tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post8878726529027205572..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Let's Get Moving Into ActionJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-91916289999742361642010-08-24T14:20:02.533-05:002010-08-24T14:20:02.533-05:00I'm intrigued by the notion of the "capac...I'm intrigued by the notion of the "capacity for enjoying and thriving at politics", and further by the notion that it may be (likely is?) unevenly distributed.<br /><br />Jonathan, I think the fear of "the unequal influence over government that would result from natural sorting" is at least partly answered by a Constitution that "counts on the complexity of the system to force people to actively engage in politics if they hope to get anything done. Simply registering one's preference or making demands will never be enough." <br /><br />So, even those who don't have much of a "capacity for enjoying and thriving at politics" will participate for their self-interested reasons, thereby checking and balancing well...people like us.massappealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17883213166005005577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-33631301640156088362010-08-24T11:29:14.344-05:002010-08-24T11:29:14.344-05:00"... if it turns out that capacity for enjoyi..."... if it turns out that capacity for enjoying and thriving at politics is unevenly distributed (the way that capacity for self-fulfillment in, say, music or fine art appear to be unevenly distributed), then it's not clear how we can justify the unequal influence over government that would result from natural sorting."<br /><br />I would say a large measure of unease comes from the greater capacity that those with resources have at engaging in politics: that as long as there is an inequality of material outcome -- which the vast majority of the country is more than comfortable with -- and as long as those materials can be translated into political influence and power, than there is an imbalance of political influence and power -- a result which bothers a good deal of Americans, I'd wager a majority. <br /><br />This is a big impetus behind "getting money out of politics"...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-3484373945123555192010-08-24T08:01:07.346-05:002010-08-24T08:01:07.346-05:00Jonathan,
Thanks for this post, and for the thoug...Jonathan,<br /><br />Thanks for this post, and for the thoughtful thread it inspired. <br /><br />Another facet of the history (current events for those living then) of the 1780s was, I believe, the very real threat that---for a variety of reasons---the "united states" would disunite into multiple smaller federations (e.g., New England, the Tidewater states, the mid-Atlantic) which would then 1) be more prone to fighting each other, and 2) be more easily picked off and recolonized by the European powers.<br /><br />By vesting the federal government with more power than it had under the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, among other things, created an increased self-interest for the states and their citizens to remain united, and to participate in their common governance. <br /><br />Notions of "self-interest" (and how to define it), and the tension between "the world as it v. the world as it should be" were central to Obama's training in political philosophy (i.e., his brief community organizing career) and seem to have remained part of his thinking today. <br /><br />P.S. I'd guess that Obama has read and discussed the Federalist Papers as well as Hannah Arendt. (And if he didn't, his organizing mentors likely did.)massappealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17883213166005005577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-34486376599859917122010-08-24T02:30:57.007-05:002010-08-24T02:30:57.007-05:00Well, certainly there's nothing wrong with ide...Well, certainly there's nothing wrong with identifying a certain idea as "Madisonian," or with looking to Madison or the Framers for political ideas. My point was about the links between three things: the Framers' philosophies or intentions; the political system they actually came up with after a bunch of compromises and expedients; and what that system actually delivers, especially 220 years later. Each of these is interesting and worth investigating in its own right, but I think the links among them are pretty weak, which means it's very tricky to draw inferences about any one of them from the others -- for instance, that the American system encourages political participation, therefore it's designed to do that, therefore James Madison (or others) must have had that aim in mind.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-67130951536955904382010-08-24T01:06:33.011-05:002010-08-24T01:06:33.011-05:00Hmmm...I definitely agree that it's silly to c...Hmmm...I definitely agree that it's silly to claim that specific points of the Constitution have to be right if we agree with Madison's political philosophy -- and that there's no legit justification for the malapportionment of the Senate. Also, I'm not claiming my reading of Madison for anyone but him; I see it as a significant break from the others. <br /><br />As far as the usefulness of the exercise...it depends. If we're purely interested in history, then, of course, getting the historical details correct matters a lot but it doesn't necessarily tell us anything about today. If, on the other hand, our interest is in understanding democracy, then it doesn't matter so much whether my reading of Madison is ultimately correct or not -- what matters is whether the democracy I ascribe to Madison does, in fact, tell us something important about democracy in general (and whether different reading might give us a richer idea of democracy, or not).Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-55720778886059888342010-08-23T20:44:29.264-05:002010-08-23T20:44:29.264-05:00Sorry, got some error message there. (Maybe “blog...Sorry, got some error message there. (Maybe “blogspot” disagrees with my analysis.) Anyway, all that said, I don't know which Framers would endorse which actual features of our system on grounds of public happiness, participation or virtue, let alone agree that the theory had proven correct over two centuries of historical experience. It could be that Madison or Hamilton (who disagree a lot) would tell you today, if either could, that the degree and kind of democracy they felt they had to accept in 1787 was a sharp departure from what they believed, ideally, would conduce to happiness as they understood it. Or they might say that they felt their design came out pretty well in those terms in 1787, but isn't remotely what they would NOW see as needed to bring happiness to an advanced industrial society with hundreds of millions of people -- that even their own theory(ies) would dictate an entirely different approach to democracy today. I just don't know, and I'm not sure how valuable it is to try to figure this out except as a kind of historical parlor game.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-8836370390536859702010-08-23T20:40:47.102-05:002010-08-23T20:40:47.102-05:00As I said, I yield to no one in admiring Madison&#...As I said, I yield to no one in admiring Madison's intellect, so I'm not denying that the Framing was ALSO an exercise in political philosophy. Clearly Madison and a few others took the political crisis that Holton describes -- roughly, if over-simply, a conflict between the creditor and debtor classes of the 1780s -- as an opportunity to go back to first principles, think about what government is for and how it ideally should function, and then bring those ideas to bear, where possible, in designing a new system. This is wisdom: looking beyond the immediate problem to try to find solutions that are intellectually coherent and well-grounded and, therefore, will stand the test of time.<br /><br />But the key is "where possible." My point about overthinking is that we should be careful about assuming that because theoretical coherence was important to(some of) the Framers, and because their work proved relatively lasting, therefore coherence was achieved, and we can now explain any given feature of the system as the institutional expression of some meaningful political philosophy. Sometimes we can, sometimes we can't. Madison (?) himself grants this in Federalist #62, when he talks about equality of representation in the Senate. He calls that arrangement a "lesser evil," "evidently [= obviously] the result of compromise," and "the only option" that could be politically agreed upon. He says "it is superfluous to try, by the standard of theory, a part of the Constitution which is allowed on all sides to be the result, not of theory, but 'of a spirit of amity'" etc. (i.e. of a desire to get the hell out of that stifling room in Philadelphia with some kind of deal). And yet, I wish I had a nickel for every time I've heard someone today, usually on the right, defend the gross malapportionment of the Senate as some kind of timeless expression of the Framers' wisdom, if not the genius of America itself -- a claim even its own authors didn't make.<br /><br />On the point we're discussing now -- the rationale for democracy -- I'm not well-read enough in the founding literature to know what specifically Madison or the others said by way of theory. In general, I'd be surprised if the Framers imagined they were trying to encourage political participation, since it was political participation run riot (in their view) that was causing the problems in the states that led to the pressure for a new Constitution. (That's how Holton tells the story, anyway.) I think a fair amount of their rhetoric of "virtue" was code for "let's restore power to an elite that sees public finance and debt from the responsible perspective of us rentiers." That's not to say they had nothing ELSE in mind or that their only thoughts were self- (or class-) interested. But objectively, the Constitution tended to centralize rather than disperse power, and it set up a lot of screens between popular demands and government policy. This was obvious to its original critics, who grasped right away that they were in a power struggle, not a philosophy seminar.<br /><br />(continued in the next comment…..)Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-15369174294591864242010-08-23T18:11:18.994-05:002010-08-23T18:11:18.994-05:00I carelessly left out the URL:
http://www.myhisto...I carelessly left out the URL:<br /><br />http://www.myhistorycanbeatupyourpolitics.blogspot.com/Nicholasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-10114092717492891562010-08-23T18:09:18.519-05:002010-08-23T18:09:18.519-05:00Random thought after reading this, Mr. Bernstein:
...Random thought after reading this, Mr. Bernstein:<br /><br />If you don't subscribe already, I would highly recommend Bruce Carlson's podcast, "My History Can Beat Up Your Politics." He posts roughly weekly, episodes generally 20-40 minutes long. Well worth the listen. The format takes a contemporary issue and draw parallels to past events in US history.Nicholasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-45357222423071195042010-08-23T17:55:58.305-05:002010-08-23T17:55:58.305-05:00Jeff,
