A classic of political philosophy and the book that launched the genres of utopian and dystopian fiction. It is the story of the traveller Raphael Hylothloday (however that's spelled) who tells of an island in South America which has abolished poverty by adopting communism. There is no money as all receive what they need from the government and contribute as much as they are able. From each according to their ability to each according to their need.
The most difficult thing to learn from this book is whether More actually supported communism, it is a guide for the church, or a social satire. The title represents this conundrum, utopia is Greek for both nowhere and a good place. More is actually a character in the story who meets Raphael, and at the conclusion notes how strange utopia is, but how some of its measures should be replicated.
Sunday, September 14, 2014
Sunday, August 31, 2014
John Locke
Tabula rasa? I never said that!
What Locke actually said: ¨All ideas come from sensation or reflection. Let us then suppose the mind, as we say, white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas. How comes it to be furnished?...To this I answer, in one word, from EXPERIENCE.¨
Monday, May 26, 2014
Propaganda & Democratic Elitism
The concept of propaganda as distinct from persuasion is a semantic game. In the words of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, ¨I know it when I see it¨. Propaganda usually amounts to persuasion someone doesn’t like. It is hazily defined as something on its own, and has been used in ways most reasonable people would agree are acceptable. The proper use and misuse of propaganda is how propaganda is used, not in whether to use it. Propaganda becomes more important in modern mass society to coordinate behavior for collective efforts like war and serves to instill certain values in the population. The objectors to propaganda speak of its ill effects on public discourse, therefore it is their responsibility to demonstrate exactly what abuses of propaganda are doing, and who they are harming.
The most common objection to propaganda is that it is dishonest. Propaganda distorts the truth at best and downright lies at worst. Propaganda is seen as a deliberate form of deception, made only for the goals of whoever is behind the propaganda. Scholars identify two basic types of propaganda, white and black propaganda. White propaganda does not hide its source, while black propaganda conceals it. White propaganda then cannot be criticized as inherently deceptive. The source and thereby its intention are clear. Obviously obscuring the source is not the only means to distort the truth. Even with the source revealed, the portrayal of information can be misleading, as in the tactic known as card stacking where certain facts which are contradictory to the message are withheld. The fact of life is that even the honest use certain facts and not others. Not all facts are relevant to a certain case, just because two things happen does not mean there is a connection. The misleading use of certain facts has to be proved since the act of persuasion is one of exclusion.
Critiques over the use of propaganda are mostly concerned about its effects on democratic participation. If the people’s will is the source of government’s legitimacy, propaganda manipulates what the many want for the benefit of the few. On the contrary, the people do not speak with one voice and agree what their interest is. Some level of propaganda is necessary for a free society to function. The greatest problem with public opinion in a democracy is reaching consensus, as public opinion is a cacophony of competing interests. James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper #10 that division is ¨sown into the nature of man... zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points¨. Madison’s remedy is to have a democracy of groups which can reach a consensus on behalf of their members. This makes the dilemma of consensus easier by reducing the amount of voting parties, but retains the antagonism of interests by inducing competition into decision making to ensure representation of different groups, like the states through the Senate (originally) and the popular vote through the House. The problem is that groups do not act, their leaders do. Democracy works in the real world paradoxically through elites. It is from this reality that propaganda can be justified as facilitating the public’s choice of democratic elites.
The theory of democratic elitism recognizes that the state is a separate institution from elites in a democratic society. Joseph Schumpeter elaborated democratic elitism in Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy as ¨that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote¨. Having an electoral system of wide franchise in some fashion divides political power from economic power, when each citizen’s vote is equal. Even a democratic socialist state without external economic elites will have elites because it remains a state. If voters opt for socialist policies, they do not enforce them. If the people enforced every law themselves, it would be a voluntary organization and not a coercive state. To give government the autonomy to work, a socialist state would result in an ever increasing unelected bureaucracy having control over voters lives. Even in socialist states like the USSR the people remained separate from the party apparatus who claimed to be the vanguard of the people. Increasing power to the state and allowing it to act as a state does takes power away from voters, an argument made by Friedrich Hayek in The Road to Serfdom and put pithily by Winston Churchill as a socialist state “would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo”. The existence of the state presupposes the existence of an elite as groups act in politics by accepting leadership.
