The Crisis of Modern Times: Perspectives from The Review of Politics, 1939-1962

Preface

Preface The Review of Politics is one of those rare academic journals that has survived the test of time. In fact, it continues to thrive. Since its first issue in January 1939, the Review has outlasted America’s involvement in several major wars, the Cold War, thebankruptcyof multipleideologicalmovements,andtheriseandfallof scores of trends in the study of politics. More importantly, the journal is unusual in that the core elements of its identity have remained largely unchanged over these years. Far from shifting from one intellectual trend to the next, the Review’s editors have adhered to a set of common themes and a scholarly style that have attracted a broad range of sympathetic authors and readers. For some, the journal ’s appeal has resided in the fact that its approach to political theory is more traditional than other journals of its kind. For others, the Review’s attraction is duetoitssuggestionthatthevocationof philosophyshouldneverbefarremoved from the everyday world. Yet, whatever the particular interests of its readers, there seem to be at least two factors that have consistently drawn them together. The first is the conviction that despite the ebb and flow of historical events, certain fundamental questions about the human condition have still to be answered . The second is that thinking people can draw upon their natural ability to reason or their religious faith, or both, to make responsible judgments about what these answers might be. This volume, which focuses on the origins of The Review of Politics, is the first in a series that Catherine H. Zuckert and I will edit over the coming years. The goal of our project is not simply to gather together the works of the Review’s most noteworthy contributors, of which there are many. Rather, by focusing on some of the defining themes of the journal’s history, we hope to demonstrate that there are alternative ways of addressing the major issues of political theory than those offered by currently popular approaches, such as utilitarianism, postmodernism , and rational choice theory. The next volume in this series will be concerned with theories about the origins of political conflict and war, a topic on which Review authors had a major influence. xi In this volume, I focus on the exceptional group of theorists and intellectuals who were associated with the Review and its eccentrically charismatic editor, Waldemar Gurian, in the roughly two decades between the advent of World War II and the height of the Cold War. In looking back on these writers’ involvement in the journal, one wonders why their collective contributions have not as yet received greater attention. In a period in which the human capacity to commit evil seemed to expand with relentless fury, these thinkers from different philosophical traditions and religious or nonreligious backgrounds came together to provide hard-nosed but still hopeful answers to humanity’s woes. In light of the human dilemmas of our own time, their essays have retained a freshness and poignancy that simultaneously uplifts and challenges the contemporary reader. The task of organizing this volume and writing the introduction has been time-consuming and labor intensive. I could not have accomplished either objective on my own. Thankfully, I have been in the position to draw upon the advice and generous assistance of a number of individuals. I am especially grateful to Dennis W. M. Moran, whose knowledge about the journal has proved invaluable. Dennis joined the Review’s staff in 1971 and has the distinction of being one of only two designated managing editors in the journal’s history (the other was Frank O’Malley). Along the way, I have had the pleasure of getting to know Anthony O. Simon, son of the Notre Dame and Chicago philosopher Yves Simon, who has enlivened my understanding of the Review of Politics community with recollections of the colorful personalities who interacted with his father—the ever-cantankerous but brilliant Waldemar Gurian, the nervous, chain-smoking Hannah Arendt, the saintly Jacques Maritain, and the gracious and cultured John U. Nef. I have been fortunate to benefit from the knowledge and experiences of many friends and colleagues at Notre Dame, including four of the Review’s seven editors since its founding: Fred Crosson (editor, 1977–1981); Edward Goerner; Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, C.S.C.; Donald Kommers (editor, 1982–1994); Ralph McInerny; John McGreevy; Walter Nicgorski (editor, 1994–2004); and Michael Zuckert. In particular, my co-editor Catherine H. Zuckert (editor, 2005–present) has been an unfailing source of encouragement throughout...