Thoughts for Later in the Day: Thursday 14 January 2021

 

An Essay on Philosophical Method

R. G. Collingwood, ed. by James Connelly, and Giuseppina D'Oro

Thought and action, each considered in its essence, may be as distinct as we will ; but in their existence in concrete instances they are so connected that it is possible, and more than possible, for an instance of the one to be an instance of the other also. Actual thinking is a labour to which ethical predicates may attach ; and although it is a mistake to regard thesepredicates as throwing any light on its nature as thinking-a mistake made by those who regard thought as essentially practical-they do throw light on the question under what conditions thought can exist.

Query: How do Collingwood's thoughts about thought & action compare to those of Hannah Arendt?

The Principles of History and Other Writings in Philosophy of History

R. G. Collingwood, W. H. Dray, and W. J. van der Dussen

Descartes, one of the three great masters of the Logic of Questioning (the other two being Socrates and Bacon), insisted upon this as a cardinal point in scientific method, but so far as modern works on logic are concerned, Descartes might never have lived.

Men in Dark Times

Hannah Arendt

Thus there are two things that the deductive sciences, logic and mathematics, always and necessarily overlook; first, they cannot see what makes logic or mathematics precisely what it is, that is, its logicality or mathematicality, any more than a person can see the very ground on which he is standing; and secondly they cannot observe the subject of the logical and mathematical operations. They always see only their own shadows, so to speak, but not themselves. Now it is natural that the mathematicality in mathematics, in other words “number as such,” should be the “absolute” for mathematics; and this very absolute is given to mathematics from outside, demonstrably existing outside its own system.

The Future of History

John Lukacs

If—as late as 1900—a Japanese or a Chinese wished to know precise matters about the history of his state and country in recent centuries, he had to read such narratives and accounts written by a European or American historian. But during the twentieth century historical consciousness began to spread, even though unevenly, to nations and peoples previously unaffected by it.

Kinds of Power

James Hillman

The Economy differs from other world empires, depending neither on Roman legions nor on British battleships, secret police, or stockpiles of nuclear weapons. Its power, like that of religions, has become interiorized. It rules by psychological means. The Economy determines who is included and who marginalized, distributing the rewards and punishments of wealth and poverty, advantage and disadvantage. Because this internalization of its ideas is so unquestioningly and universally accepted, it is the Economy where the contemporary unconscious resides and where psychological analysis is most needed.

Letter of Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO5) Opposing Impeachment & My Response

 Below is a letter that I received from our Congressional Representative Doug Lamborn (R-CO-5) in response to my email to him urging him to support the impeachment of President Trump. Below is his reply and my response to his reply, which I'm posting here and which I will send to his office as well. 

Dear Mr. Greenleaf,

Thank you for contacting me regarding impeachment. Their resolution has broken all precedent by bypassing Judiciary hearings and debate- instead being rushed to the full House of Representatives for a vote. In the President’s own words, he called for people to march to the Capitol building to “peacefully and patriotically” make their voices heard. This is House Democrats second impeachment of President Trump. 

The impeachment vote is a travesty. In the Democrats' hasty desire to impeach the President, they are willing to trample the Constitution and our political institutions. I condemn the actions of the individuals who stormed the Capitol. However, it is clear that President Trump did not incite this violence. He clearly called for individuals to peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard. This is yet another political ploy by House Democrats who hate the President and will do everything in their power to silence the voices of millions of Americans who voted for him. I hope we can move forward together in unity, but the Democrats’ impeachment is an obstacle to that effort. I will not vote to impeach the President. 

For more information about my efforts on behalf of Colorado, please visit my website at Lamborn.house.gov. Additionally, stay up to date by visiting my Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram pages. You can also sign up for my e-Newsletter for the latest updates. It is an honor and privilege to serve you in Congress.

Sincerely,

Doug Lamborn
Member of Congress

As I posted my email urging him to support impeachment on Facebook, I want to give Representative Lamborn a forum for his reply. And I believe it's important and useful to carefully and thoroughly review his arguments, so I have. Let's look carefully at his contentions. 

