I like to characterize politics as the art of division. That's a bit naughty of me, because when you turn to the philosophers they say that politics is either noble or necessary. For instance, Aristotle, according to La Wik, believed that, over the family and the village,
But I would say that these guys are missing the point. The need for politics arises instead after the local lord has become the war lord and successfully beaten off the invaders.
Put it this way. The warrior lord has rallied all the local warriors to his standard, has cooled their competitive ardor for a season, and has led them to victory over the deadly enemy. Now what?
The point is that after the war the tribe/polis/nation or whatever does not now need the super-unifying leadership required to win the war. On the other hand there is the danger that all the lordly warriors that rallied to the standard may now have ambitions of their own -- see Shakespeare's Wars of the Roses plays.
And politics now becomes a division no longer between us, the local tribe, and the foreign enemy, but now because a game of division between all the heads of power within the tribe/polis/nation. That is really what Aristotle's Politics and Plato's Republic are all about: trying to civilize these rough types and teach them virtue.
And Aristotle and Plato had the notion of designing a system to encourage virtue or educate ordinary people to become good citizens.
Then we come down to the early modern era of Hobbs, Locke, Montesquieu where the separation of powers notion is developed. Here we acknowledge that humans are bad, and need to be diverted into safe channels in their quarrels so that the pride and rage of ambitious men does not erupt into civil war.
In other words, for the early moderns, political institutions were intended to keep politics down to a low roar rather than a volcanic eruption.
Then we have the left, where politics becomes a saving faith. We see that in the French Revolution which turned Notre Dame into a Temple of Reason. And we see it in Marx where revolution is to defeat the rising bourgeoisie with the proletariat before it is too late. And good little girls today in the university are being taught that the highest form of life is to become an "activist."
In other words, for today's left, politics is civil war by other means.
But look up to the top of this piece where I said that politics arises after the warrior lord has won the victory against the barbarians at the gate. What do we humans do when the moment for absolute unity has passed?
Notice that in the United States it has been routine for the general of the armed forces in the late war to become president: Washington, Grant, Eisenhower.
May I say that it is another proof of God's existence that we had as president such good men that they did not use their war-hero status to create cults of personality and subject the US to their will, but instead ruled as benevolent monarchs for a season and then left office. Why did we deserve such noble creatures as our presidents?
And both Grant and Eisenhower came from humble beginnings. Grant's father was a tanner, and Eisenhower's father worked in a creamery. No aristocratic virtue and noblesse oblige there.
Now, it seems to me that politics arises after satisfying the need to have a strong military to defend the patch of land against the neighboring tribe, or the barbarians, or the neighbor nation state. Because everything came down to defending our food-growing land. What to do between wars of defense against the raiders? Enter politics.
On this view ancient politics is based on the need to preserve unity for the next war. The need is to keep ambitious men from wrecking the commonwealth with their destructive competition so that the nation can come together the next time it is threatened.
Notice how leftist politics turns this on its head. The problem of invasion is assumed away, because we are all members of the human race, and war never solved anything. Strictly speaking, this means no need for politics. No war, no military, no warrior chief, no warrior class, no need to keep the warriors from each others' throats in the peace. Instead leftist politics becomes a civil war within the political boundaries of the state between class, race, or gender rivals. And, in particular it becomes a war for justice for people unjustly kept outside the gate of the political community.
My point is that if you assume away the original need for the larger community and the need for unity against external threats, then the next thing is you start settling scores within the community. You can afford to do that because war never solved anything, therefore no war.
But here is what I consider the astonishing fact of the modern era. The new middle class, that Marx assumed would be bidding to take its place atop the heap as the feudal lords did in olden times, was not that interested in power.
Thus "activism" politics. The commercial middle class is not that interested in power, so if the activists present some helpless victims for inspection by the media, the middle class will probably act to redress their grievances.
But if this is true, then we really don't need activism politics. All grievances will eventually get reviewed and addressed. Because the middle class is basically good-natured. Because the bourgeoisie is not that interested in power.
This is not because the middle class is unusually virtuous, but because the nature of the modern market economy is that you trust anyone that presents themselves as trustable. Life is no longer a question of defending your patch of food-growing land from the neighbor. Now everyone is producing and trading and consuming. And the more people contributing to the market economy, in whatever way they can imagine, the better.
And what, in retrospect, is the point of winning a world war? After World War I the western allies were determined to teach Germany a lesson, and the result was Hitler and World War II. After World War II, it took a couple years for the western winners to decide that a Germany reduced to indigence did nobody any good, because it cost the allies a bundle to feed the Germans. So the Germans were allowed to rebuild their economy from the rubble, and their Wirtschaftwunder commenced.
This is astonishing. It means the complete annihilation of the old culture of loot and plunder: loot or be looted. Instead of your patch of land being the foundation of your wealth, and your neighbor a challenge to your well-being, it is the more the merrier.
It is my belief that this new economic reality is the most astonishing thing in the entire history of mankind, and we have not even begun to consider that the world has utterly changed, and what to do about it.
And the political question is at the heart of it. For if politics is not needed any longer to keep the elite barons from each others' throats during the peace, and there is no need for an activism politics to force justice upon a greedy and bigoted bourgeoisie, then what price politics?
Stay tuned, because we haven't even begun to deal with this astonishing new age and its consequences.
