DOCSLIB.ORG

Jeane Kirkpatrick and the End of the Cold War: Dictatorships, Democracy, and Human Rights Ilan Wurman Claremont Mckenna College

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Jeane Kirkpatrick and the End of the Cold War: Dictatorships, Democracy, and Human Rights Ilan Wurman Claremont Mckenna College Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont CMC Senior Theses CMC Student Scholarship 2009 Jeane Kirkpatrick and the End of the Cold War: Dictatorships, Democracy, and Human Rights Ilan Wurman Claremont McKenna College Recommended Citation Wurman, Ilan, "Jeane Kirkpatrick and the End of the Cold War: Dictatorships, Democracy, and Human Rights" (2009). CMC Senior Theses. Paper 226. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/226 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you by Scholarship@Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in this collection by an authorized administrator. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CLAREMONT McKENNA COLLEGE JEANE KIRKPATRICK AND THE END OF THE COLD WAR: DICTATORSHIPS, DEMOCRACY, AND HUMAN RIGHTS SUBMITTED TO PROFESSOR JOHN J. PITNEY JR. AND DEAN GREGORY HESS BY ILAN WURMAN FOR SENIOR THESIS FALL 2008 - SPRING 2009 APRIL 27, 2009 ii ii iii Table of Contents Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………...……iv Introduction………………………………………………………………………….……......1 Part I: An Intellectual and Political History Chapter One: Cold War Consensus Shattered………..……………………………………....8 Chapter Two: Dictatorships and Double Standards………………………………………....33 Chapter Three: The Carter Years: Was Kirkpatrick Right?....................................................45 Part II: Kirkpatrick and the Reagan Administration Chapter Four: The Kirkpatrick and Reagan Doctrines..…………………….……………….69 Chapter Five: Putting Policy to Practice: Chile and El Salvador………...………………….89 Bibliography………………………………………………………………..…………...….118 Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………122 iii iv Acknowledgments I could not have written this thesis without the help of many people, and first and foremost without the help of my adviser and professor, John J. Pitney Jr. He guided me to a doable and exciting topic from my initial mumblings about Reagan and democratization. Without his help, this year-long endeavor would never have come to fruition. I would also like to thank Professor Ken Miller and my fellow honors seminar students for their help and guidance along the way. Without stories to share, I’m sure many of us would have despaired long ago. My roommate, Kyle Kinneberg, also deserves some credit here: he has patiently listened as I have complained, and his company has made the project more bearable. While this project is the capstone of my undergraduate education, my parents, Hadassah and Ze’ev, were the foundations of that education. Without two wonderful parents to keep me yearning for knowledge, and sometimes to keep me humble, my undergraduate education would not have been as successful. For that I am forever grateful. I must also thank the people whom I interviewed for this thesis. They lived through the end of the Cold War, and were part of its story. I am honored that they took the time to talk to a college student. The ideas they gave me in our conversations helped give this thesis its final shape. iv Introduction In 2002, President Bush announced an ambitious goal: “to create a balance of power that favors human freedom: conditions in which all nations and all societies can choose for themselves the rewards and challenges of political and economic liberty.” The strategy to achieve this end was three-pronged: “We will defend the peace by fighting terrorists and tyrants. We will preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers. We will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent.”1 This strategy did not depend on war, but rather allowed for war to protect U.S. interests and, in the process, spread democracy—much as the Reagan Doctrine, as we shall see, did not depend on war but rather outlined when it could be used. The scope and methods of the current conflict are novel and based on newer, different threats to the United States. But in principle what has become known as the Bush Doctrine—the idea that America must use its power to spread democracy—was relatively consistent with America’s foreign policy traditions. Though there have been both isolationist and interventionist tendencies in past American foreign policy, Franklin Roosevelt expressed the tradition of promoting democracy when he said that the United States must be an “arsenal of democracy,” as did Woodrow Wilson when he said the United States must make the world “safe for democracy.” Supporting democracy around the world has been a thread of American foreign policy since the First World War. 1 President George W. Bush, “National Security Strategy of the United States of America” (September 2002). 