The Anti-Federalists and Responsible Government: Why We Cannot “Go There”
P. Schultz
February 27, 2011
Returning to the material presented and debated in class on Friday, here is some further material on the Anti-Federalist cause of responsible/responsive government and why we the people today find it so strange as to seem insane. But perhaps it is not the AF who were insane or delusional.
(A) Responsible government as responsive government, that is, as a government that responds to the people, follows the people’s desires and wishes, without trying to change them or impose on the people “a vision” conceived by some leader like the president. This is decidedly weird to us. As a student wondered, this is not possible because government must keep secrets and responsive government requires “transparency.”
Student: “We can’t have that. It’s dangerous to national security.”
AF: “Perhaps. But an AF government would not need to keep secrets – or as many secrets – because it would not pursue the kind of foreign policy that necessitates secrets, a lot of secrets, because it involves us in the affairs of other nations in ways that it would be embarrassing or imprudent to reveal. But if we pursued a different foreign policy, minding our own business, no CIA would be necessary and we would need to keep fewer secrets. This is just a simple fact. No CIA = fewer secrets.”
Implication: AF system is fundamentally different than a Federalist system ala’ the Constitution and would pursue, therefore, a fundamentally different kind of foreign policy, a policy of “minding our own business by and large.”
BUT THIS IS WHERE WE THE PEOPLE TODAY STOP. And we stop because we cannot conceive that such a foreign policy would “work” or be “desirable.” We cannot think outside “the box” we have created – and only since about 1900 – and which we take and mistake for “reality.” But it’s only reality because we have made it so.
(B) AF responsive government requires different institutional arrangements than we are use to, viz., short terms in office and stiff term limits. For illustration purposes, say 2 one year terms and then the official has “to go home,” never to serve in that capacity again. Why?
(1) Such arrangements create frequent turnover because it is required. No professional politicians, as we like to call them.
(2) Such arrangements severely limit the incentive to spend huge sums of money to obtain office.
(3) Such arrangements severely limit the incentives for “the ambitious” to seek office as a means of obtaining “status” or what Hamilton called “the love of fame,” the “ruling passion of the noblest minds.” [But even mediocrities share “the love of fame,” as apparently everyone wants their fifteen minutes, at least.]
(4) Such arrangements limits incentives to propose and undertake extensive governmental projects meant to re-make society, such as a New Deal, a New Frontier, the Great Society, No Child Left Behind, the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, the Race to the Top.
BUT THIS IS WHERE WE STOP – AGAIN – AND FOR THE SAME REASON. Because we cannot conceive, literally cannot conceive, of society “working” without thinking in terms of ambitious, grand, even grandiose projects as we try, to use the most current lingo, “Win the future.” We have, as a people, become to used to such projects that (a) we hardly blink when a candidate proposes some new project that will re-make society and take us to the “promise land,” and (b) almost no one questions such projects as insanely ambitious and, hence, almost certain to fail, as they have again and again. We ignore these failures or make them disappear by explaining them away as “one-off events” that tell us nothing about how we think about and talk about politics. Which is weird because as recent history illustrates – the implosion of the USSR and the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt – all that is necessary for us to change our ways is to change how we think. But apparently, we are not prepared to do this.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Involvement?
For some years now I have been trying to convince students not to participate in SGA, that is, the Student Government Association. In part, or so it seemed to my mind for some time now, I thought this was funny and a harmless way to make some young people think about what they were doing. It was also in large part a result of my conclusion that “student government” is, by and large, a joke because the students did not have very much power or whatever power they had they got because some BOBs allowed them to have it.
But of late I have begun to think that there is more to this argument than even I knew. I have, recently, begun to think about “involvement” and the prejudice that students and even the rest of us should, as we like to say, “get involved.” I mean, for starters, what does this recommendation take for granted about the world that we live in? Does it not have to imply that this world is amenable to change, to reform, and that all we have to do is apply ourselves, “get involved,” and we can “make a difference.”
But suppose this is a mythical view of the world we live. Suppose that this world is less amenable to change, to reform than we would prefer to think. Suppose, if you would momentarily, that this world is so resistant to change that those who “involve” themselves in it, more often than not come to grief, not success. In fact, to take this to an extreme, suppose that the world we live in is so resistant to change, to reform that sooner than getting “involved” one should seek to escape, to make an effort to remain uninvolved in order to preserve one’s sanity, one’s safety, one’s happiness.
