Books by "John M. Najemy"
3 books found
This book examines the ways in which American habits and politics replaced the traditional European republican canon. Before the modern era, European republics relied on procedural complexity in office-filling to arrive at neutral government. They did so with such technical consistency over a long span of time as to create a republican procedural tradition. That tradition collided with conditions in the Anglo-American world: with entrenched social deference in politics, quasi-representative institutions, and an ascendant doctrine of majorities. American habits would ultimately overwhelm the European republican canon, but not without a fight. This book suggests that arguments over the abandonment of the procedural tradition shook politics in early America, especially at the federal convention, and that it is difficult to understand the convention delegates’ votes concerning the Great Compromise (apportioning the House and Senate) and the presidential selection system without reference to those arguments. The contest between simple majorities and complexity aiming at comity was not resolved neatly in Philadelphia and continued during the first decades of the republic; this book argues that some political institutions to this day bear the stamp of the imperfect arrangements reached at the nation’s founding which among other things was a moment of inflection between older and newer concepts of republican architecture. This volume will be of interest to students and scholars interested in American Political History, Early American History, and Political Science.
This book posits that Shakespeare’s First Tetralogy draws inspiration from the Italian “politic histories” of the early modern period. These works of history, influenced by the Roman historian Tacitus, delve into the exploration of the machinations of power politics in governance and the shaping of historical events. The argument is that closely analysing these Italian “politic histories” can significantly enhance our understanding of the “politic” aspects dramatized in Shakespeare’s early English History plays. Specifically, the writings of Niccolo Machiavelli are highlighted as contributing to this understanding. These “politic histories” were accessible (in a variety of forms) to many English early modern writers, including Shakespeare. Thus, they serve as foundation for political and strategic analogies, enriching our interpretation of Shakespeare’s politic histories. While delving into the Italian “politic” historians can illuminate Shakespeare’s achievement, it is suggested that we should regard the English History plays as “politic histories” in their own right. In essence, they are dramatized versions of precisely the same kinds of “politic” historical writing, with its emphasis on ragion di Stato or raison d’état. This emphasis on what the Elizabethans called “stratagems” introduces new approaches to interpreting the plays. Considering the motivation and action of its characters entails novel approaches that challenge the established reading of the plays’ ‘Machiavellian’ characters (particularly Richard III) and shed light on previously overlooked characters (particularly Buckingham and Stanley), revealing their considerably greater strategic acumen. This exploration provides fresh avenues for reading the Shakespeare’s politic histories and better appreciate their Italian connection.
To what extent was Machiavelli a “Machiavellian”? Was he an amoral adviser of tyranny or a stalwart partisan of liberty? A neutral technician of power politics or a devout Italian patriot? A reviver of pagan virtue or initiator of modern nihilism? Reading Machiavelli answers these questions through original interpretations of Niccolò Machiavelli’s three major political works—The Prince, Discourses, and Florentine Histories—and demonstrates that a radically democratic populism seeded the Florentine’s scandalous writings. John McCormick challenges the misguided understandings of Machiavelli set forth by prominent thinkers, including Jean-Jacques Rousseau and representatives of the Straussian and Cambridge schools. McCormick emphasizes the fundamental, often unacknowledged elements of a vibrant Machiavellian politics: the utility of vigorous class conflict between elites and common citizens for virtuous democratic republics, the necessity of political and economic equality for genuine civic liberty, and the indispensability of religious tropes for the exercise of effective popular judgment. Interrogating the established reception of Machiavelli’s work by such readers as Rousseau, Leo Strauss, Quentin Skinner, and J.G.A. Pocock, McCormick exposes what was effectively an elite conspiracy to suppress the Florentine’s contentious, egalitarian politics. In recovering the too-long-concealed quality of Machiavelli’s populism, this book acts as a Machiavellian critique of Machiavelli scholarship. Advancing fresh renderings of works by Machiavelli while demonstrating how they have been misread previously, Reading Machiavelli presents a new outlook for how politics should be conceptualized and practiced.