2 The various manifestations of this foreign policy tradition in American history were much more limited in scope than the current conflict. World War I had a well- defined goal for President Wilson, namely the creation of the League of Nations. In World War II, the well-defined goals were to defeat Hitler and establish democratic governments in Germany and Japan, and during the Cold War the goal was continued containment or defeat of the Soviet Union. All three conflicts had specific endpoints and organized enemies with identifiable headquarters. Critics of the War on Terror have rightly asked, when will the conflict end? When will we know that victory has been achieved? Were President Bush’s goals realistic? Such questions underlie this thesis, which explores the most recent episode in which the United States engaged in a relatively successful endeavor to spread democracy around the world. What lessons can policymakers glean, if any, from the American policies in the Cold War in its final decade? What can they learn about democratization in the Cold War era? This thesis is not intended as a comparative history of the Cold War and the War on Terror, but I shall attempt nevertheless to draw some connections and lessons for today, at least in the conclusion or where it might be illuminating. Because the scope of this thesis does not allow it to look at the history of the Cold War exhaustively, it focuses on one key player in the Cold War scene, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, who served as President Reagan’s first Ambassador to the United Nations. More specifically, this thesis uses Kirkpatrick’s famous 1979 Commentary essay, “Dictatorships and Double Standards,” as a springboard to explore the issues of democratization, human rights, the Reagan Doctrine, and the foreign policy debates of the 1970s. Such an analysis will shed light on a foreign policy that used different methods to promote democracy in different countries; 3 the difficulty and complexity of democratization in general; the distinctions, if any, between Kirkpatrick’s philosophy and that of the Carter administration; and criticisms of Reagan’s approach to the Cold War. Finally, such an analysis will illuminate important differences between the Bush administration policies and the Kirkpatrick-Reagan policies, which Kirkpatrick herself highlighted in her opposition to the 2003 Iraq War. Kirkpatrick’s essay might appear an odd choice of springboard, but I have found it helpful in thinking about many aspects of foreign policy. Her essay explores the interplay of realism and idealism. It raises such questions as: • Is it sensible to support anti-democratic regimes as a means to other objectives? • Should the United States hold its allies to the same standards of internal governance and human rights as it holds its enemies? • Might the national interest be compatible with larger goals defined by idealism? • What does democratization require politically, economically, and culturally? Such questions are relevant to democratization in the struggle against terrorism. Should the United States hold Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, which have provided significant support to the United States, to the same standards as Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, Syria, Iran, or Libya? When do security concerns justify cooperating with undemocratic regimes in the Muslim world? Is it sensible to insist upon democratization in certain countries but not others? Is democratic government even feasible in modern- day Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, or Iraq? This thesis will explore those questions in the context of the Cold War. This thesis has two parts. The first relates some of the history leading up to Kirkpatrick’s writing of “Dictatorships and Double Standards,” followed by an 4 interpretation of that essay and the Carter administration foreign policy that inspired it. Though the essay was a direct outgrowth of Kirkpatrick’s disillusionment with President Carter’s foreign policy, it also grew out of the broader foreign policy debates in the post- Vietnam era. This period witnessed the rise of a new group of traditional liberal internationalists, who would derisively become called “neoconservatives” (a term they adopted), and of which Jeane Kirkpatrick was notably a member. The first chapter traces the history and its debates from the existence of a Cold War consensus in the 1950s and 1960s and how Vietnam shattered this consensus, to the emergence of the Coalition for a Democratic Majority and the Democratic Party split that occurred over Vietnam. This history not only provides the context and explores the events that shaped Kirkpatrick’s thought, but it also reveals competing beliefs about foreign policy on the American political scene. Examining those beliefs helps us understand Kirkpatrick’s and Reagan’s own thoughts and arguments: it provides alternatives within which we might compare policies. The second chapter analyzes her essay. Criticisms of Kirkpatrick have abounded over the years, particularly involving her support for “rightist” authoritarian regimes. What was the character of that support, and did she perhaps go too far in her enthusiasm for authoritarian regimes? Did the Reagan administration give these governments a “free pass” on human rights? Given Kirkpatrick’s criticism of President Carter’s double standard in foreign policy, were the Reagan administration and Kirkpatrick applying their own double standard? The final chapter in this part will look at Carter’s policies, which will sharpen our understanding of Kirkpatrick’s philosophy and Reagan’s policies by comparison, and 5 help to evaluate Kirkpatrick’s critique of the Carter administration.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • THE UNITED STATES and the WORLD: SETTING LIMITS Jeane J
