This Article will explore four major questions. Is there a grand democratic design to be detected in John F. Kennedy's political philosophy? Was the design coherent? May it still profitably guide us today? And does it have enduring significance?

Perhaps these questions ask too much of a President whose primary task is statesmanship and not philosophy or science. Yet if political theory is a “critical study concerned with harmoniously relating the normative, empirical, and prudential components of politics,” then even a focus on Kennedy's public policy inevitably throws light on his goals and his grasp of political reality. And as the statesman seeks (in the light of political possibility) to advance his policies in order to fulfill his purposes, he must in some fashion grapple with the fundamental problems of politics. Consequently, recognizing that Kennedy's approach to the key problems of political philosophy will not be critical, comprehensive, or complete, we may still want to explore his approach in the context of his own grand democratic design.

By The Time of the federal election in April, 1963, most thinking Canadians were probably aware that the unity of their nation was in peril. The main issues before the electorate were the instability of the Progressive Conservative government, Canada's persistent economic problems, and her role in the defense of North America. But many commentators thought that the major question which the new government would face was the failure of Canada's two race to reach a satisfactory modus vivendi.

The Jordan River has recently become one of the most politically important and controversial rivers of the present day. Ever since the late 1950's, when the Arabs became fully aware of Israel's determination to implement her long-range plans to divert Jordan River water to irrigate the Negev, UN and Western officials concerned with Middle Eastern affairs have looked forward with great foreboding to the time when the first major stage of Israel's project would near its completion, for they expected this to produce another Middle Eastern crisis. Arab-Israeli tension over the water question has grown steadily and began to reach alarming proportions by late 1963 and early 1964. Fortunately the decision of the Arab leaders, in an unprecedented summit meeting held in January, 1964, to use means other than military force to frustrate Israel's water diversion plans precluded any immediate threat of an armed conflict between the contending parties. Nevertheless, because the fundamental disagreements remain unresolved, there is great likelihood that, for a long time to come, the world will find the Middle Eastern water dispute a potentially explosive situation. But few Westerners are adequately aware of the many complex and serious ramifications that are actually involved. In the past, even UN and Western officials tended oversimplify and overlook many aspects of this controversy and naively sought to deal with it on a technical and economic level despite the fact that the primary obstacles were emotional and political in nature.

Presidential responsibility for foreign policy is something of a commonplace today. Indeed, most analysts see Presidential dominance in foreign affairs as a more or less necessary result of the conditions of the times, which often demand the kind of unified and prompt action which only the Presidency is capable of in the American system. Yet it can be argued that the very factors which have brought Presidential conduct of foreign relations into the national spotlight have simultaneously worked to limit the decisiveness of his control over foreign policy. The period since World War I, and particularly since World War II, has seen the United States becoming more deeply involved in what can be called “positive” policy, policy that requires financial support, or new administrative authorizations, or the assignment of new personnel. And the natural corollary of such policies is the growth in significance of that element of government, which must give legislative authorization for any such undertakings. There has been, in a sense, a reassertion of traditional separation of powers in the area of foreign policy.

Several aspects of Woodrow Wilson's political thought recurred time and again in his academic writings, privately expressed opinions, official statements, and even in his actions. They formed the framework for much of his political life. One of these was his belief that, of all kinds of government, the best was that kind that was representative of and responsible to the people. Another was a concomitant of the first: a faith in the inherent ability of the people to know what was both right and good for them. Wilson also believed in the sanctity of contracts, in the duty of an honorable gentleman or an honorable government to keep pledges once made. There were, of course, many other facets of his political thought, but these three principles run like red threads through all of it. Like the tributaries of a mighty river, they converged early in 1920 to form the nucleus of one of Wilson's most daring — and tragic — plans of political action. They inspired his appeal for “a great and solemn referendum” on the League of Nations issue in the United States.

It Is hardly surprising that the play Der Stellvertreter (The Deputy) by the young German author Rolf Hochhuth should have aroused controversy ever since its first performance in February, 1963, in Berlin. For it aims to depict not merely historical characters in a fictional drama, but historical characters in a historical setting of almost unprecedented significance and consequence. The use of the drama as a vehicle for political attack is nothing new; but it is rare for the author to append, in the published version of his text, a historical essay of forty pages, seeking to give the evidence upon which his drama is based. Nor is it surprising that so pejorative is the portrayal in the play of the late Pope Pius XII that many of those who served under him during the nineteen years of his pontificate, as well as many others who came in touch with him through his literally thousands of private or public audiences, have sought to come to his defense, in challenging the historical accuracy of Hochhuth's portrayal.