Posts Tagged ‘Ethics’

How the Republican Party Became a Death Cult (pt. 4, conclusion)

August 31, 2021

            So, just as the Religious Right embraced nuclear conflagration as a good thing and thus rejected diplomatic efforts aimed at avoiding the destruction of the world, so too did 20th century apocalypticism support Republican contempt for climate science.  The Revelation of John describes a situation of famine and inflation of basic food prices, so warnings from Al Gore about future famines if global warming ran unchecked didn’t frighten them.  They welcomed the idea that some sort of food crisis would precipitate the U.N. takeover of world government and worldwide food rationing.  A few million or billion humans dead from starvation is a small price to pay for eternal salvation; and besides, “prophecies” from A Thief in the Night to Left Behind have assured Evangelicals that they won’t experience any of this suffering themselves.  They, the faithful ones, will be caught up to Heaven in an instant, while only those faithless, godless hordes and a few weaker Christians “left behind” to suffer oppression and thus fulfill the Biblical warnings that the faithful would be persecuted will have to endure any of this.  While the original apocalyptic writings were addressed to people already undergoing persecution, today’s milquetoast, middle-class prophecies are meant to reassure the comfortable that they can profit now from ravaging the world’s resources, and later miraculously disappear from history to watch the Tribulations unfold on Earth while they sit as the audience in Heaven, enraptured.

            Evangelicals plan to ride to victory with Death, War and Famine; could you really expect they’d turn down the fourth horseman, Pestilence?  The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the full enervation of the Republican Party by this Evangelical anti-abortion, pro-business apocalypticism.  When Donald J. Trump won the New Hampshire primary in 2016, many Evangelicals were dismayed; he was a rich, pampered, self-indulgent, self-promoting New Yorker, nearly everything they’d always claimed to despise.  But he was endorsed by Jerry Falwell Jr. and promised to appoint anti-choice judges; so just as they had overlooked Falwell Jr.’s sexual and financial excesses because of his successful father and his support of “traditional” values, so too they agreed to first ignore, and later even to glorify what they had once regarded as Trump’s sins and shortcomings in exchange for his furthering their political agenda.  Many of us looked at his career, his public statements, his legal history and the words of his confidants, and concluded that he was temperamentally and intellectually unsuited to high office—or low office, for that matter.  We predicted that he would use the office for his own financial gains and to settle personal grudges, and that he would make foolish decisions while ignoring the “experts” because of his own confidence in his genetic superiority.[1]  We predicted that his racist rhetoric and his racist actions in the past showed that he was incapable of governing a diverse society and unwilling to try.  And for these reasons, we believed he would eventually face a crisis that no amount of smug superiority or “power of positive thinking” could overcome, which would wreck his presidency and the nation.  As Jon Stewart said, even if you don’t like Hillary, the worst you might get with her is a bad president.  The nation has survived that before.  Trump was a whole other level of danger.  But to Evangelicals, the dangers of world war, economic collapse, famine, even pandemic were at worst nothing, and at best harbingers of the Kingdom of God; but abortion (something the Bible doesn’t even treat as a sin) is really terrible, while the promise of White Evangelical cultural dominance was intoxicating. So they laughed off the warnings from “socialists” and embraced a man they had once abhorred:  the money-grubbing, pussy-grabbing, bad-mouthing, threat-breathing braggart, Donald Trump. 

            And behold, all that the nasty socialist liberals warned against has come to pass.    He, his family and their associates used their offices for financial gain, whether it was charging the Secret Service to lodge in Trump Tower and various Trump golf courses to protect him and his family, to using a border crisis to force Qatar to “loan” Jared Kushner millions of dollars, to multiple Cabinet members and others using their official power to throw taxpayer money to businesses they were invested in or to kneecap competition.  Despite promising to assemble a team of experts to advise him, he dispensed with them as rapidly and frequently as he does wives and mistresses, driving many into early retirement so that not only did he not have the benefit of their experience, but future governments wouldn’t either.  His racist rhetoric has repeatedly inspired mass murderers and domestic terrorists, while he affirmed that those who walk shoulder-to-shoulder with Nazis were “very fine people.”  He spent years manufacturing crises and scandals, using one to distract from the other until, inevitably, a crisis came along that he couldn’t just wish away because he wasn’t the sole cause of it in the first place.  As his critics had predicted, he not only failed to deal with it effectively, he didn’t even try.  His sole instinct is to create chaos and instability, so that no one has the time to realize how incompetent and venial he really is; so his only plan when faced with a crisis is to make it worse.  He intentionally played the states off against each other, expecting people to blame their governors for the deaths while he took credit for the booming economy he’d inherited and squandered.[2]  He mocked the doctors and scientists who were trying to advise him and the nation, while turning to hucksters and conspiracy theorists who said everything from “it’s just a cold” to “disease is caused by demon sperm.”  As predicted, his reckless policy of “rob the poor, give to the rich” together with his general hubris, indolence, cowardice, impulsiveness and stubborn ignorance led to a national disaster.  And, as his long-time friend, lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen had predicted, he attempted a coup rather than accept defeat at the ballot box.[3]  After all, Donald Trump had spent decades saying that you should never admit defeat, and even claimed his half-dozen bankruptcies were brilliant business moves rather than failures; why would he suddenly start admitting defeat at his advanced age? 

            And, like some mass hysteria or epidemic-level Stockholm Syndrome, the Republican party follows him lock-step, marching over every cliff, seeing themselves as Achilles’ Myrmidons in their loyalty while the rest of us see only lemmings.  At least lemmings don’t drag other animals with them to the sea.  Republicans have become the party that will pay $400 to get a fake “vaccine passport” rather than just get a free vaccine.  They’ll refuse the vaccine because they don’t know what’s in it, while winding up in the hospital with poisoning from ingesting horse dewormer and fish-tank cleaner.  They’ll worry about carbon dioxide poisoning from wearing the same mask their doctors and nurses will wear for twelve hours a day while treating them when they show up at the hospital with failing lungs and bursting capillaries in their skulls from COVID-19.  And when some business tries to protect its employees and customers, or teachers try to protect their students by following the recommendations of doctors and scientists who spent decades studying viruses, they are harassed, threatened, even murdered by Republicans—people who only a few years ago were sane, normal neighbors and friends and steady customers.  The Republican Party has become a death cult, like Jonestown or Heaven’s Gate or the Manson Family, only on a larger scale.  Hitler’s plan to destroy German homes and industry was an attempted national suicide, because he’d lost the war and wanted to take everything down with him.  White American Fundamentalists are even more insane; they see this Gotterdammerung , this self-imposed apocalypse, not as a twilight of the gods but as the great dawn of the Savior they created in their own image.  The Republican Party is an arsonist who thinks he’s a phoenix, and would burn down the whole world so that he can attain immortality.  And like an unvaccinated COVID-19 patient gasping out their last breath, or burying an unvaccinated spouse or child, they will be more surprised than anyone when this fails.


[1] Caroline Mortimer, “Donald Trump Believes He Has Superior Genes, Biographer Claims;” Independent September 20, 2016 (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-president-superior-genes-pbs-documentary-eugenics-a7338821.html)

[2] Charlotte Klein, “The 5 Most Damning Things Jared Kushner Told Bob Woodward about Trump’s COVID Strategy;” Intelligencer October 28, 2020 (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/the-5-worst-things-kushner-said-about-trumps-covid-strategy.html)

[3] Rob Porter, “Michael Cohen Predicts Trump Will ‘Never Leave Office Peacefully’ Because He’s Terrified of Being Sent to Prison;” Business Insider August 14, 2020 (https://www.businessinsider.com/michael-cohen-book-foreword-trump-will-never-leave-office-peacefully-2020-8)

How the Republican Party Became a Death Cult, pt. 3

August 28, 2021

            The so-called “Moral Majority” and “Religious Right” jumped into politics just as apocalypticism was on the rise, and they used it as a motivational force to fire up their voters.  It also came to drive much of their thinking on political policy, and these notions in turn began to take over Republican thinking in general.  The Antichrist was predicted to be a “world leader,” so Evangelical “prophets” devised an elaborate fantasy whereby the United Nations and its Secretary General would take over the entire world, which would be pretty amazing given the general fecklessness of the organization to date.  (This had the added advantage that it saved them from asking uncomfortable questions about who really is said to be “the most powerful man on Earth,” the Caesar of the 20th Century’s greatest empire, and thus the most logical applicant for the role of “all-powerful world leader” which they were advertising—POTUS.)  Israel plays a major part in the Apocalypse despite the fact that it wasn’t even an independent nation when either Daniel or John wrote, so the Religious Right became Zionists; but the final Battle of Armageddon takes place in Israel, so the Religious Right had to oppose any possibility of peace that might have ensured Israel’s existence.[1]  Instead, since their vision required a nuclear conflagration before Jesus returns, the Religious Right has consistently pushed for more militarism, more war, more international tension, and either pooh-poohed the dangers of World War III (since the Good People will be raptured away to Heaven) or actively sought to encourage it.  No war, no Jesus, so they have to have their war.  The Religious Right thus pushed the Republican Party to become, quite simply, pro-death, pro-war, pro-Armageddon. 

            The same logic drives GOP contempt for diplomacy also drives much of its contempt for climate science.  The Revelation of John depicts a world in famine, with both land and sea in near-total environmental collapse.  Since this disaster for humanity (not to mention nonhumans, since these superlative Christians never mention them) is actually a blessing for the “true believers” who expect to be raptured away into Heaven before things get really bad and then to return with Jesus to rule over the miraculously restored new Earth, they actually welcome all the dire warnings of environmentalists.  They want the Earth to burn with wildfires and drought. They want crops to fail and fish to die.  All of this is simply the fulfillment of their vision of the End Times.

            I cannot emphasize enough how mistaken and self-serving all of this is.  The original apocalyptic writings have two things in common.  First and most obviously, they are all extremely symbolic.  Many of these symbols are traditional, practically a code which is understood by the community but unintelligible to outsiders.  When the original readers of Daniel read a description of a series of kingdoms ending in a divided kingdom (Daniel 2:31-45) they knew to whom it referred:  the kingdoms of the Persians and the Greeks, to Alexander’s empire which was divided at his death, and which they believed would be replaced by the reign of God.  When John’s readers read a description of a beast with seven heads, they knew it meant Rome and the Caesars (Revelation 13:1-10).  They did not expect a literal beast, and for the most part they were not too surprised when the world didn’t end and they had to reinterpret the prophesies.  We can see this in the Gospels, where the more apocalyptic Mark (the first written) was succeeded by others that depicted the Kingdom of God as an ongoing, growing reality, the Church.  The oldest versions of Mark end at the empty tomb; Luke by contrast wrote a sequel, the Acts of the Apostles, where the Kingdom of God is seen being fulfilled not in the end of the world but in the ministry of Paul in Rome.  The end of the world prophecies that most Christians believed were fulfilled as the world they had known did, in fact, end, replaced by a new and unimaginable reality:  the Roman gods thrown down, and worship of the God of Israel spread around the world.  But the end and the new beginning were different than they’d expected, and for the most part they rolled with it.  Today’s Fundamentalists,  with their selective biblical literalism, demand a literal end of the world, while claiming the authority and mission to change how these ancient symbolic writings were understood to fit the political agenda they desire—their dislikes become demons, their ideological targets become the Antichrist, and so on. 