Given that democracy is a competition over which elite will rule over citizens, it is the members of the elite who run for office who must use propaganda to present the clearest alternatives to voters. The separation of political power into the hands of voting individuals means that a political leader’s job is not to create opinions, but to sell them. Public opinion is a blessing for the various opinions emerging from public discourse, with the leader as the midwife. This conundrum was realized by Woodrow Wilson as a young scholar in his writings on the American system of separation of powers. To bring cohesiveness to American democracy while accepting the reality of its constitutional structure, he proposed the idea of rhetorical leadership. The square of public debate is outside the realm of politics, politics is about action. The politician’s job is to make these inchoate ideas comprehensible to voters. In Leaders of Men Wilson described this ideal of leadership as ¨The men who act stand nearer to the mass of men than do the men who write; and it is at their hands that new thought gets its translation into the crude language of deeds¨. The role of a politician is to mold public opinion, to persuade them that their program is in their best interest. It is not manipulation of public opinion because without leadership there is no public opinion. It is a convoluted mess of competing interests. Propaganda can only sell what others are willing to buy, in the absence of their desire or ability to run for office. ¨The competent leader of men cares little for the interior niceties of other people’s characters: he cares much-everything for the external uses to which they may be put...men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader¨.
Propaganda is not good or bad in itself, it is really just persuasion writ large. It is called into use in the era of mass communication and the leveling of political legitimacy. The fundamental reality of power remains intact underneath. Propaganda in democracy is persuasion of how power will be used.
(From a paper I wrote for a media & propaganda class)
The most common objection to propaganda is that it is dishonest. Propaganda distorts the truth at best and downright lies at worst. Propaganda is seen as a deliberate form of deception, made only for the goals of whoever is behind the propaganda. Scholars identify two basic types of propaganda, white and black propaganda. White propaganda does not hide its source, while black propaganda conceals it. White propaganda then cannot be criticized as inherently deceptive. The source and thereby its intention are clear. Obviously obscuring the source is not the only means to distort the truth. Even with the source revealed, the portrayal of information can be misleading, as in the tactic known as card stacking where certain facts which are contradictory to the message are withheld. The fact of life is that even the honest use certain facts and not others. Not all facts are relevant to a certain case, just because two things happen does not mean there is a connection. The misleading use of certain facts has to be proved since the act of persuasion is one of exclusion.
Critiques over the use of propaganda are mostly concerned about its effects on democratic participation. If the people’s will is the source of government’s legitimacy, propaganda manipulates what the many want for the benefit of the few. On the contrary, the people do not speak with one voice and agree what their interest is. Some level of propaganda is necessary for a free society to function. The greatest problem with public opinion in a democracy is reaching consensus, as public opinion is a cacophony of competing interests. James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper #10 that division is ¨sown into the nature of man... zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points¨. Madison’s remedy is to have a democracy of groups which can reach a consensus on behalf of their members. This makes the dilemma of consensus easier by reducing the amount of voting parties, but retains the antagonism of interests by inducing competition into decision making to ensure representation of different groups, like the states through the Senate (originally) and the popular vote through the House. The problem is that groups do not act, their leaders do. Democracy works in the real world paradoxically through elites. It is from this reality that propaganda can be justified as facilitating the public’s choice of democratic elites.
The theory of democratic elitism recognizes that the state is a separate institution from elites in a democratic society. Joseph Schumpeter elaborated democratic elitism in Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy as ¨that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote¨. Having an electoral system of wide franchise in some fashion divides political power from economic power, when each citizen’s vote is equal. Even a democratic socialist state without external economic elites will have elites because it remains a state. If voters opt for socialist policies, they do not enforce them. If the people enforced every law themselves, it would be a voluntary organization and not a coercive state. To give government the autonomy to work, a socialist state would result in an ever increasing unelected bureaucracy having control over voters lives. Even in socialist states like the USSR the people remained separate from the party apparatus who claimed to be the vanguard of the people. Increasing power to the state and allowing it to act as a state does takes power away from voters, an argument made by Friedrich Hayek in The Road to Serfdom and put pithily by Winston Churchill as a socialist state “would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo”. The existence of the state presupposes the existence of an elite as groups act in politics by accepting leadership.