"Their resolution has broken all precedent by bypassing Judiciary hearings and debate- instead being rushed to the full House of Representatives for a vote." 

You have no antecedent for "their," but I assume you're referring to House Democrats. And you are certainly correct that this impeachment effort is "rushed." You, however, don't address here (or in any previous statements that I can find) the circumstances for this impeachment effort: the attack on Congress and the Capitol building by the mob on 6 January. You don't comment on what triggered this disgraceful attack on the institution of which you are a member, nor have you offered an account of the cause of this attack. All of the House Democrats, 10 of your Republican colleagues (including your caucus leader, Rep. Cheney (R-WY)), and most Americans believe that President Trump is responsible for the words of provocation and incitement made at the rally immediately preceding the attack and throughout the election process. Let me ask you an (admittedly far-fetched) hypothetical: If the president who made had made the same statements as did President Trump throughout this election cycle and on January 6 had been a Democrat, you would not have joined as a sponsor of the resolution of impeachment? If you answer differently than you've answered by your actions (opposing impeachment), then you're admitting that your position is motivated solely by your allegiance to Trump and his faction of the Republican Party. Of course, you realize that you'd be derelict in your duty if you didn't act to impeach the Democrat in my hypothetical.

"In the President’s own words, he called for people to march to the Capitol building to “peacefully and patriotically” make their voices heard." 

Is this all that President Trump said at the rally? Is this the whole truth? Do you consider the context of his remarks at the preceding rally in light of his numerous preceding statements and actions that lied about the integrity and legitimacy of the election? I think not. In fact, you can read a transcript of what President Trump said at the rally as reported by U.S. News & World Report. After you've read his entire harangue (is "harangue" unfairly pejorative?), please confirm that you still contend that President Trump simply "called for the people to march to the Capitol building to 'peacefully & patriotically' make their voices heard." (Warning: President Trump's remarks (?) at the rally are long-winded, rambling, and disjunct. But you really should read it in its entirety given the seriousness of the attack and the significance of impeachment.) 

"The impeachment vote is a travesty." 

As your composition teacher would have written on this paper: you've stated your conclusion; now you must support it. 

"In the Democrats' hasty desire to impeach the President, they are willing to trample the Constitution and our political institutions."

The Democrats, with the support of a few Republicans and the weight of public opinion, have acted expeditiously. In what particulars have "the Constitution and our political institutions" been "trampled?" Please be specific. Mustn't the Senate still hold a trial? Might they actually solicit evidence and call witnesses if they chose to do so? (They didn't for President Trump's first impeachment.) But the conduct of the trial remains the prerogative of the Senate under the Consitution.

And why do--why would--the Democrats and those Republicans who support impeachment want to pursue this impeachment? Trump will be gone on January 20th, so removal will become a moot issue. Why would they want to burden Congress with addressing this issue when our nation is suffering unprecedented death tolls because of our ineffectual response to the pandemic and while so many in our society are suffering severe harm to their well-being--economic and personal? It better be a darned good reason. Representative Cheney's (R-WY) statement captures as succinctly as any the justification for this impeachment: 

“The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack,” she said in a statement. “Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the president. The president could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a president of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution.” (NYT)

If, as the evidence continues to mount, we receive convincing evidence (even evidence beyond a reasonable doubt) of Trump's culpability in this attack, should such "high crimes and misdemeanors" and statutory crimes go unaddressed and unpunished?  Is this your contention? 

"I condemn the actions of the individuals who stormed the Capitol." 

Good! We agree on this point. 

"[I]t is clear that President Trump did not incite this violence. He clearly called for individuals to peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard."

If it is "clear" that "President Trump did not incite this violence," then how could all of the House Democrats and ten Republicans (plus House Minority Leader McCarthy in his statement, although not his vote), and a majority of Americans conclude that President Trump incited this riot? It certainly doesn't seem "clear" to most of the rest of us. You need to go beyond mere assertions to making cogent arguments based on factual statements. (And again, read President's full transcript of his January 6 talk at the "rally.") 

