionally ambushed them. Bottom used a pistol to shoot  Jones four times. Piagentini was kept alive to beg for his life, repeatedly mentioning his one-and-three-year-old daughters to no avail. Bell shot him a dozen times in intentionally non-lethal wounds so the trio could continue to hear the cop’s begging. After the officer had lost much blood, Bottom lethally shot Piagentini. A witness recalled that the officer’s last words mentioned his daughters. A weeks-long manhunt, made nationally famous by the 1985 film   Badge of the Assassin , culminated in the capture of all three murderers in San Francisco, where the BPP/BLA cell was located. At the time, Bottom claimed innocence of the murders but admitted to having bombed  a church planned as the site of an officer’s funeral. He would eventually plead guilty to the murder of both officers. Bottom had joined the militias to engage  in “armed struggle” against what he saw as white supremacy institutionalized within the United States government. Bottom was denied parole eleven times. At one hearing, he declared the murders were  part of “a war.” Bottom was eventually released in 2020, eventually expressing  regret for having ambushed and murdered the officers. His release was heavily lobbied against by Diane Piagentini, the widow of one of the slain officers, who described  the decision as “gut-wrenching” and herself as “heartbroken.” The BPP and BLA dissolved within ten years of his prosecution in the face of escalating prosecutorial efforts  from federal authorities in response to a series of organized killings and robberies. Bottom’s speech to 5C students avoided the topic of his killings, instead focusing on his organizing of prisoners. Considering himself to have been a “political prisoner,” he called for the abolition of prisons as institutions. Bottom encouraged students to resist “white supremacy” and demand an end to capitalism and imperialism.

The right to bear arms is a human right. Northfield, Minnesota residents use personal arms to foil an 1876 bank robbery attempt. (Credit: Minnesota Historical Society) David Hogg, survivor of the 2017 Parkland high school shooting and founder of the gun control advocacy group March For Our Lives, is being hosted by the Marian Miner Cook Athenaeum for a dinner program on February 4th. This appearance was sponsored by the Mgrublian Center for Human Rights. This is an ostensibly reasonable decision and not much of a surprise. Supporters of additional firearm regulations often argue their position buttresses human rights. The American Civil Liberties Union, for instance, has argued  that firearm regulations are not a violation of civil rights–albeit with exceptions . David Hogg himself has stated  that Americans “have no right to a gun.” This framing ignores the nature of the Second Amendment and the history of gun control, both in the United States and globally.  Referencing the nation’s most successful firearms manufacturer, a 19th-century-tagline quipped “God created men, Sam Colt made them equal.” Indeed, civilian owned firearms have historically served as a great equalizer, a tool  for the oppressed to resist their oppressors and victims to resist crime. In particular, women  have benefitted from carrying firearms for self-defense.  When despots have sought to roll back human rights, they have inevitably targeted gun rights. The disarming of the oppressed has augured the coming of totalitarianism. Bolshevik Russia disarmed  its populace before the Red Terror. Nazi  Germany disarmed its Jewish population on the eve of the Holocaust. The Chinese  Communist Party and Cambodian  Khmer Rouge presided over disarmaments that paved the way for both nation’s killing fields. For most of American history, white supremacists have used gun control to enforce racial tyranny. A particularly egregious 1825 Florida law  authorized all white men to seize firearms in free Black possession. The United States witnessed a wave of gun control legislation several years later in response  to the 1831 Nat Turner slave rebellion. In his majority opinion in the notorious Dred Scott   v. Sanford , Chief Justice Roger Taney argued  against the notion of Black citizenship on the grounds that this would entail to them the right to bear arms. In doing so,  Taney recognizes a right to bear arms as a human right in the process of denying it.  Gun rights were restored to Black Americans along with other civil rights during Reconstruction. The state of Texas recognized  the right to bear arms as a racist regime in 1859. Texas revoked  its recognition of the right to bear arms during Reconstruction when the state was forced to extend dignity to each of its citizens. Explicitly colorblind gun control statutes were a key part of Southern racial tyranny. One Florida Supreme Court Justice wrote  in 1941 of a handgun registration law “never intended to be applied to the white population.” In turn, those challenging Jim Crow recognized gun ownership as a human right. Anti-lynching activist Ida B. Wells noted  that Black Americans turned to firearms for the defense denied them by an unjust legal system.   This is not to argue that modern gun control legislation stems from racist or totalitarian motives. Yet, those that push for gun control, including  Hogg, typically recognize the existence of systemic racial biases. They entrust these very institutions to oversee restrictions. This dissonance is particularly strong in those who seek to eliminate firearms from circulation entirely. A state program of disarmament would be the only means to remove guns from the societal sphere of a nation with more firearms than people. Doing so would empower these flawed institutions and be contrary to the very foundations of our republic. The task of disarming America’s most vulnerable would necessarily fall to the very institutions that have perpetuated racial inequalities. The very concept of human rights begins with the inviolability of human life. From time immemorial, the English tradition and its American successor have recognized the importance of self-defense as the defense of that very inviolability and firearms as legitimate instruments of self-defense. The possession of tools of self-defense thus deserves recognition as a fundamental human right. History shows we ought to be wary of those who seek to take them away.