            The second, and essential reality of apocalyptic writings are that they were addressed to the poor and persecuted.  Both the writings of Paul and contemporary nonchristian sources indicate that most (not all) early Christians were from the lower classes—not too surprising given the demographics of the Roman Empire, but apparently noteworthy enough at the time.  The writings of Daniel were addressed to the victims of persecution by Antiochus; the writings of John were addressed to Christian churches in Asia Minor, which were under pressure from social, political and economic powers around them.  They were messages to inspire hope in those who had no earthly reason to hope.  By contrast, today’s White Evangelical community is culturally and politically dominant, a powerful force worldwide and particularly in the United States, the most powerful nation on Earth.  While the original apocalyptic writings were meant to comfort the afflicted and condemn the comfortable, the new apocalyptic writings of Hal Lindsey and Tim LeHaye, Jerry Jenkins and company are meant to comfort the comfortable, and thus often end up afflicting the afflicted.  They are aimed at showing White, middle-class Fundamentalists that they really do know more about science, economics, politics and everything else, and that those people who didn’t believe them will burn in Hell.  They aim to show that weak and poor nations deserve to be weak and poor, while the United States is rich and strong because God has blessed it for being the home to Christian Fundamentalism.  They aim to reinforce the economic status quo; there’s a direct line between the Christian Dominionism of R. J. Rushdoony, the Christian nationalism of Jerry Falwell, and the Prosperity Gospel that tells the poor that if they show their faith by sending money to the TV preacher God will make them rich.  John of Patmos wrote from exile and imprisonment, but today’s apocalyptic writers are well-funded by the rich who want to wrap themselves in this new gospel that protects their wealth from condemnation.[2]


[1] Mary Jane MacKay (correspondent) and Michael H. Gavshon (producer), “Zion’s Christian Soldiers,” 60 Minutes aired October 6, 2002 (https://www.cbsnews.com/video/zions-christian-soldiers/ transcript https://www.cbsnews.com/news/zions-christian-soldiers/ )

[2] This alliance goes back to the early intellectual fountainhead of the Religious Right, R. J. Rushdoony, who was bankrolled by businessmen opposed to FDR’s New Deal. See Michael J. McVicar, “The Libertarian Theocrats:  the long, strange history of R. J. Rushdoony and Christian Reconstructionism;” September 1, 2007 (https://www.politicalresearch.org/2007/09/01/libertarian-theocrats)

How the Republican Party Became a Death Cult (pt. 2)

August 26, 2021

Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority

            While Rushdoony and his Chalcedon Foundation originally acted as a “think tank” rather than a lobbyist or activist organization, another Evangelical organization arose that began as legal/political activists and later added more theological and intellectual argument (much of it drawn from Rushdoony).  In response to the Republican Eisenhower Administration’s efforts to desegregate the South, White Evangelicals had established a network of private schools from kindergarten through college.[1]  In these schools, “race-mixing” was taught to be a sin, a violation of God’s intention in creating people as different races and nations.  The argument was that since segregation was a religious belief, and the Constitution protects freedom of religion, the Feds had to allow the White racist religiously-backed private schools the freedom to discriminate against nonwhites and to teach White supremacy.  Jerry Falwell and the other early leaders of the Religious Right started their political careers fighting to demand that racist schools like Bob Jones University be granted Federal funds and tax exemption, effectively requiring taxpayer support for their racism.  Ultimately, they failed in the case of Bob Jones, which was forced to choose whether it wanted Federal support or racism.  But in the years of legal and political fighting, Falwell and his allies had built a political organization, and they didn’t want to let it falter.  They had developed a taste for political power and activism Evangelicals hadn’t had since their heyday fighting Darwin in the 1920s.  As the segregationist cause faltered and Evangelical leaders realized they couldn’t ride to victory on a White horse, they began searching for another cause.  In the meantime, Republican activist Paul Weyrich had spent years looking for a cause—any cause—that would move Evangelicals to the Republican party.  Six years after the Roe v. Wade decision declaring abortion a Constitutional right, Weyrich, Falwell and others decided to fight abortion and make that a religious doctrine as well as a political weapon.  Prior to this, Protestants generally saw abortion as a “Catholic issue;” the Pope opposed it, but Fundamentalist Protestants followed the Biblical teaching that life begins with the first breath.[2]  As the 1970s were ending and, coincidentally, I was reaching voting age, White Evangelicals were lining up behind the Republican banner to fight abortion.

Celebrating Armageddon

            The 1970s were also a time of the rise of apocalypticism in the popular culture.  Poorly-made movies like A Thief in the Night, depicting the sudden Rapture, the rise of the Antichrist as UN Secretary General, a world government persecuting Evangelicals and so on were hugely influential in Fundamentalist circles, but had little impact beyond them.  Books like Hal Lindsey & Carole Carlson’s The Late, Great Planet Earth broke into the pop culture, feeding into Cold War anxieties about nuclear annihilation.  The End of Days has always been an effective trope for Evangelical preachers, ever since “Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God” was preached by Jonathan Edwards in Colonial New England; as the end of the world became a technological and political possibility, such notions moved from sermons and revivals to widespread secular worry.  So as White Evangelicals were beginning to move into the Republican party and become more powerful politically than they had been in decades, they were also becoming more apocalyptic.  For all the language of Falwell and others about the importance of preserving the physical, political United States as a bulwark against atheist Communism and a launching-pad for evangelism, millions of Evangelicals (and others) were increasingly convinced that neither the United States, nor anything else was likely to survive more than a few years.  For Evangelicals, this fear of nuclear annihilation was countered with the hope of apocalyptic writings in the Book of Daniel, the Revelation of John and other biblical texts, so that the destruction of the world became not just something God would ultimately overcome, but actually an essential part of God’s redemptive work.  Just as God had destroyed the world through water in Noah’s time so that a cleaner, less sinful world could be established, so soon, very soon God would destroy the world again, this time through nuclear fire, and Jesus would finally be able to return and create a new Kingdom of God that would last for all time.

            Rushdoony’s son-in-law, Gary North took over the leadership at the Chalcedon Foundation, pushing it in a more activist and more apocalyptic direction.  He earned the derisive nickname “Scary Gary” for his repeated dire predictions of some coming catastrophe, most notably Y2K, each of which was just around the corner and would lead to the collapse of civilization.  His political goal was that the U.S. Constitution should be scrapped and replaced with a Christian theocracy, and that the churches should be ready to step in and provide vital services such as education and all social welfare when government collapsed.  The only government structure that would remain (or be rebuilt) after whatever disaster he was predicting at the time occurred would be a bare minimal libertarianism.  In many ways, he combines Ayn Rand with the very sort of religious “mystery” that she so much despised.  This differs from Rushdoony’s original vision in that it makes the Church central even over the family, and it pushes political activism and campaigning to advance towards this Christian libertarian utopia rather than relying on the grace of God. 

to be continued….


[1] Randall Balmer, “The Real Origins of the Religious Right;” Politico May 27, 2014 (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/)

[2] See Bob Allen, “Evangelicals and Abortion:  Chicken or Egg?” Baptist Global News November 6, 2012 (https://baptistnews.com/article/evangelicals-and-abortion-chicken-or-egg/#.YQrGtR1Onb4); also David Roach, “How Southern Baptists Became Pro-Life;” Baptist Press January   16, 2015 (https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/how-southern-baptists-became-pro-life/) and Neil Carter, “What does the Bible say about Abortion?” Patheos October 23, 2016 (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2016/10/23/what-does-the-bible-say-about-abortion/)

How the Republican Party Became a Death Cult (pt. 1)

August 24, 2021

How the Republican Party Became a Death Cult

Most troubling of all, perhaps, was a sentiment the expert said a member of Kushner’s team expressed: that because the virus had hit blue states hardest, a national plan was unnecessary and would not make sense politically. “The political folks believed that because it was going to be relegated to Democratic states, that they could blame those governors, and that would be an effective political strategy,” said the expert.

—–Katherine Eban, “How Jared Kushner’s Secret Testing Plan Went ‘Poof’ Into Thin Air” [1]

            The political world has turned upside-down since I was a child.  Growing up in the South in the 1960s, the Democratic Party had near total control of politics, and was often corrupt (Huey Long, etc.) and/or violently racist (Faubus, Wallace, etc.).  White Evangelicals, still stinging from the rebuke they suffered in the Scopes Monkey Trial debacle, often counseled the faithful to stay out of politics and let the state run its affairs; this had the added payoff that it allowed the Southern Baptist Convention and other churches to officially stay out of the segregation debate as a secular political issue unrelated to “saving souls.”  It was generally held that in many areas, particularly the rural counties that were the majority in the South, no one could win office without at least the passive acceptance of the Klu Klux Klan.  Republicans in the South were a minority of the racially progressive, the pro-business (which often meant pro-Northern business, as the South was economically undeveloped), and/or the educated, any group that couldn’t easily ally itself with the KKK. 

            What the Hell happened to the GOP?  How did they go from Teddy Roosevelt anti-corruption progressivism to millions of Americans googling “Emoluments Clause” virtually every day from 2016-2020?  How did they go from Eisenhower sending the 82nd Airborne to desegregate Little Rock  to Donald Trump sending in armed marshals to attack unarmed and peaceful protestors for a photo-op?  How did they go from the Party of Lincoln to the party that stormed the Capitol waiving Confederate flags?  The short answer is, “Nixon’s Southern Strategy,” but I’d prefer a bit more detail.

            R. J. Rushdoony and the Chalcedon Foundation

            Evangelicals did not simply wake up one day and decide all that “character matters” stuff was bunk, Northern billionaires were better than working-class people and having Russia like us was more important than protecting our own troops when a KGB officer-turned-politician puts a bounty on their heads.  The monster that is Trumpism (or Qristianity) flowed from a noxious cauldron bubbling with the worst political impulses of Western civilization.  And the guy who provided the first poisoned toad[2] was an avowedly nonpartisan and rather apolitical theologian:  Rousas John Rushdoony. [3]  Rushdoony was a rather eccentric and extreme Fundamentalist Calvinist even by the standards of the party of Barry Goldwater.  His opposition to Communism, evolution and the general breakdown of morality he saw around him led him to call for the end of democracy and even of the nation-state.  He argued for a Christian society where the government would be too weak and decentralized to interfere with businesses, but would punish non-Christians with death by stoning.  A child of refugees from the Armenian genocide, he went on to become a Holocaust denier and allied with neo-Confederate slavery apologists.  To an outsider, he seems to be a mass of contradictions.  He was initially funded by businessmen who were looking for a moral and theological cloak for their anti-New Deal policies; later even the more secular libertarians and more visible Evangelicals alike distanced themselves from him, while adopting and mainstreaming many of his views.  His central theme was that post-Enlightenment  civilization had turned away from God, who is the only source of truth; to regain their moral compass, their political cornerstone and their scientific guiding light, humanity must return to God’s revelation as it is expressed in the Bible.  This would mean a society resembling an idealized version of the Book of Judges more than Locke’s vision of a civil commonwealth:  a society where nonbelief was exterminated as a deadly threat, but without any central authority beyond the family.  In its original form, Christian Reconstructionism is rather utopian and mostly harmless.  Rushdoony expected this social revolution to occur spontaneously, by the grace of God, and not through human political activity or imposition.  It might take a thousand years, but eventually humanity would recognize their liberal errors and return to the Gospel (as that Gospel was interpreted by Fundamentalists like himself and his Orthodox Presbyterian Church).  But already, the poisonous brew that threatens to destroy our nation was coming together.  Rushdoony was funded by capitalists looking for a Christianity that would counter the dominant theologies of the day, which mostly supported a stronger social safety net.  FDR’s policies may have saved thousands of Americans from starvation and millions from permanent generational poverty, and Eisenhower’s policies may have started a movement towards racial justice that was centuries overdue, but Rushdoony was worried about the dangers of liberalism rather than the horrors of genocide and oppression which had afflicted Jews, Blacks and even his own Armenian people just in his lifetime.  He allied himself with business interests who cared more for protecting their own profits than in building up their nation; and he later joined in the historical revisionism of slavery apologists and Holocaust deniers.  While he himself was suspicious of political activism, his efforts to publicize his views brought together money, racism and Christian Dominionism.