Recently, and quite by accident, I stumbled upon a book entitled Socratic Citizenship, the argument of which is that Socrates’ idea of citizenship was essentially or deeply negative, that is, was based on the recommendation to “do no injustice.” As the author points out, Socrates thought that it was worse to do than to suffer injustice, a thought that distinguishes Socrates from us and from most human beings. But think about it in terms of the all-too-common recommendation “to get involved,” which must mean “do justice.” Socrates was, by this reckoning, quite a conservative chap because he did not say to the youth of Athens, “get involved,” or “do justice.” Rather, he said to the youth of Athens, “don’t do injustice.” [Think of the Crito in this light and Socrates’ refusal to escape makes sense: that is, he would not do an injustice either to Athens or to Crito by escaping. Men like Crito made Athens more just and Crito was more just by remaining a part, an unalienated part of Athenian society.]
Think further about it in terms of politics: Which is more likely to lead human beings to do injustice[s], an active, interventionist government or an “inactive,” let-it-be government? In foreign affairs, the answer seems all-too-obvious: An active, interventionist foreign policy is more likely to lead to injustices than a foreign policy of “manly indifference” or “benign indifference.” We call these injustices “collateral damage.” But we all know this is a cover for “injustice.” Or to take an example from domestic politics: Which is more likely to lead to injustices, a war on drugs or a more moderate, law enforcement approach to drugs? Or: Which is more likely to lead to injustices: A national education policy or educational policies controlled by the states and localities? Is it not unjust to fire all teachers of “failing” school systems as measured by the results of test mandated by a national government?
And so, involvement or non-involvement? Perhaps the answer is not as clear as we have been taught to think.
But of late I have begun to think that there is more to this argument than even I knew. I have, recently, begun to think about “involvement” and the prejudice that students and even the rest of us should, as we like to say, “get involved.” I mean, for starters, what does this recommendation take for granted about the world that we live in? Does it not have to imply that this world is amenable to change, to reform, and that all we have to do is apply ourselves, “get involved,” and we can “make a difference.”
But suppose this is a mythical view of the world we live. Suppose that this world is less amenable to change, to reform than we would prefer to think. Suppose, if you would momentarily, that this world is so resistant to change that those who “involve” themselves in it, more often than not come to grief, not success. In fact, to take this to an extreme, suppose that the world we live in is so resistant to change, to reform that sooner than getting “involved” one should seek to escape, to make an effort to remain uninvolved in order to preserve one’s sanity, one’s safety, one’s happiness.
Recently, and quite by accident, I stumbled upon a book entitled Socratic Citizenship, the argument of which is that Socrates’ idea of citizenship was essentially or deeply negative, that is, was based on the recommendation to “do no injustice.” As the author points out, Socrates thought that it was worse to do than to suffer injustice, a thought that distinguishes Socrates from us and from most human beings. But think about it in terms of the all-too-common recommendation “to get involved,” which must mean “do justice.” Socrates was, by this reckoning, quite a conservative chap because he did not say to the youth of Athens, “get involved,” or “do justice.” Rather, he said to the youth of Athens, “don’t do injustice.” [Think of the Crito in this light and Socrates’ refusal to escape makes sense: that is, he would not do an injustice either to Athens or to Crito by escaping. Men like Crito made Athens more just and Crito was more just by remaining a part, an unalienated part of Athenian society.]
Think further about it in terms of politics: Which is more likely to lead human beings to do injustice[s], an active, interventionist government or an “inactive,” let-it-be government? In foreign affairs, the answer seems all-too-obvious: An active, interventionist foreign policy is more likely to lead to injustices than a foreign policy of “manly indifference” or “benign indifference.” We call these injustices “collateral damage.” But we all know this is a cover for “injustice.” Or to take an example from domestic politics: Which is more likely to lead to injustices, a war on drugs or a more moderate, law enforcement approach to drugs? Or: Which is more likely to lead to injustices: A national education policy or educational policies controlled by the states and localities? Is it not unjust to fire all teachers of “failing” school systems as measured by the results of test mandated by a national government?
And so, involvement or non-involvement? Perhaps the answer is not as clear as we have been taught to think.
Involvement?
