398
PARTISAN REVIEW
ciety that is consumed, as Mr. Crouch points out, by racial and ethnic
animosity, that is compulsively litigious, and that (as Professor Schlesinger
has demonstrated) is threatening to transform "E Pluribus Unum" into
"Ex Uno Plura." (Vice President Gore once translated that motto, for
those whose Latin was rusty, as "From the one, many." That gaffe testifies
to the unfortunate reality.)
So much for the "tragic" side of Mr. Crouch's disposition. But there
is that other side, the optimist in him, which calls for a "redefinition" of
the social contract to give proper recognition to the ideals and aspirations
of our democratic polity. That redefinition will take us back to the En–
lightenment, with its vision of a common humanity, and to the founding
principles of our country, with the idea of a democracy based on life, lib–
erty, and the pursuit of happiness. But even in his optimism, Mr. Crouch
is cautious. There is nothing utopian in his redefinition; on the contrary,
he is resolutely anti-utopian. Even as he pays tribute to the nobility of the
Abolitionists in pursuing the highest ideals of the Enlightenment, he is
fully cognizant of the "lower sides of humanity" exhibited in the vices
bedeviling all societies: "folly, corruption, mediocrity, and incompe–
tence."
As I heard this, I was reminded of the Founding Fathers, who were
acutely aware of the frailties of human nature, and who at the same time
insisted that the new regime could sustain itself only if its citizens were
capable of exercising a proper degree of "republican virtue, " a concern
for the public interest. James Madison was the quintessential tragic opti–
mist: "As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a
certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities
in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confi–
dence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these
qualities in a higher degree than any other form. "
This was the genius of the American Revolution.
It
was a successful
revolution because, unlike the French Revolution, it was a modest, sober
revolution, a revolution where idealism was tempered by realism. And
the Constitution - with its checks and balances, rights and obligations,
federal structure of government, and limitations on power - was the em–
bodiment of this same double vision, the vision of the "twice-born,"
William James called it, of those who carried with them the painful
knowledge of good and evil.
Recently, confronted by an overweening government that has sorely
tried the limits of the Constitution, there has been much talk of the
devolution of government - the transfer of power from the federal gov–
ernment to state and local governments. More important is the next stage
of devolution, from government at all levels to civil society - families,