Given that democracy is a competition over which elite will rule over citizens, it is the members of the elite who run for office who must use propaganda to present the clearest alternatives to voters. The separation of political power into the hands of voting individuals means that a political leader’s job is not to create opinions, but to sell them. Public opinion is a blessing for the various opinions emerging from public discourse, with the leader as the midwife. This conundrum was realized by Woodrow Wilson as a young scholar in his writings on the American system of separation of powers. To bring cohesiveness to American democracy while accepting the reality of its constitutional structure, he proposed the idea of rhetorical leadership. The square of public debate is outside the realm of politics, politics is about action. The politician’s job is to make these inchoate ideas comprehensible to voters. In Leaders of Men Wilson described this ideal of leadership as ¨The men who act stand nearer to the mass of men than do the men who write; and it is at their hands that new thought gets its translation into the crude language of deeds¨. The role of a politician is to mold public opinion, to persuade them that their program is in their best interest. It is not manipulation of public opinion because without leadership there is no public opinion. It is a convoluted mess of competing interests. Propaganda can only sell what others are willing to buy, in the absence of their desire or ability to run for office. ¨The competent leader of men cares little for the interior niceties of other people’s characters: he cares much-everything for the external uses to which they may be put...men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader¨.
Propaganda is not good or bad in itself, it is really just persuasion writ large. It is called into use in the era of mass communication and the leveling of political legitimacy. The fundamental reality of power remains intact underneath. Propaganda in democracy is persuasion of how power will be used.
(From a paper I wrote for a media & propaganda class)
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Political Socialization: How Malleable Are Our Opinions?
Thomas Paine embodied the purpose of the American war of independence when he wrote in Common Sense that ¨we have every opportunity and every encouragement before us, to form the noblest purest constitution on the face of the earth. We have it in our power to begin the world over again.¨ This enlightenment era faith in reason ironically could be seen as propaganda for the American cause. Paradoxically the success of a free society relies on instilling certain values in the population, the opportunities and encouragement provided by men like Paine. He knew that lasting success would require the political ideals of representative democracy to be embedded into the culture. Political socialization is the manner in which individuals gain such political attitudes, and is done through social institutions. Of increasing importance in the era of mass communication is the mass media who have a responsibility for engaging citizens in the political system. The question is what role the media actually has in producing political attitudes, a question with major consequences for American democracy. Although the extent that media effects public opinion is limited by cognitive biases, the media does influence our perception of political issues. By controlling what issues to focus on and the context we consume information, the media gives us the symbols to express our political behavior.
Political socialization is a lifelong process of transmission and reinforcement. The process can be understood as a succession of stages corresponding to age. Each stage is important because age decides which agents of socialization are the most influential. The primary influence are parents. At an early age a child's parents are the first authority figures. From parents children learn the value of obeying authority, and the parent in turn cares for the child. This results in benevolent leader imagery, when children trust whoever is in charge to do what is right most or all of the time (Clawson 46). At this time opinion of political leaders is a projection of their parents. Children’s opinion of political leaders like the president are generally more positive. School is another important agent of socialization, which like the parent instills trust in authority rather than particular political views. Those particular values begin to form during adolescence. A 1965 study by Kent Jennings and Richard Niemi asked both parents and children their partisan identification and opinion on a number of issues. What they found was party identification correlated higher, at .47, than agreement on other issues (Clawson 52). Jennings and Niemi interviewed the same children again in 1997. The strength of the partisan relationship remained higher than for party identification than on individual issues. This strength however relies on the stability of the parent’s political views over time and the degree of political involvement the parent takes with the child, as basic as conversation. The individual voter’s own preferences are set in early adulthood, roughly from age 18 to 26. Jennings and Niemi’s subject’s views shifted somewhat during this period then remained stable into adulthood (Clawson 54). Early adulthood is a time of great personal change, political development being a part of that. Also of great impact is collective memory. There are events which are so
wide ranging in their effect that the help form the political consciousness of a generation. The Civil Rights Era changed the Democratic Party loyalty of young white southerners who associated Democrats with an activist federal government and racial equality. My 99-year-old Great-grandfather is an example of a pre 1960’s southern Democrat, from Arkansas, who associates the party with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and World War 2. He sees the Democratic Party as having the interests of poor southern farmers, having lived through the Great Depression. Today’s adult southerners associate the Republican Party with southern identity. The federal government wishes to socially engineer southern life out of existence. The greatest opportunity to shape voters minds is during early adulthood after a major social event.