Salvatori Center research assistants wrote profiles of overlooked American political thinkers in the areas of conservatism, federalism, gender, and journalism. Conservatism Thinker: William F. Buckley Jr. Author: Jaxson Sharpe Born: 1925 Died: 2008 Spouse: Patricia Buckley Occupation: Editor, author, pundit Education: Yale University (BA) Read about the life and thought of William F. Buckley Jr. here . Thinker:   Harry Jaffa Author:   Henry Fina Born:  1918 Died:  2015 Spouse: Marjorie Etta Butler Occupation:  Professor (Claremont McKenna College) Education:  Yale University (BA), The New School (PhD) Read about the life and thought of Harry Jaffa here . Federalism Thinker: Mercy Otis Warren Author: Maribella Muñoz-Jiménez Born:  1728 Died:  1814 Spouse:  James Warren Occupation:  Poet, political writer Education:  Self-educated Read about the life and thought of Mercy Otis Warren here . Thinker: Frances Perkins Author: Gabriel Goldstein Born: 1880 Died:  1965 Spouse:  Paul Wilson Occupation:  United States Secretary of Labor Education:  Mount Holyoke College (BS), Columbia University (MA), University of Pennsylvania Read about the life and thought of Frances Perkins here . Thinker: Lysander Spooner Author: Andrew Rizko Born: 1808 Died:  1887 Spouse:  None Occupation:  Lawyer, writer, entrepreneur Education:  Self-educated Read about the life and thought of Lysander Spooner here . Gender Thinker: Patsy Mink Author: Nicole Jonassen Born:  1927 Died:  2002 Spouse:  John Mink Occupation:  Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Hawaii Education:  Wilson College, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (BS), University of Chicago (JD) Read about the life and thought of Patsy Mink here . Thinker: Alice Paul Author: Caren Ensing Born:  1885 Died:  1997 Spouse:  None Occupation:  Suffragist Education:  Swarthmore College (BS), Woodbrooke Quaker Study Centre, London School of Economics, University of Pennsylvania (MA, PhD), American University (LLB, LLM, DCL) Read about the life and thought of Alice Paul here . Journalism Thinker: Herbert Croly Author: Sophia Lakhani Born:  1869 Died:  1930 Spouse:  Louise Emory Occupation:  Journalist, editor, author Education:  City College of New York, Harvard University Read about the life and thought of Herbert Croly here . Thinker: Walter Lippmann Author: Henry Long Born:  1889 Died:  1974 Spouse:  Faye Albertson, Helen Byrne Occupation:  Journalist, author Education:  Harvard University (AB) Read about the life and thought of Walter Lippmann here .

Acclaimed CMC professor Harry V. Jaffa’s political philosophy once reshaped conservatism. What does it teach us now? Harry Jaffa at Honnold-Mudd Library (credit: Claremont McKenna College) Over the course of twenty-five years, Harry V. Jaffa worked in a sunlit office at Claremont McKenna College. But his ideas would reach beyond the halls of the university to define the modern political landscape. Born in 1918 in New York City to two Jewish immigrants, Jaffa’s academic career took shape when he became one of political philosopher Leo Strauss’s first doctoral students. Academically, Jaffa’s role as a Straussian apostle contributed to reshaping conservative political philosophy.  Following Strauss, Jaffa applied classical philosophical thought to modern political questions, specifically the American founding and Abraham Lincoln’s political thought. He hailed the sixteenth president as one of the greatest protectors of the moral truths the American founders championed. Jaffa’s scholarship focused on the Lincoln-Douglas debates. His seminal work, Crisis of the House Divided , explored the fundamental tension between Lincoln’s belief in equality grounded in natural right and Douglas’ moral relativism. For Jaffa, Lincoln’s exemplary leadership demonstrates how America’s founding principles serve as enduring standards for political action. To Jaffa, the eventual triumph of Lincoln’s philosophy showed that the moral truths outlined in the Declaration of Independence must guide the nation’s governance moving forward. Preserving the nation’s core truths—and working to fulfill the promise they outline—demands leaders who both exhibit moral authority and execute practical governance. The impact of Jaffa’s work extended into the realm of public politics when he took on a role in Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign. When Goldwater accepted the Republican Party’s nomination, he stated, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." The speech sparked controversy, and the quote, which Jaffa penned, became a rallying cry for an emerging conservative faction. While Lyndon B. Johnson would end Goldwater’s presidential bid, the campaign laid the ideological groundwork for the conservative resurgence led by Ronald Reagan over the following two decades.  Jaffa’s academic and political legacy is preserved through the Claremont Institute, which his own students founded to advance the principles he taught. Initially renowned for defending the modern applicability of American Founding principles, the Institute has since embraced reactionary populism  and election denialism . This development raises questions regarding the conflict between moral principle and pragmatism, a hallmark of Jaffa’s thought.  Jaffa’e elevation of Lincoln reveals his penchant for principled leaders who govern with an eye to the timeless truths of the founding. But the populist approach supports strategies that stray from the measured, principled approach Jaffa supported. Popular conservative politics has strayed from Jaffa’s vision of principled governance anchored to America’s founding truths, instead embracing reactionary and populist rhetoric. The application of America’s founding principles to contemporary governance using Jaffa’s philosophical approach must overcome the barriers imposed by flawed actors within a turbulent political arena.  That said, many conservatives attempt to justify the electoral and cultural battles that define recent American politics by appealing to one of Jaffa’s core beliefs: we may justify extreme action in pursuit of justice. The contemporary conservative movement views drastic action in domestic and foreign politics as complementary with America's fundamental principles in the effort to realize the founding promise. If “moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue,” then what does the pursuit of justice demand and when has America abandoned its moral truths? Jaffa’s legacy illustrates a critical debate within contemporary conservatism regarding the proper way to apply America’s founding values to public governance. This dilemma is not new and is one Jaffa once attempted to navigate through lending his services to one of conservatism’s most important modern campaigns. With a new conservative government on the horizon, the Right must soon decide whether to embrace principled leadership or reactionary demagoguery. Jaffa provides a framework for just governance through strict adherence to our nation’s founding principles. Public servants must treat these founding principles as enduring guidelines, not pliable frameworks used to win partisan political battles or serve reactionary aims. In an increasingly polarized age, Jaffa’s philosophy forces us to reckon with what action we accept as a just defense of fundamental liberties.