For some years now I have been trying to convince students not to participate in SGA, that is, the Student Government Association. In part, or so it seemed to my mind for some time now, I thought this was funny and a harmless way to make some young people think about what they were doing. It was also in large part a result of my conclusion that “student government” is, by and large, a joke because the students did not have very much power or whatever power they had they got because some BOBs allowed them to have it.
But of late I have begun to think that there is more to this argument than even I knew. I have, recently, begun to think about “involvement” and the prejudice that students and even the rest of us should, as we like to say, “get involved.” I mean, for starters, what does this recommendation take for granted about the world that we live in? Does it not have to imply that this world is amenable to change, to reform, and that all we have to do is apply ourselves, “get involved,” and we can “make a difference.”
But suppose this is a mythical view of the world we live. Suppose that this world is less amenable to change, to reform than we would prefer to think. Suppose, if you would momentarily, that this world is so resistant to change that those who “involve” themselves in it, more often than not come to grief, not success. In fact, to take this to an extreme, suppose that the world we live in is so resistant to change, to reform that sooner than getting “involved” one should seek to escape, to make an effort to remain uninvolved in order to preserve one’s sanity, one’s safety, one’s happiness.
Recently, and quite by accident, I stumbled upon a book entitled Socratic Citizenship, the argument of which is that Socrates’ idea of citizenship was essentially or deeply negative, that is, was based on the recommendation to “do no injustice.” As the author points out, Socrates thought that it was worse to do than to suffer injustice, a thought that distinguishes Socrates from us and from most human beings. But think about it in terms of the all-too-common recommendation “to get involved,” which must mean “do justice.” Socrates was, by this reckoning, quite a conservative chap because he did not say to the youth of Athens, “get involved,” or “do justice.” Rather, he said to the youth of Athens, “don’t do injustice.” [Think of the Crito in this light and Socrates’ refusal to escape makes sense: that is, he would not do an injustice either to Athens or to Crito by escaping. Men like Crito made Athens more just and Crito was more just by remaining a part, an unalienated part of Athenian society.]
Think further about it in terms of politics: Which is more likely to lead human beings to do injustice[s], an active, interventionist government or an “inactive,” let-it-be government? In foreign affairs, the answer seems all-too-obvious: An active, interventionist foreign policy is more likely to lead to injustices than a foreign policy of “manly indifference” or “benign indifference.” We call these injustices “collateral damage.” But we all know this is a cover for “injustice.” Or to take an example from domestic politics: Which is more likely to lead to injustices, a war on drugs or a more moderate, law enforcement approach to drugs? Or: Which is more likely to lead to injustices: A national education policy or educational policies controlled by the states and localities? Is it not unjust to fire all teachers of “failing” school systems as measured by the results of test mandated by a national government?
And so, involvement or non-involvement? Perhaps the answer is not as clear as we have been taught to think.
But of late I have begun to think that there is more to this argument than even I knew. I have, recently, begun to think about “involvement” and the prejudice that students and even the rest of us should, as we like to say, “get involved.” I mean, for starters, what does this recommendation take for granted about the world that we live in? Does it not have to imply that this world is amenable to change, to reform, and that all we have to do is apply ourselves, “get involved,” and we can “make a difference.”
But suppose this is a mythical view of the world we live. Suppose that this world is less amenable to change, to reform than we would prefer to think. Suppose, if you would momentarily, that this world is so resistant to change that those who “involve” themselves in it, more often than not come to grief, not success. In fact, to take this to an extreme, suppose that the world we live in is so resistant to change, to reform that sooner than getting “involved” one should seek to escape, to make an effort to remain uninvolved in order to preserve one’s sanity, one’s safety, one’s happiness.
Recently, and quite by accident, I stumbled upon a book entitled Socratic Citizenship, the argument of which is that Socrates’ idea of citizenship was essentially or deeply negative, that is, was based on the recommendation to “do no injustice.” As the author points out, Socrates thought that it was worse to do than to suffer injustice, a thought that distinguishes Socrates from us and from most human beings. But think about it in terms of the all-too-common recommendation “to get involved,” which must mean “do justice.” Socrates was, by this reckoning, quite a conservative chap because he did not say to the youth of Athens, “get involved,” or “do justice.” Rather, he said to the youth of Athens, “don’t do injustice.” [Think of the Crito in this light and Socrates’ refusal to escape makes sense: that is, he would not do an injustice either to Athens or to Crito by escaping. Men like Crito made Athens more just and Crito was more just by remaining a part, an unalienated part of Athenian society.]