There is however considerable evidence that political socialization is more complicated than a host of environmental factors. There might be biases inherent in our individual thinking that limit the effect of political socialization. This consideration lies at the intersection of politics and psychology. Psychologists have developed many personality tests to gauge disposition like introversion vs extroversion, but the most important for politics is the ¨Big Five¨ test. Abbreviated as OCEAN or CANOE, the test measure five personality traits; openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. The hypothesis would be that liberals should be higher in openness and conservatives lower. In 2003 John Jost and Arie Kruglanski reviewed 88 studies for Psychological Bulletin of the American Psychological Association and found that there are personality differences between liberals and conservatives (Mooney 60). Political conservatism was linked to less openness to new experiences . Openness entails risk taking behavior, which an ideology of order and stability would shun. A yale study by Alan Gerber found that the effect of openness on political preferences is higher than educational attainment or income level, predicting a 71% correlation with liberalism compared to 59% and 56% for education and income respectively (Mooney 66). Perhaps more challenging to political socialization is the possible effect of genetics. The study of genetic influences on behavior was pioneered from twin studies which take two individuals with identical DNA, monozygotic twins, raised in the same environment and record their political preferences. From these monozygotic twin studies, around 40% of our political preferences are linked to our genes (Mooney 118). Our political beliefs are formed in the mind and brain before they find ways to express themselves.
Even with the assumption of cognitive biases in information processing, there is still room for agents of political socialization to act. Even if the mind is not a total blank slate, what allegiances we form from our personalities and the symbols we express them are created through language. Cognitive linguist George Lakoff calls this context setting framing. ¨Framing is about getting language that fits your worldview. It is not just language. The ideas are primary-and the language provokes those ideas, especially those ideas¨ (Lakoff 4). Lakoff argues that conservative success since the 1980s has been the result of conservative media manipulating a set of moral values rooted in how we see the world, a “strict father morality” and a ¨nurturing parent morality.¨ These values are like those expected from political socialization, derived from metaphors gained from childhood experience reinforced by one’s culture. “Conservatives, through their think tanks, figured out the importance of framing, and they figured out how to frame every issue. They figured out how to get those frames out there, how to get their people in the media all the time. They figured out how to bring their people together” (Lakoff 16). Even if our political views are rooted in our personality, the media can sell us politicians and policies by presenting them in a way that concords with that personality. President George W. Bush wanted to win over voters who had a “nurturing parent” personality, so he pitched himself as a “compassionate conservative” arguing against those who say we are “slouching towards Gomorrah”, a loaded term for those who favor a strict conservative view of morality. Bush wished to present his conservative values as tough love, not punishing sin. A disposition does not in a practical way dictate loyalty.
Nowhere is this context framing power of the media more prevalent than in today’s media. The proliferation of ideological media, starting with conservatives but with liberals having caught on, has given us evidence of how this power manifests itself. Partisan media’s power is in taking those who are already inclined to agree and giving their thinking direction. Talk radio and cable news have become regular sources of information, despite being opinion and not news. The number one cable channel is Fox News, whose top programs are political opinion shows. MSNBC followed suit by hiring Keith Olbermann and his protege Rachel Maddow, becoming a liberal alternative to Fox. Liberals also forayed into talk radio with the now defunct Air America. The goal of these programs is not to change people’s minds but to reinforce those who are inclined towards their position, as the format of Cable allows for comparatively smaller audiences who pay subscriptions to remain profitable. It has come to a point where a controversial news story has two guests, one from each side, to debate the issue. The show Crossfire on CNN makes an entire show of presenting an issue not from a factual point of view but from the common frames of left and right. This seems like a way to ensure objectivity, but it suggests that there are only two ways to look at an issue. The media adopting this format socializes viewers into partisan political positions on particular views. Whether they know it or not, the media is playing a role in our political loyalties.
That political socialization is limited to the association of sentiment with symbolism makes the power of the media less powerful, but also paradoxically more dangerous. Media can reinforce already held views by adding strong imagery or manipulate our perception of political issues with stereotypes. The mass media doesn't create opinions for us, but it has the ability to direct our loyalties. We can become socialized to positions which do not serve our interests. But there is the potential to bridge our personal differences and socialize those who might be set one way or another regardless of facts not by persuasion but coming to their worldviews. Positive reinforcement can instill democratic values in those who might not be inclined naturally, by transference. Political socialization then is not a value free tool, the way in which we gain attitudes affects how we interpret political reality. The media with its powerful imagery can be the most important agent of political socialization. There is a power to make the world over again, for better or for worse.
wide ranging in their effect that the help form the political consciousness of a generation. The Civil Rights Era changed the Democratic Party loyalty of young white southerners who associated Democrats with an activist federal government and racial equality. My 99-year-old Great-grandfather is an example of a pre 1960’s southern Democrat, from Arkansas, who associates the party with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and World War 2. He sees the Democratic Party as having the interests of poor southern farmers, having lived through the Great Depression. Today’s adult southerners associate the Republican Party with southern identity. The federal government wishes to socially engineer southern life out of existence. The greatest opportunity to shape voters minds is during early adulthood after a major social event.
