Comparing Rationales for Democracy by Ralph Ketcham

summary by @nietzscheswritings (assisted by Google Gemini Pro for fact-checking and editorial clarity)

The Conflict of First Modernity and Universalism

Ketcham identifies a fundamental shift from "logocentric" universalism, which posits "the Word" as a timeless, divinely sanctioned foundation for truth, to modern thought which emphasizes fragmenting, empirical, and scientific systems. The "first modernity," characterized by Baconian induction and Newtonian science, was attacked by "transcendental" or "ancient" critics like William Blake for its "Single vision". These critics argued that such empirical systems were narrow, materialistic, and incomplete in their understanding of the human spirit. Simultaneously, an "internal" critique arose, notably from David Hume, who argued that first modernity thinkers had not been rigorous enough. Hume charged that followers of Newton and Locke had inconsistently projected empirical observations into new universal systems or "natural laws," which he viewed as illegitimate "metanarratives" akin to those of Augustine or Aquinas.

Political Evolution in the United States

The American polity represents the primary political manifestation of first modernity thought. Founded on Lockean empiricism and individual rights, the U.S. Constitution was initially viewed as a "political machine" that would operate according to universal laws of nature. Ketcham notes that James Madison moved between empirical "facts of history" and propositions he regarded as "sacred" and "universal" without perceiving inconsistency. This "will to a system" was eventually challenged by the "second modernity" politics of the Jacksonian era. Martin Van Buren argued that partisan "discord" and the contention of diverse interests were more conducive to the public good than the elite-guided, nonpartisan ideals of the founders. This shifted American political theory toward a more thorough modernity that accepted the pluralism of "the parts".

Second Modernity Liberalism and its Twentieth-Century Orthodoxy

New rationales for democracy developed under second modernity thinkers like Bentham, J.S. Mill, and John Dewey. This "new liberalism" sought to be scientific and pragmatic, eventually forming the basis for the twentieth-century "liberal corporate state". Following the defeat of fascism and communism, this liberal democracy achieved a degree of "orthodoxy" or "hegemony," with thinkers like Francis Fukuyama declaring "the end of history".

The Postmodern and Antimodern Critiques

Postmodernists, such as Jean-François Lyotard and Michel Foucault, critiqued this liberal orthodoxy as just another oppressive metanarrative that marginalized "the Other". Postmodern thought emphasizes "deconstruction" and an "incredulity toward metanarratives," insisting on the "presencing of diversity" without seeking a centralizing "will to a system". Ketcham highlights that postmodernists utilized Friedrich Nietzsche to link their critique of Kantian universalism to East Asian concepts of higher law. In The Antichrist, Nietzsche attacked the "theological instinct" in both Christianity and Kant, characterizing the devotion to universal principle as "the Chinese religion of Konigsberg" (221)—a dogmatic ideology that suppresses creative life. Richard Rorty attempted to reconcile these views by presenting a "postmodern pragmatism". He argued for a "generalized Darwinism which is democracy" (225), where laws and policies are viewed as "cultural mutations" adapted for utility rather than adherence to universal standards.

The Persistence of Universalist Aspirations.

Finally, Ketcham addresses the "antimodern" response, which argues that humanity is "bereft" without universal or eternal dimensions. Critics like Michael Sandel argue that a "procedural republic" creates a "moral void" and fails to cultivate the character necessary for self-rule. These critics maintain that a state must exist for the sake of a "good life" and remain guided by higher law, a tradition spanning from Aristotle to Martin Luther King.