Talk:Classical republicanism

message: also 'civic humanism' vs. 'classical republicanism' paragraph for accuracy.  footnoted most of the named authors. Stevewk 00:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SOFIXIT. You're right this article could be better, so feel free to improve it. That's the glory of Wikipedia, if you think something needs work, you can jump right in and start changing it. Also feel free to make a separate article on Civic humanism. Though the two concepts are so intertwined that they could still be covered in one article. - SimonP (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: rewrote the some of opening paragraph

message: cr did not rejected monarchy. monarchy was one of the three main forms of the republic, aristocracy and democracy as well. i am going to change that assertion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.112.159.237 (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  monarchy 

message: doesn't Cato the Younger qualify as a "Classical republican"?J8079s (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cato the Younger

message: Can someone please be bold and divide this up into sections? Right now it just looks like I'm staring at a wall of text. Thank you. --David Gardner  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.243.75 (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separation of powers 

message: I removed the un-sourced claim that classical republicanism was "the basis for the work of the Founding Fathers of the United States, and as such, was and remains the enduring basis of the national and state governments."  This statement follows the extremely problematic statement associating "classical republicanism" with Hobbes and Locke.  In the historiography of the American Revolution in recent decades, "classical republicanism" was invoked IN OPPOSITION to the dominant Lockean interpretation of American revolutionary ideology.  This issue needs to be sorted out, with proper notice given to prominent disagreements among established scholars.  My understanding is that "classical republicanism" in 18th-century England stressed CIVIC VIRTUE, which is not emphasized in the thought of Hobbes and Locke.
Beyond this issue is the question of the basis for the work of the Founding Fathers.  Both Jefferson and Adams listed Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, and Sidney.  That would seem to be a good starting point:  Which (if any) of these writers is a "classical republican?"--Other Choices (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a long debate in the scholarship. From Republicanism: "In recent years a debate has developed over the role of republicanism in the American Revolution and in the British radicalism of the 18th century. For many decades the consensus was that liberalism, especially that of John Locke, was paramount and that republicanism had a distinctly secondary role. The new interpretations were pioneered by J.G.A. Pocock who argued in The Machiavellian Moment (1975) that, at least in the early 18th century, republican ideas were just as important as liberal ones. Pocock's view is now widely accepted. Bernard Bailyn and Gordon Wood pioneered the argument that the American founding fathers were more influenced by republicanism than they were by liberalism." - SimonP (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  the basis for the work of the U.S. Founding Fathers???