William F. Buckley Jr. (1925-2008) William F. Buckley Jr. with his magazine, National Review (credit: The Intercept) William Buckley’s rise to stardom in postwar conservatism demonstrates the continued relevance of the old adage “it’s not what you say but how you say it.”  In The Fire Is Upon Us , Claremont McKenna College (CMC) Professor Nicolas Buccola observes that Buckley achieved prominence as a “communicator and popularizer of conservative ideas. According to Buccola, Buckley wove together “a combination of devout religiosity, strident antiegalitarianism, and deep opposition to the welfare state” into a pithy argument that convinced many that the greatness of the United States required the recognition of “certain immutable truths.”  But as much as Buckley is lauded as a pioneer of contemporary American conservatism, his rise and fall as a conservative icon provides a cautionary tale for today’s political commentators. Although publicity made Buckley, it would ultimately burn him. Buckley’s Rise: Challenge with Charm In Buckley’s first issue  of National Review magazine, he positions his conservative project against a liberal intellectual class that “runs just about everything . There never was an age of conformity quite like this one, or a camaraderie quite like the Liberals’.” The consequences of this social-intellectual monopoly were significant: “Our political economy and our high-energy industry run on large, general principles, on ideas—not by day-to-day guess work, expedients and improvisations. Ideas have to go into exchange to become or remain operative; and the medium of such exchange is the printed word. A vigorous and incorruptible journal of conservative opinion is—dare we say it?—as necessary to better living as Chemistry.” National Review , November 19, 1955.  Core to William Buckley’s conservative ethos was an understanding that political ideology was driven by the press. In order to effectively challenge the dominant liberal order, Buckley’s National Review  needed to distinguish itself: “Especially during NR ’s early years,” observes historian David Farber , “Buckley crafted an ironic tone that made conservatives appear dashing and clever and calls for Christian virtue in the public square sound hip and rebellious.”  Equality: The Solution to Academic (Un)Freedom In 1951, four years prior to the first issue of the National Review , William Buckley published God and Man at Yale  as an undergraduate. The ideas in Buckley’s debut political salvo should sound familiar to the contemporary college student. Buckley alleged that the Yale faculty prompted students to abandon their religious and free market fidelities, rendering them nothing less than “atheistic socialists.” Buckley couched his argument in appeals to “academic freedom.” If it is unacceptable to pontificate on the “anthropological superiority of the Aryan,” Buckley reasoned, then it should also be unacceptable to preach communism and atheism: “My task becomes, then, not so much as to argue that the limits should be imposed  but that existing limits should be narrowed, ” wrote Buckley.  Ironically, since academic open-mindedness was hostile to traditionalism, Buckley charged the university with a sort of close-minded relativism. The problem was not that the collegiate mind needed to be freed, exactly, but rather that the limits imposed needed to be politically equal . Even today, conservative efforts toward rebalancing political perspectives on college campuses are shaped by the arguments pioneered by Buckley in God and Man at Yale . This is especially true in Claremont. In a piece  published by the Duke University Press, Ellen Messer-Davidow explained that Buckley’s National Review  “laid the foundations for everything that followed” by creating “a recognized forum for conservative ideas” and a model of conservative cultural production on college campuses.  In the 1980s , the Institute for Educational Affairs, a conservative tax-exempt group, began a program to fund conservative student newspapers across the country, dubbed the Collegiate Network, in an effort to bust the liberal trust on higher education that Buckley first described in 1951. In 1988, CMC’s own Claremont Independent  was listed  among the 53 original newspaper grant recipients. In 1995, the operation of the Collegiate Network was taken over by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI)—an organization where Buckley served as the inaugural president in 1953. Binder and Wood, in Becoming Right: How Campuses Shape Young Conservatives , saw the ISI’s mission as relatively straight-forward: to promote conservative values on college campuses and create opportunities for “the best and the brightest” conservative minds to “redress the widespread image of conservatives.” While it could seem ironic that the self-avowed Claremont Independent  is dependent, at least in part, on a conservative-aligned influence network, this relationship is well within the bounds of Buckley’s conception of academic freedom first articulated 75 years ago: Academic freedom is not a matter of eliminating all  ideological constraints, but rather a matter of making them equal .  Resolving the Tension: Capitalism and Conservatism Whereas Buckley began his career confronting “atheistic socialism,” it soon became necessary to establish an ordering of conservative values. Buckley appealed to a new conservative tent under a banner of moral authority. Only with the right moral virtues would capitalist economic freedom be worthwhile.  Not all on the Right responded positively to Ayn Rand’s 1957 bestseller defense of capitalism, Atlas Shrugged —among the detractors was William Buckley. “For William Buckely,” writes Professor Farber , “conservatism without the traditional religious faith that placed individual acts, even those of the finest capitalists, in God’s mighty hands, was an empty and even vile thing.” Rather than shrink from the tension between capitalism and conservatism—which would have been easy given that Rand’s primary target was the socialist Left and not the conservative Right—one of Buckley’s best National Review  writers, Whittaker Chambers, sought to confront it head-on . Rand’s sin was the prioritization of materialism, “productive achievement”, over all other values, which Chambers readily admitted “scarcely differs from the same world seen in materialist view from the Left.” Materialism on the Right would lead to the domination of America by the technocratic “industrial-financial-engineering caste.”  The picture of a laissez-faire capitalist system painted by the National Review  was surprisingly dystopian: A society built on “technological achievement, supervised by … a managerial political bureau,” argued Chambers, “can only head into a dictatorship.” While dictatorships fly different banners, Chambers observes “embarrassing similarities between Hitler’s National Socialism and Stalin’s brand of Communism”. By centering the “Randian man” in the same manner as Marx centered the “Marxist man”, the society endorsed by Rand’s rebuke of socialism would make the same moral mistake as the Communists: without the checks and balances of religion, man will build a self-centered dictatorship in a Godless world. The ordering of religious morality before economic freedom would ultimately pay off. Farber explains , that while not all  conservatives bought into Buckley’s “religiously transcendent, intellectually demanding ethos”, for “those who wanted a morally potent, spiritually engaging, intellectually rigorous conservatism, without any hint of backwater Bible-thumping, the National Review  provided the goods.” The Descent: Burned by the Spotlight While Buckley kept appealing to populist sentiments at an arm’s length, Buccola explains  that much of his success was “accelerated by the fact that he proved to be a compelling presence on television.” Often, these appearances would take the form of debates with liberal intellectuals and writers — “Conservatives loved seeing such an articulate defense of their views.” In this period, Buckley’s relentless advocacy paired with a restraint from personal attacks often led his ideological opponents to begrudgingly admire him. He was sharp but cool and collected. In 1962, Buckley began one of his most popular rivalries with the famous Left-leaning writer Gore Vidal by writing a column defending conservatism next to a column where Vidal was attacking it.  During the 1968 Republican and Democratic conventions, Buckley and Vidal were to spend ten nights debating each other on live television on the merits and demerits of liberal and conservative political tracks. This was a showdown of two, sharp-tongued political juggernauts which had been building in the public sphere of television and newspaper columns for years. But as Robert Gordon explained in Politico , “Within minutes of their first conversation, these high-minded individuals took the low road”— instead of a dialogue, they sought to make each other bleed.  William F. Buckley Jr. mid-debate with Gore Vidal (credit: Vox) It wasn’t until the penultimate debate that this feud had finally boiled over. After Vidal called Buckley a “crypto-Nazi”, Buckley — in a surprising moment of disinhibition — responded with venom: “Now listen, you queer , stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in your goddamn face”. Since this moment, Gordon argues , “it’s been downhill.” This highly televised event served as a model for the intellectual bloodsport we see across today’s media landscape. This was not lost on Buckley. In the 2015 documentary about the Buckley-Vidal debates,  Best of Enemies , one person close to Buckley remarked that this moment changed him — his outburst undermined his sense of uprightness and he felt ashamed by his actions. When asked about the debates with Vidal in an interview, Buckley simply responded, “Does TV run America? There is an implicit conflict of interest between that which is highly viewable and that which is highly illuminating…” In an age characterized by a dizzying fusion of information and entertainment, we would be wise to keep Buckley’s admonition in mind. This piece is part of the Salvatori Center's Profiles in American Political Thought. You can find a complete list of those pieces here .