Thanks for the comment. On the history...w...Jeff,<br /><br />Thanks for the comment. On the history...well, we're probably going to disagree, and I encourage everyone who is interested to read more -- I won't claim any special expertise at all. As far as common ground, I certainly agree that the Framers were dealing with practical political problems of the sort you describe, and that a lot of what they did was driven by expedience, not grand democratic theory. I do think, however, that to some extent they, or at least Madison, did think of some of these problems as troubling symptoms, rather than (simply) as a question of rejiggering institutions to produce different winners. YMMV.<br /><br />On your #3 and #4, yup. I don't mean to imply either that my list is exhaustive, or that I endorse one particular view. I do think that those who consider democracy to be inherently on the side of the poor (I'm trying to remember without the book in front of me...I think Ian Shapiro called democracy something like the "ideology of opposition", but that doesn't sound quite right, but it's something like that) are mistaken. But I'm certainly not saying that I think all "better outcomes" justifications are wrong, by any means.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-26238821289385931332010-08-23T17:42:04.644-05:002010-08-23T17:42:04.644-05:00I should add that I think that #3 is, more or less...I should add that I think that #3 is, more or less, the argument that Jefferson and his colleagues make in the Declaration, so it also has a Founding pedigree.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-554491293505154352010-08-23T17:36:31.891-05:002010-08-23T17:36:31.891-05:00A couple of things. First, while I yield to no one...A couple of things. First, while I yield to no one in my admiration for Madison as a political philosopher, it's helpful not to overthink the Framing, which was in large part a response to the demands of bondholders who were alarmed that too many state governments had fallen under the control of the debtor classes. Never mind Charles Beard; see Woody Holton's much more recent _Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution_ for more on this. The Framers were looking for ways to solve immediate political problems, like: protecting the "sanctity of contracts" (i.e. bondholders' ability to collect money); allowing enough democracy to satsify popular demands while still seeing that real power remained in the hands of The Right People (aka "men of virtue"); and, of course, reconciling what were already serious rifts between Northern / industrializing / large states and Southern / agrarian / smaller states (not that the categories aligned perfectly, but you know what I mean).<br /><br />Second, the two basic rationales given here for democracy miss a couple of other important ones:<br /><br />3. A political community belongs to no one other than itself, and therefore has the right to make its own rules. And any member of the political community has a right to participate in that rule-making, not just because it might lead to better outcomes or as a matter of "happiness" however defined, but simply because s/he IS in fact a member of that community, a constituent part of an agency that does not answer to any other agency.<br /><br />4. As Amartya Sen argues (with respect to developing countries), you need democracy in order to keep people from starving to death. That is, it's important that people's needs (e.g. "our crops are failing, we need food") exert pressure on the regime to see that those needs are met.<br /><br />That last might be a variant of the "better outcomes" argument. But I think it's distinguishable for some purposes -- for instance, even if you don't believe that public involvement GENERALLY leads to better policymaking, you might still grant that SOME basic line of communication between people and rulers is essential, long-term, if you're even going to have a viable and stable society.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-27109524244961310252010-08-23T14:58:23.327-05:002010-08-23T14:58:23.327-05:00The distinction I would make, along with a lot of ...The distinction I would make, along with a lot of 18th-Century writers, is that the purpose of Democracy is not to create a perfect government, or even the best of all possible governments, but to create a democratic people.<br /><br /><strong>Walt Whitman</strong>: Did you, too, O friend, suppose democracy was only for elections, for politics, and for a party name? I say democracy is only of use there that it may pass on and come to its flower and fruits in manners, in the highest forms of interaction between men, and their beliefs—in religion, literature, colleges, and schools—democracy in all public and private life, and in the army and navy.<br /><br />That's from the wonderful essay <a href="http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/Whitman/vistas/vistas.html" rel="nofollow">Democratic Vistas</a>.<br /><br />I'm not sure it all falls under <i>happiness</i> as such; I don't think Walt Whitman would describe it that way. But I don't think that it needs to fall under happiness to be described as a moral good independent of its ability to govern.<br /><br />Noelle McAfee has some points about this in her book, where she talks about the competing storylines of a democratic journey <i>from dependence to independence</i> versus that <i>from silence to participation</i>.<br /><br />Thanks,<br />-V.Vardibidianhttp://www.kith.org/journals/vardibidian/noreply@blogger.com