For students of the early American republic, James Madison has long been something of a riddle, the member of the founding generation whose actions and thought most stubbornly resist easy summary. The staunchest of Federalists in the 1780s, Madison would turn on his former allies shortly thereafter, renouncing their expansive nationalism as a threat to the Constitution and to popular government.

In a study that combines penetrating textual analysis with deep historical awareness, Gary Rosen stakes out important new ground by showing the philosophical consistency in Madison's long and controversial public life. The key, he argues, is Madison's profound originality as a student of the social compact, the venerable liberal idea into which he introduced several novel, and seemingly illiberal, principles.

Foremost among these was the need for founding to be the work of an elite few. For Madison, prior accounts of the social compact, in their eagerness to establish the proper ends of government, provided a hopelessly naive account of its origin. As he saw it, the Federal Convention of 1787 was an opportunity for those of outstanding prudence (understood in its fullest Aristotelian sense) to do for the people what they could not do for themselves. This troublesome reliance on the few was balanced, Rosen contends, by Madison's commitment to republicanism as an end in itself, a conclusion that he likewise drew from the social compact, accommodating the proud political claims that his philosophical predecessors had failed to recognize.

Rosen goes on to show how Madison's idiosyncratic understanding of the social compact illuminates his differences not only with Hamilton but with Jefferson as well. Both men, Madison feared, were too ready to resort to original principles in coming to terms with the Constitution, putting at risk the fragile achievement of the founding in their determination to invoke, respectively, the claims of the few and the many.

"As American Compact" persuasively concludes, Madison's ideas on the origin and aims of the Constitution are not just of historical interest. They carry crucial lessons for our own day, and speak directly to current disputes over diversity, constitutional interpretation, the fate of federalism, and the possibilities and limits of American citizenship.

To declare oneself a conservative in American foreign policy is to enter immediately into a fractious, long-standing debate. Should America retreat from the world, deal with the world as it is, or try to transform it in its own image? Which school of thought - traditionalist, realist, or neoconservative - is truest to the country's ideals and interests? With the dramatic shift in American foreign policy since 9/11, these differences have been brought into stark relief, especially by the Bush administration's decision to go to war in Iraq. This book brings together the most articulate and influential voices in the debate among conservatives over the tactics and strategy of America's engagement in Iraq. Its contribution run the gamut from protests to second thoughts to full-throated endorsements, and represent a vivid sampling of the ideological currents likely to influence the Bush administration in its ongoing efforts in Iraq and the wider Middle East. Gary Rosen is Managing Editor of Commentary. He holds a PhD in political science from Harvard and is the author of "American Compact: James Madison and the Problem of Founding." His articles and reviews have appeared in Commentary, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post.

To declare oneself a conservative in American foreign policy is to enter immediately into a fractious, long-standing debate. Should America retreat from the world, deal with the world as it is, or try to transform it in its own image? Which school of thought - traditionalist, realist, or neoconservative - is closest to the country's ideals and interests? With the dramatic shift in American foreign policy since 9/11, these differences have been brought into stark relief, especially by the Bush administration's decision to go to war in Iraq. This book brings together the most articulate and influential voices in the debate among conservatives over the tactics and strategy of America's engagement in Iraq. The collection runs the gamut from protests to second thoughts to full-throated endorsements. The contributors are major conservative spokesmen whose ideological influences have a role in guiding the Bush administration as it formulates its policy goals for Iraq.