    The Francis Boyer Lectures on Public Policy THE UNITED STATES AND THE WORLD: SETTING LIMITS Jeane J. Kirkpatrick American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research THE UNITED STATES AND THE WORLD: SETTING LIMITS The Francis Boyer Lectures on Public Policy THE UNITED STATES AND THE WORLD: SETTING LIMITS Jeane J. Kirkpatrick American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research ISBN 0-8447-1379-1 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 86-70364 ©1986 by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without permission in writing from the American Enterprise Institute except in the case of brief quotations embodied in news articles, critical articles, or reviews. The views expressed in the publications of the American Enterprise Institute are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, advisory panels, officers, or trustees of AEI. "American Enterprise Institute" and @) are registered service marks of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Printed in the United States of America American Enterprise Institute 1150 Seventeenth Street, N. W., Washington, D.C. 20036 THE FRANCIS BOYER LECTURES ON PUBLIC POLICY The American Enterprise Institute has initiated the Francis Boyer Lectures on Public Policy to examine the relationship between business and government and to develop contexts for their creative interaction. These lectures have been made possible by an endowment from the SmithKline Beck­ man Corporation in memory of Mr. Boyer, the late chairman of the board of the corporation. The lecture is given by an eminent thinker who has developed notable insights on one or more aspects of the relationship between the nation's private and public sectors.
    [Show full text]
  • Justices' Profiles Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Supreme Court Preview Conferences, Events, and Lectures 1995 Section 1: Justices' Profiles Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School, "Section 1: Justices' Profiles" (1995). Supreme Court Preview. 35. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview/35 Copyright c 1995 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview WARREN E. BURGER IS DEAD AT 87 Was Chief Justice for 17 Years Copyright 1995 The New York Times Company The New York Times June 26, 1995, Monday Linda Greenhouse Washington, June 25 - Warren E. Burger, who retired to apply like an epithet -- overruled no major in 1986 after 17 years as the 15th Chief Justice of the decisions from the Warren era. United States, died here today at age 87. The cause It was a further incongruity that despite Chief was congestive heart failure, a spokeswoman for the Justice Burger's high visibility and the evident relish Supreme Court said. with which he used his office to expound his views on An energetic court administrator, Chief Justice everything from legal education to prison Burger was in some respects a transitional figure management, scholars and Supreme Court despite his tenure, the longest for a Chief Justice in commentators continued to question the degree to this century. He presided over a Court that, while it which he actually led the institution over which he so grew steadily more conservative with subsequent energetically presided.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of the New Right on the Reagan Administration
    LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY OF LONDON THE IMPACT OF THE NEW RIGHT ON THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION: KIRKPATRICK & UNESCO AS. A TEST CASE BY Isaac Izy Kfir LONDON 1998 UMI Number: U148638 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U148638 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 2 ABSTRACT The aim of this research is to investigate whether the Reagan administration was influenced by ‘New Right’ ideas. Foreign policy issues were chosen as test cases because the presidency has more power in this area which is why it could promote an aggressive stance toward the United Nations and encourage withdrawal from UNESCO with little impunity. Chapter 1 deals with American society after 1945. It shows how the ground was set for the rise of Reagan and the New Right as America moved from a strong affinity with New Deal liberalism to a new form of conservatism, which the New Right and Reagan epitomised. Chapter 2 analyses the New Right as a coalition of three distinctive groups: anti-liberals, New Christian Right, and neoconservatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Caspar Weinberger and the Reagan Defense Buildup
    The University of Southern Mississippi The Aquila Digital Community Dissertations Fall 12-2013 Direct Responsibility: Caspar Weinberger and the Reagan Defense Buildup Robert Howard Wieland University of Southern Mississippi Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations Part of the American Studies Commons, Military History Commons, Political History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Wieland, Robert Howard, "Direct Responsibility: Caspar Weinberger and the Reagan Defense Buildup" (2013). Dissertations. 218. https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations/218 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by The Aquila Digital Community. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of The Aquila Digital Community. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The University of Southern Mississippi DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY: CASPAR WEINBERGER AND THE REAGAN DEFENSE BUILDUP by Robert Howard Wieland Abstract of a Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School Of The University of Southern Mississippi In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2013 ABSTRACT DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY: CASPAR WEINBERGER AND THE REAGAN DEFENSE BUILDUP by Robert Howard Wieland December 2013 This dissertation explores the life of Caspar Weinberger and explains why President Reagan chose him for Secretary of Defense. Weinberger, not a defense technocrat, managed a massive defense buildup of 1.5 trillion dollars over a four year period. A biographical approach to Weinberger illuminates Reagan’s selection, for in many ways Weinberger harkens back to an earlier type of defense manager more akin to Elihu Root than Robert McNamara; more a man of letters than technocrat.
