Thoughts for the Day: Wednesday 16 September 2020

 

The Shape of Ancient Thought

Thomas McEvilley

Sextus’s [Sextus Empiricus] passage should be compared also with the Buddhist doctrine of the Four Noble Truths. In both cases the genesis of suffering is identified as the habit of discriminating between good and bad, which locks one into anxiety about avoiding what one dislikes and getting what one likes and, once one has got it, anxiety about holding on to it.

Every time man makes a new experiment he always learns more. He cannot learn less. 

--R. Buckminster Fuller

Demagogue

Michael Signer

[Hannah] Arendt cited President John Adams with approval: “a constitution is a standard, a pillar, and a bond when it is understood, approved and beloved. But without this intelligence and attachment, it might as well be a kite or balloon, flying in the air.”

And from Hannah Arendt's "Understanding & Politics," our feature deep quote source, the following:

Essays in Understanding, 1930-1954

Hannah Arendt

Words used for the purpose of fighting lose their quality of speech; they become clichés. The extent to which clichés have crept into our everyday language and discussions may well indicate the degree to which we not only have deprived ourselves of the faculty of speech, but are ready to use more effective means of violence than bad books (and only bad books can be good weapons) with which to settle our arguments.

SNG: Shades of Orwell, no?

Thoughts for the Day: Tuesday 15 September 2020

Speculum Mentis

R. G. Collingwood

To be a monad, as opposed to an atom; to be a world in itself unconnected with an indefinite number of other such worlds, each windowless and ignorant of a whole whose parts they nevertheless are—this is to be a work of art.

The Presence of the Infinite

Steve McIntosh

Comparing Aristotle’s three modes of persuasion with the premises of the evolutionary method, we can detect the influence of goodness, beauty, and truth on his overall categorical scheme. Specifically, ethos is most closely connected to the virtue or goodness of the speaker; pathos employs style or beauty to move the audience; and logos is about the actual message content or truth of the communication itself.

How to Think Like Leonardo Da Vinci

Michael J. Gelb

Long-term studies by Dr. Martin Seligman and many others show that the critical determinant of success in business and life is resilience in the face of adversity. Awareness, deep contemplation, and a sense of humor are your best friends in attempting to learn from difficult experiences.

A Thousand Small Sanities

Adam Gopnik

Burke’s horrified reaction to the killing of the French king and queen helps point us toward another, far fiercer right-wing critique of liberalism. That assault finds in liberalism a fatal overreliance on reason. It shares Burke’s sense of the chaos that could follow from the belief that society should be remade all at once on the basis of a big idea, with tradition and custom annihilated.

And for the finale:

Essays in Understanding, 1930-1954

Hannah Arendt

[W]eapons and fighting belong in the realm of violence, and violence, as distinguished from power, is mute; violence begins where speech ends.

Two Modest Propositions About Caucuses & Elections (and Iowa)

Iowans participating directly in politics. Messy, but that's sometimes how democracy works

In light of the Iowa Democrat Caucus last night--the results of which we don’t know as I write this--let me make a couple of observations that should prove less radical than Jonathan Swift’s “modest proposal” but that may upset you. I only ask that you forebear judgment until I make my case. 

But first, the elephant in the room: the lack of a final result last night and into Tuesday as I write this in the early afternoon. To this situation, I must say, “So what?” I know, I know.  I, too watched last night in anticipation of results, but I went to bed without a result. I slept soundly. I learned in the first election that I recall, Nixon-Kennedy in 1960, that despite my parents sending me to bed with the result still in doubt, the result would come without me and I’d find out soon enough to go to school and carry on with life. So, now, too. The glitch or glitches are unfortunate, but not very important. Yes, I thought Wolff Blitzer was going to have a meltdown, he kept murmuring “in 2016 we had the results by now.” The reporters and politicos used the opportunity to bad-mouth the caucuses for various reasons (more on that below). All the candidates declared victory and moved on. Their supporters will get on with their campaigns and going about their lives. We have every reason to believe that life, the campaign, and the news cycle (“all hail the News Cycle!”) will go on. We’ll get the results and will have every reason to believe that (in part) because of the time and delay that the reported results are accurate. (If not, then a whole lot more than the Iowa Caucus has big problems.) The whole episode has been a reminder of the American infatuation with instant gratification and how the demands of news organizations have come increasingly to dictate the conduct of our electoral system. Now to my modest propositions. 