Think further about it in terms of politics: Which is more likely to lead human beings to do injustice[s], an active, interventionist government or an “inactive,” let-it-be government? In foreign affairs, the answer seems all-too-obvious: An active, interventionist foreign policy is more likely to lead to injustices than a foreign policy of “manly indifference” or “benign indifference.” We call these injustices “collateral damage.” But we all know this is a cover for “injustice.” Or to take an example from domestic politics: Which is more likely to lead to injustices, a war on drugs or a more moderate, law enforcement approach to drugs? Or: Which is more likely to lead to injustices: A national education policy or educational policies controlled by the states and localities? Is it not unjust to fire all teachers of “failing” school systems as measured by the results of test mandated by a national government?
And so, involvement or non-involvement? Perhaps the answer is not as clear as we have been taught to think.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
O'Brien and Presidendial Politics
Reflecting some more on O'Brien's In the Lake of the Woods and politics, here focusing on presidential elections as spectacle.
“This whole game – politics – it’s like hustling a woman. Same principle more or less.”
Kathy rolled her eyes but said nothing.
“Wrap your mind around it,” Tony said. “You’re at a party, say. You spot this hot looker across the room, this real babe, so you wander over and start politicking. Nice firm handshake, look her in the eye. Talk about every damn thing under the sun. Talk about Aristotle and Gandhi, how these guys affected you on a deep personal level, how they changed your life forever. Tell about your merit badges, that terrible experience you had with polio, what a sensitive human being you are, and then after a while, real polite, you invite the broad to dinner, blow a month’s pay, shovel out the oysters and caviar. Pretty soon she starts to owe you. It’s never said like that, not direct, but this little pumpkin knows the rules, she knows how the deal works. Code of commerce, so to speak. Anyhow, the whole time you keep talking up your qualifications, how you’re nuts about public TV, et cetera, ad shitum. The spiel’s important right? Wining and dining, all the courtship stuff, you got to do it. Because the girl’s human just like you and me. She’s got an ego. She’s got her dignity. I mean, she’s a living, breathing piece of ass and you got to respect that.” [pp. 150-151]
Now one of the interesting aspects of this passage is that the “real babe” knows the “code of commerce.” So a question is: Why does she play the game? What does she get out of the game, other than a meal and maybe more? And another question, dealing with politics: If we the people are being seduced, as the real babe is, then why we do play the game? What do we get out of it?
Presidential elections are, perhaps, the best example to use here. We participate because we like to think that we are involved in something important, something real, just like the woman who is being wined and dined. She likes to think that she is involved in something important, something real, that perhaps a great love affair is unfolding and that she’s not only a part of it but even the cause of it.
Same with presidential elections. We like to think that something important, something real is happening – that history, our history, is unfolding in a big way and that we are part of that and, more, that we are the cause of it. We are the engine driving the unfolding of our history, driving us toward our collective destiny, which the election will significantly alter. This is what we like to think because it makes us and our actions seem important, even crucial.
But what if, actually, presidential elections are little more than spectacle, a lot like a Super Bowl, and we are merely spectators watching two rivals “fight it out” to see, quite simply, who will be “the winner?” And the result has no more or little more effect on our history than the outcome of any Super Bowl. The only result is another “winner” and another “loser,” just as the only result of the wining and dining is whether the winer and diner “scores” or not!
Monday, February 14, 2011
Politics: A Different View
Some Thoughts About Politics and Politicians From Tim O’Brien’s In the Lake of the Woods
February 14, 2011
This is taken from Tim O’Brien’s In the Lake of the Woods, which should be read by all political science majors.“This whole game – politics – it’s like hustling a woman. Same principle more or less.”
Kathy rolled her eyes but said nothing.