    [Show full text]
  • Contractarian Analysis, Ethics, and Emerging Economies
    Journal of Markets & Morality 4, no. 1 (Spring 2001), 55-72 Copyright © 2001 Center for Economic Personalism Contractarian Analysis, Ethics, and Emerging Economies Timothy P. Roth Professor of Economics University of Texas at El Paso The transition from socialist to market economics is typically informed by outcomes-based social welfare theory (SWT). Institutionless, intentionally value- free SWT is ill-suited to this enterprise. The only evaluative standard to which it gives rise—efficiency—is indeterminate, and the theory is not accommodative of other dimensions of moral evaluation. By contrast, the contractarian enter- prise focuses on the role and importance of formal and informal institutions, including ethical norms. Given that individuals should be treated as moral equivalents, the project assigns lexical priority to rights and regards justice as impartiality. This explicitly normative, institutional approach permits analysis of potential conflicts between informal norms and prospective, formal rules of the games. Moreover, it underscores the instrumental and intrinsic value of rights in the transition process. Finally, the emphasis on impartiality—embodied in the generality principle—facilitates analysis of constitutional constraints on behav- ior that is inimical to the transition process. The Transition: The Consequentialist Approach It is clear that the transition from socialist to market economies has typi- cally been informed by received, consequentialist social welfare theory (here- after referred to as SWT).1 Because SWT is consequentialist, institutionless, and intentionally value-free it should come as no surprise that the standard reform prescription begins at the endpoint, an idealized market, phrasing everything in those terms, ignoring the crucial question of how reforms engage existing soci- ety.
    [Show full text]
  • Dictatorships & Double Standards
    8/10/2021 Dictatorships & Double Standards - Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Commentary Magazine NOVEMBER 1979 FEATURED Dictatorships & Double Standards The Classic Essay That Shaped Reagan's Foreign Policy by Jeane J. Kirkpatrick he failure of the Carter administration’s foreign policy is now clear to everyone except its architects, and T even they must entertain private doubts, from time to time, about a policy whose crowning achievement has been to lay the groundwork for a transfer of the Panama Canal from the United States to a swaggering Latin dictator of Castroite bent. In the thirty-odd months since the inauguration of Jimmy Carter as President there has occurred a dramatic Soviet military buildup, matched by the stagnation of American armed forces, and a dramatic extension of Soviet influence in the Horn of Africa, Afghanistan, Southern Africa, and the Caribbean, matched by a declining American position in all these areas. The U.S. has never tried so hard and failed so utterly to make and keep friends in the Third World. As if this were not bad enough, in the current year the United States has suffered two other major blows–in Iran and Nicaragua–of large and strategic significance. In each country, the Carter administration not only failed to prevent the undesired outcome, it actively collaborated in the replacement of moderate autocrats friendly to https://www.commentary.org/articles/jeane-kirkpatrick/dictatorships-double-standards/ 1/38 8/10/2021 Dictatorships & Double Standards - Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Commentary Magazine American interests with less friendly autocrats of extremist persuasion. It is too soon to be certain about what kind of regime will ultimately emerge in either Iran or Nicaragua, but accumulating evidence suggests that things are as likely to get worse as to get better in both countries.