There is however considerable evidence that political socialization is more complicated than a host of environmental factors. There might be biases inherent in our individual thinking that limit the effect of political socialization. This consideration lies at the intersection of politics and psychology. Psychologists have developed many personality tests to gauge disposition like introversion vs extroversion, but the most important for politics is the ¨Big Five¨ test. Abbreviated as OCEAN or CANOE, the test measure five personality traits; openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. The hypothesis would be that liberals should be higher in openness and conservatives lower. In 2003 John Jost and Arie Kruglanski reviewed 88 studies for Psychological Bulletin of the American Psychological Association and found that there are personality differences between liberals and conservatives (Mooney 60). Political conservatism was linked to less openness to new experiences . Openness entails risk taking behavior, which an ideology of order and stability would shun. A yale study by Alan Gerber found that the effect of openness on political preferences is higher than educational attainment or income level, predicting a 71% correlation with liberalism compared to 59% and 56% for education and income respectively (Mooney 66). Perhaps more challenging to political socialization is the possible effect of genetics. The study of genetic influences on behavior was pioneered from twin studies which take two individuals with identical DNA, monozygotic twins, raised in the same environment and record their political preferences. From these monozygotic twin studies, around 40% of our political preferences are linked to our genes (Mooney 118). Our political beliefs are formed in the mind and brain before they find ways to express themselves.
Even with the assumption of cognitive biases in information processing, there is still room for agents of political socialization to act. Even if the mind is not a total blank slate, what allegiances we form from our personalities and the symbols we express them are created through language. Cognitive linguist George Lakoff calls this context setting framing. ¨Framing is about getting language that fits your worldview. It is not just language. The ideas are primary-and the language provokes those ideas, especially those ideas¨ (Lakoff 4). Lakoff argues that conservative success since the 1980s has been the result of conservative media manipulating a set of moral values rooted in how we see the world, a “strict father morality” and a ¨nurturing parent morality.¨ These values are like those expected from political socialization, derived from metaphors gained from childhood experience reinforced by one’s culture. “Conservatives, through their think tanks, figured out the importance of framing, and they figured out how to frame every issue. They figured out how to get those frames out there, how to get their people in the media all the time. They figured out how to bring their people together” (Lakoff 16). Even if our political views are rooted in our personality, the media can sell us politicians and policies by presenting them in a way that concords with that personality. President George W. Bush wanted to win over voters who had a “nurturing parent” personality, so he pitched himself as a “compassionate conservative” arguing against those who say we are “slouching towards Gomorrah”, a loaded term for those who favor a strict conservative view of morality. Bush wished to present his conservative values as tough love, not punishing sin. A disposition does not in a practical way dictate loyalty.
Nowhere is this context framing power of the media more prevalent than in today’s media. The proliferation of ideological media, starting with conservatives but with liberals having caught on, has given us evidence of how this power manifests itself. Partisan media’s power is in taking those who are already inclined to agree and giving their thinking direction. Talk radio and cable news have become regular sources of information, despite being opinion and not news. The number one cable channel is Fox News, whose top programs are political opinion shows. MSNBC followed suit by hiring Keith Olbermann and his protege Rachel Maddow, becoming a liberal alternative to Fox. Liberals also forayed into talk radio with the now defunct Air America. The goal of these programs is not to change people’s minds but to reinforce those who are inclined towards their position, as the format of Cable allows for comparatively smaller audiences who pay subscriptions to remain profitable. It has come to a point where a controversial news story has two guests, one from each side, to debate the issue. The show Crossfire on CNN makes an entire show of presenting an issue not from a factual point of view but from the common frames of left and right. This seems like a way to ensure objectivity, but it suggests that there are only two ways to look at an issue. The media adopting this format socializes viewers into partisan political positions on particular views. Whether they know it or not, the media is playing a role in our political loyalties.
That political socialization is limited to the association of sentiment with symbolism makes the power of the media less powerful, but also paradoxically more dangerous. Media can reinforce already held views by adding strong imagery or manipulate our perception of political issues with stereotypes. The mass media doesn't create opinions for us, but it has the ability to direct our loyalties. We can become socialized to positions which do not serve our interests. But there is the potential to bridge our personal differences and socialize those who might be set one way or another regardless of facts not by persuasion but coming to their worldviews. Positive reinforcement can instill democratic values in those who might not be inclined naturally, by transference. Political socialization then is not a value free tool, the way in which we gain attitudes affects how we interpret political reality. The media with its powerful imagery can be the most important agent of political socialization. There is a power to make the world over again, for better or for worse.