“Wrap your mind around it,” Tony said. “You’re at a party, say. You spot this hot looker across the room, this real babe, so you wander over and start politicking. Nice firm handshake, look her in the eye. Talk about every damn thing under the sun. Talk about Aristotle and Gandhi, how these guys affected you on a deep personal level, how they changed your life forever. Tell about your merit badges, that terrible experience you had with polio, what a sensitive human being you are, and then after a while, real polite, you invite the broad to dinner, blow a month’s pay, shovel out the oysters and caviar. Pretty soon she starts to owe you. It’s never said like that, not direct, but this little pumpkin knows the rules, she knows how the deal works. Code of commerce, so to speak. Anyhow, the whole time you keep talking up your qualifications, how you’re nuts about public TV, et cetera, ad shitum. The spiel’s important right? Wining and dining, all the courtship stuff, you got to do it. Because the girl’s human just like you and me. She’s got an ego. She’s got her dignity. I mean, she’s a living, breathing piece of ass and you got to respect that.” [pp. 150-151]
So, a question: If in this analogy, the people are the girl, what is it that the people get out of this charade? We know what the girl gets, fed and screwed. Is that what the people get too, that is, fed and screwed? Might be worth thinking about.
Of course, these days, depending on where the party is being held or who is holding it, you had better mention Jesus and how much he means to you. And, you might want to mention how you would like to privatize social security and how Obama is a socialist with a radical political agenda. But these are just details, as the rules of the game stay the same.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Magic and Politics
An interesting quote to think about:
"It has been said that a miracle is the result of causes with which we are unacquainted. Once these causes are discovered we no longer have a miracle, but natural law....In a way, all of us dislike the laws of nature. We should prefer to make things happen in the more direct way in which savage people imagine them to happen, through our own invocation." Robert Parrish, The Magician's Handbook.
Do our politicians engage in "magical thinking," as it were, thinking that they can make things happen "through [their] own invocation"? No children left behind. All racing to the top.[So DOD Sec. Rumsfeld could assert smugly: "I don't do quagmires!" thinking no doubt that this invocation settled the matter.] So, therefore, if we wanted something we like to happen in Iraq, it would, if we made use of the proper invocations or use the appropriate tricks, e.g., "shock and awe" or "counterinsurgency." We need not be constrained by "natural law" or the limits of our knowledge about Iraq. Quite magically, we will, as Shrub said in his speech, "bring freedom to Iraq!" Abracadabra, "Mission Accomplished"!
"It has been said that a miracle is the result of causes with which we are unacquainted. Once these causes are discovered we no longer have a miracle, but natural law....In a way, all of us dislike the laws of nature. We should prefer to make things happen in the more direct way in which savage people imagine them to happen, through our own invocation." Robert Parrish, The Magician's Handbook.
Do our politicians engage in "magical thinking," as it were, thinking that they can make things happen "through [their] own invocation"? No children left behind. All racing to the top.[So DOD Sec. Rumsfeld could assert smugly: "I don't do quagmires!" thinking no doubt that this invocation settled the matter.] So, therefore, if we wanted something we like to happen in Iraq, it would, if we made use of the proper invocations or use the appropriate tricks, e.g., "shock and awe" or "counterinsurgency." We need not be constrained by "natural law" or the limits of our knowledge about Iraq. Quite magically, we will, as Shrub said in his speech, "bring freedom to Iraq!" Abracadabra, "Mission Accomplished"!
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Madmen and Madwomen
In today’s [Feb. 9, 2011] NY Times there is an article entitled “Mideast Allies Favor Stability Over Immediate Change in Egypt, Diplomats Tell U.S.” And in this article it is asserted that this diplomatic pressure “is paying off” as the U.S. has said that it is supporting “an ‘orderly transition’” in Egypt, one managed by Vice President Suleiman. Hilary Clinton, the Sec. of State, has said that Mubarak’s resignation “might complicate rather than clear Egypt’s path to democracy.”
What are these but dreams of mad men and women? When has the “path to democracy” from tyranny been uncomplicated? After the American Revolution? After the overthrow of Communism in the Soviet Union? After the French Revolution?
The question is a simple one: What world are these diplomats and secretaries of state and vice presidents living in, because it surely is not the one I live in?
And one more question: Is it wise or even prudent to trust a dictator or two dictators [Mubarak and Suleiman] to “transition” to democracy? Isn’t this a lot like trusting the fox to guard the chicken coop?
So, if you want an illustration of the delusions or illusions that our leaders suffer from, you should just keep your eyes on Egypt and their attempts to put “the genie back in the bottle,” a bottle by the way that they created for the sake of “stability” in the first place. Hey, what’s that common saying that “insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?” I agree but would only change the word “insanity” to “normality:” Normality is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)