1. We should expand the caucus and delegate system of party candidate selection. 
2. Voting is the least important--albeit essential--element of a democratic system. 

Let me explain these heretical propositions before your hair catches on fire. 

 First, about voting. In a democratic system going back to the ancient Greeks, the essence of a democratic system is decision-making by means of speech in which all stakeholders have a right to express their opinions should they choose to do so. As problems arise in a polity, responses are considered by collections of individuals who express their knowledge of relevant facts and share their opinions based upon those facts. In a perfect environment, all of the relevant facts are available to the stakeholder-decisionmakers, and they can express their opinions freely and fully; i.e., subject to neither necessity or coercion. Persuasion is the order of the day. But persuasion isn’t a one-way street; the mode of persuasion occurs with the dialectic of dialogue--or perhaps more accurately, multi-logue. Only after all perspectives and options have received a fair hearing that will winnow-out undesirable options and merge related options, will the decision-makers reach a decision about any action to undertake. And, the best (rational and fair) way to reach a decision is via a vote. This serves to ratify a decision, to make it conclusive, rational (at least in some measure), and legitimate (all will accept it as based on the perception of fairness and rationality). 

Let me hasten to note that I realize that the description of the decision-making system that I set forth above is at once both eutopian and utopian--both good and yet ideal beyond the reach of mortal humans. But the goal should be to approach the ideal. In modern mass democracies, we tend to be satisfied by providing the mass of the decision-makers, the electorate of eligible voters, with candidates and decisions that have been framed by elites (normally working through established institutions). These decisions (in the U.S.) tend to present voters with a binary choice. The key ingredient of democracy is reduced to a simple mark on a ballot for Candidate A or Candidate B. Sometimes, as in a primary election, there may be more than two candidates (or only one), but the principle of minimizing the expression of a decision-making choice reduces speech to the simplest possible expression. All of this may be necessary at the national and state-wide level, but why do we always want to push the system to the lowest common denominator? Why do we keep pushing towards plebiscites? Also, as you consider this, you realize what hooey any talk of a “mandate” is in a presidential election, which is most often a simple binary choice with occasional noteworthy third-party distractions from time-to-time; e.g., Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, George Wallace.  

So what does any of this about the limited (but essential) role of voting have to do with keeping, let alone expanding, the caucus system? Here I must admit that I’m an NRI (non-resident Iowan), having spent about 55 of my 66 years growing up and then raising our family in Iowa. I’ve participated in both Republican and Democratic caucuses and conventions. (I’ll save my confession of a misspent youth for another time.) Not having resided in Iowa full-time since 2012 and now in Brooklyn, I also have some outsider perspective also. In my experience (reinforced by press reporting this year), Iowans take the caucus system and their place in the nominating system very seriously. It’s like voluntary jury duty--it’s a pain in the rear for most folks, but if you’re going to do your civic duty, you’re going to try to do it right. (My experience with about 30 jury trials over more than three decades has informed my respect for most jurors.) Especially this year, with the abdication by the (Republican) Senate of its role in defending the Constitutional order in the face of an autocratic president, Democrats in Iowa have been especially concerned to select a winning, qualified presidential nominee. We don’t know who will prove the most popular choice yet, and opinions varied greatly, but make no mistake that the responsibility was taken very seriously by Iowa Democrats. And make no mistake, while Iowa isn’t the closest match to the national demographic picture, its track record in selecting Democratic nominees is exceptional. In 2000, Iowans preferred Al Gore, winner of the popular vote in 2000. They preferred the first woman nominated for president by a major party and the winner of the popular vote in 2016, Hillary Clinton. (Yes, yes, we know that winning the popular vote isn’t worth a warm buck of spit, but for that’s not the fault of Iowa Democrats.) They preferred John Kerry, the eventual nominee in 2004, and they preferred (and provided lift-off horsepower) to the first African-American nominee and president, Barack Obama, in 2008 and 2012. So remind me again why you believe the Iowa Democrat caucus is so off-kilter? 