Saturday, April 12, 2014
Notes on Political Realism
Realism: individual and collective self-interest in the basis of social organizations. In the political sphere self-interest means power. The basic unit of international politics is the nation state, which is the ultimate sovereign authority over a territory and its people. Anarchy is the permanent international condition. There is a constant struggle for power between states which result in balances of power based in unequal distribution of military/economic power. There are superpowers who lead balances of power and regional hegemonic powers who are able to maintain geographical spheres of influence.
Classical Realism: Written for personal purposes, not originally academic. States behave like individuals. Considers the state only.
Hans Morgenthau Politics Among Nations
6 premises
1. States are governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature. Allows for a rational theory.
2. Interest for states is power. Politics has a sphere separate from economic interest.
3. Power is universal as a concept, but its meaning depends on specific political and cultural context.
4. Inherent tension between morality and success of a state.
5. Moral aspirations of particular states not the same as universal laws of morality. States couch their goals in moralistic language, but it never works out that way.
6. Profound difference between power interest of politics and other approaches.
¨to search for the clue to foreign policy in the motives of statesmen is both futile and deceptive. It is futile because motives are the most illusive of psychological data, distorted as they are...by the interests and emotions of actor and observer alike.
Yet even if we had access to the real motives of statesmen, that knowledge would help us little in understanding foreign policies, and might well lead us astray judging his motives ...we can say nothing of the probability of their success” Hans Morgenthau
The Melian Dialogue by Thucydides: The Athenians during the Peloponnesian War send envoys to discuss the surrender of the Melians, who wish to remain neutral. Athenians argue that there is no justice between unequals, and the weak suffer what they must. It is necessary for a hegemon to display or exert power, even without a threat. Melians argue that overextension of power can invite retribution from Lacedaemonian league. Athens did lose the Peloponnesian War.
Machiavelli Doing Evil in Order to do Good: Prudence is the value of a politician. Hate and fear are not the same. Love must be balanced, don't become a pushover. Hate invites resistance.
¨a prince, so long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal, ought not to mind the reproach of cruelty; because with a few examples he will be more merciful than those who, through too much mercy, allow disorders to arise, from which follow murders or robberies; for these are wont to injure the whole people, whilst those executions which originate with a prince offend the individual only.
¨it is impossible for the new prince to avoid the imputation of cruelty, owing to new states being full of dangers... proceed in a temperate manner with prudence and humanity, so that too much confidence may not make him incautious and too much distrust render him intolerable
¨It is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you...Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women. But when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause, but above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others, because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony.¨
Hobbes The State of Nature and the State of War: Anarchy is the permanent political condition internationally, is suspended between individuals by the development of states in which a single ruler(s) is given monopoly on the use of force, and whose subjects agree to be bound by its laws surrendering their rights from the state of anarchy. All are equal in the state of nature because of the ability to form alliances and use strategy. The lack of order prevents progress because there is a constant fear of attack, far worse than the attack itself. This diffidence prevents development which takes time and involves trust.
Individuals are psychologically egoistic. Man is matter in motion, a physical entity which seeks to perpetuate motion, otherwise it would cease to exist. The natural law which allows only objects which can perpetuate motion to continue develops organisms which are complex enough to have interior motions, which become voluntary motions. The senses develop from experience with other motions which leave impressions. The voluntary motions from the interior develop memory of previous impressions which guide it in future sensations. Organisms' minds are developed individually. The capacity to reason in man creates a disconnect from immediate environment as we develop ideas, which form our preferences.
Structural Realism: begins with verifiable assumption of international anarchy, no world government capable of controlling all state activities. The state of anarchy is not due to selfish or flawed human nature but to structural imbalances of power among states with different capabilities. World politics revolves around hegemons, regional and polar powers. Polar powers, superpowers, create different world orders based on balance of power among states. There are unipolar, bipolar, and multipolar world orders. A bipolar order is usually considered by realists to be the most stable, as it is clear what sides there are for states to align with against. A unipolar order can lead to overextension of the world hegemon. The threat to a world order are rising powers which engage in territorial revision.
Kenny Waltz
The world, however, has not been transformed; the structure of international
Classical Realism: Written for personal purposes, not originally academic. States behave like individuals. Considers the state only.