    [Show full text]
  • ASD-Covert-Foreign-Money.Pdf
    overt C Foreign Covert Money Financial loopholes exploited by AUGUST 2020 authoritarians to fund political interference in democracies AUTHORS: Josh Rudolph and Thomas Morley © 2020 The Alliance for Securing Democracy Please direct inquiries to The Alliance for Securing Democracy at The German Marshall Fund of the United States 1700 18th Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 T 1 202 683 2650 E [email protected] This publication can be downloaded for free at https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/covert-foreign-money/. The views expressed in GMF publications and commentary are the views of the authors alone. Cover and map design: Kenny Nguyen Formatting design: Rachael Worthington Alliance for Securing Democracy The Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), a bipartisan initiative housed at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, develops comprehensive strategies to deter, defend against, and raise the costs on authoritarian efforts to undermine and interfere in democratic institutions. ASD brings together experts on disinformation, malign finance, emerging technologies, elections integrity, economic coercion, and cybersecurity, as well as regional experts, to collaborate across traditional stovepipes and develop cross-cutting frame- works. Authors Josh Rudolph Fellow for Malign Finance Thomas Morley Research Assistant Contents Executive Summary �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 Introduction and Methodology ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
    [Show full text]
  • The University of Missouri Agriculture During the Reagan Years A
    The University of Missouri Agriculture During the Reagan Years A Dissertation Submitted to The Faculty of the Department of History In Candidacy For The Degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Jay Ward Columbia, Missouri May 2015 Copyright 2015 by Jay Woodward Ward All rights reserved. The undersigned, appointed by the Dean of the Graduate School, have examined the dissertation entitled Agriculture During the Reagan Years Presented by Jay Woodward Ward In Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy And hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance. ______________________________________________________________________ Dr. Robert Collins ______________________________________________________________________ Dr. Mark Carroll ______________________________________________________________________ Dr. John Frymire _______________________________________________________________________ Dr. Catherine Rymph _______________________________________________________________________ Dr. Patrick Westhoff Dedication To Rose, Kelly, Brian, Janelle, Mickey, Lauren, Payton, Addison, Evelynne, and Gibson— the center of my world. Acknowledgements I owe undying gratitude to my advisor, Professor Robert M. Collins, who is a renowned scholar and an award-winning teacher, and without whose patient guidance I could not have completed this remarkable journey. I also want to thank my committee, Professor Mark Carroll, Professor John Frymire, Professor Catherine Rymph, and Professor Patrick Westhoff, all of whom lent me their considerable expertise and wisdom, but more importantly to me, they treated this very non-traditional student with extraordinary kindness. And my gratitude to my sister, Deborah Haseltine, my computer expert, who always was able to lead me out of the morasses into which I stumbled almost every time I sat down at the computer. ii Contents Acknowledgements ii List of Tables iv Introduction 1 Chapter 1. The Second Agricultural Revolution 20 Chapter 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Foreign Policy Doctrines
    20 July 2015 Presidential Doctrines, the Use of Force and International Order Did the US’ military and legal reactions to the 9/11 attacks fundamentally transform its foreign and security policies? Joseph Siracusa doesn’t think so. He argues that the so-called Bush and Obama Doctrines have had more in common with previous presidential approaches than most people realize. By Joseph Siracusa for ISN In the ever-changing landscape of international relations, the extent to which the actions of the United States contribute to justice and order remains a source of contentious debate. Indeed, it is difficult to find a point in recent history when the United States and its foreign policy have been subject to such polarised and acrimonious reflection, both domestically and internationally. Notwithstanding recent ‘decline’ debates and the rise of emerging powers, the United States continues to hold a formidable advantage over its chief rivals in terms of formal power assets more than twenty-five years after the end of the Cold War. Few anticipated this situation; on the contrary, many assumed that, after a brief moment of unipolarity following the collapse of the Soviet Union, international affairs would soon regain a certain symmetry. Instead, US hegemony is still par for the course. In this context, because the foreign policy ‘doctrines’ of American presidents remain an important driver of the outlook of the United States, these doctrines continue to play a significant role in shaping international order. Though they have veered from isolationist to interventionist to expansionist over the years, these doctrines in fact exhibit a remarkable continuity – even in the post 9/11 era.