Mercy Otis Warren (1728-1814) Painting of Mercy Otis Warren by John Singleton Copley (credit: American Battlefield Trust) When people think of the key figures of the American Revolution, many forget the anomaly, Mercy Otis Warren. A poet, playwright, political activist, patriot, and prolific author, Mercy Otis Warren wrote about the politics of the American Revolution – rare for a woman of her time.  Warren was born in Barnstable, Massachusetts and was the third of thirteen children of James Otis and Mary Allyne. In an age where few women had access to education, Warren leveraged her male relatives to glean a comprehensive political and historical education. She followed her father’s career as an attorney and politician, learned about history and politics by sitting in on her brother’s private tutoring, and studied classical literature with her Yale-educated uncle, Reverend Jonathan Russel. In 1754, Warren married James Warren, a popular Massachusetts politician who encouraged Warren to pursue writing. Through James Warren’s connections, she met politicians such as John Adams , who also encouraged her writing. From 1765 to 1789, Warren was near all revolutionary political events in Massachusetts and used her writings to support the Revolution. Warren began writing political dramas, criticizing British policies and officials like Governor Thomas Hutchinson. She also published political satires and pamphlets used as key propaganda for the patriotic movement in Massachusetts. Most of her publications during the Revolutionary War were anonymous to avoid British retaliation and the dismissal of her work on account of her sex. Warren was a fierce proponent of the Revolution and the principles of the Declaration of Independence during the War, but she and her husband became Anti-Federalists after the proposal of the new Constitution in 1787. Warren’s Challenge of the Constitution Many American politicians, like John Adams, favored a stronger federal constitution, which Warren strongly opposed. In 1788, she anonymously published the pamphlet Observations on the New Constitution  in which she discussed standard Anti-Federalist concerns, such as the lack of a bill of rights and the potential for corruption that could ruin the United States if the Constitution proposed by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and other delegates was passed. She encouraged other states to reject the new Constitution. She wrote that “the glorious fabric of liberty successfully reared with so much labor an assiduity totters to the foundation, and may be blown away as the bubble of fancy by the rude breath of military combinations, and politicians of yesterday.” Warren felt that the United States was willing to accept the same tyrannical power structure they had fought so valiantly to overturn due to politicians greed and the hunger for power. She believed that the framers were not adhering to the promises of the new republic since the Constitution did not protect citizens and their rights. More importantly, she argued that the United States had the capability to achieve freedom and happiness, but politicians were limiting the country's capabilities. Instead of taking advantage of a new beginning, the United States was repeating its history. Mercy Ottis Warren’s pamphlet gained popularity as it was reprinted in newspapers across several states. Many Anti-Federalists used it to generate opposition to the new Constitution and urge states to vote for the ratification of a Bill of Rights. Thinking that the Constitution could not be ratified without Anti-Federalist votes, James Madison created a list of rights that would make up the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Yet Warren was still not satisfied. In 1805, Warren published History of the Rise, Progress and Termination of the American Revolution —a three-volume, 1,200-page book on the American Revolution. She published it under her name, becoming the first woman in the United States to publish a nonfiction book. In it, she presents the history of the Revolution while also discussing her worry with the Constitution in that a centralized, powerful government could return to the monarchical power that she and other revolutionaries had fought against. She writes: Thus, after the conclusion of peace and the acknowledgment of the independence of the United States by Great Britain, the situation of America appeared similar to that of a young heir who had prematurely become possessed of a rich inheritance, while his inexperience and his new felt independence had intoxicated him so far as to render him incapable of weighing the intrinsic value of his estate, and had left him without discretion or judgment to improve it to the best advantage of his family.  Warren held so much hope for the U.S.’s new independence and felt that the country did not live up to her expectations. She argued that the U.S.’s desire to achieve equality and greatness was eclipsed by politicians’ personal hunger for power. Moreover, she argued that the Constitution was contradictory to what the revolutionists fought for—freedom and equality. Warren argued that the Federalist government restricted the rights of citizens in ways antithetical to the Revolutionary spirit.  Warren’s Vision for America As a Jefersonian republican, Mercy Otis Warren believed in limiting the federal government by advocating for states’ rights and personal freedoms. Therefore, she believed that the federal government should be weakened to increase the power of state and local governments. She believed that this solution was the most viable and that operating under federalism could risk the United States turning into a monarchy. But she argued that liberty would be secured if the majority of power was given to the American people. Unfortunately for her, this Jeffersonian vision never occurred. The success of Warren’s writing, however, should not be measured by the popularity of her ideas but rather by the strength of her words. As a woman, to not only publish on but criticize   the United States and its male politicians was audacious and admirable. Moreover, most curricula understate her contributions to the American Revolution. Warren’s ideas have become increasingly relevant in a political climate where more and more voices argue that the U.S.’s government is too powerful  and that power should be returned to the states. These voices raise the question: should the U.S. continue to maintain a political structure originally established in 1787? Or should citizens attempt to restructure the political powers in the U.S.? The path forward may be obscure, but perhaps Mercy Otis Warren’s writings can light the way. This piece is part of the Salvatori Center's Profiles in American Political Thought. You can find a complete list of those pieces here .

