Gary Sauer-Thompson has found on interesting article where, "Andreas Kalyvas and Ira Katznelsons argue that the relationship between republicanism and liberalism has emerged as a central issue for students of political thought."
I must admit see republicanism as being the political science of liberalism rather than schism in doctrine that the article records as being a historical tension between republicanism and liberalism. I consider the US republic both the end and high point of the enlightenment, where all the aspects of increasing liberal theory came together in practice.
From the paper:
This insight has been reiterated by Maurizio Viroli, who likewise challenges the idea "that republicanism is an alternative to liberalism." Rather, he proposes that "liberalism is a doctrine derived from republicanism," thus rejecting both the claims of a sharp conceptual dichotomy and decisive historical break.I would argue the opposite. Republicanism is the political science of the political theory known as liberalism. Australian republicanism cannot exist without liberalism being its basis. By the same token I give little credence to the republics of antiquity - there is no retcon there from my point of view. I guess that is where the paper is arguing that the oligarchic and autocratic republics of old, like Rome, and their philosophies, explored by the likes of Cicero, is the basis for republican tradition. I disagree. The enlightenment and liberalism drastically changed what was the low tide line for political systems. The difference is hard enough that we can say there is a rationality change there. Enough that we have trouble fully understanding the political mindset of Rome and the concept of imperium. There is little doubt in my opinion that republicanism and liberalism are inseparably entwined.
