Thoughts on Elkins "Legacy of Violence: A History of the British Empire"

 

Thoughts on Elkins’ Legacy of Violence: A History of the British Empire

Peter Schultz

 

Here are some thoughts that arose as I was reading Caroline Elkins very fine history of the British Empire, mainly pertaining to understanding the political.

 

#1

Which more accurately describes the political: Elkins’ “systematized violence” or “pathological violence?” The former carries with it justifications: it’s ordered violence created by rational persons and bureaucratized. The latter calls it what it actually is, “sickness.” 

Elkins tends to rationalize the Mau Mau: “It was a rational response of rural people seeking to understand the enormous socioeconomic and political changes taking place…while attempting to respond collectively to new and unjust realities.” (547) 
Sounds like the Kikuyu would be open to and would profit from seminars on their situation! 

Politics, given its injustices, produces rage; and did so both in the Brits in Kenya and in the Kikuyu. Both sides responded pathologically, which is to say they responded politically. The result: pathological violence. 

“Going postal:” pathological violence creating more pathological violence. Is telling people that they have a constitutionally guaranteed right to weapons a good idea? Kirk’s fate might be taken to indicate it isn’t. Oh, there’s that irony again!  

 

#2

What Elkins labels “legalized lawlessness” is more accurately called “pathological lawlessness.” This is similar to her “systematized violence,” which I think should be labeled “pathological violence.” Elkins has trouble getting to the point of recognizing that the political is the arena of the pathological. But I believe it is this recognition that is the gateway, so to speak, to political philosophy. The absence of this recognition is what characterizes “believers,” those who affirm the political like Carl Schmidt or Alexander Hamilton, et. al. The absence of this recognition is what distinguishes political thought from political philosophy. 

Insofar as the political is the arena of the pathological, is it wise to guarantee that people have a constitutional right to weaponize? Is it wise, generally, to militarize such an arena? And Aristotle’s description of the best location for a polis as one that requires only a minimal amount of militarization is a reflection that he too understood the political as pathologically violent and lawless, intrinsically so. ( Austen’s Wickham is a reflection that she understood this as well., as well as her joke about anal sex among the navy’s “rear admirals!”) 

Just sayin’. 

Politics: Normalizing the Abnormal

 

Politics: Normalizing the Abnormal

Peter Schultz

 

 

Oh, but it is normal; it's the normal continuation of normal politics by normal means. 

 

Remember 1963? 1968? Remember the Bay of Pigs, JFK/Dallas, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X, Chicago 1968, Kent State, Jackson State, George Wallace, Fred Hampton, My Lai, the Phoenix program, Watergate, Reagan shot, Ford shot at, 9/11, the War on Terror, ”MIssion Accomplished,” 20+ years in Afghanistan, 1/6? 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/07/opinion/trump-senate-democrats-shutdown.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Daydream Believers

 

Daydream Believers

Peter Schultz

 

                  A question occurred to me as I was reading Fred Kaplan’s very good book, Daydream Believers, where he was critiquing George W. Bush’s understanding of the world. Bush was not concerned about creating vacuums in other nations because “the natural forces of freedom would fill” the vacuum. “Gaza would become a democracy almost of its own accord.” [p. 164]

 

                  My question was: Are there vacuums politically speaking? Well, no, because we humans are, as Aristotle argued, “political animals.” Hence, not only is it necessary to cultivate democracies, or any other political order, it is a cultivation that requires some sophistication, to say the least. Not only can existence be arranged; it must be arranged and in that task politics is architectonic.  

 

                  Moreover, because we humans are not only political animals but while history might bend toward justice, politics, the political, bends toward extremism. Extremism is intrinsic to politics, to all regimes, and therefore constitutes the abiding issue for human societies, even for those labeled “civilized.” Hence, T.E. Lawrence’s take on daydream believers:

 

“All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, to make it possible.” [Seven Pillars of Wisdom]

Politics and Political Language

 

Politics and Political Language

Peter Schultz

 

 

• "'Political language - and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists - is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.  One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase...into the dustbin where it belongs'" (Elkins 431).

 

Politics and its language make lies seem truthful and murder respectable. So, politicians who are killing children and other civilians speak of “collateral damage,” as if that justifies the death, the incineration of the innocent for reasons, allegedly, of national security. It is interesting and not often enough commented upon that politics turns decent, law-abiding humans into killers, as in one case that I know of, turning a Boy Scout into a Vietnamese-killing Marine. It turns out that the “distance” that separates a Boy Scout from a killer is no further than a challenge to “ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.” Quite a few answered that question by signing up to kill Vietnamese.

