It is a truism, albeit a contentious one, that in the United States there is no tradition of sustained, systematic, and intellectually sound criticism of the press. The press is certainly one of our most important institutions but in serious attention it ranks slightly ahead of soccer and slightly behind baseball. The press is attacked and often vilified, but it is not subject to sustained critical analysis—not in public, and rarely within universities or the press itself.

“Media, Men and Morality” is undoubtedly an overblown tide, inspired in part by the alliterative propensities of one of the best-known and most vocal of contemporary media critics—former Vice President Spiro T. Agnew. The problem it suggests is too vast to be encompassed here, but it is possible to get at some of its aspects in a limited way.

Every state has a constitution—a body of principles, institutions, laws, and customs that forms the framework of government—but not every state is a constitutional state. The latter is distinguished by a commitment to constitutionalism, which in essence is the idea that political life ought to be carried on according to procedures and rules that paradoxically are in some degree placed beyond politics: procedures in other words that are fundamental. Nothing so positive as a written constitution, but rather the belief that the law as the embodiment of a society's most important values is powerful, characterizes government under the rule of law.

Watergate has prompted a good many voices to proclaim the urgent need for a return to constitutional government. I would like to take advantage of the current public interest in a higher morality in politics to make the case for moving up to an even higher level of politics, to a pattern of politics that I have dubbed “Prophetic Politics.” In making my case I should like to explore, compare, and criticize four patterns of politics that inevitably get pulled into the dialogue. These four are “Prophetic Politics,” “Machiavellian Politics” (illustrated so notoriously by Watergate), “Utopian Politics” (whose principles and practices must be distinguished from “Prophetic Politics,” if “Prophetic Politics” is to get a fair hearing by political realists), and “Constitutional Politics” (whose strength is being sorely tested by the Watergate revelations). I will try in this article to indicate why, indeed, I believe we must move up to a new level in politics; why we have to be on guard against and reject “Machiavellian Politics,” why it is important to distinguish between “Prophetic” and “Utopian Politics,” and why a return to “Constitutional Politics” is good but not good enough. I shall argue that there is a striking similarity between our answer to the “why” question—“Why must we move up to a new level of politics?”— and the central characteristics of “Prophetic Politics.” I shall identify the strengths and weaknesses of “Machiavellian,” “Constitutional,” and “Utopian Politics” and indicate how the practitioners of “Prophetic Politics,” while true to its central principles, can incorporate the strengths while avoiding the weaknesses of the other three patterns. I hope this analysis will place our current alarm and concern about Watergate in a larger theoretical perspective, and enable us to derive some larger value from the outpouring revelations of the media.

The postwar era in international politics has been one of success and failure in the search for conflict adjustment among major powers. It is sobering to examine the list of issues inscribed at one time or another on the agenda of the United Nations and count the number for which resolution has never been achieved. For example, little, if any progress has been made toward a political settlement in the Middle East, South Africa's policies, Eastern Europe, the denuclearization of Latin America or countless other issues outstanding around the world. It would be interesting to compare the pattern of conflict adjustment in international assemblies with that in national legislative bodies to throw light on the differences between the processes and prospects at the two levels.