美国政制的政治哲学意义——从施特劳斯学派与共和主义学派的争论切入

2012-06-14 20:16:18 作者：丁晓东 来源：《中外法学》2012年第2期 浏览次数：0 网友评论 0 条

【注释】[1]（美）列奥·施特劳斯：《自然权利与历史》，彭刚译，三联出版社2003年版，页1。
[2]同上注，页1-3。
[3]同上注，页3。
[4]同上注，页6。
[5]参见Confronting the Constitution, The Challenge to Locke, Montesquieu, Jefferson and the Federalists From Utilitarianism，Historicism，Marxism，Freudianism, Pragmatism，Existentialism，Allan David Bloom ed.,The AEI Press ．1990。
[6]参见Michael P. Zuckert, Natural Rights and the New Republicanism, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994, pp. 150-183 。
[7]参见玛丽·安·格伦顿对权利话语的批判，格伦顿认为，权利话语“促进了不切实际的期盼，加剧了社会冲突，遏制了能够形成合意、和解，或者至少能够发现共同基础的对话……容忍人们接受生活在一个民主福利国家所带来的利益，而不用承担相应的个人和社会的义务……破坏了培育市民和个人美德的主要的温床·一将对于自我纠正的学习过程具有潜在重要性的帮助挡在了门外”，见（美）玛丽·安．格伦顿：《权利话语—穷途末路的政治言辞》，周威译，北京大学出版社2006年版，页18。
[8]Mark Iilla, The Reckless Mind: Intellectuals in Politics, New York: New York Review of Books, 2001，p. 131. Mark Lilla, The Closing of the Straussian Mind, New York Review of Books, November 4，2004.
[9]施特劳斯其实在不少场合还是暗示了自己对于政治问题的态度，例如在“自由教育和责任”一文中，施特劳斯写到，“[马克思和尼采在政治上]的失败使得那些经历了同样失败的人认识到古老的谚语：智慧不能和节制（moderation）相分离，因此，理解智慧就需要对一部像样的宪法保持坚定的忠诚，甚至对宪政主义的基础保持尊重。节制能够保护我们远离双重的危险：对政治空想性的期望，或者对政治怯懦性的鄙视。”见Leo Strauss, Liberalism Ancient and Modern, Ithaca : Cornell University Press, 1989, p. 24。或许正是这些模糊的表述导致了其弟子之间的争论。
[10]例如：Thomas Pangle, The Spirit of Modern Republicanism: The Moral Vision of the American Founders and the Philosophy of Locke, University of Chicago Press, 1988；Thomas Pangle, The Learning of Liberty：The Edu-cational Ideas of the American Founders, University Press of Kansas, 1995；The American Founding: Politics, States-manship, and the Constitution, Ralph A. Rossum and Gary L. McDowell ed.，New York: Kennikat Press, 1981；Constitutionalism and Rights，Gary C. Bryner and Noel B. Reynolds ed.，State University of New York Press, 1987；The Founders' Constitution, Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner ed.，University of Chicago Press, 1987；The Fram-ing and Ratification of the Constitution, Leonard W. Levy and Dennis J. Mahoney ed.，Macmillan, 1987；Saving the Revolution: “The Federalist Papers” and the American Founding, Charles R. Kesler ed.，The Free Press, 1987；The Thinking Revolutionary: Principle and Practice in the New Republic, Ralph Lerner ed.，Cornell University Press,1987；Confronting the Constitution, The Challenge to Locke, Montesquieu, Jefferson and the Federalists From Utilitan-anism, Historicism, Marxism, Freudianism, Pragmatism, Existentialism, Allan David Bloom ed.，The AEI Press,1990；Paul A. Rabe, Republics Ancient and Modern: Classical Republicanism and the American Revolution, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1992； Michael Zuckert, Natural Rights and the New Republicanism,Princeton：Princeton University Press, 1994；Michael Zuckert, The Natural Rights Republic, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1996。
[11]参见Herbert J. Storing, The Complete Anti-Federalist, Chicago：University of Chicago Press, 1981；Toward a More Perfect : Writings of Herbert J. Storing, Joseph Bessette ed.，The AEI Press, 1995；Martin Di-amond, “The Federalist”，in American Political Thought：The Philosophic Dimension of American Statesmanship,Morton Frisch and Richard Stevens ed.，New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971。
[12]林肯和托克维尔是施派所经常关注的两位人物。参见Harry Jaffa,Epuality and Liberty, Oxford: U-niversity Press, 1965；Harry Jaffa, The Conditions of Freedom, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975。
[13]Toward a More Perfect : Writings of Herbert J. Storing, Joseph Bessette ed.，The AEI Press, p.4.
