| By analyzing the political discourse surrounding critical periods of American statebuilding, this project focuses on the conceptual background against which a central state has developed in the United States.; Despite the differences in their approaches and conclusions, proponents of pluralist, structuralist, neo-Marxist and other variations of state theory seem to agree that the development of the state as an institution in the U.S. takes place against a background of deep suspicion toward central power and the inability of the liberal vocabulary to acknowledge and encompass the growth of the state. Under these paradigms, the liberal tradition retards the growth of the state, produces an "uneasy" state in which government power and liberalism co-exist in a tenuous and sometimes near-delusional balance, or liberalism "ends" as the bureaucratic state steamrolls its way into a system not equipped to accommodate its existence, either institutionally or conceptually.; An examination of the political discourse surrounding the question of federal power during the ratification of the Constitution, the controversy over slavery, Reconstruction and the New Deal supports a more nuanced approach to the relationship between the liberal tradition and the state. Instead of drawing a strict dichotomy between the state and the liberal traditions, political actors who debated various aspects of statebuilding treated the question of government power on a continuum, recognizing that concepts or institutions such as constitutionalism and popular sovereignty limit, but also require, the empowerment of, a central power. In addition, they remained aware of the possibility that limitations placed on government may also empower it, lending it the means to legitimate its actions and increase its authority. My examination of the political discourse surrounding statebuilding considers where the growth of the central state fits within the conceptual framework of the liberal tradition. While acknowledging that liberal language continues to pervade political discourse during critical periods of statebuilding, I explore the ways in which that language justifies--rather than undermines or ignores--authoritative public action. |
