LIBERALISM WITH HONOR

From where, asks Krause, can a citizen draw the strength to resist trends that seem to fly in the face of the democratic principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence—for example, the Jim Crow laws or the more recent referenda targeting gay rights? Krause, an assistant professor of government at Harvard, argues the case for the seemingly outmoded notion of personal honor as a source of such civic renewal. There is irony in this suggestion, of course, given honor's association with an aristocratic, class-based European past. Krause acknowledges this and takes pains to differentiate between the "aristocratic" honor of the old regime and the notion of honor in a liberal democracy. She differs from Tocqueville as well: Tocqueville despaired that Americans' focus on commercial enterprise, coupled with social leveling, would discourage the development of honorable citizens capable of standing up for liberty when necessary. In Krause's view, these fears were largely unfounded. Honorable citizens, she says, make up a "natural aristocracy" of those capable of defending core values despite personal risk. She examines the actions of Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Jr. to illustrate how the impulse toward honor stems from a mix of altruism, a spirit of civic duty and a desire for public recognition. In some sense, therefore, an honorable act serves both society and the self. While Krause concedes that honor is relatively rare, she contends that its limitations "remind us of the irreducible multiplicity of human motivations." As this rather tepid conclusion illustrates, this discussion, despite the importance of its concepts, is directed at an academic audience. (Apr. 1)