In regards to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, it is a great reference for understanding ‘REPUBLICANISM,’ in two different, but closely related senses. The author of the article, Frank Lovett explains that in the first sense is meant, a loose tradition or family of writers in the history of western political thought: “Machiavelli and his fifteenth-century Italian predecessors; the English republicans Milton, Harrington, Sidney, and others; Montesquieu and Blackstone; the eighteenth-century English commonwealthmen; and many Americans of the founding era such as Jefferson, Madison, and Adams. The writers in this tradition emphasize many common ideas and concerns, such as the importance of civic virtue and political participation, the dangers of corruption, the benefits of a mixed constitution and the rule of law, etc.; and it is characteristic of their rhetorical style to draw heavily on classical examples—from Cicero and the Latin historians especially—in presenting their arguments.”
The article continued:
“Beyond this brief sketch, there exists considerable historiographical controversy—with respect to who the tradition’s members are, and their relative significance; with respect to how we should interpret its underlying philosophical commitments; and with respect to its role (especially vis-à-vis liberalism) in the historical development of modern political thought. This brings us to the second sense of the term ‘republicanism’. In contemporary political theory and philosophy, it most often refers to a specific (and still contested) interpretation of the classical republican tradition, associated especially with the work of Quentin Skinner; together with a research program dedicated to developing insights from this tradition into an attractive contemporary political doctrine, associated especially with the work of Philip Pettit. According to republicans in this second sense (sometimes called ‘civic republicans’ or ‘neo-republicans’), the paramount republican value is political liberty, understood as non-domination or independence from arbitrary power.” Source: Lovett, Frank, “Republicanism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
A profile on all these loose family of ‘republican’ writers is as important here as covering the Theosophical Enlightenment, Freemasons, Johann Adam Weishaupt, the French and Spanish Illuminés, &c. Now, in the second sense of the term, REPUBLICANISM, this ‘NEO-REPUBLICANISM’ endeavor is itself again, only part of what I speak of. John Locke is, in my view, apart of this “loose tradition,” or family of foundational political thought in United States history, beside liberalism. In-fact, based on even the limited amount of history I have studied in regards to those names mentioned, I will say this. Any new American political thought and movement, that disrespects the philosophy and legacy of John Locke, or attempts to revision John Locke and his ideas out of the picture of American political thought and philosophy, are not a legitimate heir of Americanism; and should not (nor could—even if they wanted it to be so) be legitimized. The scholars would never allow those foundations to be uprooted.
This brings me to Aleksandr Gelyevich Dugin, and what we shall refer to as, a new Americanism, which does not manifest through any Racial nor White IDENTITARIANISM. It is neither a merely nationalistic idea of the UNION, or a mere idealistic fancy; but though being creative . . . constructed, would be entirely rooted in our history and heritage to develop beyond being the young nation we are seen to be. Therefore, those who support such racialist ideologies, fantasizing of our balkanization and division are not a benefit to us. Perhaps, a benefit for Dugin or Khameini, but not the United States. They are no better than those who shout the old National Socialist cries about the Juden! — and Jewish Bolshevism (Cultural Marxism)! Also, therefore, the ideal could not belong to neither the Republican Party’s Conservatives, or the Democrat and Progressives alone. It ought to present itself, as well as through its adherents, not as an ideal aiming to ingratiate all political divisions and partisans, but as an ideal superior to these in all measures. It must identify the root of our political sports. It is identifiable with the very ‘union’ itself.
The American would be told, that Dugin’s ideas are merely a strategic ploy to undermine “Democracy” or America. They are, plain and simple, for he positively admits it. Dugin believes the West is inevitably doomed to decline, while Russia will rise. Just as he has proposed a reanimated ideal of a newly comprehended Russian antiquity to advance his anti-modernist thought, the American ought to seek a similar proposition in the rearticulation of AMERICANISM and REPUBLICAN THOUGHT. As explained in Alexander Dugin, Eurasianism, and the American Election, Dugin wanted Trump to be elected, because it would help to destabilize and divide the United States. Now, if Dugin can draw from Heidegger’s Germanism, a “Post-Heideggerian package” or newly radical political thought for a new imperial Russia and multipolar order, then who is to say it is not possible to create a new ‘Americanism’, or ‘NEO-REPUBLICANISM’ — and move beyond the Post-Second War and Post-Cold War world order? Progressivism and plain-bagel ‘Conservatism’ are not . . . to my observation fit to compete with this EURASIANISM in the forthcoming time of shifting foreign affairs and international politics. The American has become incredibly vulnerable, because lacking in knowledge of itself, even suppressing itself, e.g., its European Roots and English traditions behind our nation’s founding. Most of the time when the author attempts to begin a discussion on these subjects, it is ignored, but I believe LEFT-WING PROGRESSIVISM — and especially Trumpism — are not the only movements capable of aiding our country. To prevent our destruction from within by the culture war between the two main political factions, another worthy force ought to step-in.
The American has tried to redefine itself, and repeat the mantra of our mottos, but this will not suffice anymore, and people increasingly become aware of this. The idea in mind, is one: to build an edifice so much very strong and historical, not revisionist. Its thinkers ought to be capable of expressing the highest aspirations and philosophical thought embodied in the AMERICAN REPUBLICAN PHILOSOPHY, while expanding its answers into every aspect of politics, society, culture, ethnicity, law and economics.
It is not about what I provide, but rather, preparing the basis for a circle working in this direction.