 

I am reading a book entitled A Nation Diagnosed: Trump Derangement Syndrome and the Politics of Losing Our Minds, by Wade T. Reason. Reason’s analysis of TDS leads him to conclude that “It [has] become a feature of political life – not a bug.” But what Reason fails to emphasize enough is that TDS is merely a feature of political life; it is not an anomaly, and it is not unique the era of Trump. TDS is just a way of disguising the character of normal politics, that the political arena is composed of allies and enemies, and that enemies are always seen as “deranged.”

 

As a reflection of this, the left, the resisters also engage in TDS, making Trump into an existential enemy. As a comedian said: “We didn’t want to beat Trump. We needed him.” Exactly. Both the Trumpers and the resisters need enemies, especially existential enemies, just as the US and the USSR needed existential enemies after WW II. So, the Trump Derangement Syndrome was not derangement at all. It was just a label given to what is normal politics. Or, perhaps, TDS was and is derangement, meaning that politicians are, normally, deranged, sick, or narcissistic. So, when Reason says that TDS “normalizes the abnormal,” the implication is that politics, normal politics, “normalizes the abnormal.” For example, the bombings of Nagasaki and Dresden, the Holocaust, the Vietnam war, the British repression in Kenya, 9/11, Bush’s worldwide War on Terror, 1/6.

 

As Reason points out, “Trump didn’t divide America – he reflected it.” “The culture wars didn’t begin with Trump. Neither did political polarization, racial tension, class resentment, or distrust of the media.” As Ta-Nehist Coates put it: “Donald Trump is a symptom, not the cause, A mirror, not a mastermind.” In other words, Trump is merely a reflection of politics as it exists in the United States these days. “We weren’t one country waiting for unity. We were two countries sharing a flag. [Trump] stopped pretending otherwise.”

 

Politicians and Poets

 

Politicians and Poets

Peter Schultz

 

 

Politicians seek to conquer, while poets seek to cultivate. Politicians militarize, while poets humanize. Politicians moralize, while poets philosophize. 

Politicians and poets live in different worlds or live in the world differently. The choice is yours. 

Another Crazy Thought

 

Another Crazy Thought

Peter Schultz

 

 

I recently contrasted the madhouse paradigm with the slaughterhouse paradigm. But what if they are actually joined together? Those who fail to recognize the madhouse that is politics end up creating slaughterhouses in their attempts to bring order into the madhouse. This is something the Realists, the Power Brokers, the Masters of the Universe, don’t understand. 

(And this was why Kesey disowned the movie version of his book “One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest:” the movie humanized the Big Nurse. The book did not.) 

Trump’s moves in DC will become increasingly oppressive as he attempts to bring order to the madhouse of DC life. 

A significant delusion: that life is intrinsically orderly or that order is “the default” setting for humans and so it’s possible, even somewhat easy, to “restore” order. Not so much. All order is imposed, so all order(s) is/are precarious, intrinsically so.  Beware the slaughterhouses.

The Love of Fame

The Love of Fame

Peter Schultz

 

Hamilton wrote in the Federalist about “The love of fame, the ruling passion of the noblest minds….” What if Hamilton was wrong and the love of fame is not always an indication, a characteristic of a noble mind? What if the love of fame is characteristic of narcissistic minds, of those who think of themselves as great, as visionaries, ala’ Napoleon, Churchill, T. Roosevelt, W. Wilson, George W. Bush? 

 

And then what is to ensure that those “great projects” that Hamilton tells us the lovers of fame undertake will be as concerned with the common good as with satisfying their passion, the lust for fame? Recall Lincoln: the really great ones would enslave freemen or free slaves in order to satisfy their love of fame, their desire for “immortality.” And after all, the founders reconciled themselves to slavery in order to gain their fame. And as Walter Karp reminds us, Woodrow Wilson took the US into WW I, thereby helping to destroy the republic, in order to claim the fame of waging the war to end all wars. Even President McKinley succumbed to the temptation to wage war in order to make America and himself great. 

 

Isn’t this what Franklin was warning the constitutional convention about in his remarks on not paying presidents? Ambition and avarice combined are political nitro glycerin, with the result that the presidency will not attract men of peace. And certainly, the lovers of fame seem to be attracted to war and war-like politics. Absent war can presidents achieve greatness, fame? Hence, the allure of war. 

 

In the end, we end up with Trump, who confirms that the love of fame is not only consistent with narcissism but even fortifies it. Trump’s narcissism has flourished in the presidency. And of course Trump lives amidst other narcissists, who are also seeking fame. is this what Madison meant when he wrote in the Federalist that ambition should be used to check ambition because relying on virtue is never sufficient? Narcissists checking narcissists. What could go wrong?