Alice Paul (1885-1977) To celebrate the ratification of the 19th Amendment, Alice Paul raises a glass (credit: National Woman's Party) The idea is counterintuitive—by definition, grassroots movements start from the bottom-up, harnessing local support into regional and eventually national change. National movements start from the top down, using national platforms to spur local change. Yet because of Alice Paul, the American Suffrage movement became both national and  grassroots. Paul believed that a successful movement required an unrelenting grassroots campaign that harnessed non-violence, visual rhetoric, and presidential power to sway the federal government. It was this radical and creative crusade that cemented Alice Paul as the leader who ultimately pushed the seventy-two-year long battle for suffrage into a federal victory.  Once in an interview, Paul recalled her mother’s advice: “When you put your hand to the plow, you can't put it down until you get to the end of the row.” The sentiment reflects both Paul’s upbringing and character. Alice Paul was somewhat of an enigma in the American Suffrage movement; she was known for her extreme reserve and disinterest in recounting her own story and experiences. While her peers engaged with the media, Paul bowed her head and plowed through years of protest, arrests, force-feedings, and abuse toward her singular all-consuming goal. Without this relentless nature that led many to label Paul as cold, the American Suffrage movement would likely have lacked the organization and persistence required for national change. Paul was born to wealthy Quaker parents in Mount Laurel, New Jersey in 1885. Despite her family’s income, she lived a relatively modest life on a small farm. Here, her parents instilled traditional Quaker values into their children: industry, perseverance, and staunch support for gender equality. In 1901, Paul enrolled in Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania to continue her education. After graduation, she attended the London School of Economics where she continued to study social activism and social sciences.  In London, Alice Paul turned her focus from social work more broadly to the subject of suffrage. She describes her experience after witnessing the harassment of University of Birmingham lecturer Christabel Pankhurst, a leader in England’s suffrage movement: Paul quickly joined the Pankhurst women’s English Suffrage Movement. The Pankhurst women believed that prayer, petitions, and patience were not enough; instead, they used direct and visible measures like marches, rock-throwing, and boycotts. Paul joined the movement and was arrested on several occasions. Here, Emmeline Pankhurst asked Paul to take part in her first hunger strike to protest her unjust incarceration. Hunger strikes were a staple in the Pankhurst movement. Hunger strikes allowed those in prison to publicize their mistreatment and obtain quick releases from wardens who feared public resentment for risking illness and death for middle-class women. In 1910, Alice Paul eagerly returned to the U.S. to implement what she learned in the English Suffrage Movement. Paul believed the leading suffrage organization in the U.S., the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA), was too focused on writing and speaking about the same topics to convince men of their independence. Instead, Paul believed women needed to show  men that they were already independent. Concerned that other campaigns were too piecemeal and partial, Paul thought it was critical to focus the campaign nationally. By 1912, women only had equal suffrage in nine states despite sixty-five years of work. This difference in strategy eventually led Paul to split from the NAWSA in 1916 to form a new organization called the National Woman’s Party (NWP). Traditionally, leaders in civil rights movements focused on state change, emphasizing incremental progress until national recognition. Paul’s NWP instead emphasized unconventional strategies: marches, picketing, and hunger strikes in the Capitol to work at the national level for an amendment. Eventually, Paul’s movement gained traction, and in January of 1917, she, and one thousand other “Silent Sentinels,” picketed the White House for nearly eighteen months. The women silently stood outside six days a week with homemade signs despite weather and counterprotest. While picketing itself was not a new strategy, picketing outside of the White House was. This innovation aimed to specifically wear down the President and Congress. Paul knew that while President Wilson held no real power in changing the Constitution, his burgeoning political influence could sway the vote for suffrage in Congress. Dozens of silent sentinels were arrested and jailed under flimsy charges of obstructing traffic, and Paul was sentenced for seven months. Upon arrival, the woman insisted they be treated as political prisoners. In response, guards beat them so brutally that the arrest became known as the “Night of Terror.” Doctors sent Paul to the psychiatric ward of the prison. Much like in England, the women held hunger strikes (and consequently suffered brutal force-feedings) to garner sympathy for their cause. Newspaper accounts of these proved immensely effective.  Paul’s account garnered so much sympathy that by 1918, public opinion began to sway. At this point, Britain, Germany, and Russia had also all secured women the right to vote. In response to these growing domestic and international pressures, President Wilson announced his support. It took two more years for the Senate and the House to approve the amendment. Undoubtedly, Alice Paul’s work within the suffrage movement pushed a decades-long state-by-state campaign to a national amendment and success. Alice Paul’s suffrage movement was scrappy, unrelenting, and by all accounts grassroots as she began at the roots of gender inequality and grew the movement to the national level. Her legacy is not to be ignored as battles over gender and racial equality persist within the U.S. today. Today, Paul’s model of  nationalized, unrelenting, and non-violent protest remains the norm for social movements across the country.