[14]这也并非绝对，有的施派学者就更多地评论政治人物，例如曼斯菲尔德对西奥多·罗斯福（Theo-dore Roosevelt）的论述，参见Harvey C. Mansfield, Manliness, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006, pp. 90-99。
[15]列奥·施特劳斯，见前注[1]，页128。
[16]（英）洛克：《政府论》下篇，瞿菊农、叶启芳译，商务印书馆1964年版，页6。
[17]Michael Zuckert, Natural Rights and the New Republicanism, Princeton: Princeton University Press,1994, Introduction, p. xix.
[18]Michael Zuckert, Natural Rights and the New Republicanism, Princeton: Princeton University Press,1994, pp. 6-7．关于美国革命意识形态的不同观念，参见Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the Ameri-can Revolution, Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press, 1967；John Phillip Reid, Constitutional History of the A-merican Revolution: The Authority of Law, Madison, Wis.：University of Wisconsin Press, 1993。贝林阐释了美国革命意识形态的多种起源，里德认为美国革命诉诸的是英国的法律观念而非自然权利的观念。
[19]Michael Zuckert, Natural Rights and the New Republicanism, Princeton: Princeton University Press,1994, pp.7-9.
[20]Michael Zuckert, Natural Rights and the New Republicanism, Princeton：Princeton University Press,1994, pp. 9-10．也可参见阿伦特对英国光荣革命的分析，（美）汉娜·阿伦特：《论革命》，陈周旺译，译林出版社2007年版。
[21]Michael Zuckert, Natural Rights and the New Republicanism, Princeton: Princeton University Press，p. 10.
[22]Michael Zuckert, Natural Rights and the New Republicanism, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp.11-14.
[23]因此，在伯恩斯看来，联邦党人所设计的美国宪法本身就是权利法案。Walter Bems, “The Constitu-tion as Bill of Rights”，in How Does the Constitution Secure Rights?，R. A. Goldwin and W. A. Schambra ed.，Washington, 1985.
[24]Michael Zuckert, Natural Rights and the New Republicanism, Princeton: Princeton University Press,1994，pp. 164-166.
[25]Harry Jaffa, “Aristotle and Locke in the American Founding”，Claremont Review of Books, February 10,2001
[26]Harry Jaffa, Storm Over the Constitution, Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 1999，p. xviii, note 2.
[27]Harry Jaffa，Original Intent＆the Framers of the Constitution, Washington, D. C.：Regnery Gateway,1994，p. 23.
[28]Harry Jaffa，Original Intent & the Framers of the Constitution, Washington, D. C.：Regnery Gateway,1994, p.29.
[29]Harry Jaffa, A New Birth of Freedom: Abraham Lincoln and the Coming of the Civil War, Lanham, Md:Bowman＆Littlefield Publishers, 2000.
[30]（美）查尔斯·比尔德：《美国宪法的经济观》，何希齐译，商务印书馆1984年版，页3。对比尔德的批判，参见Robert E. Brown, Charles Beard and the Constitution: A Critical Analysis of “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution”，Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1956； Forrest McDonald, We the People: The Economic Origins of the Constitution, Chicago: University of Chicago, 1958。
[31]Richard Hofstadt, The Progressive Historians: Turner, Beard, Parrington, New York: Knopf,1968，p. 438.
[32]（美）路易斯·哈茨：《美国自由主义的传统》，张敏谦译，金灿荣校，中国社会科学出版社2003年版，页223-229、249-253。
[33]哈茨的这一主张显然深受托克维尔对民情（mores）考察的影响，参见（法）托克维尔：《论美国的民主》，董果良译，商务印书馆1988年版。
[34]Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press, 1967，p. vii.
[35]Peter Onuf, “Reflections on the Founding”，William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser.，46(1989)，p. 346.
[36]Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press, 1967，p. 29.
[37]Gordon Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787, Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1969，p. 29.
[38]Gordon Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787, Chapel Hill, NC：University of North Carolina Press, 1969，p. 45.
[39]Gordon Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787, Chapel Hill, NC：University of North Carolina Press, 1969，pp. 53-70.
[40]Gordon Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787, Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1969，p. 602.
[41]Gordon Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992.
[42]J. G. A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975，p. 424；J. G. A. Pocock, Politics, Language，and Time : Es-says on Political Thought and History, NewYork: Atheneum, 1971，p. 144.
[43]J. G. A. Pocock, Politics, Language, and Time: Essays on Political Thought and History, New York: Ath-eneum, 1971，p. 85.
[44]J. G. A. Pocock, “Virtue and Commerce in the Eighteenth Century,” Journal of Inter-disciplinary His-tory 3（Summer 1972），p. 122.