Ah, yes, the caucus is not an election, and so the participation rate is much lower than would expect if we asked Democrats to only fill out a ballot at some point in the nominating process. This assertion is undoubtedly accurate. This way, perhaps via a regional primary, we could by-pass all the neighborhood discussions and maximize TV advertising (such an effective medium of one-way communication) and rely on the totally reliable--but for Russian bots and doctored tapes and conspiracy theories--social media platforms. In other words, Iowa (along with New Hampshire) emphasizes retail politics. Think how much better democracy would be if we all candidates would hold only Trumpeque “rallies” consisting only of the faithful. No messy questions (and, yes, candidates receive some really whacky questions in the coffee and handshakes systems of Iowa and New Hampshire). An only primary election system would be so much easier and lucrative for campaign professionals and media consultants. People (let’s not call them citizens) wouldn’t have to waste their precious time talking directly to candidates and neighbors. They could simply sit at home and have only the most wholesome, honest, and accurate information fed to them by their televisions and computers. That many--perhaps most--people would prefer this does not negate my point. The encouragement of political laziness should not be the goal of a republican democracy.

And in selecting the nominees for office, why shouldn’t the faithful of the political parties have the greatest say? That interlopers, like Trump among the Republicans and Sanders among Democrats, have done quite well in party contests doesn’t negate this argument. (Trump most definitely; the Sanders effect yielded a mixed record in 2016 and remains an open question in the present election.) Some argue that the party faithful tend to be more extreme in their views, toward the left (Democrats) and the right (Republicans), but this largely because of the political polarization that we’re currently experiencing. And even in Iowa this year, the final results, as well as ancillary polling, will reveal that defeating Trump is more important than the candidacy of any particular individual. When newcomers or minorities gain control of presidential nominations, the results have proven disastrous: Goldwater (GOP 1964), McGovern (Dem 1972), and Trump (GOP 2016). (The admitted exception is Mondale (Dem 1984), who had the misfortune of encountering the popular Reagan with the economy in an upswing while Democrats were continuing to wander in the wilderness seeking their identity.) While I’m not advocating a return to the smoke-filled rooms, I am arguing that the initial decisions be left to those committed to the party and what it stands for. This is an ever-changing and relatively self-selecting elite that should be perfectly consistent with democratic equality. And, returning to my point about the relative unimportance of voting (necessary but not sufficient for a democratic system), the more self-selective caucus system promotes speech, the political conversations that are the taproot of a realized democracy. Any change we make in our electoral system should emphasize real political communication at the grassroots level. 

So two cheers for the Iowa caucus system! It’s far from perfect, but I don’t see a better alternative. 

David Brooks on Our Current Lord of Misrule

David Brooks in "The Lords of Misrule" (NYT 17 Jan 2017) has written a column that prompts the need for reflection. In his column, Brooks begins with the ecstatic dance of David before the Ark of the Covenant and reflections about the juxtaposition of Dionysus and Jesus as occasions for ecstasy and release. He then moves to the perhaps more familiar practice of a carnival in the Middle Ages. 

Brooks doesn't fool around

Brooks describes the medieval practice of a carnival as a time for the lord of misrule, an apt phrase. Brooks also refers to the practice as "the feast of fools." It is a time when social hierarchy and decorum are set aside; the fool becomes king, men and women cross-dress, the beggar acts as a rich man, and sex is promiscuous. It is, as Brooks says, a "time to blow off steam." 

Where is Brooks going with this listen in cultural history? "We’re living with exactly the kinds of injustices that lead to carnival culture, and we’ve crowned a fool king." Harsh, but true. He continues: 

His tweets are classic fool behavior. They are raw, ridiculous and frequently self-destructive. He takes on an icon of the official culture and he throws mud at it. The point is not the message of the tweet. It’s to symbolically upend hierarchy, to be oppositional.

Brooks continues, 

Anybody who writes for a living knows how to manipulate an outraged response, and Trump is a fool puppet master.

The sad part is that so many people treat Trump’s tweets as if they are arguments when in fact they are carnival. With their conniption fits, Trump’s responders feed into the dynamic he needs. They contribute to carnival culture.