[1] Katherine Eban, “How Jared Kushner’s Secret Testing Plan Went ‘Poof’ Into Thin Air;” Vanity Fair July 30, 2020 (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/07/how-jared-kushners-secret-testing-plan-went-poof-into-thin-air)

[2] William Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act 4, scene 1

[3] Mary Whorton, “The Chalcedon Problem:  Rousas John Rushdoony and the Origins of Christian Reconstructionism;” Church History vol 77, no. 2, (June 2008, Cambridge University Press ) pp. 399-437

Theses Attributable to Aristotle: Third Thesis: A “citizen” is one who both obeys the laws and has a part in making them.

July 22, 2021

Third Thesis:  A “citizen” is one who both obeys the laws and has a part in making them.

But surely men praise the ability to rule and to be ruled, and the virtue of a citizen of repute seems to be just this—to be able to rule and be ruled well.

—–Aristotle, Politics, Book III, chapter iv, 1277a25

            Aristotle’s Athens and the United States of America have at least one thing in common:  both had to think about what it means to be a “citizen.”  The USA had to think about citizenship because the nation was born out of revolution; and in defining the citizen, the State and the relationship between them, its Founding Fathers drew explicitly on the intellectual history of which Aristotle is an important part.  Aristotle, and the other thinkers of his day, had to reflect on the nature of citizenship because the ancient traditions were not so universally accepted as they had been.  Greece itself was governed by different, often warring city-states, with different political institutions and different views of government and citizenship.  Greek merchants traded with empires and nations that differed even more drastically from the Greek assumptions.  Western philosophy began along the coast of present-day Turkey, where Greek and non-Greek cultures, religions, moral and political assumptions from different nations collided on a daily basis.  At first, the earliest of those we now call “philosophers” primarily focused on scientific questions, such as how the world was made; living in a region where Zeus and Marduk and others all claimed the title “Creator,” some Greeks decided to try to use human reason to answer the question instead of relying on religious traditions and myths alone.  Later, this rational, humanist approach to seeking truth was extended even to morality and politics.  Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and other great thinkers lived as the Athenian way of democratic government was collapsing; Aristotle’s own student, Alexander the Great, would go on to destroy the independent Greek city-states once and for all.  It was a world in political transition, and transition demands attention.  What is a citizen? 

            Rather than rely solely on tradition, or on the laws of his own city-state, Aristotle sought to look at all the various definitions and to define what “citizen” meant in all of them.  To be a citizen, he said, was to be eligible for “honors,” that is, public office.  One who was a citizen had the right to have a part in making the laws, or in carrying them out by participating in the civic institutions.  This, he said, was what it meant to be a “citizen” whether one lived in a monarchy or some more representative state.[1] 

            At the same time, though, to be a “citizen” in a properly-run state is more than just giving orders and rendering judgments.  Aristotle argued that a properly-run state, whether it was governed by one person, a small group or by the majority, was run according to rule of law.  If the leaders acted according to the state’s constitution and for the good of the nation, it would be a healthy, stable society where its members could practice their personal virtue and strive for eudaimonia as well as their nature was suited; if the leaders acted without regard to the laws and traditions of the society, seeking their own good rather than the good of the society, it was a “deviation.”  Even a monarch needs to rule according to the laws and traditions that define the monarchy; for example, the Spartan kings had clear limits on their power, with institutional checks such as the Ephorate.  A king with no limits is a tyrant, acting only as suits his own whim.  Likewise, a government by “the best” could be an aristocracy, led by the most noble and virtuous persons respected by the society as a whole, or an oligarchy, rich property owners ruling the state in whatever way made themselves more money.  Majority rule could be democracy, where the people vote on whatever pleases them without regard for the overall health of the state and without limits on their fiat; or, Aristotle said, they could vote and govern within the limits laid down by their constitution, following the laws and traditions of the society that would ensure stability and the overall good.  Aristotle describes this sort of nation as a “polity.”  In each case, whether the nation is ruled by one, a few or many, the good option is the one that aims to carry out the laws and constitution, acting on prerogative only where the law is not sufficiently precise; the deviation is where the rulers replace law with their own will.

            Thus, even in a healthy monarchy or aristocracy, a citizen must be someone who is eligible to exercise civic authority, and also obey authority—even the monarch is bound by the constitution.[2]   But this understanding of “citizen” is particularly true in a democracy/polity, where all citizens are equally entitled to office, and the same person alternates between being ruler and ruled.  I myself, in today’s society, could be called to be a juror and thus to carry out the laws of my community, exercising judicial authority; that is one sort of ruling.  I choose the leaders of my society, who act as delegates for me and the other voters; that too is authority.  I could run for office; as we have seen, the requirements for public office today are surprisingly low.  In all these ways even I must alternate between being ruled (most of the time) and ruler.  That is the essence of a democratic polity.  And according to Aristotle, it is also the essence of statesmanship:  only one who is capable of being ruled is fit to rule free citizens.[3] A leader who cannot also obey, who has never known what it was to be under authority, is a tyrant, fit only to rule over slaves, not free people.[4]  Slavemasters or tyrants need not understand those under their command; they need only know how to use them effectively.  The leader of free people must know what is it to be a citizen, and must understand those they lead, in order to exercise authority for the good of the citizens.

            If we take Aristotle’s thoughts seriously, we much that is relevant for understanding democracy in the USA today.  In 1980, at the Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, Republican strategist and activist Paul Weyrich delivered a speech where he argued against the prevailing wisdom that Americans should support democratic participation in society.[5]  Until then, it had been part of our nation’s culture and education from childhood that to be a citizen was to vote; it was your “patriotic duty.”  Yes, sadly, much of our politics has also involved voter suppression, suppression of immigrants, of Black people and so on; but this was not so much inconsistent as it was a recognition of the principle that to be a citizen was to be a voter—racists and religious bigots didn’t want those “others” to be citizens.  This idea of fighting to keep citizens from exercising their civic duty to vote was the way Republicans should work to win power was different.  Now, people like me, who had attended compulsory Civics courses in state high school so that we’d be good citizens, who had grown up hearing that our nation was “the arsenal of freedom” and “a shining city on a hill,” were now to be kept away from the polls and discouraged from even wanting to vote.  At first, these efforts seemed small; Republicans began fighting against voter registration drives by nonpartisan groups like the League of Women Voters, they began fighting against candidate debates sponsored by neutral parties and so on, seeking to make it harder for potential voters to learn about candidates or register to vote or become interested in politics, so that the most likely voters would be the older and more reliably Republican base who would, as they said, “crawl over broken glass” to vote against anything labeled “socialism.”  They founded FOX News and other partisan “news” organizations to not so much inform listeners from a particular ideological perspective, but rather to un-inform them, to rouse the emotions rather than feeding the mind.  These were attacks on the spirit of democracy, and attempts to weaken civic engagement in the majority.  These tactics aimed to promote apathy and non-participation, but didn’t directly attack the practice of democracy by people who sought to do so; it was most often a psychological warfare against democracy.  But in the last few years, Republicans have turned from attempting to dissuade people from voting or informing themselves, to actively seeing to stop even qualified and motivated people from voting.  Repeated efforts to “clean up voter registration rolls” or “fight voter fraud” removed tens of thousands of eligible, registered voters in Republican-dominated states.  Research was done to see where non-Republicans were most likely to live and what sorts of identification non-Republicans, and non-whites in general, were likely to carry, and to ban these as proof of voter eligibility; at the same time, gun permits and other sorts of ID which White Republicans were thought more likely to carry were declared the only legally acceptable proof that one was a voter.[6]  From the Republican perspective, this is just politics, doing what you can and must to win.  This is also why Republicans denounce efforts to allow more American citizens to vote as a “partisan power grab;” their own efforts in the opposite direction are a long-term strategy to grab and hold power, not by having the most supporters or even the most voters, but by disallowing and disenfranchising anyone who seems somewhat likely to vote against them.

            But while all of this may seem to Republicans like mere moves in the political game, from the Aristotelian perspective they are changing the constitution of the state itself, and attempting to strip millions of Americans of their citizenship.  The constitution, as Aristotle says, is not just a piece of inscribed parchment in a museum; it is the arrangement of offices in the state:  “the citizen-body is the constitution.”[7]  Who is eligible to hold office, and what those public offices do, is the constitution of the state; and who is eligible to hold office is a citizen of the state.  For most of us, the only public offices to which we aspire and for which we are undoubtedly qualified are voter and juror.  As voters, we delegate our authority to make laws, wage wars, enforce justice and otherwise govern on our behalf to proxies who take oaths of office to act on our behalf, not for their own selfish benefit.  As jurors, we act to give a voice to We The People in how those laws are applied to our fellow citizens.  Stripping someone of their right to vote, whether it’s based on their race, their zip code, or some more subtle method selected, as the courts said, “with surgical precision” to disenfranchise them, is denying them their citizenship.  Republicans like to talk about the Right to Bear Arms as a “sacred” right, enshrined in the Constitution; but the right to vote, and as a registered voter to be eligible for jury duty, are the true sacred rights of citizenship.  They are the very definition of citizenship.  What the Republican Party is engaged in today, with hundreds of bills introduced in state legislatures dominated by Republicans, is nothing less than a strategic campaign to strip citizenship from millions of taxpayers, millions of people who either serve in our military or have family who served, millions of people either born in the this nation as the children of citizens, or who have undertaken to study and learn and withstood an examination of their worthiness more rigorous than any which many Republicans could possibly pass.  It is, as Aristotle says, an attempt to change the constitution, not through the prescribed method of amendment, but through skullduggery, corruption, intimidation and deception.  It is far more serious than what we often think of as “political games,” which reasonable people often ignore; and the results could be far more serious than those who are carrying out this plan want to admit, or even realize.  It is an attempt to drastically curtail, if not eliminate American democracy, all for the sake of winning one more round against the Democrats. 

            If you think democracy is important, if you think it matters, you must do everything possible to break the GOP, to either crush it into dust or to force it to reform itself.  This can only be accomplished if American independent voters, Democratic voters, and even Republican voters who love their country and their democratic (small “d”) heritage, vote straight Democratic in every possible election.  Not voting, or voting third party, will not accomplish this.  Voting for the “good Republican candidate” in the general election is still to vote for someone who made their peace with this decades-long plan to subvert not just the democratic process, but to undermine civic participation and patriotic duty for all citizens.  Whether liberal, moderate or true conservative, we must “mindlessly and mechanically” vote against literally all Republican candidates, including those who run in ostensibly nonpartisan races like School Board but whose public statements or voting record show them to be QAnon, Neoconfederate, “very fine people on both sides” Republicans—because all Republicans, at this point, have declared that both Nazis and anti-Nazis are either equal or the Nazis are better, simply by remaining in a political party where Nazis are welcomed, given tours of the Capitol by sitting Congressional representatives days before attempting a putsch, and whose crimes are covered up by elected Republican officials and their party information/propaganda outlets such as OAN, FOX News, etc.[8] 

            On the other hand, if you don’t value democracy, then perhaps you should continue voting Republican after all.  What, if anything, might Aristotle say to persuade someone on this point?

To be continued…..


