ABSTRACT
From: Public Administration Review 53:3 (1993): 230-246. The bureaucrat bashing of both the Carter and Reagan administrations,
as well as the national celebration commemorating the bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution, created an avalanche of scholarly activity within the public administration community. Much of this scholarship focused on defending administrative institutions of government against attacks perpetrated by a coalition of antibureaucratic forces (Farazmand, 1989; Rourke, 1987). A defense was mounted on two fronts. On one front, writers went to great lengths to document and publicize the adverse effects of these attacks on administrative agencies (i.e., Lane and Wolf, 1990, Chap. 1; Wolf, 1987; Wildavsky, 1988; Rosen, 1986 and 1983). On the other front, scholars of the Constitutional School of public administration (most notably John Rohr and his colleagues at Blacksburg) have fought to change the perception that the modern administrative state lacked constitutional legitimacy by linking it to the founding of the American Republic (Rohr, 1986; Wamsley et al., 1990; Cook, 1992). Although strategies on both fronts have enjoyed a measure of success, we are especially interested in the Constitutional School because of its widening influence in American public administration. The purpose of this article is to argue that the Constitutional School is
vulnerable to attacks because of the Idealists’ method of historical explanation used by many scholars to explain the intentions and actions of the founding fathers. This method poses a problem for the Constitutional School because it fosters a romanticized view of the founders, which in turn raises questions about their conduct and character. Such questions, especially those relating to the issue of slavery, weaken the force of the argument offered by Constitutional School scholars. We contend that one need not rely solely on a purely historical approach to legitimate the administrative state in terms of constitutional principles. Other approaches may serve our purposes and deserve serious consideration as well. We argue that an active public administration may also be grounded in the logic of a constitution in general that pertains to the checking of power. This approach transcends history and the unfortunate moral legacy of the founders.