The first problem with today’s carnival culture is that there’s an ocean of sadism lurking just below the surface. The second is that it’s not real. It doesn’t really address the inequalities that give rise to it. It’s just combative display. 

Brooks goes on to say that he will no longer attempt to pay attention to what the "puppet master" tweets. (Trump's favorite mode of communication because it fits his 4th-grade vocabulary and verbal bluster.) Brooks, instead, will attemptonly to track what Trump does. 

Good luck. 

But for some reflection: 

1. By resolving to cover only what Trump does and not what he says, Brooks is playing into Trump's destruction of politics. Politics is speech; speech is the essence of politics. (Hannah Arendt). When speech is degraded by actors such as Trump, politics is degraded. (See my recent reflections on Orwell's "Politics & the English Language".) So how does someone like Brooks--or any of us--deal with a political leader who demeans speech? Do we concede that his words mean nothing (the Kellyanne Conway argument)? Understand that the opposite of politics and speech is force, the mode of tyranny. When speech can not longer resolve disputes and make plans, we resort to force. Some, of course, prefer this--usually the folks who have a monopoly or near monopoly on the means of violance.  

2. How did the lord of misrule come to power? Were enough voters foolish enough to elect a fool who is really a puppet master?  But is this fool sharp enough to continue the "puppet master" role? We have to think seriously about the dynamics of this phenomenon (which I intend to do in future posts). 

3. What will it mean in real time to be led (if we are led) by a lord of misrule, a fool? Does that mean the the fool-king's courtiers and ministers--his collection of billionaire businessmen and women and political hacks--will rule in his (mental) absence (along with the fools in Congress)? Because Trump has few, if any, core political beliefs or any firm agenda other than massaging his ego and fattening his bank account, we can anticipate that power will flow to his courtiers and ministers. We will see more of the politics and pageantry of a royal entourage than we've ever beheld in American history

4. Sometimes fools reveal a hidden wisdom, for instance, Shakespeare's fool in King Lear, Feste in Twelfth Night, Puck and Nick Bottom in A Midsummer's Night Dream, and poor Jack Falstaff, to name but a few of the better known of Shakespeare's fool characters. So is there some hidden wisdom in Donald Trump? Some supported him in the belief that he would so upset the existing order that it would beget a great change that would bring the change that people crave even as they cannot articulate it. In other words, "Bring on the Revolution!" or "Apocolypse Now!" As a Burkean convservative (in some respects), I shudder at this prospect. The fool is too likely to become a tyrant once he can no longer entertain and distract us with his Twitter jests. The fool gains his crown by entertaining and flattering the crowd, and when the crowd begins to sour on his act, they will become more demanding. The act will have to change. Will the fool voluntarily adbicate his power? This fool--narcissist that he is--seems incapable of such a gesture of self-abnegation. Instead, we can expect to experience a doubling down of his antics and more brute assertions of his power and authority. 

So in the end, who are the fools? 

President Obama's State of the Union Address 2014: Pointing in the Right Direction

 I didn't see or hear President Obama's State of the Union address, but I've reviewed the text and found some things worth considering more carefully. Excerpts from the speech follow with some comments from me. (Bold type marks my emphasis.)

The question for everyone in this chamber, running through every decision we make this year, is whether we are going to help or hinder this progress. For several years now, this town has been consumed by a rancorous argument over the proper size of the federal government. It's an important debate -- one that dates back to our very founding. But when that debate prevents us from carrying out even the most basic functions of our democracy -- when our differences shut down government or threaten the full faith and credit of the United States -- then we are not doing right by the American people.

 Calling out House Republicans for their shameful behavior (okay, he didn't say "House Republicans", but we all know it) was completely appropriate. He needed to lay down his marker and he did.

And in the coming months -- (applause) -- in the coming months, let's see where else we can make progress together. Let's make this a year of action. That's what most Americans want, for all of us in this chamber to focus on their lives, their hopes, their aspirations. And what I believe unites the people of this nation, regardless of race or region or party, young or old, rich or poor, is the simple, profound belief in opportunity for all, the notion that if you work hard and take responsibility, you can get ahead in America. 