[1] Aristotle, Politics, Book III, chapter 1, 1275a22

[2] In the United States, and many other nation-states today, the “constitution” is a written document, the founding charter of the nation, spelling out the foundation of the laws and the political institutions.  Aristotle’s definition is looser.  While most states had a historical or mythological lawgiver, Aristotle only specifies that the arrangement of the offices of the country is its constitution; thus even a nation with no written constitution, governed by longstanding tradition and legal precedent, would have a “constitution” in Aristotle’s sense—so, good news for Great Britain.  Also, it is common for authoritarian regimes to have a written “constitution” that promises all sorts of rights, while the reality is very different; in this case, Aristotle would say that the actual constitution is what is actually done. 

[3] Politics book IV, chapter iii, 1277b7

[4] 1277a33

[5] Miranda Blue, “Seven Times Conservatives Have Admitted They Don’t Want People to Vote;” Right Wing Watch September 24, 2015 (https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/seven-times-conservatives-have-admitted-they-dont-want-people-to-vote/)

[6] Rebecca Leber, “In Texas, You Can Vote with a Concealed Handgun Permit—but not a Student ID;” The New Republic October 20, 2014 (https://newrepublic.com/article/119900/texas-voter-id-allows-handgun-licenses-not-student-ids) ; also Camilla Domonoske, “Supreme Court Declines Republican Bid to Revive North Carolina Voter ID Law;” NPR May 15, 2017 (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/15/528457693/supreme-court-declines-republican-bid-to-revive-north-carolina-voter-id-law), as well as other efforts in Florida, Georgia and elsewhere, which historically have led to tens if not hundreds of thousands of voters being purged, only to subsequently proved only a few hundred were actually ineligible.

[7] Politics Book III, chapter vi, 1278b6

[8] Jonathan Rauch and Benjamin Wittes, “Boycott the Republican Party;” The Atlantic March 2018 (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/boycott-the-gop/550907/)

Theses Attributable to Aristotle: Second

June 9, 2021

Theses Attributable to Aristotle:  Second

Second Thesis:  A well-run state must pay attention to the relationship between economic and political power

For if the work done and the benefit accrued are equal, well and good; but if not, there will inevitably be ill-feeling between those who get a good income without doing much work and those who work harder but get no corresponding extra benefit.

—–Aristotle, The Politics, Book II, chapter V, 1263a8

ABSTRACT:  In discussing both the idealized states proposed by philosophers, and some states of his day widely considered to be well-run, Aristotle examines the role of wealth in society.  He rejects the extreme egalitarianism of Plato and Phaleas, as well as the restrictions put on the wealth of Spartan rulers, as being unbearable as well as impractical.  At the same time, he admits that rivalry between rich and poor can lead to factionalism and instability.  He argues that citizens need enough property to not merely live, but to live well; but he does say the state must have laws and policies to prevent the gulf between the wealthy and the rest from becoming so great that it undermines social unity’

            Book Two of Aristotle’s Politics is a survey of proposed ideal states, as well as some actual constitutions which were widely held to be successful.  Half of the chapters are devoted to criticism of Plato’s theories, particularly regarding property.  Plato himself was very concerned with the relationship between wealth and political power; it is therefore worthwhile to recall Plato’s views in order to see in what sense he and Aristotle might agree, and to better understand the nature of their disagreement.

            Plato’s political speculations in Republic begin with the individual rather than the group.  His Socrates and other characters are debating what sort of life is best for an individual, when Socrates proposes that they look at the State as an individual magnified.  In understanding how a well-run state would function, the group hopes to see how the individual soul should be arranged.  The individual can be said to have reason, passion and appetite; a city-state can be imagined as reflecting this structure.  The majority of people are farmers and other sorts of producers.  They are primarily concerned with material goods and satisfying their appetites.  They have no inclination or patience for higher education, or abstract thought, or for moral concerns beyond what is good for themselves and their households.  If they are drawn to political power, it is only as a business like any other, to enrich themselves.  Others are more drawn to military careers, as they desire honor and fame more than wealth and comfort.  These are the people governed by passion or spirit (Greek:  thumos).  In any society, only a few will be philosophers, lovers of wisdom, primarily governed by reason and desiring nothing more than to learn and understand.

            People seeking power either to feed their material desires, or in a lust for fame, are the least suited to hold power and will inevitably abuse it, putting their own gain before their duties to the State.  Only those who care the least about material comforts or the adoration of the mob can be expected to lead their society responsibly and intelligently.  Thus, the first division Plato proposes is between those who seek wealth and are denied political power, versus those who care little about gaining wealth for themselves and thus can be trusted to protect the rest:  the producers and the guardians.  These guardians are warrior-philosophers, devoted to a lifetime of physical and intellectual training, including martial and gymnastic practice, geometry, music and philosophy.  The producers want wealth and are welcome to pursue it; in exchange, they support the leadership and obey its instructions.  Among the guardians, the younger and more high-spirited individuals serve as auxiliaries, using their military training to enforce the law and to protect against invaders; they are driven by their thumos, and prefer honor over wealth, so they are rewarded with military honors and accolades for their service.  The older and wisest seek neither praise nor wealth, but wish mostly to be allowed to pursue knowledge; these are the leaders who guide the state out of a sense of duty, sharing the fruits of their learning to direct the state justly and wisely.  In return for their service, they are allowed ample time for study and philosophic contemplation.  Neither the guardians nor the auxiliaries are allowed any private property; they are supported entirely by the State, which collects taxes from the producers.  They thus have no incentive to accept bribes, or to engage in aggressive wars to gain loot, or any of the other personal or corporate corruptions that would undermine the smooth running of the state; they simply live peacefully as far as they can, prepared to defend the modest national wealth they possess but otherwise seeing to their own welfare.  Plato’s ideal republic is, in short, a society where those who have money are denied power, and those who have power are denied money but instead “give according to their abilities and receive according to their needs,” as a later philosopher put it.  Furthermore, Plato explicitly links the mixing of economic and political power as the corruption that undermines even the best state and, step by step, leads it to tyranny, where the government is entirely devoted to the profit of the tyrant and his toadies.

            Aristotle is also aware that differences in wealth can undermine a nation, and the desire for wealth can corrupt its leaders; but he rejects Plato’s radical solution of doing away with private wealth (at least for the leadership) altogether.  He agrees that the citizens definitely share some things; “at the very least, a constitution being a form of association, they must share in the territory, the single territory of a single state, of which single state the citizens are sharers.”[1]  But in Plato’s ideal republic, the Guardians are to have literally all things in common:  not only having common meals and sharing all property, but even sharing wives and children.[2]  Aristotle criticizes this excessive unity.  While it is possible to imagine such a society, Aristotle says that in fact the state benefits from being a diverse association.  Different individuals, with different abilities and aims, come together and work together for the benefit of the whole; that is what makes the state more self-sufficient than the individual or even the household.[3]  And while Plato explicitly seeks to break down the natural family relationships among the Guardians so that all will equally care for all the children, Aristotle argues that in fact this will lead to weakening concern for any children.  He makes a similar argument when it comes to property in general.[4]  Where one person is responsible for one household, that person will take care of the people and associated property; there are clearly designated areas of responsibility for each person.  Where everyone is equally responsible for caring for all the children and maintaining all the property, no individual has a specific responsibility to do anything.  When everyone is responsible, no one is responsible.  Thus, Aristotle argues, it is better that each man be responsible for his own wife and children, and that the property of the state be divided, some (like temples) for common use and cared for by the people as a whole, while others (such as farms and other means of production) privately owned, the responsibility of particular individuals who will bear the consequences if they neglect their proper work. 

            Aristotle also discusses Plato’s last dialogue, his Laws, wherein he seeks to give more concrete detail to the somewhat abstract idealism of Republic.[5]  While Laws is Plato’s longest dialogue, Aristotle has relatively little to say about it, since it is in many ways a rehashing of RepublicRepublic is an idealized state, and thus lacking on details and not too concerned whether its ideas could be actualized; the Laws keeps most of the original notions of Republic but provides more detail and clarification, attempting to present not just an ideal state but a framework for establishing a state based on those notions.  There are, for example, lengthy discussions of how to arrange households and farms, the role of foreigners such as traveling merchants, details of the education curriculum, and more.  Most of the details which Aristotle discusses have to do with property laws:  how much each citizen would be allowed to own, laws regarding its management, and political implications of these laws, among other matters.  There are two points in particular that appear in this book, and will become recurring themes later in the Politics:  the problem of faction, and the types of political structure.  As to structure, Aristotle mentions monarchy, oligarchy and democracy, and argues that Plato combines elements of oligarchy and democracy into a type Aristotle calls “polity.”  Aristotle in fact prefers so-called “mixed” constitutions over any pure example of the three types, seeing them as having the chance of avoiding the weaknesses peculiar to the pure types while drawing on their strengths.  He will say much more about this later in the Politics.

            Aristotle has more to say about the issues of money and politics.  He points out that a state like Plato proposes, where individual estates are limited by law, will in serious trouble unless population is controlled as well.[6]  In most states, neither births nor property acquisition are strictly regulated; people have as many children as they are able, and sometimes even more than they can support.  This “inevitably causes poverty among the citizens, and poverty produces faction and crime.”  Plato’s Laws would start each producer citizen with an equal estate, and limit the maximum increase of wealth to five times that, with the number of such farming estates firmly established; thus if the population were to grow, there would simply be no way for the excess to start their own households, and seemingly no way to absorb the new population into the economy.  Aristotle goes on to discuss another utopian thinker, Phaleas, who also discusses the social problems related to wealth.[7]  Phaleas too was concerned with how inequalities of wealth can undermine the stability of the state, by breeding crime and factionalism.  His answer was simple and direct:  eliminate differences in wealth.  The factions that so often divide and can even destroy the state are largely conflicts between the poor many and the rich few; eliminate the differences, and you eliminate the chief cause of factionalism.[8]  Poverty would be eliminated, and thus crime would disappear as well, Phaleas claimed, since no one would have to steal to feed themselves.[9] 

            Aristotle appreciates the effort Phaleas makes to head off factionalism, but finds several faults with this plan.  First, Aristotle says Phaleas pays inadequate attention to national defense; we don’t have any evidence to judge this claim, and the question doesn’t seem essential; the issues of foreign relations could be addressed without seriously undermining the internal economics, if equality of property were workable.  Aristotle’s other objections seem more substantial, as they touch on human nature itself, and provide reasons why such equality would be impossible.  Suppose, Aristotle says, it were possible to determine the perfect level of property for everyone, so that no one was either corrupted by luxury or ruined by poverty, but each had enough to live moderately and well; even then, there is no guarantee that everyone would be content.  Unless people’s appetites are also equal, what seems a reasonable allowance to one will seem to be penury to another; thus, unless education is equal so that all have the same characters and expectations, they will become discontent even with equality.  (He does concede that maybe Phaleas has assumed this equality of education, but doesn’t think this is clear.)  Furthermore, people don’t resort to crime merely from poverty; some, perhaps most are trying to get far more than they need, and it is the desire for easy luxury that drives them.  And people do not compete merely for greater wealth, but also for distinction, status and honor. Those who have worked harder, or who have fought bravely in defense of his nation, or who otherwise consider themselves “better” will resent being treated “the same.”  So while Aristotle sees some merit in paying attention to the divisiveness of wealth, he finds this sort of extreme state control of wealth unviable.

