Political Innovation! Reading Responses (1)
The Federalist
In general, these letters seem to at the same time both incredibly prophetic and incredibly optimistic. The most prophetic passages described issues such as the emergence of two parties who were so violent and vitriolic in their rhetoric that it did not matter whether or not they were truly correct in their policy opinions. They, of course, warn of the possibility of some great speakers coming in and swaying minds through powerful rhetoric. Though they mention the possibility of the "correct" policy being only supported by the softspoken, and some great charismatic leader ready to lead the nation into ruin, they posit that it would be equally likely to be the other way around. But as great a threat such a dynamic would be, it's also an amazing opportunity as shown by people like MLK, so I don't particularly know whether or not to be worried by such things, as it seems to me we should be less worried about the great speakers than we should be about the voters who are easily swayed without truly understanding.
Also, seemingly inherent in the arguments about defense and the merits of a single powerful federal government in that regard seems to be the idea that unless the nation is founded at the beginning with a powerful central government, power will inevitably flow to the individual states (eventually resulting in the less-than-preferable situation laid out in the paper). I feel like this is a reasonable assumption, as without a strong central government to rely on for various needs, whenever a new issue comes up, nobody would bother to turn to the federal government for help, and this phenomenon would just increase the responsibilities (and consequently power) of the state governments.
Another point about the benefits of a republic mentioned was the idea that the "greatest men" would stand up to lead the nation. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case in modern industrial society. I don't mean to say that there aren't any good politicians, but at least from what I see, the vast majority of "great men" are people running empires like Google (which honestly has done more to improve my life than the government, and I don't even pay them money!)
Regarding factions, however, I think the federalist way of thinking ended up being flawed. Particularly, Brutus's letters regarding factions seem to have ended up being particularly true. In so many states (even our own), districts are so fixed that people really aren't particularly held accountable to the voters as there are so many people who they can count on to vote their party. The evils of lobbyists! I think they had it right when they warned of the dangers of only needing to sway "17" people to get something passed.
Cornel West: The Deep Democratic Tradition in America
West seems to have many great points that most anyone can agree with: modern politics has gone from public interest to special interests, and the fact that we need to discuss more than the Bush administration as some giant evil in order to return to politics that has the good of the people at heart. (Though I admit the idea of a tax policy where the upper 50% of income earners pay 97+% of income tax being "grossly favoring those who are already well off" is kind of ridiculous, but I'll try and ignore it).
My biggest problem with it, however, is that the individualistic ideals which West cites and which I completely love and agree with, are exactly what he proclaims them to be. D(d)emocratic ideals, not republican ideals. If we truly lived in a democracy, then surely it would be amazing for everyone to question the outside and look deep inside themselves for what they find to be true and good and ideal. But in a republic, electing representatives, for this to truly be effective and reflected in votes, we would need 2^(n) candidates at least, given n issues important to the general voting public. Yet, it seems that we have trouble coming up with any more than 2 competent candidates in any political race.
While I completely and wholly support the denial of special interest control and a return to these deep democratic ideals, I truly doubt that unless some giant-scale revival occurs, along with the voters actually being knowledgeable about issues, we can't expect this to have any real effect. (In fact, we ESPECIALLY need voters to be more educated and knowledgeable about the issues first. I honestly don't have much faith in "rule by the people" when "the people" are nothing but morons who don't know anything about what they're voting on.
Reinhold Niebuhr: Moral Man and Immoral Society
I can almost understand, just from the writing style, why Niebuhr is supposedly quoted often by both liberals and conservatives. It seems so heavy with material that nothing can stand out from the writing unless it be something that the reader already agrees with. For that reason, I'm a bit hesitant in my response. There are many interesting points, mostly attacking the idealism of various ways of thinking. "If only we could get together and talk out our differences, everything would be fine." Some arrogant thoughts as, "If only everyone just followed this new way of living we thought up, that is obviously perfect in every way, then we would all be happy!"
It reminded me particularly of a recent story I heard about Indonesia, where American Environmentalists came by and screwed everything up. After a couple hundred years, the people living in this one area developed traditions that allowed them to live in harmony with the Komodo dragons. They would revere them as incarnations of ancestors, treat them with respect, and occasionally tie goats to posts as sacrifices for the dragons. Environmentalists decided, "no no, that's silly. We need to love everything. We can't be so mean to the goats! Stop sacrificing them!" So, that was outlawed, and now the dragons have been terrorizing the village, running into classrooms and killing and eating children. "If only everyone just followed our loving and accepting way of life, everybody would be happy."
Edward Bellamy: Looking Backward: 2000-1887
Chapter 1:
The metaphor of pulling a carriage was particularly interesting, reminding me of a philosophical argument I heard once: A certified lifeguard passes by a lake with a drowning man on his way to the opera. Instead of helping, he ignores it as he doesn't want to ruin his expensive suit. It was used as an argument for helping the poor and starving in other countries by sending money, as it's just as preposterous not doing so as it is to walk by a dying man and not help because you don't want to ruin your clothes.
It seemed analogous to this situation, with all of the people sitting on top doing nothing but feeling bad for the poor, maybe occasionally offering bandaids, which I admit is preposterous. But at least in modern America, it seems a bit of an oversimplification, where there is a great deal more categories than "those who toil" and "those who ride easy". It seems maybe an unfair comparison between those who profit from physical labor and those who profit from more mental labor and business.
Chapter 4:
The first appearance of the grand new Utopia! I would very much like to know how the idea of such a prosperous city, dependent on everyone's contributions to public property, can really be justified or explained. It reminds me a bit of the great future of Gene Roddenberry, where humans have moved past the silly notions of money and profit, and everyone simply works together in a grand paradise and to explore the vast expanse of space. That was, of course, a complete fantasy with no real justification besides 3 centuries of time and "magic". We'll have to see where this goes.
Chapter 5:
Amazing! Somehow unregulated capitalism and monopolies will solve all of our problems. I find this particularly strange and counter-intuitive. A monopoly controls a market with its vast capital in order to produce more capital for a number of purposes. 1, to improve their product, advance science/society/etc, as well as make sure people keep buying their product, in the case of non-consumable items (In the case of most consumable items, when it comes waaay down to it, they can be produced on a small scale without truly being crushed, if the monopoly becomes too oppressive with their pricing).
2, to profit so that the big players in the business can get more stuff! The point is to sell items for more than material so that workers/businessmen can maintain their lifestyle by purchasing from other businesses. Why then, would all of a sudden having one giant monopoly help the situation? It would seem that instead, this would just end up (with the people "governing" production) in an enormous problem, like the old example of the soviet union going a year without toilet paper because somebody forgot to put it on the list of "things we need to produce for the country".
Also, while the idea that giant concentration of capital does tend to produce more capital, making the rich richer and the poor poorer, etc. etc. is somewhat true, Bellamy seems to have been unable to predict--so far--the modern "Venture Capitalists", where those with physical capital seek out those with mental capital in order to "consolidate" and produce even more! This, of course, rather than a giant monopoly, can provide any number of great innovations for the betterment of society.
This world almost seems like it would have to assume that the people who would be great businessmen would have to step up and lead the people's monopoly out of the good of their hearts and not the desires of their pocketbooks, just as the federalist papers assumed the greatest citizens of the nation would step up to lead. I personally think these both were a little bit ridiculous, as shown with modern government, where there's plenty of persistent problems (i.e. San Francisco homelessness) where nobody ever gets kicked out of power despite trying the same "solution" over and over again without realizing that it doesn't help at all. (but I digress)
Chapter 6:
"We have no wars now, and our governments no war power,"
This seems an interesting thought that "if only everyone had enough, then people wouldn't be sad or corrupt or evil anymore". The idea of "no war power" seems crazy. At least as I think of things, there will always be the possibility of some crazy lunatic sprouting up and killing people. But there apparently is no worry about that. I don't really understand how without national war power, it's not simply reverting to days of muskets, or further back to swords, knives, and clubs.
However! I do love the idea that there is no longer any temptation for politicians to be corrupt! This is surely a great problem, when governors get ridiculous luxuries (like the jet that Palin sold on ebay). Surely fixing the corruption in the manner described would greatly help the world, but for a truly talented individual, (in real America), rather than go into public service, they would probably be most likely to move into business, leaving the less than stellar and the extremely selfless for public office. But I guess that's nothing to worry about when everybody profits exactly the same from the giant monopoly.
This still, however, leaves the question of how you get a person's full potential worth when they have no real incentive (on such a large scale, them giving 100% vs. 25% will have little to no effect on their own individual situation, other than living a more relaxed life by giving only 25%. This, then would just lead to a grand lazy and eventually poor society as I see it). Thinking of "shaming" people into work through societal norms, seems just like it is today. Bums perfectly capable of labor who shun jobs because the government has decided to support them instead. Without some form of compulsion (i.e. sow less, reap less), I don't see how this can actually be conceivable.
Chapter 7:
It's all well and good to have a great education system leading people into the professions at which they are most skilled, but this seems to have no room for innovation! How will people present new ideas into industry, new ways to improve life for all and new technologies if they're simply guided into an already established profession? Not to mention the idea of the administration calculating demand seems incredibly worrisome.
In general, these letters seem to at the same time both incredibly prophetic and incredibly optimistic. The most prophetic passages described issues such as the emergence of two parties who were so violent and vitriolic in their rhetoric that it did not matter whether or not they were truly correct in their policy opinions. They, of course, warn of the possibility of some great speakers coming in and swaying minds through powerful rhetoric. Though they mention the possibility of the "correct" policy being only supported by the softspoken, and some great charismatic leader ready to lead the nation into ruin, they posit that it would be equally likely to be the other way around. But as great a threat such a dynamic would be, it's also an amazing opportunity as shown by people like MLK, so I don't particularly know whether or not to be worried by such things, as it seems to me we should be less worried about the great speakers than we should be about the voters who are easily swayed without truly understanding.
Also, seemingly inherent in the arguments about defense and the merits of a single powerful federal government in that regard seems to be the idea that unless the nation is founded at the beginning with a powerful central government, power will inevitably flow to the individual states (eventually resulting in the less-than-preferable situation laid out in the paper). I feel like this is a reasonable assumption, as without a strong central government to rely on for various needs, whenever a new issue comes up, nobody would bother to turn to the federal government for help, and this phenomenon would just increase the responsibilities (and consequently power) of the state governments.
Another point about the benefits of a republic mentioned was the idea that the "greatest men" would stand up to lead the nation. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case in modern industrial society. I don't mean to say that there aren't any good politicians, but at least from what I see, the vast majority of "great men" are people running empires like Google (which honestly has done more to improve my life than the government, and I don't even pay them money!)
Regarding factions, however, I think the federalist way of thinking ended up being flawed. Particularly, Brutus's letters regarding factions seem to have ended up being particularly true. In so many states (even our own), districts are so fixed that people really aren't particularly held accountable to the voters as there are so many people who they can count on to vote their party. The evils of lobbyists! I think they had it right when they warned of the dangers of only needing to sway "17" people to get something passed.
Cornel West: The Deep Democratic Tradition in America
West seems to have many great points that most anyone can agree with: modern politics has gone from public interest to special interests, and the fact that we need to discuss more than the Bush administration as some giant evil in order to return to politics that has the good of the people at heart. (Though I admit the idea of a tax policy where the upper 50% of income earners pay 97+% of income tax being "grossly favoring those who are already well off" is kind of ridiculous, but I'll try and ignore it).
My biggest problem with it, however, is that the individualistic ideals which West cites and which I completely love and agree with, are exactly what he proclaims them to be. D(d)emocratic ideals, not republican ideals. If we truly lived in a democracy, then surely it would be amazing for everyone to question the outside and look deep inside themselves for what they find to be true and good and ideal. But in a republic, electing representatives, for this to truly be effective and reflected in votes, we would need 2^(n) candidates at least, given n issues important to the general voting public. Yet, it seems that we have trouble coming up with any more than 2 competent candidates in any political race.
While I completely and wholly support the denial of special interest control and a return to these deep democratic ideals, I truly doubt that unless some giant-scale revival occurs, along with the voters actually being knowledgeable about issues, we can't expect this to have any real effect. (In fact, we ESPECIALLY need voters to be more educated and knowledgeable about the issues first. I honestly don't have much faith in "rule by the people" when "the people" are nothing but morons who don't know anything about what they're voting on.
Reinhold Niebuhr: Moral Man and Immoral Society
I can almost understand, just from the writing style, why Niebuhr is supposedly quoted often by both liberals and conservatives. It seems so heavy with material that nothing can stand out from the writing unless it be something that the reader already agrees with. For that reason, I'm a bit hesitant in my response. There are many interesting points, mostly attacking the idealism of various ways of thinking. "If only we could get together and talk out our differences, everything would be fine." Some arrogant thoughts as, "If only everyone just followed this new way of living we thought up, that is obviously perfect in every way, then we would all be happy!"
It reminded me particularly of a recent story I heard about Indonesia, where American Environmentalists came by and screwed everything up. After a couple hundred years, the people living in this one area developed traditions that allowed them to live in harmony with the Komodo dragons. They would revere them as incarnations of ancestors, treat them with respect, and occasionally tie goats to posts as sacrifices for the dragons. Environmentalists decided, "no no, that's silly. We need to love everything. We can't be so mean to the goats! Stop sacrificing them!" So, that was outlawed, and now the dragons have been terrorizing the village, running into classrooms and killing and eating children. "If only everyone just followed our loving and accepting way of life, everybody would be happy."
Edward Bellamy: Looking Backward: 2000-1887
Chapter 1:
The metaphor of pulling a carriage was particularly interesting, reminding me of a philosophical argument I heard once: A certified lifeguard passes by a lake with a drowning man on his way to the opera. Instead of helping, he ignores it as he doesn't want to ruin his expensive suit. It was used as an argument for helping the poor and starving in other countries by sending money, as it's just as preposterous not doing so as it is to walk by a dying man and not help because you don't want to ruin your clothes.
It seemed analogous to this situation, with all of the people sitting on top doing nothing but feeling bad for the poor, maybe occasionally offering bandaids, which I admit is preposterous. But at least in modern America, it seems a bit of an oversimplification, where there is a great deal more categories than "those who toil" and "those who ride easy". It seems maybe an unfair comparison between those who profit from physical labor and those who profit from more mental labor and business.
Chapter 4:
The first appearance of the grand new Utopia! I would very much like to know how the idea of such a prosperous city, dependent on everyone's contributions to public property, can really be justified or explained. It reminds me a bit of the great future of Gene Roddenberry, where humans have moved past the silly notions of money and profit, and everyone simply works together in a grand paradise and to explore the vast expanse of space. That was, of course, a complete fantasy with no real justification besides 3 centuries of time and "magic". We'll have to see where this goes.
Chapter 5:
Amazing! Somehow unregulated capitalism and monopolies will solve all of our problems. I find this particularly strange and counter-intuitive. A monopoly controls a market with its vast capital in order to produce more capital for a number of purposes. 1, to improve their product, advance science/society/etc, as well as make sure people keep buying their product, in the case of non-consumable items (In the case of most consumable items, when it comes waaay down to it, they can be produced on a small scale without truly being crushed, if the monopoly becomes too oppressive with their pricing).
2, to profit so that the big players in the business can get more stuff! The point is to sell items for more than material so that workers/businessmen can maintain their lifestyle by purchasing from other businesses. Why then, would all of a sudden having one giant monopoly help the situation? It would seem that instead, this would just end up (with the people "governing" production) in an enormous problem, like the old example of the soviet union going a year without toilet paper because somebody forgot to put it on the list of "things we need to produce for the country".
Also, while the idea that giant concentration of capital does tend to produce more capital, making the rich richer and the poor poorer, etc. etc. is somewhat true, Bellamy seems to have been unable to predict--so far--the modern "Venture Capitalists", where those with physical capital seek out those with mental capital in order to "consolidate" and produce even more! This, of course, rather than a giant monopoly, can provide any number of great innovations for the betterment of society.
This world almost seems like it would have to assume that the people who would be great businessmen would have to step up and lead the people's monopoly out of the good of their hearts and not the desires of their pocketbooks, just as the federalist papers assumed the greatest citizens of the nation would step up to lead. I personally think these both were a little bit ridiculous, as shown with modern government, where there's plenty of persistent problems (i.e. San Francisco homelessness) where nobody ever gets kicked out of power despite trying the same "solution" over and over again without realizing that it doesn't help at all. (but I digress)
Chapter 6:
"We have no wars now, and our governments no war power,"
This seems an interesting thought that "if only everyone had enough, then people wouldn't be sad or corrupt or evil anymore". The idea of "no war power" seems crazy. At least as I think of things, there will always be the possibility of some crazy lunatic sprouting up and killing people. But there apparently is no worry about that. I don't really understand how without national war power, it's not simply reverting to days of muskets, or further back to swords, knives, and clubs.
However! I do love the idea that there is no longer any temptation for politicians to be corrupt! This is surely a great problem, when governors get ridiculous luxuries (like the jet that Palin sold on ebay). Surely fixing the corruption in the manner described would greatly help the world, but for a truly talented individual, (in real America), rather than go into public service, they would probably be most likely to move into business, leaving the less than stellar and the extremely selfless for public office. But I guess that's nothing to worry about when everybody profits exactly the same from the giant monopoly.
This still, however, leaves the question of how you get a person's full potential worth when they have no real incentive (on such a large scale, them giving 100% vs. 25% will have little to no effect on their own individual situation, other than living a more relaxed life by giving only 25%. This, then would just lead to a grand lazy and eventually poor society as I see it). Thinking of "shaming" people into work through societal norms, seems just like it is today. Bums perfectly capable of labor who shun jobs because the government has decided to support them instead. Without some form of compulsion (i.e. sow less, reap less), I don't see how this can actually be conceivable.
Chapter 7:
It's all well and good to have a great education system leading people into the professions at which they are most skilled, but this seems to have no room for innovation! How will people present new ideas into industry, new ways to improve life for all and new technologies if they're simply guided into an already established profession? Not to mention the idea of the administration calculating demand seems incredibly worrisome.