Herbert Croly (1869-1930) (Credit: Doris Ulmann) When considering American visionaries from the Progressive Era, President Theodore Roosevelt often comes to mind. But most could not name the man whose political theory laid the ideological foundation for Roosevelt and countless others: Herbert Croly. Croly’s dynamic and progressive approach to American governance, which hinges on a strong and democratic federal government, continues to influence discussions around government power today.  Born in 1869, Herbert Croly was exposed to political theory from an early age as his father, David Croly, was an author and political theorist. Meanwhile, his mother, Jane Croly, was among the first editors of women’s columns in New York. With a political theorist and a journalist as parents, Croly naturally gravitated toward political journalism. During his time at Harvard University, his professor, Josiah Royce , introduced Croly to the theory of progressivism, stimulating his interest in political philosophy. Unfortunately, Croly never graduated from Harvard, withdrawing in 1888 due to his father’s illness and leaving permanently in 1893 after suffering a breakdown.   Despite not earning his degree, Croly’s time at Harvard spurred him to found The New Republic   magazine in 1914 alongside Walter Lippman and Walter Weil. In theory, The New Republic  was intended to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas. In practice, it operated more as a mouthpiece for Croly to espouse progressivism.  In his early work for the The New Republic , Croly advocated for progressivism as the dominant political thought since “progressivism or liberalism is fundamentally the attempt to mould [sic] social life in the light of the best available knowledge and the interest of humane ideal.” However, he argued that although there were so-called progressive groups, they exhibited a sense of “political futility born of the equivocal meaning of American liberalism and its failure to keep abreast of the best available social knowledge” and thus did not accurately represent the movement. Croly alluded to a leader who he thought embodied true progressivism and aligned with his vision for America: Abraham Lincoln. He lauded Lincoln, calling him “half hero and half saint” for his ability to steer Americans out of a civil war which would have “shattered the moral and political continuity of American national life.” Croly’s praise for Lincoln’s character illuminates his concept of the ideal progressive leader. Croly described Lincoln as being “good natured, resolute, faithful, and innocent” as well as “morally humane, humble, and magnanimous.” He took a firm stand on leadership, arguing that it’s not just about policy or strategy, but about character. While Croly’s work in The New Republic  was influential in its own right, its national impact pales in comparison to Croly’s first book: The Promise of American Life . In his 1909 magnum opus, Croly dissected the Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian approaches to governance. Rather than fully embrace either Hamiltonian or Jeffersonian ideals, Croly attempted to forge a compromise that would connect the best pieces of each theory. He posited that America needed to adopt Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends. In practice, this meant Jefferson’s vision of a truly liberal democracy could only be achieved through Hamilton’s proposed strong national government since “the essential condition of a fruitful liberty was an efficient central government.” According to Croly, America needed a political system that would be democratic yet energetic and open to collective responsibilities to achieve America’s “liberal promise.” Croly knew that Jefferson and Hamilton’s entire philosophies stood in opposition to each other, yet by reconciling what he thought were the best aspects of each theory, a “national political community forged by a strong but democratic government” would be created. While Croly’s aspiration for a government that integrated these concepts remains somewhat idealistic, he did understand the limitations of government. Rather than suggest that elected officials exert hands-on control over everything, Croly argued that complex systems like the economy should be largely regulated by experts. Croly was not only clear about what aspects of both ideologies should be adopted, but also what should be rejected. In terms of Hamiltonian democracy, Croly urged that although we must embrace “the energetic nationalism of Hamiltonian tradition” to create a unified country, we must under no circumstances accept Hamilton’s “distrust of democracy.” In his assessment of Jeffersonian theory, Croly made it clear that although the “democratic principles of Jeffersonian tradition,” including individual responsibility, are essential, there is no place in the ideal American government for Jefferson’s “narrow concerns with local and individual interests.” Croly went one step further and actually called Jefferson’s conception of democracy as a whole “meager, narrow, and contradictory” since Jefferson failed to acknowledge that some central governance was required to establish and sustain an equal and democratic society.  Croly’s belief in a strong central government is also seen in his advocacy for the living constitution theory. Croly argued that the Constitution not only should, but must  adapt to the changing needs of society. He held that constitutional principles should be used to empower the federal government to address issues that faced the entire nation and not select groups like the “elite and wealthy.” While he mentioned that this central government should govern at the expense of individual rights, Croly left the line between government power and individual liberties blurry. Many modern politicians have tried to define this line while using Croly’s central philosophy as the foundation for their platforms. Theodore Roosevelt’s New Nationalism  campaign echoed Croly’s idea to prioritize strong government in the economy without gutting the free market capitalist system as a whole. The entire philosophy behind FDR’s New Deal was largely based on Croly’s strategy to employ a strong central government to serve communal needs while protecting individual rights. For example, the Federal Reserve Act  directly reflected Croly’s intention to employ experts to stabilize the economic system. Croly may be long gone now, but his ideals certainly are not. While Croly’s hope for an equal and just democracy protected by the government is a widely supported sentiment, how this society should be achieved is still under debate. What determines if Croly’s vision will flourish or remain suspended in the realm of political idealism is whether we can accomplish the task central to Croly’s political project: compromise. This piece is part of the Salvatori Center's Profiles in American Political Thought. You can find a complete list of those pieces here .

Patsy Takemoto Mink (1927-2002) Mink and colleagues pose in front of “Members Only” sign at the congressional health club, which was interpreted to mean “Men Only” following the election of female members (credit: New-York Historical Society ) Congresswoman Patsy Takemoto Mink is often cited as the architect behind Title IX protections for women’s rights. While that version of Mink’s history is less fact than fiction, Mink’s understanding of women’s rights is worth reexamining in the context of current debates about the Constitution’s relationship to women’s rights. It is no mystery why the public associates Mink with Title IX. After all, prominent media outlets like TIME Magazine   refer  to Title IX as Mink’s “brainchild,” and a 2002 act of Congress dubbed  Title IX the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act. In reality, however, the legislative history of Title IX demonstrates that its passage was the culmination of interest group efforts led by feminist activist Bernice Sandler. In 1967, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued an executive order  that “ gave  women a firm legal basis for filing complaints” of discrimination in educational settings. As a member of the Women’s Equity Action League (WEAL), Sandler helped  overwhelm the Department of Labor and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare with formal complaints that the departments were not enforcing Johnson’s executive order.  Working alongside Sandler and seeking to codify the ban on discrimination against women in educational contexts, Representative Edith Green (D-OR) introduced  the Omnibus Postsecondary Education Act of 1970, a precursor to Title IX. As chair of the House Committee on Education and Labor’s Special Subcommittee on Education, Green held several hearings regarding the bill.  