    [Show full text]
  • Navy and Marine Corps Opposition to the Goldwater Nichols Act of 1986
    Navy and Marine Corps Opposition to the Goldwater Nichols Act of 1986 A thesis presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts Steven T. Wills June 2012 © 2012 Steven T. Wills. All Rights Reserved. 2 This thesis titled Navy and Marine Corps Opposition to the Goldwtaer Nichols Act of 1986 by STEVEN T. WILLS has been approved for the Department of History and the College of Arts and Sciences by Ingo Traushweizer Assistant Professor of History Howard Dewald Interim Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3 ABSTRACT WILLS, STEVEN T., M.A., June 2012, History Navy and Marine Corps Opposition to the Goldwater Nichols Act of 1986 Director of Thesis: Ingo Traushweizer The Goldwater Nichols Act of 1986 was the most comprehensive defense reorganization legislation in a generation. It has governed the way the United States has organized, planned, and conducted military operations for the last twenty five years. It passed the Senate and House of Representatives with margins of victory reserved for birthday and holiday resolutions. It is praised throughout the U.S. defense establishment as a universal good. Despite this, it engendered a strong opposition movement organized primarily by Navy Secretary John F. Lehman but also included members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, prominent Senators and Congressman, and President Reagan's Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger. This essay will examine the forty year background of defense reform movements leading to the Goldwater Nichols Act, the fight from 1982 to 1986 by supporters and opponents of the proposed legislation and its twenty-five year legacy that may not be as positive as the claims made by the Department of Defense suggest.
    [Show full text]
  • Edwin Meese Papers, 1941-1991
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt358035d1 Online items available Inventory of the Edwin Meese papers, 1941-1991 Finding aid prepared by Aparna Mukherjee, revised by Hoover Institution Library and Archives Staff and Beth Goder Hoover Institution Library and Archives © 1991, 2013 434 Galvez Mall Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-6003 [email protected] URL: http://www.hoover.org/library-and-archives Inventory of the Edwin Meese 91005 1 papers, 1941-1991 Title: Edwin Meese papers Date (inclusive): 1941-1991 Collection Number: 91005 Contributing Institution: Hoover Institution Library and Archives Language of Material: English Physical Description: 772 manuscript boxes, 2 oversize boxes, 1 envelope, 5 sound cassettes, 2 motion picture film reels(325.0 Linear Feet) Abstract: Speeches, correspondence, memoranda, reports, schedules, press releases, legal documents, printed matter, photographs, and sound recordings related to California politics and administration of the California state government during the governorship of Ronald Reagan; and to American domestic policy, Republican Party politics, and federal administration of justice during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Digital copies of select records also available at https://digitalcollections.hoover.org. Creator: Meese, Edwin Hoover Institution Library & Archives Access The collection is open for research; materials must be requested at least two business days in advance of intended use. Publication Rights For copyright status, please contact the Hoover Institution Library & Archives. Acquisition Information Materials were acquired by the Hoover Institution Library & Archives in 1991, with increments received in subsequent years. Preferred Citation [Identification of item], Edwin Meese papers, [Box no., Folder no. or title], Hoover Institution Library & Archives.
    [Show full text]
  • A Matiter of Judgment, Not a Matter of Opinion
    A MATITER OF JUDGMENT, NOT A MATTER OF OPINION EDWARD A. HARTNETr In this Article Professor Hartnett enters the longstanding debate over whether elected officials are obliged to follow the Supreme Court's interpretationof the Constitution. Responding to a call by Professors Larry Aleranderand Frederick Shauer for complete deference to judicial opinions-a stance echoed by a broad range of scholars, now including former auntideference advocate Edwin AMeese- ProfessorHartnett attempts to identify seriousflaws in this position. He maintains that because the scope of tie judicialrole is narrowly limited to deciding cases and controversies, and not "pronouncingthe law," there is a profound distinction be- tween judgments and opinions. Therefor, we should not confuse deference with obedience and grant tire Supreme Court a monopoly on constitutional interpretation. More than one hundred and ninety-five years after Marbury v. Madison,' one hundred and forty years after the Lincoln/Douglas de- bates, 2 forty years after Cooper v. Aaron,3 and a dozen years after Attorney General Edwin Meese was criticized for agreeing with President Lincoln,4 we continue to debate whether elected officials * Visiting Associate Professor of Law, University of Virginia (Fall 1998), Scholar in Residence (Spring 1999); Professor, Seton Hall University. A.B., 1982, Harvard Univer- sity, J.D., 1985, New York University. Earl C. Dudley, Louis Fisher, John C. Harrison, John V. Jacobi, John C. Jeffries, John C. Nagle, Michael S. Paulsen, John M. Rogers, and Charles A. Sullivan contributed valuable insights to this Article. 1 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803) ("It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
    [Show full text]