[45]汉娜·阿伦特，见前注[20]，页19。
[46]同上注，页20。
[47]（美）汉娜·阿伦特：《人的境况》，王寅丽译，上海人民出版社2009年版，页37。
[48]汉娜·阿伦特，见前注[20]，页188-189。
[49]参见Garry Wills, Inventing America： Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, New York: Garden City,1978。对该书的批判，参见Harry Jaffa, “Inventing the Past”，The Saint John's Review 33 (1981)：3-19。
[50]Lance Banning, The Jeffersonian Persuasion: Evolution of a Party Ideology, Ithaca and London, 1978；Jack P. Greene, The Reinterpretation of the American Revolution: 1763-1789, New York：Harper＆Row, 1968；Joyce Appleby, Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination, Cambridge: Harvard University Press,1992；Jack N. Rakove, James Madison and the Creation of the American Republic, Glenview, 1990； Jack N. Rakove,Original Meaning: Politics and Idea in the Making of the Constitution, New York: Vintage Books, 1996； Robert E.Shalhope, The Roots of Democracy: American Thought and Culture, 1760-1800, Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1990.
[51]478 U.S. 186 (1986)，详细的分析，参见（美）米歇尔曼，“法律共和国”，载应奇、刘训练编：《公民共和主义》，东方出版社2006年版，页178-182。
[52]同上注，页212。
[53]Cass Sunstein, The Partial Constitution, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993，p. 21.
[54]Robert Shalhope, “Toward a Republican Synthesis: The Emergence of an Understanding of Republican-ism in American Historiography,”The William and Mary Quarterly, 29(1972):49-80.
[55]Michael Zuckert, Natural Rights and the New Republicanism, Princeton: Princeton University Press,1994，p. 155.
[56]加图信札（Cato's Letters）指的是英国的辉格党反对派或乡村反对派特伦查得（Trenchard）和戈登（Gordon）以加图的名义于1720-1723年之间连载的一系列信件，这些信件在美国殖民地被广泛传送，产生了巨大的影响。
[57]Thomas Pangle, The Spirit of Modern Republicanism: The Moral Vision of the American Founders and the Philosophy of Locke, University of Chicago Press, 1988，pp. 32-33.
[58]Michael Zuckert, Natural Rights and the New Republicanism, Princeton: Princeton University Press,1994, p. 297．更一般性的讨论，参见该书页297-319。
[59]Michael Zuckert, Natural Rights and the New Republicanism, Princeton: Princeton University Press,1994，p. 351，note 52.
[60] Gordon Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, New York : Alfred A. Knopf, 1992, p. 234.
[61]Michael Zuckert, The Natural Rights Republic, Notre Dame：University of Notre Dame Press，1996，p. 21．
[62]Herbert Storing, The Complete Anti-Federalist, 7 vols, Chicago：University of Chicago Press，pp. 2,4,29.
[63]Thomas Pangle, The Spirit of Modern Republicanism: The Moral Vision of the American Founders and the Philosophy of Locke，University of Chicago Press, 1988，p. 57.
[64]参见Thomas Pangle, The Spirit of Modern Republicanism: The Moral Vision of the American Founders and the Philosophy of Locke, University of Chicago Press, 1988，pp. 49-61。
[65]Thomas Pangle, The Spirit of Modern Republicanism: The Moral Vision of the American Founders and the Philosophy of Locke, University Of Chicago Press, 1988，p. 30.
[66]（美）列奥·施特劳斯：《关于马基雅维里的思考》，申彤译，译林出版社2001年版，页270。
[67]列奥·施特劳斯，见前注[1]，页164。
[68]J. G. A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975，p. 359.
[69]J. G. A. Pocock, Politics, Language，and Time: Essays on Political Thought and History, New York:Atheneum, 1971，p. 340.
[70]参见（美）哈维·曼斯菲尔德：《驯化君主》，冯克利译，译林出版社2005年版，页211-215 。
[71]对新哈林顿主义的批判，参见Paul Rahe, Republics : Ancient and Modem, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1992，pp. 429-440； Michael Zuckert, Natural Rights and the New Republicanism, Prince-ton : Princeton University Press, 1994, pp. 170-175。对于将美国国父们的思想解读为古典共和主义的批判，参见Paul Rahe, Republics: Ancient and Modern, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1992，第三部分。
[72]Michael Zuckert, Natural Rights and the New Republicanism, Princeton: Pnnceton University Press,1994, p.165.
[73]Michael Zuckert, The Natural Rights Republic, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1996, p.29.
[74]参见Harvey C. Mansfield, “Social Science and the Constitution”，in Allan Bloom, ed.，Confronting the Constitution, American Enterprise Institute Press, 1990, p. 429；Thomas Pangle, The Spirit of Modern Republican-ism: The Moral Vision of the American Founders and the Philosophy of Locke, University of Chicago Press, 1988，pp. 11,14-15；（美）布鲁姆：《美国精神的封闭》，战旭英译，译林出版社2007年版，页11。
[75]Thomas Pangle, The Spirit of Modern Republicanism: The Moral Vision of the American Founders and the Philosophy of Locke, University of Chicago Press, 1988，p. 27.