A restatement of the American Dream and ideals, but we have to take a hard look at whether its working as well as it should. I don't think so. 

Now, let's face it: That belief has suffered some serious blows. Over more than three decades, even before the Great Recession hit, massive shifts in technology and global competition had eliminated a lot of good, middle-class jobs, and weakened the economic foundations that families depend on.

Today, after four years of economic growth, corporate profits and stock prices have rarely been higher, and those at the top have never done better. But average wages have barely budged. Inequality has deepened. Upward mobility has stalled. The cold, hard fact is that even in the midst of recovery, too many Americans are working more than ever just to get by; let alone to get ahead. And too many still aren't working at all.

So our job is to reverse these trends.

It won't happen right away, and we won't agree on everything.

 Growing inequality is a creeping and its insidious. One of the benefits of living in another country is to see how things that you don't understand or appreciate in your own country effect other nations. India suffers from huge chasms of inequality, the rising middle class notwithstanding. If you consider nations with large amount of inequality, you see how they don't make the "best place to live" awards. American has normally been marked by a large degree of social and political equality, and the more we lose that quality, the more our social and political fabric suffers.

But what I offer tonight is a set of concrete, practical proposals to speed up growth, strengthen the middle class and build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class. Some require congressional action, and I'm eager to work with all of you. But America does not stand still, and neither will I. (Applause.) So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that's what I'm going to do. (Cheers, applause.)

 In other words, "Republicans, you either part of the solution or a part of the problem. You've marked yourselves as problems and its time for you to go." I'm glad to hear Obama taking this type of bold stand, which seems contrary to his instincts, but sometimes you've got to go beyond instincts.

 The point is, there are millions of Americans outside Washington who are tired of stale political arguments and are moving this country forward. They believe, and I believe, that here in America, our success should depend not on accident of birth but the strength of our work ethic and the scope of our dreams. That's what drew our forebears here. It's how the daughter of a factory worker is CEO of America's largest automaker -- (applause) -- how the son of a barkeeper is speaker of the House -- (cheers, applause) -- how the son of a single mom can be president of the greatest nation on Earth.

Yes, most of us come from modest origins. This is a great strength of our nation. 

Moreover, we can take the money we save from this transition to tax reform to create jobs rebuilding our roads, upgrading our ports, unclogging our commutes -- because in today's global economy, first- class jobs gravitate to first-class infrastructure. We'll need Congress to protect more than 3 million jobs by finishing transportation and waterways bills this summer. (Cheers, applause.) That can happen.

Infrastructure in the U.S. is beginning to lag, and this a great way--assuming sound projects--to put people to work. That all of us fortunate enough to enjoy some of this prosperity will have to pay some more in taxes doesn't bother me.

Meanwhile, my administration will keep working with the industry to sustain production and jobs growth while strengthening protection of our air, our water, our communities. And while we're at it, I'll use my authority to protect more of our pristine federal lands for future generations. (Applause.)

If you want to find out what poor environment standards mean for day-to-day living, come to India or China, and you'll find out. 

And taken together, our energy policy is creating jobs and leading to a cleaner, safer planet. Over the past eight years the United States has reduced our total carbon pollution more than any other nation on Earth. (Applause.)

But we have to act with more urgency because a changing climate is already harming western communities struggling with drought and coastal cities dealing with floods. That's why I directed my administration to work with states, utilities and others to set new standards on the amount of carbon pollution our power plants are allowed to dump into the air.

The shift -- (applause) -- the shift to a cleaner energy economy won't happen overnight, and it will require some tough choices along the way.

But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. (Applause.) And when our children's children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did. (Cheers, applause.)

Figuring out energy while reducing our carbon footprint is probably the greatest challenge the world faces now. To hear climate change raised in the public sphere in a clear and unequivocal voice is so welcome. We can't fix the problem until we acknowledge it, and the No-Nothing Party (once the proud Republican Party) won't do it. 