Question: Can one absolve oneself from criminal liability for inciting a crowd to transform into a rioting mob by sprinkling in a few words of peace in an otherwise belligerent harangue? Can one call a crowd to action because of a false claim of a horrible wrong (a "stolen election" and degradation of the Constitutional order) without consequence? (The Mark Antony defense: "I only came to bury Caesar, not to praise him--or to rile up the crowd against the conspirators.") Or, as the law states, should we assume that an actor intends the "natural and probable consequences of his actions" when judging his intent? (In other words, should we discourage the "play dumb" defense.) Does Trump by having uttered the words "peacefully and patriotically" in the course of his harangue provide himself with a get out of jail free card? Your implicit suggestion is that words don't matter and that words spoken by a public figure should receive absolute immunity under First Amendment free speech provisions. I don't agree with what your position suggests. I don't accept that First Amendment protections for speech are absolute and without exception (and here I agree with President Trump, although I disagree in the particulars).

"This is yet another political ploy by House Democrats who hate the President and will do everything in their power to silence the voices of millions of Americans who voted for him."

How does this "ploy" work? On what basis do you allege that the Democrats "will do everything in their power to silence the voices of millions of Americans who voted for him." Are you confused? Didn't you just vote not to certify the Electoral College vote and negate the votes of millions of Americans? (Yes, you did. On January 6, no less.)  Is the "him" you're talking about, for whom "millions of Americans voted for," not Joe Biden? Are you acquainted with the psychological concept of projection?

As to "hating" Trump, I can only speak for myself. Do I hate him? As a person, I find him pathetic, a man plagued by demons and out-of-control; a man of unconstrained appetites. For this, I pity him. But as a public figure, we must judge him and his performance. I do "hate" very much of what he's done, especially the lies and the fomenting of hatred and division and his degradation of norms of decency, civility, and the rule of law. And then there are his policies, to the extent that we can call them that, which were in large measure odious and foolish, to put it as kindly as possible. Thus, you're correct that I and most Democrats loath President Trump, and I believe that he's earned this level of disdain. We can pity him, but we can't trust him or forget his deeds. If at some point he confesses, repents, and atones for his wrongs, he can perhaps put himself straight with the Almighty and those close to him. But we the citizens of the United States can never forget his transgressions, and we should trust him with any public office ever again. 

"I hope we can move forward together in unity, but the Democrats’ impeachment is an obstacle to that effort."

Can--should--a victim of a crime--including "high crimes and misdemeanors"--simply "move forward together in unity" with the perpetrator without a judicial accounting of the wrongs committed and without some penalty imposed for those wrongs? I contend not. President Trump remains utterly unrepentant for his wrongdoing. And if there is no admission of guilt--as would be required in any criminal sentencing based on a plea agreement (when a defendant receives the benefit of a plea bargain), then there can be no receipt of a more lenient sentence. President Trump should be punished for his wrongdoing if found guilty of any "high crimes and misdemeanors" or statutory crimes after a fair trial (or trials) based on due process of law. And those who have suborned and enabled his wrongdoing should be called into account in the court of public opinion and in the election booth (unless a justified criminal case can be brought). 

I'm all in favor of "moving forward together in unity" as a nation after we have comes to grips with our national ailments. I don't believe that we can afford to sweep the events of January 6 under the rug nor can we simply ignore the complicity of the President and his supporters in this attack on our democracy. Before reconciliation must come accountability. I sincerely desire that we can bring folks together by honest and forthright dialogue. We need a government that addresses the legitimate needs and aspirations of all Americans. We need to come to grips with the realities that we face--a pandemic, economic inequities, climate change--and a host of other festering problems. So, yes, we need to get beyond this impeachment and act to take positive steps toward improving our national well-being. But until we face the wrongs, the wrongs of our nation, we won't make any real progress. 

"I will not vote to impeach the President."

And you didn't. 

Thank you for your consideration of these matters. I'm happy to carry on this dialogue so long as you desire. 

Stephen N. Greenleaf