[76]Gordon S. Wood, The Fundamentalists and the Constitution, New York Review of Books, February 18，1988．伍德同时也承认，施特劳斯主义者介人美国宪法的另一个原因是智识上的。
[77]（加）德鲁里：《列奥·施特劳斯与美国右派》，刘华译，华东师范大学出版社2006年版；Anne Nor-ton, Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire, New Haven＆London : Yale University Press, 2004。后一本书事实上是施派弟子所著，这本书撇清了施特劳斯和美国政治的直接关系，却指控政治施特劳斯主义者和美帝国之间的关系。
[78]David Lewis Schaefer, Leo Strauss and American Democracy: A Response to Wood and Holmes, The Re-view of Politics, Vol. 53，No. 1，Special Issue on the Thought of Leo Strauss（Winter, 1991），p. 199.
[79]（美）斯托林：《反联邦党人赞成什么？》，汪庆华译，北京大学出版社2006年版，页3。
[80]Gordon S. Wood, The Fundamentalists and the Constitution, New York Review of Books, February 18,1988.
[81]Thomas Pangle, Human Nature and the Constitution, in Confronting the Constitution, The Challenge to Locke, Montesquieu, Jefferson and the Federalists From Utilitarianism, Historicism, Marxism, Freudianism, Pragma-tism, Existentialism, Allan David Bloom ed.，The AEI Press, 1990, p. 11.
[82]Gordon Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787, Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1969； Gordon Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, New York: Alfred A.Knopf, 1992.
[83]列奥·施特劳斯，见前注[1]，页9l。
[84]Leo Struass, What is Political Philosophy? New York: Free Press, 1959, pp. 56-77；David Lewis Schaefer, Leo Strauss and American Democracy: A Response to Wood and Holmes, The Review of Politics，Vol. 53, No. 1，Special Issue on the Thought of Leo Strauss (Winter, 1991），p. 189.
[85]列奥·施特劳斯，见前注[1]，页13。
[86]参见Fred Bauman, Historicism and the Constitution, in Confronting the Constitution, The Challenge to Locke, Montesquieu,Jeffrson and the Federalists From Utilitarianism, Historicism, Marxism, Freudianism, Pragma-tism, Existentialism, Allan David Bloom ed.，The AEI Press, 1990，pp. 286-287。
[87]参见Thomas Pangle, The Spirit of Modern Republicanism:Tre Moral Vision of the American Founders and the Philosophy of Locke，University of Chicago Press, 1988，pp.49-50。
[88]Alan Bloom, Introduction, in Confronting the Constitution, The Challenge to Locke, Montesquieu,Jeffr-son and the Federalists From Utilitananism, Historicism, Marxism, Freudianism, Pragmatism, Existentialism, Allan David Bloom ed.，The AEI Press, 1990, p. 6．从施特劳斯的犹太人这一身份解读现代性的危机，参见徐戬：“高贵的竞赛—施特劳斯与‘主义’的彼岸”，《开放时代》2009年第9期。
[89]列奥·施特劳斯，见前注[1]，页6。
[90]Alan Bloom, Introduction, in Confronting the Constitution, The Challenge to Locke, Montesquieu,Jeffer-son and the Federalists From Utilitananism, Historicism, Marxism, Freudianism, Pragmatism, Existentialism, Allan David Bloom ed. . The AEI Press. 1990. a. 6.
[91]通过这里的分析，我们也能更进一步地理解所谓的东岸施特劳斯学派和西岸施特劳斯学派之争。当布鲁姆等主流施派试图通过政治类型学将美国政制的起源建立在现代性的基础之上，以更为清晰地观照古今之争这一问题，雅法则恰巧要模糊这种区别。在雅法看来，“施特劳斯教导的关于现代和古典原则的分裂—不论是理性还是启示—都指的是政治哲学的历史，而不是政治的历史，也不是政制中包含或非包含现代或古代的原则。施特劳斯并不是一个历史主义决定论者。如果他自身相信前现代原则的优越性是可能的，那么为什么其他人就不可能呢？尤其是政治家和立法者？”在雅法看来，美国的国父们并不是哲人，他们不可能像施特劳斯一样看到现代和古代的决裂，在他们身上仍然保留着许多古代的政治德性，例如审慎。见Harry Jaffa, Storm Over the Constitution, Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 1999，p. xviii
[92]施特劳斯的这一主题贯穿了他的许多著作，参见Leo Strauss, Liberalism Ancient and Modem, Ithaca:Cornell University press, 1989，pp. 3-25。
[93]对哲学与政治这一关系的最新思考，参见Paul W. Kahn, Political Theology: Four New Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, Columbia University Press, 2011。卡恩认为，政治哲学家能够超然和更为深刻地理解政治，但对于政治判断本身却没有任何优势。