30. Why did Burnham and Kendall revive the tradition of (small-r) republican anti-Caesarism in 1950s and early 1960s?
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet
31.
@ToryAnarchist usefully reminded me Burnham's anti-Caesarism traceable in part to Trotsky's critique of Stalinism (JB was Trot in 1930s)3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
32. But while Bonapartism is longstanding idea in Marxist tradition, Burnham's (and Kendall's) Caesarism was intentionally anti-Marxist.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
33. In era where USA was being criticized by liberals & left for being insufficiently democracy, Burnham & Kendall offered counter-narrative
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
34. "Caesarism" is way of critiquing American polity for becoming too democratic, too responsive to popular will.
3 replies 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
35. "Caesarism" implies a paradise of republican perfection that we've fallen from. Hence a useful conservative idea.
3 replies 3 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
36. Finally, "Caesarism" blames foreign policy over-reach on ambitious executive, not on more deeply entrenched imperial system.
1 reply 3 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
37. Although I oppose many of the policies
@DouthatNYT mentions, I think Caesarism is not at all a useful term to help analyze them.2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
38. Are we concerned just about the Imperial Presidency or with the American Empire?
3 replies 2 retweets 6 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
@marktcameron @DouthatNYT Imperial presidency very different than talking about Empire.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.