Hans Morgenthau Politics Among Nations
6 premises
1. States are governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature. Allows for a rational theory.
2. Interest for states is power. Politics has a sphere separate from economic interest.
3. Power is universal as a concept, but its meaning depends on specific political and cultural context.
4. Inherent tension between morality and success of a state.
5. Moral aspirations of particular states not the same as universal laws of morality. States couch their goals in moralistic language, but it never works out that way.
6. Profound difference between power interest of politics and other approaches.
¨to search for the clue to foreign policy in the motives of statesmen is both futile and deceptive. It is futile because motives are the most illusive of psychological data, distorted as they are...by the interests and emotions of actor and observer alike.
Yet even if we had access to the real motives of statesmen, that knowledge would help us little in understanding foreign policies, and might well lead us astray judging his motives ...we can say nothing of the probability of their success” Hans Morgenthau
The Melian Dialogue by Thucydides: The Athenians during the Peloponnesian War send envoys to discuss the surrender of the Melians, who wish to remain neutral. Athenians argue that there is no justice between unequals, and the weak suffer what they must. It is necessary for a hegemon to display or exert power, even without a threat. Melians argue that overextension of power can invite retribution from Lacedaemonian league. Athens did lose the Peloponnesian War.
Machiavelli Doing Evil in Order to do Good: Prudence is the value of a politician. Hate and fear are not the same. Love must be balanced, don't become a pushover. Hate invites resistance.
¨a prince, so long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal, ought not to mind the reproach of cruelty; because with a few examples he will be more merciful than those who, through too much mercy, allow disorders to arise, from which follow murders or robberies; for these are wont to injure the whole people, whilst those executions which originate with a prince offend the individual only.
¨it is impossible for the new prince to avoid the imputation of cruelty, owing to new states being full of dangers... proceed in a temperate manner with prudence and humanity, so that too much confidence may not make him incautious and too much distrust render him intolerable
¨It is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you...Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women. But when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause, but above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others, because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony.¨
Hobbes The State of Nature and the State of War: Anarchy is the permanent political condition internationally, is suspended between individuals by the development of states in which a single ruler(s) is given monopoly on the use of force, and whose subjects agree to be bound by its laws surrendering their rights from the state of anarchy. All are equal in the state of nature because of the ability to form alliances and use strategy. The lack of order prevents progress because there is a constant fear of attack, far worse than the attack itself. This diffidence prevents development which takes time and involves trust.
Individuals are psychologically egoistic. Man is matter in motion, a physical entity which seeks to perpetuate motion, otherwise it would cease to exist. The natural law which allows only objects which can perpetuate motion to continue develops organisms which are complex enough to have interior motions, which become voluntary motions. The senses develop from experience with other motions which leave impressions. The voluntary motions from the interior develop memory of previous impressions which guide it in future sensations. Organisms' minds are developed individually. The capacity to reason in man creates a disconnect from immediate environment as we develop ideas, which form our preferences.
Structural Realism: begins with verifiable assumption of international anarchy, no world government capable of controlling all state activities. The state of anarchy is not due to selfish or flawed human nature but to structural imbalances of power among states with different capabilities. World politics revolves around hegemons, regional and polar powers. Polar powers, superpowers, create different world orders based on balance of power among states. There are unipolar, bipolar, and multipolar world orders. A bipolar order is usually considered by realists to be the most stable, as it is clear what sides there are for states to align with against. A unipolar order can lead to overextension of the world hegemon. The threat to a world order are rising powers which engage in territorial revision.
Kenny Waltz
The world, however, has not been transformed; the structure of international
politics has simply been remade by the disappearance of the Soviet Union, and
for a time we will live with unipolarity. Moreover, international politics was
not remade by the forces and factors that some believe are creating a new
world order. Those who set the Soviet Union on the path of reform were old
Soviet apparatchiks trying to right the Soviet economy in order to preserve its
position in the world. The revolution in Soviet affairs and the end of the Cold
War were not brought by democracy, interdependence or international institutions.
Instead the Cold War ended exactly as structural realism led one to
expect. As I wrote some years ago, the Cold War “is firmly rooted in the
structure of postwar international politics and will last as long as that structure
endures. So it did, and the Cold War ended only when the bipolar structure
of the world disappeared.