During these historic hearings, Mink, a close political ally of Green’s, testified that the carveout for education in the Civil Rights Act was harmful for women, many of whom worked in educational institutions at the time. “The most unfortunate thing of all is that education is the very process we rely upon to make the changes and advances we need and yet,” she lamented , “we find that even education is not imparted on a fair and equitable basis.” Ultimately, the bill did not advance past the committee. The Title IX we know today emerged due to Green’s continued efforts. In April of 1971, Green introduced  a bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 and other laws related to higher education. Title IX of the bill prohibited sex discrimination in higher education.  Mink was instrumental to Title IX’s survival after its passage. The Senate proposed an amendment to Title IX that would exempt any revenue-generating college athletic groups from the law’s provisions. Mink led  a coalition of women’s rights organizations to fight the proposal. Her work to spearhead this effort enabled women’s participation in collegiate sports, one of the most significant impacts of Title IX’s enactment.  The public may also mistake Mink for Title IX’s author because Mink authored other bills that promoted equality for women seeking education and for educated women in the workforce. She authored  the Women’s Educational Equity Act to fund the development of nonsexist curricula, professional and vocational programs for women, women’s studies departments, and community-based educational programs for women seeking to return to work after having children. The bill also called for a federal study of sex discrimination in education. Mink also introduced  the first child care bill ever considered by Congress to help working mothers stay in the labor force, and fought for measures to grant working women more financial independence through equal access to credit. Alongside her lauded legislative legacy, Mink’s legal acumen, developed at the University of Chicago School of Law, produced many notable moments throughout her career.   Despite lacking membership on the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Mink participated in the committee’s hearing regarding G. Harrold Carswell’s 1970 nomination for the United States Supreme Court. In her statement, she asserted  the “self-evident” fact that “the Constitution does in fact afford [women] full and equal employment opportunities.” She expressed  a clear belief that the Constitution had guaranteed these equal rights for women since the success of the women’s suffrage movement 50 years earlier. She railed against Carswell’s appointment to the nation’s highest court, citing his role in Ida Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corporation  as a disqualifying factor for his nomination. Mink described  the case as having “enormous importance to the equal rights for women” as it involved a private employer’s ability to refuse to hire a female candidate (but not a male one) on the sole grounds of having young children. Carswell’s vote to deny appeal in the case demonstrated , in Mink’s view, “a total lack of understanding of the concept of equality” and “a vote against the right of women to be treated equally and fairly under the law.” Mink also leveraged her legal background to publish law review articles during her time in office, including one entitled “Federal Legislation to End Discrimination Against Women.” In the piece, she reiterated  her understanding of the Constitution as it existed in the 1970s as already protecting gender equality rights. She criticized  the repeated “ failure  of the [federal] courts to apply the existing equal protection clause of the Constitution to women,” highlighting “numerous instances… in which lower courts answered the question of applicability [of the fourteenth amendment to women] in the affirmative.” These documents demonstrate Mink’s understanding of the Constitution throughout the early 1970s as a gender equality document. She believed that the Constitution afforded women the right to gender equality on the basis of its existing commitment to equal protection under the law, and she believed that the 19th amendment solidified women’s status as full and equal recipients of constitutional rights. Despite her understanding of the Constitution as a gender equality document, she refused to depend on constitutional protections alone for the protection of women’s rights, especially in critical spheres like education and employment. She foresaw that, even if the Supreme Court were to affirm her belief in a gender equality Constitution, that decision could not effectively protect women’s rights.  She worried  that case-by-case adjudication through the judiciary would lead to inconsistent or piecemeal protections for women, and she highlighted that “the judicial approach has the inherent problems of delay” as cases pile up on court dockets. While she supported the Equal Rights Amendment, she recognized the practical need for federal legislation to be implemented to protect women’s rights immediately, as she “ realiz[ed]  the length of time it would take for a constitutional amendment to become reality.”  Mink was a thought leader who devoted her life to understanding and mitigating the barriers that women faced as they sought to use educational and employment opportunities to improve their stations in life in the United States. She combined her legal background with her own experiences as a member of Congress to reach insights about women’s rights that speak to today’s legal and political battles. While she believed that the Constitution demanded that women receive equal protection under the law without exception, her inside view of Washington showed her the practical impossibilities of relying on that view of the Constitution to protect women in the short term.  Today’s feminist activists face the daunting task of advocating for women’s reproductive rights in a world where one Supreme Court decision can topple decades of what was considered by many to be settled law. Perhaps, by taking a cue from Mink’s tireless legislative efforts, champions of women’s rights may need to be pragmatic and pursue legislative steps despite their own belief that the Constitution is a gender equality document. This piece is part of the Salvatori Center's Profiles in American Political Thought. You can find a complete list of those pieces here .

Frances Perkins (1880-1965) U.S. Labor Secretary Frances Perkins (credit: Cornell University) Frances Perkins was the first woman to serve in the United States Cabinet as Secretary of Labor under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. She left a lasting legacy in American labor relations, shaping New Deal policies and advocating for workers’ rights throughout her career. In her 1933 essay, “The Cost of a Five-Dollar Dress,” Perkins attacks the unfair labor practices masked by the too-good-to-be-true sale prices of clothing. This model, which provides a cheap option for high-demand apparel, persists today, contributing to the mistreatment of low-skill workers.  Perkins viewed the people as the foundation and purpose of government: “The people are what matter to government, and a government should aim to give all the people under its jurisdiction the best possible life.” She grounded this philosophy in a belief in human dignity, believing that society should equip individuals to live a decent life. Perkins viewed government intervention as a necessary tool to ensure the well-being of the citizenry, particularly the working class. For Perkins, this meant ensuring fair wages and reasonable working conditions. She saw corporate power as a threat to human dignity and believed unchecked capitalism would lead to the deterioration of the American social order. Her work with Franklin D. Roosevelt on New Deal legislation reflected her commitment to idealistic pragmatism. While she worked to bring economic reforms aimed at protecting workers, she did so within the constitutional and political framework of the United States. In her view, she was a sensible administrator who “came to Washington to work for God, FDR, and the millions of forgotten, plain common workingmen.” She understood her role as a steward of the public good, serving both Roosevelt and ordinary Americans. She viewed the Constitution as a living document that must evolve with modern society’s challenges. Confronted with the Great Depression, she advocated not for a departure from the Constitution but for its interpretation to meet the demands of a complex industrial society. For Perkins, the Constitution’s framework granted Roosevelt’s administration the ability to take an active role in the economy. She saw the absence of government action not just as an economic misstep but as a moral failure to preserve the principle of human dignity. She told then-Governor Roosevelt, “We are not just dealing with mere figures on paper but with human beings, men, women and children who are out of work and hungry.” Following this principle, Perkins frames one of her essays around the question, “Who pays the cost of a five-dollar dress?” to force her readers to confront the injustice inherent to slash-price bargains. Rather than assuming manufacturers bear the cost of bargains, Perkins posits that workers, primarily young and married women, pay the price by enduring brutal labor conditions. Although many manufacturers follow sustainable wage standards, recognizing that “security for… the country depends on building up the purchasing power of the wage-earners,” sweatshops exploit workers by paying them a fraction of the standard wage. As a result, sweatshops can outcompete industry standard prices, offering similar products for a fraction of the cost while maintaining high profit margins.  