            Much of the difference between Aristotle and his mentor Plato is visible in their discussion of the Spartan government.[10]  Plato cites the Spartan as one of the best constitutions, largely because it separates the aristocratic, military leadership from the producers; the leaders strive for honor, while the others are focused on farming and producing goods.  His only fault with the Spartan model is that they don’t practice philosophy; compared to his republic, it is as if the Guardians proper were gone and the Auxiliaries were left in charge, without the benefit of learned, wise, steady leadership.  In Plato’s telling, even the perfect republic would eventually decline, first by abandoning the leadership of the philosophers, and then as a result becoming increasingly interested in money.  First the aristocracy declines to an oligarchy, rule by the rich few; from there it deteriorates to a democracy, where everyone rules and everyone simultaneously pursues their own private wealth, further mixing politics and money-making; and finally it devolves into a tyranny, where the most corrupt and ruthless individual seizes power and turns the state into a money-making enterprise for himself and his cronies.  It is a rationalist explanation, deriving from the principle that corruption of the individual or the state occur when the appetites overrule reason; and it is a somewhat idealized presentation of the Spartan constitution as well.

            Aristotle is much less enthralled with the Spartan ideal and more interested in the Spartan reality.  While Spartan men are supposed to be pure warriors living lives of material simplicity and concerned only with honor, Aristotle says in fact there are great differences in wealth between them, which weakens the nation and in particular leaves the Ephors, magistrates drawn from outside the aristocracy, open to bribery.  And it is not just the Ephors who fail to live up to the ideal of Spartan austerity; Aristotle writes, “They live a life of undue ease, while the rest have a very high degree of austerity in living, so high indeed that they really cannot endure it but secretly get round the law and enjoy the pleasures of the body.”[11]

            On the other hand, Aristotle writes somewhat approvingly of the council of Ephors itself, an institution Plato generally ignores.  While there seems to be no constitution with which he doesn’t find some fault, and he minds much to say about the character and competence of the Ephors, he does agree that they contribute to the stability of the state.  The Ephors were a council of five men, elected from and by the people, who shared power with the Spartan kings.  This clearly is a deviation from the aristocratic ideal, which is likely why Plato ignores it in the Republic; he is presenting a clean typology, while Aristotle is looking closer at actual cases.  In fact, he says, Sparta has this democratic element in its government, which may weaken the aristocratic ideal but does keep the people “quiet because it gives them a share in the highest office…  The point is that if a constitution is to have a good prospect of stability, it must be such that all sections of the state accept it and want it to go on in the same way as before.”[12]  This is a point that Aristotle returns to:  a “mixed” constitution is often better than a “pure” type, because it can draw on the strengths of several types of government.  Aristotle is greatly concerned about the causes of  factionalism and instability in the state, and how to avoid it.  Plato’s solution to the problem of instability is to put the most reasonable people in charge, and preserve them from the corrupting influence of money by forbidding them to own any private property—including even spouses and children.  Those with power, have no wealth; and those who are allowed private property have no power.  Aristotle says this is unbearable, and thus people will circumvent such restrictions if imposed on them; also, no one can practice the virtues of such as liberality, which involve proper use and sharing of wealth, if they have none.  Plato’s republic, or Sparta’s aristocracy, ultimately lead to the corruption of the people by denying them scope to practice the virtuous use of wealth, while allowing them only corrupt opportunities to obtain the wealth that people naturally desire.  So Aristotle argues that it is better to allow people the ability to obtain enough wealth, while also limiting the gap between rich and poor if it threatens social stability.

            Aristotle’s survey of philosophical political theories and of actual constitutions doesn’t focus exclusively on economic policies, but this is at the center of many of his criticisms.  There is advice here that would please the American “right” and “left” wings, which I suppose makes it “centrist” and perhaps even “practical.”  Conservatives would undoubtedly agree with Aristotle’s objection to Plato’s extreme egalitarianism, even communism.  Our conservatives would echo Aristotle’s view that each person will see to their own property better than the society as a whole can manage extensive common property; if you want production and trade to thrive, let specific individuals run their own businesses.  The view that the one who works should see a profit from their labors will also appeal to conservatives in our day.  And Aristotle’s view on the relationship between private wealth and virtue has parallels to conservative arguments against taxpayer-funded social programs.  Conservatives often argue that if society collects taxes to help shelter, feed and cloth the poor, this will undermine morality since it means taking money away from individuals who might have shared it freely, and also because if society as a whole is helping the poor, then no one individual is exercising the virtue of charity or liberality by sharing what specifically is that individual’s own wealth to give away.  Just as Aristotle says it is important that citizens not only have enough to live, but even enough to enjoy and enough to share, American conservatives today would argue that a society with high taxes to fund things like universal health care and tuition-free college not only robs individuals of the incentive to work, but also robs them of the ability to do good, and to be good and virtuous people, by giving personally to help others. 

            Liberals would reply that what matters is that the poor are fed and sheltered, and that if the state can accomplish this better then that is how it should be.  They would applaud Aristotle’s awareness that vast differences in wealth can divide, weaken, and possibly destroy a society.  A government that wishes to last must be a government that provides justice in the eyes of its citizens, and that includes justice for the hungry and cold.  While the rich may claim that they deserve more as the “better people,” everyone has a right to life, which means everyone must have a right to the requirements for life; if a society fails to provide either a chance to earn a living wage or help for those who cannot, that society devolves into a cold war between the rich and the poor, which could eventually go hot and end the society. 

            Aristotle is seeking political structures that avoid either extreme.  He is neither Rand nor Marx, though he could see the point in both perspectives.  Instead, he wants a society that can provide enough to every citizen to live a good life, while giving those who want more a legitimate and socially helpful way to earn it.


[1] Politics, Book II, chapter 1, 1260b36

[2] Plato is often criticized today for his totalitarian tendencies, but it is interesting to note that he treats women as people, with the same rights and responsibilities as men; he says they should have the same education and even be trained for military service.  Aristotle states that women are inferior, and in much of this chapter explicitly treats them as property more than people. 

[3] Politics, Book II, chapter 2

[4] Book II, chapter 5

[5] chapter 6

[6] Book II, chapter 6, 1265a38

[7] Book II, chapter 7

[8] chapter 7, 1266a31

[9] 1267a2

[10] Plato, Republic, book VIII, 542-550; Aristotle, Politics, book II, chapter ix

[11] 1270b28

[12] 1270b17

Thoughts on September 11, 2020

September 12, 2020

September 11, 2020

 

 

I’ve tried to comment or reflect on the state of the world every year at this time as my personal 9/11 remembrance. This year I’ve been struck by a campaign ad Sen. Mitch McConnell is running against his challenger, Amy McGrath. The ad begins with an audio recording of her comparing the feeling she had when Trump was declared the winner of the 2016 election with the feeling she had after the 9/11/2001 terror attacks. The ad goes on to mock and attack her for this feeling, saying it shows she’s “wrong for Kentucky.”

As I wrote to Mr. McConnell, I agree the statements by McGrath are unfair. It really is unfair to compare Osama bin Laden to Donald Trump. Bin Laden killed around 3,000 Americans through his terror attacks and triggered an economic downturn. Donald Trump lied repeatedly, and continues to lie to the American people about the COVID-19 pandemic, because he has money in the stock market and doesn’t want to say or do anything that might cause stock prices to decline. Through his active sabotage of our nation’s efforts to defend itself against the threat of the coronavirus, he has killed more Americans than Osama even dreamt of. People who know about infectious diseases say that if we had responded reasonably, such as following the playbook President Obama left for a national pandemic response, we could have avoided up to 80% of the deaths we have suffered.[1] Even taking the more conservative 70% other models have suggested, that means roughly 135,000 American dead due to Donald Trump and his Republican party’s choice to hide the truth from the American people, to encourage suicidal behavior and to rely on fantasies and wishes rather than science, and to call on the moral, spiritual and intellectual dregs of “Christian leaders” to wrap this self-serving sacrifice of the lives of Americans and welfare of the nation in the swaddling cloths of Prosperity Gospel and Christian White Nationalism, and lay it in the manger as the new savior. If “Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands,” then it is also true to say, “Osama has slain his thousands, and Donald his hundreds of thousands.” And of course, it isn’t even Autumn yet; wait until we really get into the holiday travel-and-party season with millions of Americans still firmly convinced that COVID-19 is just a Democratic hoax.

Osama also never undermined Americans’ trust in their electoral system. He didn’t tear the states apart, as he wished; in fact, he brought them together and forged the strongest sense of national unity we’d seen in a generation or two. Donald, on the other hand, invites foreigners to hack our elections, attacks the legitimacy of the election without evidence before it has even taken place, deliberately pitted states against each other to compete for medical supplies to fight COVID-19, encourages armed terrorists to murder Americans in the name of white supremacy, defends Confederate rebels and promotes conservative pundits who call for a “second Civil War,” calls peaceful protesters who take a knee at a sporting event sons-of-bitches and traitors, and promotes literally insane conspiracy theories about a worldwide conspiracy of Satanic-cannibal-pedophiles with (according to some) colonies in space. Osama would have been overjoyed if he had caused even half as much chaos and strife as Donald has.

McGrath is also unfair to compare Osama to Donald because Osama never faked bone spurs.

Osama also hoped to bankrupt the United States. This is something he could never accomplish on his own; he needed the incompetent acquiescence or the connivance of American politicians. He found both in the Republican party. First, GW Bush took over a country with a balanced budget on its way to paying off its national debt, and immediately threw it into deficit spending that didn’t stimulate the economy or improve national infrastructure but did help billionaires get richer. By the time he left office, his reckless deregulation of the financial institutions and feckless management of the economy had led us to the Great Recession. After eight years, President Obama had, despite Republican efforts to sabotage the national recovery, managed to put the country back on the path to fiscal solvency. Trump and the GOP wrecked that in one year, running up the greatest deficits the nation had ever seen with no other purpose than to enrich the rich while depleting Social Security, Medicare and other programs the poor and the middle class rely on. Now we are in an economic mess that makes the Great Recession look pleasant by comparison, because Donald refuses to protect the health of the people, the health of the nation’s infrastructure, or any other element of a sound economy. He does a passable job with the Stock Market where he and his golfing buddies like to make money, but that’s the full extent of his economic attention. Again, while Osama only promised, Donald delivered.

Those who were filled with dread in November 2016 have seen their worst nightmares come true—-or to be fair, maybe their second-worst nightmares, since (so far) Dolt45 hasn’t gotten us into a nuclear war so only the West Coast is burning and not every American city. And Mitch McConnell says I should vote for him because he stopped the impeachment, which would have removed an incompetent, treasonous and mentally unstable president* and replaced him with his hand-picked successor, Vice President Pence, who at least has experience botching an epidemic and thus might have had a clue what not to do. Somehow, if this election is to be decided over whether McGrath overreacted to Trump’s election or McConnell failed to react to Trump’s actions once elected, I don’t see how any reasonable person could hesitate to vote straight Democrat in every election from President to County Clerk, until the current Republican Party is disbanded and replaced by a competent center-right party.[2]

Mitch McConnell made sure that when a major crisis hit this nation, we would be led by the most incompetent, stupid, short-sighted and selfish person imaginable. The only response this blithering idiot has to the pandemic is to try to distract us by fanning the flames of race hatred and oppression, because he’s not only stupid and neurotic, he’s also racist. McGrath apparently had the foresight to realize in 2016 that putting a self-absorbed racist idiot at the helm of the ship of state would inevitably lead to us finding an iceberg to hit. Clearly, she is the wiser of the two candidates. Thank you, Mr. McConnell, for running a campaign ad that so clearly lays out the choice in this election, and why you are so terribly unfit for office.