The highest form of community is the polis. Aristotle comes to this conclusion because he believes the public life is far more virtuous than the private and because men are "political animals."And then there is Plato with his Republic, proposing a Callipolis, the state ruled by the philosophers who educate their subjects into the right channels.
But I would say that these guys are missing the point. The need for politics arises instead after the local lord has become the war lord and successfully beaten off the invaders.
Put it this way. The warrior lord has rallied all the local warriors to his standard, has cooled their competitive ardor for a season, and has led them to victory over the deadly enemy. Now what?
The point is that after the war the tribe/polis/nation or whatever does not now need the super-unifying leadership required to win the war. On the other hand there is the danger that all the lordly warriors that rallied to the standard may now have ambitions of their own -- see Shakespeare's Wars of the Roses plays.
And politics now becomes a division no longer between us, the local tribe, and the foreign enemy, but now because a game of division between all the heads of power within the tribe/polis/nation. That is really what Aristotle's Politics and Plato's Republic are all about: trying to civilize these rough types and teach them virtue.
And Aristotle and Plato had the notion of designing a system to encourage virtue or educate ordinary people to become good citizens.
Then we come down to the early modern era of Hobbs, Locke, Montesquieu where the separation of powers notion is developed. Here we acknowledge that humans are bad, and need to be diverted into safe channels in their quarrels so that the pride and rage of ambitious men does not erupt into civil war.
In other words, for the early moderns, political institutions were intended to keep politics down to a low roar rather than a volcanic eruption.
Then we have the left, where politics becomes a saving faith. We see that in the French Revolution which turned Notre Dame into a Temple of Reason. And we see it in Marx where revolution is to defeat the rising bourgeoisie with the proletariat before it is too late. And good little girls today in the university are being taught that the highest form of life is to become an "activist."
In other words, for today's left, politics is civil war by other means.
But look up to the top of this piece where I said that politics arises after the warrior lord has won the victory against the barbarians at the gate. What do we humans do when the moment for absolute unity has passed?
Notice that in the United States it has been routine for the general of the armed forces in the late war to become president: Washington, Grant, Eisenhower.
May I say that it is another proof of God's existence that we had as president such good men that they did not use their war-hero status to create cults of personality and subject the US to their will, but instead ruled as benevolent monarchs for a season and then left office. Why did we deserve such noble creatures as our presidents?
And both Grant and Eisenhower came from humble beginnings. Grant's father was a tanner, and Eisenhower's father worked in a creamery. No aristocratic virtue and noblesse oblige there.
Now, it seems to me that politics arises after satisfying the need to have a strong military to defend the patch of land against the neighboring tribe, or the barbarians, or the neighbor nation state. Because everything came down to defending our food-growing land. What to do between wars of defense against the raiders? Enter politics.
On this view ancient politics is based on the need to preserve unity for the next war. The need is to keep ambitious men from wrecking the commonwealth with their destructive competition so that the nation can come together the next time it is threatened.
Notice how leftist politics turns this on its head. The problem of invasion is assumed away, because we are all members of the human race, and war never solved anything. Strictly speaking, this means no need for politics. No war, no military, no warrior chief, no warrior class, no need to keep the warriors from each others' throats in the peace. Instead leftist politics becomes a civil war within the political boundaries of the state between class, race, or gender rivals. And, in particular it becomes a war for justice for people unjustly kept outside the gate of the political community.
My point is that if you assume away the original need for the larger community and the need for unity against external threats, then the next thing is you start settling scores within the community. You can afford to do that because war never solved anything, therefore no war.
But here is what I consider the astonishing fact of the modern era. The new middle class, that Marx assumed would be bidding to take its place atop the heap as the feudal lords did in olden times, was not that interested in power.
Thus "activism" politics. The commercial middle class is not that interested in power, so if the activists present some helpless victims for inspection by the media, the middle class will probably act to redress their grievances.
But if this is true, then we really don't need activism politics. All grievances will eventually get reviewed and addressed. Because the middle class is basically good-natured. Because the bourgeoisie is not that interested in power.
This is not because the middle class is unusually virtuous, but because the nature of the modern market economy is that you trust anyone that presents themselves as trustable. Life is no longer a question of defending your patch of food-growing land from the neighbor. Now everyone is producing and trading and consuming. And the more people contributing to the market economy, in whatever way they can imagine, the better.
And what, in retrospect, is the point of winning a world war? After World War I the western allies were determined to teach Germany a lesson, and the result was Hitler and World War II. After World War II, it took a couple years for the western winners to decide that a Germany reduced to indigence did nobody any good, because it cost the allies a bundle to feed the Germans. So the Germans were allowed to rebuild their economy from the rubble, and their Wirtschaftwunder commenced.
This is astonishing. It means the complete annihilation of the old culture of loot and plunder: loot or be looted. Instead of your patch of land being the foundation of your wealth, and your neighbor a challenge to your well-being, it is the more the merrier.
It is my belief that this new economic reality is the most astonishing thing in the entire history of mankind, and we have not even begun to consider that the world has utterly changed, and what to do about it.
And the political question is at the heart of it. For if politics is not needed any longer to keep the elite barons from each others' throats during the peace, and there is no need for an activism politics to force justice upon a greedy and bigoted bourgeoisie, then what price politics?
Stay tuned, because we haven't even begun to deal with this astonishing new age and its consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment