Herbert David Croly (January 23, 1869 – May 17, 1930) was a progressive-liberal writer and leader of the new liberalism movement in early twentieth-century America. He is best known for co-founding the magazine The New Republic and for his book The Promise of American Life.[1] His political philosophy influenced many Progressives including Theodore Roosevelt, as well as his close friends Judge Learned Hand and Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter.[2] Herbert Croly was born in New York City in 1869 to journalists Jane Cunningham Croly—better known by her pseudonym “Jenny June”—and David Goodman Croly. Jane Croly was a contributor to The New York Times, The Messenger, and The New York World. She was the editor of Demorest’s Illustrated Monthly for 27 years. Jane Croly wrote only on the subject of women and published nine books in addition to her work as a journalist. She was one of the best-known women in America when Herbert Croly was born.[3] David Croly worked as a reporter for the Evening Post and The New York Herald, as well as the editor of The New York World for 12 years. He was also a noted pamphleteer during Abraham Lincoln's presidency.[4] Jane and David Croly had four children other than Herbert. The eldest, a daughter named Minnie, died before 1900, and the next child, a son, died in infancy. Herbert was the third, followed by two sisters, Vida and Alice.[5] Herbert Croly married Louise Emory on May 30, 1892. They remained happily married until Herbert Croly’s death in 1930. They had no children.[6] Herbert Croly’s parents were ardent supporters of education. They envisioned an Ivy League education for Herbert, and in 1884, at the age of 15, Herbert enrolled in the City College of New York to prepare for later studies. In 1886, Herbert began at Harvard University.[7] Herbert’s father, David Croly, soon became concerned that his son was being exposed to improper philosophical material at Harvard. David Croly was a follower of Auguste Comte and discouraged Herbert from studying theology and philosophers that did not agree with Comte. During Herbert’s first two years at Harvard, David became gravely ill, and in 1888 Herbert dropped out of Harvard to become his father’s private secretary and companion. His father died on April 29, 1889.[8] After Herbert married Louise Emory in 1892 he re-enrolled in Harvard. But, in 1893, Herbert suffered a nervous breakdown and withdrew again from Harvard.[9] Herbert and Louise moved to Cornish, New Hampshire, where he recovered. After two years, in 1895, Herbert enrolled for the final time at Harvard at the age of 26. He excelled in his studies until 1899, when he withdrew for the last time from Harvard for unknown reasons, without a degree.[10] In 1910, after the publication of Herbert Croly’s book The Promise of American Life, he was awarded an honorary degree by Harvard University.[11] Little is known about Croly’s immediate actions after leaving Harvard in 1899. Historians believe he went to Paris intending to study philosophy, but by 1900 he had returned to New York City.[12] After returning to America, Herbert Croly worked as an editor for an architectural magazine, The Architectural Record, from 1900 to 1906. During that period he spent a great deal of time playing tennis and poker, reading, attending the theater, and vacationing at his summer home in Cornish, New Hampshire.[13] From 1905 to 1909, Herbert Croly worked on a new project: a political book he hoped would provide guidance for Americans during the transition from an agrarian to an industrialized society. When The Promise of American Life was published in 1909, Croly became a leading political thinker and prominent figure in the progressive movement.[14] In The Promise of American Life, Herbert Croly set out his argument for a progressive-liberal government in twentieth-century America. He saw democracy as the defining American trait and described democracy not as a government devoted to equal rights but as one with the aim of “bestowing a share of the responsibility and the benefits, derived from political economic association, upon the whole community.”[15] He returned to Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton as representatives of the two main schools of American political thought. Croly famously admitted, “I shall not disguise the fact that on the whole my own preferences are on the side of Hamilton rather than of Jefferson.”[16] Despite his preference for Hamilton, Croly believed there were some good aspects about Jefferson’s philosophy on government. He wrote, “Jefferson was filled with a sincere, indiscriminate, and unlimited faith in the American people.”[17] However, Croly viewed Jeffersonian democracy as “tantamount to extreme individualism,”[18] suitable only for pre-Civil War America when the ideal Americans were pioneers pursuing individual wealth.[19] Croly’s largest contribution to American political thought was to synthesize the two thinkers into one theory on government: Jefferson’s strong democracy achieved through Hamilton’s strong national government.[20] Croly argued that when America shifted from an agrarian economy to an industrial one, Jefferson’s vision was no longer realistic for America.[21] Instead, Croly turned to Alexander Hamilton’s theory of big national government. Government, according to Croly, could no longer be content with protecting negative rights; it needed to actively promote the welfare of its citizens. Croly proposed a three-pronged program: the nationalization of large corporations, the strengthening of labor unions, and a strong central government.[22] Croly firmly believed that labor unions were “the most effective machinery which has yet been forged for the economic and social amelioration of the laboring class.”[23] He wanted unions to have the right to negotiate contracts to ensure companies would only hire union workers. Unlike other progressives, Croly did not want the government to wage war against large corporations. He wanted the Sherman Anti-Trust Act repealed and replaced with a national incorporation act that would regulate and, if necessary, nationalize corporations.[24] Croly had little sympathy for non-union workers and small businesses, declaring that “Whenever the small competitor of the large corporation is unable to keep his head above water, he should be allowed to drown.”[25] Croly did not support economic equality or large disparities in wealth. He believed it was the responsibility of a powerful central government to practice “constructive discrimination” on behalf of the poor.[26] Croly’s plan included a federal inheritance rate of 20%, not the individual income tax that other progressive reformers wanted.[27] Croly argued that compensation for work should be adjusted to “the needs of a normal and wholesome life”[28]--an idea along the lines of the Utopian author Edward Bellamy.[29] Croly’s strong central government needed strong individuals to lead it. His ideal was Abraham Lincoln, a person who was “something of a saint and something of a hero”[30] and understood that democracy in America was greater than "rights"; it was a national ideal. Croly, like Hamilton, had a faith in the powerful few and sincerely believed that those few would remain democratic. His search for a great American leader became an obsession that was never satisfied. Croly’s notion of the elite was challenged by civil libertarians who believed Croly’s powerful few would lead to a totalitarian state.[31] The Promise of American Life has received criticism from a number of angles. Many feared the underlying tones of totalitarianism or fascism. Others worried that Croly’s plan would make America socialist—a criticism Croly foresaw in his book and attempted to combat by labeling his government as nationalistic rather than socialistic. Even those who believed Croly’s government could be democratic had concerns that Croly’s vision for the country was clouded by a Republican prejudice. His writing contained several criticisms of the Democrats but almost none of the Republicans.[32] Croly’s book was also criticized for its lack of national focus. It focused almost entirely on problems that were of interest to those living in cities but not to rural America. The tariff, conservation, currency, banking, and agriculture all were only mentioned in passing, if at all. Connected to that was an argument that Croly’s plans were unrealistic and detached from the reality that many Americans were living.[33] By Croly’s death in 1930, only 7,500 copies of The Promise of American Life had been sold.[34] The publication of The Promise of American Life in 1909 earned Croly a lot of publicity and the attention of some important people, including Dan Hanna, Mark Hanna’s son. From 1911-1912, Croly worked on a book for Hanna: Marcus Alonzo Hanna: His Life and Work. Intended as a biography, the book was criticized for a lack of objectivity. Croly needed a source of income at the time, and Dan Hanna paid Croly to write the book but reserved the right to make changes before it was published. The book had soaring praise for Mark Hanna, a politician who saw the role of government very differently from Croly.[35] The Promise of American Life also attracted the attention of former president Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt’s reaction to Croly’s book began a friendship between the two men that lasted for several years. When Roosevelt ran for president in 1912 as a candidate for the Bull Moose party, he used the slogan "New Nationalism". There is some dispute among historians whether Roosevelt took the slogan directly from The Promise of American Life or if he had already developed the concept himself. Either way, Croly was credited at the time as the author.[36] Herbert Croly was drawn into presidential politics during the election of 1912. Croly (representing Roosevelt) took the national stage against Louis Brandeis (representing Woodrow Wilson) on the issue of trusts. Brandeis and Wilson took the side of small business, arguing that competition and equal opportunity for small businesses was at the heart of American democracy. They painted Roosevelt as the candidate of big business, and Croly was charged with arguing that big business, when properly regulated, was better for national unity and prosperity because it was efficient without the greed he associated with small business competition.[37]