[1] Isaac Sebenius and James K. Sebenius, “How Many Needless COVID-19 Deaths were Caused by Delays in Responding? Most of Them;” STAT June 19, 2020 (https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/19/faster-response-prevented-most-us-covid-19-deaths/)

[2] Jonathan Rauch and Benjamin Wittes, “Boycott the Republican Party;” The Atlantic March 2018 (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/boycott-the-gop/550907/)

A Response to Bergson’s “Laughter” (pt. 3)

August 19, 2020

III. Conclusions

 

The derivative nature of aggressive humor: Bergson’s theory is that laughter is intended as a social sanction. We mock the person who has fallen into habit and “mechanical” behavior, particularly when that has reached the point of impairing the person’s functioning as a living and social being. Self-deprecating humor is derivative of this; for example, I might tell a joke about my absentmindedness as a way of chiding absentmindedness itself, and thus all others who fall into my habitual failing.

Toddlers show us humor that is neither self-deprecating nor aggressive; it is simply without a strong sense of self-consciousness at all. There seems to be an innate desire to provoke laughter in others, and the young child will do whatever gets a laugh. It is only later, when we develop a sense of shame and thus an immediate tendency to try to hide our flaws, that we can consciously choose to violate normal standards by intentionally calling attention to our faults in deliberately “self”-deprecating humor. Humor is one of the ways we bond with one another. We share a laugh the same way we share a hug, or a compliment, or a snack, or our ancestors shared a session of grooming: social actions giving pleasure to another and thus strengthening social bonds. Aggressive humor, using humor not just to strengthen some bonds but to break others and to exclude some person from our fun, is what is derivative.

Because of course, as Bergson shows, some humor does chide or punish the socially deviant or harmful person, either to pressure that one back into society or to utterly exile. But the fact that something can be used aggressively does not mean that is its primary use, or even a worthy use. Children laugh together, but at some point they learn to laugh at another, most usually without regard to whether that causes pain. And as we mature and begin struggling for dominance among ourselves, humor becomes another weapon, first to tease and bully an individual and then to bully a group, or even a race. The ability to communicate gives us the ability to lie; likewise the ability to laugh gives us the ability to mock.

Sex, Death and More: “Oh Death, where is thy sting?” asks the prophet and the apostle; and while it may be faith that promises full victory, it is laughter that provides the first defense for many.[1] We often laugh at things that are the most important to us, because they are so frightening and/or tempting. The internet search to find the funniest joke in the world found a death joke; and here it is:

 

Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He doesn’t seem to be breathing and his eyes are glazed. The other guy whips out his phone and calls the emergency services. He gasps, “My friend is dead! What can I do?”. The operator says “Calm down. I can help. First, let’s make sure he’s dead.” There is a silence, then a shot is heard. Back on the phone, the guys says “OK, now what?”[2]

 

One of the oldest jokes I know, from the Vikings, is also a death joke, or more accurately a joke told at a death. Several men planned to kill a famous warrior and sent one of their group to scout ahead and see if their quarry was home. When the scout came back they asked, “Well, is Bjorn home?” He replied, “I don’t know if Bjorn is home, but his ax certainly is,” and fell over dead. I’ve read that a lot of Viking humor was like that: dark and violent. Death was a constant threat, and they dealt with it not only with the promise of Valhalla but also by making light of it. If you can laugh, it isn’t as terrifying.

Maybe that’s why there are so many jokes about sex. Sex is a prime motivator for much human activity, to say the least. Our nation spent the last several decades spilling more sweat and treasure to research impotence cures than preparing for the next pandemic. The TV show “Ally McBeal” used to refer to the penis as “the dumbstick.” This reflects several things about sex, most obviously that it’s funny. Much of the show’s humor revolved around the ridiculous situations characters got into because of sex, or the ridiculous sex they got into because they were such characters. Second, men and women seem to both agree that men are particularly controlled by the dumbstick. And for men, this seems to be psychologically problematic; they want sex and they are fascinated by it, but also somewhat afraid of the lengths they will go to and the risks they will take for it and in particular afraid that they are being manipulated by the women around them. The sex drive is powerful, and that power makes it frightening. Sex itself is also powerful. If God is that which creates ex nihilo, then sex is the closest thing we humans have to divine power: the ability to literally create life, so that two become three or more. The genders generally find each other mysterious and at times bizarre, but also indispensable and attractive; and this in itself generates tension. And often we relieve this tension with humor, sometimes good-natured and sometimes seemingly barbed.

There are also a lot of jokes about poop, something that is quite the opposite: repulsive rather than attractive, something we seek to be rid of rather than pursue, and which is the very opposite of creation, the waste products of life. It is not “important” in the way either sex or death is, but no one who has seen the beans scene in “Blazing Saddles” can be ignorant of the comic potential there. I’m not a big fan of scatological humor myself but I find it fascinating that it even exists.

All three of these are generally somewhat “taboo” in adult “polite” conversation. In different ways, all are psychologically powerful. And often, when something is “unmentionable” but also unavoidable, we use humor to discuss it more obliquely, taking the sting out. Bergson might say that each of these brings something “mechanical” to a human life, something controlling rather than controllable by the individual, and it is that tension between the lively expression of the individual and the universalizing and irrational aspects of life that provokes laughter. My hypothesis is again to look at the child. We learn to speak before we learn what things are supposed to be unspeakable. Children blurt out whatever strikes them in the moment, often in ways that would be judged wildly inappropriate for an adult. Sometimes this is because of the child’s ignorance. One story goes like this: Sally wouldn’t stop eating acorns, so her parents told her that if she didn’t stop she’d become very fat. One day in the park Sally saw a pregnant woman and said, “I know what you’ve been doing!” The humor relies on the fact that the child does not know; what would be merely gross if spoken by an adult is funny when said by a child who does not understand. My grandson finds farts hilarious, particularly if they come from an adult. When he loudly said “Uh oh!” when someone broke wind, it was funny because he understood what had happened but not that we don’t usually talk about it; “polite” conversation just tries to ignore it. At some point, a child is going to unconsciously voice some double-entendre, or announce some fact with a directness unforgivable for a serious adult, and the adults around will laugh. The child may have no idea what is funny but will still want to be part of the fun, and will want to repeat it. We thus learn what topics those around us regard as funny, and also (a little or a lot later) learn which topics we are not generally supposed to just discuss directly when making “small talk” or “polite conversation.” Some of us learn to discuss this topics more indirectly with humor, simultaneously raising the tension by presenting these taboo topics and releasing it through laughter. Others may memorize jokes to share about these topics, so as to be able to share laughter with each other even if one lacks the creative wit to create humor oneself.

I suspect (though I know no way to test this) that comedians are allowed more leeway in society precisely because there is something childish in humor. Whether a professional comedian or “the life of the party,” some people are particularly good at raising serious or even taboo topics in a way that evokes laughter, and we react in a way analogous to the way we react to a child saying something otherwise inappropriate: “Well, the tyke didn’t really mean it, so it’s okay.” The child can’t really mean it, since the child lacks the discernment; the comedian likewise doesn’t mean it, because he or she is only a comedian and therefore not “serious.” But sometimes the comedian “crosses the line” and says something the audience finds so repulsive that no humor can excuse it.[3] Gilbert Gottfried notoriously derailed his career with a tweet comparing the Fukashima nuclear disaster to a Godzilla attack. At that point it didn’t really even matter if the joke was funny; it was “too soon,” too painful, and no amount of humor was able to deflect attention from the human suffering. But generally Gottfried is able to say what would otherwise be terrible things in a way that provokes laughter rather than outrage. The successful comedian may say something that is taboo, or insulting, or otherwise generally not what we’re supposed to say, but does it in a way that evokes laughter; and that laughter seems to cause us to take it as “only a joke” even if we simultaneously see real truth in what is said. It is similar to the way we can “laugh it off” if a child says something true but also unmentionable; we sort of treat the comedian as not really “serious” even when we say, “Still, you know, she’s got a point.”

Maybe we allow comic discussion of topics that we avoid seriously discussing because in some way we take the adult comedian as in some sense a child, and give the comedian a similar leeway to speak the unspeakable—so long as it is accompanied by laughter. Without laughter, we remember that we are listening to an adult and judge by adult standards.

Humor and humility: Bergson claims that art aims to capture the individual reality or liveliness of its object. Too often our “utilitarian” concerns cause us to see everything as a tool, raw material, or obstacle to fulfilling our own desires, instead of seeing things and people as realities independent of ourselves. Art aims to break the dominance of utilitarian thinking by presenting its object apart from all functionality. The goal of a still life is not to sell apples or to stimulate the appetite; it is simply to present the viewer with the beauty to be found in a simple bowl of apples, existing for its own sake. Bergson says that comedy, by contrast, does not depict individual unique realities but instead depicts stereotypes and generalities. A good drama can be named after a particular person, such as Othello or Hamlet, and the drama’s quality will largely depend on how well the playwright presents the particulars of the protagonist’s personality. We want the dramatic protagonist to be “believable,” to seem like a real person. A comedy by contrast can be named for a type or generality: “The Jealous One” in Bergson’s example, or perhaps “The Jerk” to cite a more recent example. The comedic protagonist does not have to be “realistic;” in fact, that can get in the way of the comedy, particularly if it leads us to have too much sympathy for the character. It is more than enough if the comedic character is sketched in broad strokes, so we can recognize the type and the “mechanism” that is being lampooned.

But this claim that comedy is rooted in social structures depends on Bergson’s prior claim that humans are the only animal that laughs, or is laughed at; and scientific evidence indicates that this claim is wrong. Other animals have humor, small children have humor, and the essence of humor is much more basic and fuzzy than Bergson suggests. Laughter is a reaction to something that gives joy, and often what gives joy by virtue of being funny. We say “it’s funny because it’s true,” meaning that something seems funny because it expresses or reveals a truth in a surprising and generally oblique way. No one laughs if you simply state that men and women often do things differently; but entire comic careers have been based on comically stating specific different reactions of men and women, or the comedian and his or her spouse. But we philosophers don’t need to visit the comedy clubs to see this saying illustrated; we have our great hero, Socrates, the world’s first stand-up philosopher, who went down in history for his use of irony to reveal the absurdities of the social assumptions of his day and the presumptions of its leaders. Chuang Tzu also used humor to raise epistemological or metaphysical points.

Just as humor can be self-deprecating or self-aggrandizing, friendly or aggressive, so too it can be revelatory, falsifying or neither. Racist humor is aggressive and relies on false stereotypes, intending to dehumanize its target. Python’s “Banker Sketch” is closer to Bergson’s ideal; it relies on stereotypes not merely to dehumanize the target but also to rehumanize. One can see that sketch and laugh at those rich snobs, or see oneself in the Banker and resolve not to be like that. The joke that makes us laugh at ourselves, or at one of our idols, can be supremely revelatory. If art is supposed to reveal truth by presenting its object outside our usual framework of desires and tools, then humor can do so by presenting to us ourselves. We immediately perceive the world in orbit around ourselves, with everything either a tool or an obstacle. We can step away from that solipsistic perspective when we are caught up in our appreciation of beauty or harmony, in art or music; but we can also do so through learning to laugh at ourselves, and thus learning humility.

Why do authoritarians hate humor? As The Doctor said, “the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don’t change their beliefs to fit the facts, they change the facts to fit their beliefs.”[4] Authoritarians want authority over everything, including—-especially—-true and false. They want to be able to control others, by forcing them to accept the despot’s version of reality or, failing that, to at least force them to act as if they do. And they don’t want to be challenged, and any independent truth-claim represents a challenge to their power.

Despots can use humor to reinforce falsehoods or to undermine truth, and often do. They use racist and ethnic humor to dehumanize The Other and give their followers an inflated sense of self-worth which derives entirely from being on the good side of the despot. This is not essentially different than the actions of the schoolyard bully who humiliates one kid to put fear into the others that if they don’t laugh at the victim, they could be next. It is more dangerous, and more wicked since an adult should have a moral sense, but the social mechanics are identical. But humor can turn against the despot too. Humor exposes our pretensions.   As Bergson points out, the gap between empty ceremony and human life is particularly funny. President Ford fell down once due to a knee he injured playing football, and Chevy Chase made an industry out of his “Gerald Ford impression” pratfalls. The physical humor itself was funny because Chase could do the seemingly unnatural without injury and then shout, “Live from New York, it’s Saturday Night!” but the idea that the President of the United States is a mere human being subject to gravity and fleshly weakness like the rest of us added another layer of comedy. That was part of the social function of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner Roasts, which used be a major yearly event. The President of the United States, and other powerful leaders, would allow himself to be laughed at, and would even join in the laughter. The President would respond with humor at the end, but only when he had shown he could take a joke and make a joke at his own expense could he make one at another’s. An authoritarian cannot stand to be laughed at, because an authoritarian does not want to be merely human; he or she must seem like a mortal god. Someone made a comment about President Xi being round and chubby like Pooh Bear, and now pictures of Winnie the Pooh are illegal in China. The authoritarian doesn’t mind being hated, but cannot stand to be laughed at, because when we laugh at anything we cease to fear it,—at least for a moment,

Humor also, as we saw, is a mechanism for social bonding. Authoritarians want to be the only center of social groups. Just as romantic love becomes a rebellion unless it is yoked to the authoritarian in a State-sanctioned marriage, so too when a group begins to laugh together they become a potential center of power. There is nothing so infuriating to an oppressor as the sound of the oppressed laughing among themselves; it means they’ve found joy that the oppressor did not control. If they can feed their own spirits and find joy in life without the permission of the authoritarian, what other rebellion might they find possible? Authoritarians always attempt to control anything that feeds the spirit, that brings joy to the lives of the people, whether it be art, or religion, or knowledge, or sex, or humor.

Epilogue

There is no virtue more beneficial than a sense of humor, and no divine gift more blessed than laughter. When we are overtaken by the goodness of life, and our whole being overflows with joy, we laugh. When the terrors and griefs of life threaten to overwhelm us, we laugh at our fears and cut them down to size. When our own egos threaten to outrun our capacities, we laugh at ourselves and again learn humility. When self-important leaders seek to humiliate and subdue us, we laugh at them and remember that they are mortal, the same as us. Gratitude and contentment, courage and endurance, humility and confidence, are all boosted by a proper sense of humor. And, it makes you laugh! What other virtue can say all that?

[1] Hosea 13:14; 1 Corinthians 15:55

[2] Alva Noë, “What is the Funniest Joke in the World?” NPR March 7, 2014 (https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2014/03/07/287250640/what-is-the-funniest-joke-in-the-world)

[3] Sometimes the joke simply falls flat and the audience doesn’t think the comedian is funny or even trying to be. One notorious example of this comes from the 2016 presidential campaign, during the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation dinner .[3] Traditionally part of the event has long been a roast, presenting opposing candidates the chance to trade some good-natured barbs with one another. It is not surprising that sometimes this gets a little close to the bone, but Trump took his routine to such an extreme of negative directness that the audience of polite Manhattan society began to boo and even heckle him. He didn’t so much make a joke that Hillary was corrupt as simply say, “She’s so corrupt you should vote for me; and she hates Catholics too.” At one point Trump said to Clinton, “I don’t know if they’re booing you or me,” and someone in the audience shouted back, “You!” Years later commentators pointed to this as one example of Trump’s lack of a sense of humor. He may say things that some find funny, but he is said to fundamentally lack two elements of genuine comedy: the ability to take a joke about himself, and the ability to tell a joke about another in a way that even the target has to admit is funny.

[4] “The Face of Evil,” Doctor Who

Usurpation, Tyranny and Sailing to Algiers: How Bad Does It Have to Get? (pt. 7)

March 28, 2020

In addition to the past and the present, the attempt to remove a sitting political office holder may be motivated by the future—that is, by anticipation of what he or she will do. This may seem unjust; and were impeachment a legal proceeding it would be, since we would be punishing someone for something he or she has not in fact done. But removing a leader is not a legal act, but rather a political one. That is not to say justice and morality are irrelevant, but only to say they are different.

From the time he was elected, before he had taken office, Obama faced calls for his removal based on acts he was expected to take. He would impose Sharia law. He would confiscate all firearms, in violation of the Second Amendment. He would arrest all observant Christians. He would imprison his political enemies. He would abolish capitalism and impose a communist system. He would impose black supremacy and strip white people of their rights as citizens. He would throw open the borders and allow immigrants from Mexico and other southern countries to pour in unimpeded and uncounted, to collect Social Security and to vote in our elections. And in fact, these fears motivated some people to extreme actions. A white woman carved a B into her own face, claiming to police that she’d been attacked by black men saying that now Barack was president and they could do whatever they wanted; she was caught because she’d used a mirror and therefore carved the B in her face backwards.[1] The Republican governor of Texas called for the Texas State Guard to watch the U.S. Army’s “Jade Helm 15” exercises because of widespread fears that Obama was going to declare martial law and imprison his enemies in abandoned Walmarts.[2] These fears about Obama’s plans, and the rhetoric and action they provoked, led liberals to give the whole phenomenon its own name: Obama Derangement Syndrome.[3] The thinking here was that large numbers of otherwise sane and well-informed people (as well as many who weren’t) were particularly prone to believe conspiracy theories about President Barack Obama, and sometimes even to act on those fears.[4] Conservative politicians sometimes encouraged these beliefs, by saying that they “understood” these concerns, or by threatening armed resistance against the U.S. government if it carried out its alleged intentions; other conservative politicians denounced these beliefs and conspiracy theories.

Donald Trump, also, faced calls for his impeachment “from Day One” and beyond, at times based on things that he would do. It was alleged that he would use his office to enrich himself, that he would appoint corrupt and/or biased officials to important posts, that policy would be dictated by political agendas and flattery of the President rather than by science or competence, that hate crimes would rise, that the U.S.A. would become an international laughingstock, that Russia and other foreign powers would use money and favors to promote policies that weakened the United States, that religious groups other than Evangelical Christians would be discriminated against, that the environment would be degraded, that taxes on the rich would be slashed and then, citing budget shortfalls, programs such as Social Security would be gutted, that national immigration policies would be dictated by racism rather than morality or facts, and so on. Mr. Trump’s defenders in turn began to denounce “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

We could even say that this sort of prognostication has made it into the official record of the United States Senate. Adam Schiff, arguing for Donald Trump’s removal from office, did not appeal only to his past and present actions, but also to his future acts if he continued to hold the reins of power. He said:

 

 

 

“We must say enough — enough! He has betrayed our national security, and he will do so again,” Schiff, D-Calif., told the Senate. “He has compromised our elections, and he will do so again. You will not change him. You cannot constrain him. He is who he is. Truth matters little to him. What’s right matters even less, and decency matters not at all.”[5]

 

 

 

Rep. Schiff was arguing, essentially, that based on his past behavior and expressed intentions, Donald Trump will commit acts that break the law, violate the Constitution and endanger the nation. Therefore, he should be stripped of political power not only because he has abused his office, but even more because of what he will do in the future.

The future, by definition, has not and does not exist; it is only possibility. Therefore, any action undertaken based on future events is problematic. But as Locke points out, sometimes it is necessary. To tell people they can only resist tyranny when the tyrant has seized power and clapped them in irons is at best pointless, if not sheer mockery. It would be like telling passengers who find that the ship they are on is taking them to the slave market in Algiers that they can do nothing because, after all, the captain is the captain, you must trust his judgment and authority, and that if you believe he is abusing his power then you can exit the ship just as soon as it reaches its destination and choose a ship with a new captain. At the same time, to mutiny three days out of dock, just because the ship was heading south and the captain has dark skin like an Algerian slaver, would also be insane. Locke, true to his empiricist philosophy, says we should base our judgment on observation and induction. If the captain repeatedly aims towards Algiers, despite repeated obstacles and repeated assurances that he’d never do such a thing, then it is reasonable to draw conclusions regarding his true intentions and to act on those conclusions. And if a politician with executive power should repeatedly act against the laws of the nation, against the expressed wishes of the people, putting his or her personal interests ahead of the general welfare, deceiving and suppressing liberty, it is reasonable to assume that he or she is actively seeking tyrannical power over the nation, and to act to stop this.

The reasons why conservatives were so convinced that Obama had tyrannical intentions were always a mystery to those of us who don’t watch Alex Jones or listen to Rush Limbaugh. Many of the anti-Obama (and later, anti-Clinton) charges seem insane, such as Pizzagate and the claims about NASA pedophile camps on Mars. The actual record of Obama, the actual evidence of his intentions, came largely from his bibliography and his having attended a UCC church led by the Afrocentric theologian Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The publicly available facts were that Barack Obama’s father was African, Muslim and anti-colonial; however, he had relatively little to do with raising Barack, who was instead brought up by his mother after his father left them. She was white, and while she was progressive for her time she had worked more intensely to insure her son was raised with so-called “middle class” values like education, hard work and caring for his fellow Americans than many conservative parents can boast. Aside from his skin, name and having spent part of his childhood in foreign countries, he had a childhood that many conservative politicians would have envied. He was attacked for having been a community activist, which conservative pundits claimed showed he was a radical revolutionary; but George H. W. Bush famously praised individual activism as “a thousand points of light” shining the way for the nation. And while Rev. Wright’s rhetoric can be fiery, as a freshman senator Obama’s behavior was not particularly shocking. Returning to Locke’s analogy, it was as if the new captain had said, “I’ve heard the climate in Algiers is nice this time of year, and they have some beautiful buildings,” but then had sailed a normal course. Maybe you’d want to watch him, but there’d be too little real evidence to make a reasonable claim that he was sailing to Algiers. And as President, the evidence was even more mixed: while there were certainly policy disputes and power struggles with the Congress whose leadership had declared that its top priority was to make him a one-term president, he never attempted to impose Sharia, confiscate all guns, or carry out any of the dire predictions made of him. He complied with court rulings regarding Congressional subpoenas, made his Secretary of State and other officials available for multiple public and private hearings, and generally behaved as we had always expect a president to behave. He never declared opposition to the Constitution, which he had taught and studied before becoming president; and his actions were mostly consistent with his words.

Donald Trump had a much longer public record, being both much older and much more famous before his election. He had said that he was genetically superior to most Americans, who lack his intelligence and industriousness and therefore allow themselves to be led by the superior men like himself.[6]   He attributes his success, and the failures of people like coal miners, to his own natural superiority and their inferiority.[7] To many, this sounds far more ominous than Obama having said he liked Rev. Wright and then hearing that Wright had said God should “damn America” for the sins of racism and the slave trade. After all, Obama didn’t explicitly endorse this claim by Wright; but Trump does endorse eugenics, which disturbs some people.[8] Claims by his ex-wife that he owns and reads a collection of Hitler’s speeches also raises concerns.[9] Add to that his divorces and bankruptcies, which together imply a lack of commitment to his promises, his legal history including lawsuits by employees and business partners he’s refused to pay, fines for racial discrimination at his properties, multiple acts of sexual assault, accusations of fraud at Trump University and other cases, most of which he settled rather than take to trial, and many people had serious doubts about his character. The Mueller Report and impeachment hearings revealed a pattern, witnessed and sworn to by many people, of obstruction of investigations which were lawful but he deemed “unfair,” as well as calling for investigations of people he disliked without any legal grounds, all to help his career. Furthermore, millions of dollars of taxpayer money have been spent at his properties, suggesting ongoing corruption; and his repeated claims that he deserves a third term and his complaints that various aspects of the Constitution are bothersome strongly suggest that he is not particularly devoted to the Constitutional limits on his power. These are some of the points of evidence that lead Congressman Schiff, and millions of others, to fear that Donald Trump is at best a compulsive, serial crook with unwitting or unreflective tyrannical tendencies, and at worst a full-blown authoritarian seeking to undermine our democratic institutions so he can add the United States of America to his business empire as one more hostile takeover.

By Locke’s standards, then, there was little ground to remove President Obama, and it is not surprising that he was not impeached and that he won reelection. The claims that he was an usurper, or that he had otherwise committed crimes that were disqualifying, were proven untrue by the standards we generally use to prove any historical fact. In other words, if we don’t know Obama was born in Hawaii, we really can’t say we know anything that happened which we did not actually see. Historical documents, eyewitnesses, and the coherence of evidence all testify that the Holocaust was a terrible crime, that the American Revolution led to the United States of America being formed from the thirteen British colonies, and that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and thus legally fit to hold office as President of the United States. Continued denial of these or any other facts backed by evidence of like quality is akin to psychosis.

Acts done during his presidency were occasionally challenged and denounced, but none were shown to warrant impeachment. His use of executive orders and his power struggles with the Congress headed by an opposing party were consistent with what we have seen in the past, and less extreme than what we witnessed during the Reagan administration and some other recent presidencies.

As to removal due to his future acts, these proved to be the most baseless. He never claimed any intention to do much of what conservative politicians and right-wing media said he was certainly planning to do, and in fact he never did. He never grabbed our guns, imposed Sharia, shuttered Christian churches, ceased deporting illegal immigrants, never arrested political opponents, never declared martial law, never sought to ban private health care or “socialize medicine,” nothing. While it is easy to see why many might have been alarmed at the rhetoric of Rev. Wright, the fact is that the American people did not elect President Jeremiah Wright; they elected President Barack Obama, who proved to be a steady, calm, clear communicator willing to talk to and listen to all sorts of people. And if there was any thought that he would betray the U.S. to the terrorists or wasn’t committed to fighting terrorism because he wouldn’t use the words “Radical Islamic Terrorism,” those fears were largely dispelled when he ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden.

By contrast, many (not all) of the concerns about Donald Trump have turned out to be well-founded.   He was fined for racist discrimination in his rental properties and admitted racist statements towards employees.[10] He bragged about committing sexual assault, then denied it, then threatened to sue the dozens of women who accused him of rape, groping, barging in on them while they were changing at the beauty pageant he owned, in short accused him of the very behavior he had boasted, but he never sued at all or testified under oath about their claims. He paid fines relating to various charges of fraud, including Trump University, a breaking scandal during the election for which, as soon as the election was over, he agreed to pay fines and damages. His campaign was accused of having improper connections to Russia and other foreign governments; since the election multiple campaign leaders and close Trump advisors have pleaded guilty or have been convicted of these charges. The Mueller report concluded that while there was no actual “conspiracy,” that was largely because the Trump campaign was too inept and too rent by personal rivalries among his staff to effectively conspire, and his administration was too weak to deliver on promises made to Russia because they feared looking like they were beholden to Putin—which, apparently, they were. Mueller also described ten separate instances of obstruction of justice carried out by Mr. Trump, intended to block investigation of Russian assistance to his campaign. Thus there were instances in the past that suggest that he was morally and psychologically flawed, and unlikely to be a good president. There is even some evidence that his campaign might have been illegal. In the end, though, there is nothing in the Constitution that says a lying, neurotic criminal can’t run for President. Even one with business ties to hostile foreign dictators can run, though he is supposed to be forbidden from actually holding presidential power while receiving income from foreign investments (U.S. Constitution Article 1, sect. 9, clause 8). So in that sense, the charges against Donald Trump were never as disqualifying as those against Obama; if the charges against Obama had a shred of truth in them, they could have barred him from even running for office. The charges against Trump were therefore less serious, in that sense; they were more serious in that they were put forward by people who meant them seriously—that is, who actually believed them and had evidence and reasons for those beliefs, rather than simply making baseless accusations to try to score political points by playing to paranoid delusions.

The evidence that Donald Trump is an usurper is weak; there has been no solid evidence that any votes were changed to get him elected, and even if his campaign did conspire with foreign governments the prescribed penalty would be a fine, not removal from office. The evidence that he is now a full-blown tyrant is also weak, being largely a matter of interpretation; he may be a corrupt authoritarian who is openly trying to rig his reelection and abusing his power in the process, but his abuses do not strike most people as directly barring them from what they want to do. But the evidence that he wants to exercise tyrannical power, wants to subvert representative democracy and undermine the other branches of government, is abundant and glaring. His words, his actions, the testimony of his confidants and aides all point towards this, just as if the captain should persistently steer towards Algiers. Even though, when circumstances or protests dissuade him, he might temporarily set another course, he always returns towards his original destination. It is therefore permissible, and I would say it is morally necessary to oppose him, before he can deliver the entire “ship of state” to the port of bondage. The only real question is what sort of resistance is required or allowed.

[1] “Cops: McCain Worker Made Up Attack Story;” CBS News October 24, 2008 (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cops-mccain-worker-made-up-attack-story/)

[2] Jonathan Tilove, “Abbot Directs State Guard to Monitor Operation Jade Helm 15 in Texas;” Statesman September 25, 2018 (https://www.statesman.com/NEWS/20160923/Abbott-directs-State-Guard-to-monitor-Operation-Jade-Helm-15-in-Texas) also Matthew Yglesias, “The Amazing Jade Helm Conspiracy Theory, Explained;” Vox May 6, 2015 (https://www.vox.com/2015/5/6/8559577/jade-helm-conspiracy)

[3] Ezra Klien, “Obama Derangement Syndrome;” Vox February 23, 2015 (https://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8089639/obama-derangement-syndrome)

[4] Algernon Austin, “How Being an Obama Hater Warps Your Mind;” HuffPost October 21, 2015 (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-being-an-obama-hater_b_8347142)

[5] Dareh Gregorian, “Schiff’s Powerful Closing Speech: ‘Is There One of You Who Will Say, Enough!’?” NBC News February 5, 2020 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/closing-argument-democrats-say-not-removing-trump-would-render-him-n1128766)

[6] Caroline Mortimer, “Donald Trump Believes He Has Superior Genes, Biographer Claims;” Independent September 30, 2016 (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-president-superior-genes-pbs-documentary-eugenics-a7338821.html)

[7] Nate Hopper, “Donald Trump Once Worried About Coal Miners Getting ‘Black-Lung Disease’ from ‘Damn Mines’;” TIME June 1, 2017 (https://news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-once-worried-coal-215437514.html)

[8] Marina Fang & JM Rieger, “This May Be the Most Horrible Thing that Donald Trump Believes;” Huffington Post September 28, 2016 (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-eugenics_n_57ec4cc2e4b024a52d2cc7f9)

[9] Marie Brenner, “After the Gold Rush;” Vanity Fair September 1, 1990 (https://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2015/07/donald-ivana-trump-divorce-prenup-marie-brenner)

[10] Michael D’Antonio, “Is Donald Trump Racist? Here’s What the Record Shows;” Fortune June 7m 2016 (https://fortune.com/2016/06/07/donald-trump-racism-quotes/)

Usurpation, Tyranny and Sailing to Algiers: How Bad Does It Have to Get? (pt. 5)

March 11, 2020

Application: Human action may be motivated by the past, the present or the future.

Actions are motivated by the past when we act because of something that has happened, or failed to happen in the past. For example, a society may punish a lawbreaker because that person did something terrible and society (or a judiciary acting in its behalf) has decided that this criminal “deserves” to be punished. Or, you may give someone $20 because in the past you agreed to pay him to cut your lawn, and he did in fact cut your lawn.

Actions are motivated by the present when they are reactions to something occurring now. If the police see a crime in progress and arrest the perpetrator, that action was motivated by the present. If you cry or laugh at a movie, it is because you feel emotions prompted by what is occurring in the present.

Actions motivated by the future are a bit more complex, because the future was not and is not, but might be. It is possibility. The agent is thus taking a particular actual action in anticipation of what the future might be. It could be argued that this is really a species of present motivation, because the immediate motivator is one’s present fear, desire or anticipation, and that subjective motivating feeling is actual in the present. But it is still useful to draw a distinction between actions motivated by present actualities versus actions motivated by anticipations of the future. For one thing, the latter are much more fraught. One may anticipate future rain and end up lugging an umbrella around on a dry day. One may marry because one believes the beloved will be a good life-partner, only to find that one or both of you is not up to a lifetime bond. The Precogs may name the wrong future criminal. It is thus a useful act of humility to remember that while one is immediately responding to one’s current fears or hopes, the future circumstances one is anticipating may be totally wrong. However, humans are creatures that plan. We live towards the future, which we anticipate as best we are able.

Why might one resort to force, or other methods of resistance, to try to remove a governmental leader such as a constitutional monarch in Locke’s day, or a president in ours? One might do it because the person holding the office did not deserve it or was not qualified due to some past circumstance. One could claim that the current office-holder was in fact an usurper, who did not come to the office legitimately and thus did not deserve to hold it now. Barack Obama faced calls for his impeachment from the moment he took office, and in some cases even before.[1] During and after the 2008 election for President of the United States of America, Obama was alleged to be, in essence, an usurper, not qualified to hold the office of President because he was not born a citizen. Since this claim allegedly rested on past circumstances, it was addressed most directly by simply producing evidence from the time to show the claim was false; this was done when documentary and journalistic evidence was produced of equivalent quality to that considered adequate to prove any other historical event. Legal documents, contemporary news announcements and eyewitness testimony was offered to show that Barack Obama was in fact born in Hawaii, and that his mother was a U.S. citizen. Despite this evidence, calls for his removal based on the “birther” conspiracy theory continued for years, most notably from Mr. Donald Trump.

Donald Trump has said that he faced calls for his removal “from Day One,” and that is true. Even before he took office, there were many who said he had committed crimes during his campaign that should have been disqualifying. Others said that he had lost the popular vote and thus did not have a mandate from the people. However, the alleged crimes were at that time unproven, and winning the majority of the popular vote is not in fact required under our Constitution. More serious were the charges that the vote had been manipulated and hacked, and that were it counted accurately he would have lost even the Electoral College vote.[2] If there had been a serious investigation, it might have shown that Donald Trump is in fact an usurper, and should be removed from office immediately. Of course, it might also have simply verified the official results. It might even have shown nothing, since many of the districts where Trump did best were districts that had easily-hacked voting machines with no paper record of the votes cast. In any case, no such serious attempt to verify the election was made, as Ms. Clinton chose to accept defeat rather than contest the election.

To be continued…

[1] Shane Croucher, “Donald Trump Claims Republicans ‘Never Even Thought of Impeaching’ Barack Obama. History Tells a Different Story;” Newsweek 10/22/2019 (https://www.newsweek.com/trump-obama-impeachment-republicans-democrats-1466865)

[2] Dan Merica, “Computer Scientists Urge Clinton Campaign to Challenge Election Results;” CNN, November 23, 2016 (https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/hillary-clinton-challenge-results/index.html)