The inequitable system that Perkins saw endures in today’s globalized economy. While many manufacturers, now as then, adhere to the industry standard of sustainable wages, a vast network of underground sweatshops operates outside these norms, slashing labor costs to beat the competition. Perkins warned that this race to the bottom, which offers short-term customer benefits at the expense of long-term welfare, would ultimately destabilize the economy. Perkins knew that the purchasing power of workers is essential for the health of the economy as a whole. When companies suppress wages, the long-term consequences extend beyond the factory floor. Sweatshops were a dangerous anomaly in Perkins’s time, operating on the fringe of industry. But with the advance of globalization, these anomalies have become standard in many countries across the world. Today, factories in developing countries resemble the sweatshops of Perkins’s lifetime. Through aggressive wage-suppression, these factories produce goods for the global market at prices lower than their fair-trade counterparts. Just as nearly a century ago, it is not the customer but the exploited worker who pays the cost of a bargain dress.  In Perkins’s era, labor exploitation, though often concealed, was locally based. Globalization enables consumers to distance themselves from the ethical implications of their purchase by obscuring product origins. When consumers cannot locate their clothing’s country of origin on a map, they disconnect the product from its production. Consequently, consumers are far less likely to consider the labor practices of the inexpensive clothes they readily enjoy. It is crucial for consumers to recognize their complicity in the hidden cost of the bargain deal. By striving for a more just economy where the true price of a dress provides fair wages and humane conditions for all workers, consumers can promote mindful consumerism and discourage unfair labor practices. Frances Perkins’s critique in “The Cost of a Five-Dollar Dress” remains as relevant today as it was in 1933. The exploitation of workers she warned of has expanded globally. Perkins’s legacy, rooted in her belief in the power of government to protect human dignity, underscores the need for persistent vigilance against the exploitation of workers in an unregulated marketplace. As consumers, we must confront the hidden cost of the bargain deal, and strive for a more just economy—one where the true price of a dress provides fair wages and humane conditions for all workers. This vigilance is crucial in advocating for fair labor practices and ensuring the well-being of workers. This piece is part of the Salvatori Center's Profiles in American Political Thought. You can find a complete list of those pieces here .

Lysander Spooner (1808-1887) Lysander Spooner in 1887 (credit: Wikimedia Commons) Nineteenth century thinker Lysander Spooner has been described as both a pioneer of right-wing libertarianism  and left-wing socialism . Regardless of which ideological bucket he falls into, Spooner was, to put it mildly, an unorthodox political thinker. Spooner was a man possessed by overweening confidence. In his time, Massachusetts law required college graduates to train with an attorney for three years before practicing. Spooner, who lacked both a college degree and reverence for authority, opened his own legal practice three years after training under prominent Massachusetts lawyers, politicians, and abolitionists. Openly defiant of the courts, Spooner railed against regulations that protected the rich at the poor’s expense for the rest of his life. He embarked on a legislative crusade to remove the requirement that attorneys have a college degree, publishing a petition in the Worcester Republican in 1835 and sending it to each member of the Massachusetts General Court. With allies in Massachusetts politics and in the legal system, Spooner’s crusade was successful—legislators voted down the restriction in the 1836 legislative session. This early foray into public activism established Spooner’s presence as a radical voice for the common man and paved the road for his later activities.  Spooner developed his views amid great political tension and turmoil in the United States. Though difficult to delimit, his political philosophy is best described as a blend between individualism and anarchism. His positions around natural rights and government’s purpose stood out at their inception and remain compelling today.  Spooner’s political ideology begins with his conception of natural rights as falling outside the realm of human creation or earthly government action. Moreover, Spooner argues that the validity of earthy governments depends on the existence of natural law. The individual owes loyalty to natural law and to natural law only. Spooner goes even further, arguing that no government has ever been just under the natural law tradition. Spooner also applied his natural law view to specific policies. He lambasted economic policies like usury bans and overregulation that hampered entrepreneurship and individual liberty. Spooner’s anti-authoritarian conception of natural justice also had constitutional implications. Spooner writes that “the Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation.” He also categorically rejects the idea that the Constitution is a contract that binds generations of Americans to their government in perpetuity, a stance that led him to endorse Confederate secession despite his abolitionism. Spooner argued that the act of voting was involuntary and merely self-defense against predation. Spooner uses quite harsh language to illustrate his point, arguing that “a man’s voting under the Constitution of the United States, is not to be taken as evidence that he ever freely assented to the Constitution, even for the time being.” Lysander viewed voting not as a means to exercise individual will and civic duties, but as a natural human response to encroachment and abuse under an illegitimate government. Spooner's legacy endures, influencing modern libertarianism and contemporary thinking about the Constitution. While the excerpts above offer a glimpse into Spooner's philosophy, they don't encompass the full scope of his activities. Many libertarians today will tell  the story of how Spooner began a private postal service that outcompeted the Post Office until Congress lowered its rates. His contributions to the abolitionist movement demonstrate a moral clarity well ahead of his time. Spooner’s presence in America’s ideological fabric is a powerful reminder of the variety in American political thought. His radical anti-authoritarianism, while superficially absurd, highlights the contrast between his skepticism and the relative trust many contemporary Americans place in government institutions.  But Spooner’s ideas are also somewhat disconcerting. Though government abuse is real, Spooner’s ideology discounts the net societal benefit that free and stable governments create. One would be foolish to overlook the numerous moral failures and anti-liberty abuses present in Spoooner’s 19th century America, but they would be equally foolish to not recognize how far the United States has come since. Experiments are inherently flawed– they require interested, invested, and careful parties to adjust and modulate their design as needed in pursuit of an ideal outcome. The American Experiment is no exception to this rule. Instead of following Spooner’s path, we must work together to improve our government under the Constitution’s authority   to build an America of justice for all. This piece is part of the Salvatori Center's Profiles in American Political Thought. You can find a complete list of those pieces here .