Tonight, because of the extraordinary troops and civilians who risk and lay down their lives to keep us free, the United States is more secure. When I took office, nearly 180,000 Americans were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, all our troops are out of Iraq. More than 60,000 of our troops have already come home from Afghanistan. With Afghan forces now in the lead for their own security, our troops have moved to a support role. Together with our allies, we will complete our mission there by the end of this year, and America's longest war will finally be over. (Applause.)

It should have happened sooner. The complexity and history of Afghanistan are so daunting that we'll never have a "victory", so we need to get out sooner rather than later.  Watch the superb Jaipur Literature Festival panel about Afghanistan if you want some sense of the problems that exist there.

But I strongly believe our leadership and our security cannot depend on our outstanding military alone. As commander in chief, I have used force when needed to protect the American people, and I will never hesitate to do so as long as I hold this office. But I will not send our troops into harm's way unless it is truly necessary, nor will I allow our sons and daughters to be mired in open-ended conflicts. We must fight the battles -- (applause) -- that need to be fought, not those that terrorists prefer from us -- large-scale deployments that drain our strength and may ultimately feed extremism.

Yes, they do drain us. Thanks for admitting it!  And yes, sometimes I think that the U.S. government is in the terrorist creation business (see under "drones").

So even as we actively and aggressively pursue terrorist networks, through more targeted efforts and by building the capacity of our foreign partners, America must move off a permanent war footing. (Applause.) That's why I've imposed prudent limits on the use of drones, for we will not be safer if people abroad believe we strike within their countries without regard for the consequence.

This can't be said often enough: war and democracy don't mix. War kills democracy. If we have to worry about it in an Obama Administration (and we do), then how much more in a future (Heaven forbid!) Bush administration? 

The sanctions that we put in place helped make this opportunity possible. But let me be clear: if this Congress sends me a new sanctions bill now that threatens to derail these talks, I will veto it. (Applause.) For the sake of our national security, we must give diplomacy a chance to succeed.

Super. We have to let all the world know that the U.S. will act in its perceived interests even if they conflict with the interests of any ally or friendly nation, whether it be Canada, the U.K. , or Israel. If Israel foolishly tries to torpedo negotiations with Iran (through the U.S. Congress, no less!), then President Obama is right to say "no". Simple. The war hawks in Congress need a firm "no" on this, and I'm very glad that Obama sent that message. After assuring our own national interest, we must support the State of Israel within the bounds of our interests and not simply follow the policies of any given Israeli government. 

All in all, a good message. Keep after it, Mr. President! 

Moyers & Colbert

First, for some background for any younger readers (if there be any). Bill Moyers has been a staple of thoughtful, insightful television journalism since the 1960's. He seems to bring a thoughtful, learned, yet modest and inquiring attitude to each interview, whether it be a woman on the street or someone of the highest learning or office. His initial program will feature two political scientists (Jacob Hacker of Yale and someone from Berkeley), and then he'll do someone on the street, and with each interview he seems to speak to the palace where the individuals are at and draw the most from them. Having him back on the air is good news, indeed.

His interview with Colbert shows he's lost nothing much with his advancing age (good news to those of us not far behind him!). He goes toe-to-toe with Stephen, and in the end, leaves Stephen a bit speechless. Fun viewing.

One side note: Are corporations "people"? Moyers got it right when he said "persons", not "people" (that's Mitt Romney). Colbert got it right when he cited the nineteenth century Santa Clara case decided by SCOTUS. Both sides have to be correct in some sense. Of course, on one hand, corporations are not individuals; on the other hand, corporations are organizations of individuals (human individuals, no androids allowed as of yet) that must have some legal standing and, yes, rights. If group entities, corporations (profit and non-profit), partnerships, married couples, churches, etc. don't have some legal rights as "persons", we're in deep trouble.

The Citizens United case (and I admit to not having read it) does trouble me, but it has to do more with the equation of money with speech than with the characterization of a corporation as a "person". I define "person" as a entity with legal rights under our Constitution--I don't equate person in this context as an individual. (To go further, distinguish a "soul" (religious), a "self" (philosophical/psychological) and an "individual" (biological)--it all depends on what you're asking and why. In any event, the equation of money with speech is a brutalization of our political discourse, and a sad chapter in this history of SCOTUS. (Perhaps more on this later.)