128
PARTISAN REVIEW
society as capable of continuous reform. So, the catalyst for Rorty's pro–
gram for
Achieving Our Country
is the rediscovery and revitalization of
the works of Whitman and Dewey.
There can be no disagreement with Rorty that both Dewey's prag–
matic philosophy and Whitman's poetry bear within them an optimism
about the exceptional potentialities of American society. This observa–
tion was brilliantly developed by George Santayana in his lecture "The
Genteel Tradition in American Thought," delivered in I913 in the yet
intellectually unformed state of California. Santayana identified philo–
sophical pragmatism and the poetry of Whitman as the key voices in
countering the Calvinism indigenous to American classical thought.
Yet if there is little room for disagreement in characterizing Dewey
and Whitman's enduring contributions to the sense of American possi–
bilities in their time, there can be difference in opinion on the relevance
of their message for the I990S and beyond. With the changes in Ameri–
can morals of the I920S, the urgency or appropriateness of counter–
Calvinism may be doubtful; after the lifestyle revolution of the I960s,
invoking the anti-Puritanical theses characteristic of Dewey or Whitman
would appear redundant. So, without denying Rorty's appreciation of
Dewey or Whitman as American icons, it is difficult to follow his argu–
ment that they are significant figures in the current political contest.
Rorty's championing of Dewey's thought as a continuing motivation
for optimism about the American future, even as a post-Vietnam restora–
tive of national pride, may be anachronistic, but it reflects accurately
Deweyan themes. On the other hand, his denial of the objectivity of moral
and political judgments seems to betray a central feature of the Deweyan
canon. Rorty, contrary to Dewey, rejects the view that a process of ratio–
nal inquiry can, by appealing to relevant facts, resolve a conflict between
competing moral or political opinions. Rorty compares the political posi–
tions of Elijah Muhammad and James Baldwin, but concludes:
I do not think there is any point in arguing that Elijah Muhammad
made the right decision and Baldwin the wrong one, or vice versa....
Both decisions are intelligible. Either can be made plausible. But there
are no neutral, objective criteria which dictate one rather than the
other.
Accordingly, Rorty finds himself unable to condemn the racism embed–
ded in the political thought of some leaders of the Black Islamic move–
ment, even while specifically citing Elijah Muhammad's belief that "the
white people started out as homunculi created by a diabolical scientist."
