Herbert Croly (1869-1930)
(Credit: Doris Ulmann)
When considering American visionaries from the Progressive Era, President Theodore Roosevelt often comes to mind. But most could not name the man whose political theory laid the ideological foundation for Roosevelt and countless others: Herbert Croly. Croly’s dynamic and progressive approach to American governance, which hinges on a strong and democratic federal government, continues to influence discussions around government power today.
Born in 1869, Herbert Croly was exposed to political theory from an early age as his father, David Croly, was an author and political theorist. Meanwhile, his mother, Jane Croly, was among the first editors of women’s columns in New York.
With a political theorist and a journalist as parents, Croly naturally gravitated toward political journalism. During his time at Harvard University, his professor, Josiah Royce, introduced Croly to the theory of progressivism, stimulating his interest in political philosophy. Unfortunately, Croly never graduated from Harvard, withdrawing in 1888 due to his father’s illness and leaving permanently in 1893 after suffering a breakdown.
Despite not earning his degree, Croly’s time at Harvard spurred him to found The New Republic magazine in 1914 alongside Walter Lippman and Walter Weil. In theory, The New Republic was intended to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas. In practice, it operated more as a mouthpiece for Croly to espouse progressivism.
In his early work for the The New Republic, Croly advocated for progressivism as the dominant political thought since “progressivism or liberalism is fundamentally the attempt to mould [sic] social life in the light of the best available knowledge and the interest of humane ideal.” However, he argued that although there were so-called progressive groups, they exhibited a sense of “political futility born of the equivocal meaning of American liberalism and its failure to keep abreast of the best available social knowledge” and thus did not accurately represent the movement.
Croly alluded to a leader who he thought embodied true progressivism and aligned with his vision for America: Abraham Lincoln. He lauded Lincoln, calling him “half hero and half saint” for his ability to steer Americans out of a civil war which would have “shattered the moral and political continuity of American national life.”
Croly’s praise for Lincoln’s character illuminates his concept of the ideal progressive leader. Croly described Lincoln as being “good natured, resolute, faithful, and innocent” as well as “morally humane, humble, and magnanimous.” He took a firm stand on leadership, arguing that it’s not just about policy or strategy, but about character.
While Croly’s work in The New Republic was influential in its own right, its national impact pales in comparison to Croly’s first book: The Promise of American Life. In his 1909 magnum opus, Croly dissected the Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian approaches to governance. Rather than fully embrace either Hamiltonian or Jeffersonian ideals, Croly attempted to forge a compromise that would connect the best pieces of each theory. He posited that America needed to adopt Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends. In practice, this meant Jefferson’s vision of a truly liberal democracy could only be achieved through Hamilton’s proposed strong national government since “the essential condition of a fruitful liberty was an efficient central government.”
According to Croly, America needed a political system that would be democratic yet energetic and open to collective responsibilities to achieve America’s “liberal promise.” Croly knew that Jefferson and Hamilton’s entire philosophies stood in opposition to each other, yet by reconciling what he thought were the best aspects of each theory, a “national political community forged by a strong but democratic government” would be created.
While Croly’s aspiration for a government that integrated these concepts remains somewhat idealistic, he did understand the limitations of government. Rather than suggest that elected officials exert hands-on control over everything, Croly argued that complex systems like the economy should be largely regulated by experts.
Croly was not only clear about what aspects of both ideologies should be adopted, but also what should be rejected. In terms of Hamiltonian democracy, Croly urged that although we must embrace “the energetic nationalism of Hamiltonian tradition” to create a unified country, we must under no circumstances accept Hamilton’s “distrust of democracy.”
In his assessment of Jeffersonian theory, Croly made it clear that although the “democratic principles of Jeffersonian tradition,” including individual responsibility, are essential, there is no place in the ideal American government for Jefferson’s “narrow concerns with local and individual interests.” Croly went one step further and actually called Jefferson’s conception of democracy as a whole “meager, narrow, and contradictory” since Jefferson failed to acknowledge that some central governance was required to establish and sustain an equal and democratic society.
Croly’s belief in a strong central government is also seen in his advocacy for the living constitution theory. Croly argued that the Constitution not only should, but must adapt to the changing needs of society. He held that constitutional principles should be used to empower the federal government to address issues that faced the entire nation and not select groups like the “elite and wealthy.”
While he mentioned that this central government should govern at the expense of individual rights, Croly left the line between government power and individual liberties blurry. Many modern politicians have tried to define this line while using Croly’s central philosophy as the foundation for their platforms. Theodore Roosevelt’s New Nationalism campaign echoed Croly’s idea to prioritize strong government in the economy without gutting the free market capitalist system as a whole.
The entire philosophy behind FDR’s New Deal was largely based on Croly’s strategy to employ a strong central government to serve communal needs while protecting individual rights. For example, the Federal Reserve Act directly reflected Croly’s intention to employ experts to stabilize the economic system.
Croly may be long gone now, but his ideals certainly are not. While Croly’s hope for an equal and just democracy protected by the government is a widely supported sentiment, how this society should be achieved is still under debate. What determines if Croly’s vision will flourish or remain suspended in the realm of political idealism is whether we can accomplish the task central to Croly’s political project: compromise.
This piece is part of the Salvatori Center's Profiles in American Political Thought. You can find a complete list of those pieces here.