Structural change affects the behavior of states and the outcomes their
interactions produce. It does not break the essential continuity of international
politics. The transformation of international politics alone could do that. Transformation
however, awaits the day when the international system is no longer
populated by states that have to help themselves...States’ perennial uncertainty about their fates
presses governments to prefer relative over absolute gains...Liberal institutionalists were right to start their investigations with structural realism. Until and unless a transformation occurs, it remains
the basic theory of international politics
Stephen Walt's Alliances In a Unipolar World
An alliance (or alignment) is a formal (or informal) commitment
for security cooperation between two or more states, intended to
augment each member’s power, security, and/or influence
The essential element in a meaningful alliance is a commitment
for mutual support against some external actor(s)
The advent of unipolarity has had profound effects on the nature
of contemporary alliances
Yet there is no consensus on the overall impact that unipolarity will
have on contemporary international alliances
Some writers believe
1. unipolarity heralds the dissolution
of nato and other cold war–era alliances, whereas others predict that
2. the other major powers are likely to draw closer together in an effort to
contain the overwhelming power of the United States and
3. Medium and lesser powers will align with the United States not because
they fear U.S. power but because they are primarily concerned with
regional threats and want to use U.S. power to deal with them
Bandwagoning: Under certain circumstances, states may
choose to bandwagon with an existing threat, especially if they believe
that resistance is impossible or if they are convinced a threat can be
deflected or appeased by accommodating it
Friedberg The Future of U.S.-China Relations
For realist pessimists, the single most important feature of the PRC today is its
rising power...since the start of economic reforms in 1978, the
PRC’s gross national product (GNP) is thought to have increased by a factor of
four and, according to some estimates, it could double again by the middle of
the second decade of the twenty-first century...Given the sheer size
of its population and the rising productivity of its workers, China may one day
regain its historic position as the world’s largest economy...The combination of the speed and the magnitude of China’s growth in recent decades appears to be unprecedented.
As was true of the United States in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, so too is China’s rapidly growing economy bringing expanding military capabilities in its train.
...throughout history, rising powers have tended to
be troublemakers, at least insofar as their more established counterparts in the
international system are concerned. This is the case, in the realists’ view, regardless of regime type
As a state’s capabilities grow, its leaders tend to define their interests more expansively and to
seek a greater degree of influence over what is going on around them. Rising
powers seek not only to secure their frontiers but to reach out beyond them
As they seek to assert themselves, rising powers are often drawn to challenge territorial boundaries, international institutional arrangements, and hierarchies of prestige that were put in place when they were relatively weak
the United States is vastly more powerful than China
there is a significant probability that China’s power will not continue to grow at anything resembling the pace of the past two decades. The process of economic expansion, in particular, may well be disrupted by domestic social and political turbulence
realist optimists argue that the United States is now so overwhelmingly powerful that its position is essentially unassailable
Instead of balancing against American power, most other states will seek to jump on the U.S.
bandwagon, or at least to stay well out of its way. Moreover, the very size of
the power gap separating the United States from the rest of the world is so
large as to diminish the prospects for misperception or miscalculation.
for a time we will live with unipolarity. Moreover, international politics was
not remade by the forces and factors that some believe are creating a new
world order. Those who set the Soviet Union on the path of reform were old
Soviet apparatchiks trying to right the Soviet economy in order to preserve its
position in the world. The revolution in Soviet affairs and the end of the Cold
War were not brought by democracy, interdependence or international institutions.
Instead the Cold War ended exactly as structural realism led one to
expect. As I wrote some years ago, the Cold War “is firmly rooted in the
structure of postwar international politics and will last as long as that structure
endures. So it did, and the Cold War ended only when the bipolar structure
of the world disappeared.
Structural change affects the behavior of states and the outcomes their
interactions produce. It does not break the essential continuity of international
politics. The transformation of international politics alone could do that. Transformation
however, awaits the day when the international system is no longer
populated by states that have to help themselves...States’ perennial uncertainty about their fates
presses governments to prefer relative over absolute gains...Liberal institutionalists were right to start their investigations with structural realism. Until and unless a transformation occurs, it remains
the basic theory of international politics
Stephen Walt's Alliances In a Unipolar World
An alliance (or alignment) is a formal (or informal) commitment
for security cooperation between two or more states, intended to
augment each member’s power, security, and/or influence
The essential element in a meaningful alliance is a commitment
for mutual support against some external actor(s)
The advent of unipolarity has had profound effects on the nature
of contemporary alliances
Yet there is no consensus on the overall impact that unipolarity will
have on contemporary international alliances
Some writers believe
1. unipolarity heralds the dissolution
of nato and other cold war–era alliances, whereas others predict that
2. the other major powers are likely to draw closer together in an effort to
contain the overwhelming power of the United States and
3. Medium and lesser powers will align with the United States not because
they fear U.S. power but because they are primarily concerned with
regional threats and want to use U.S. power to deal with them
Bandwagoning: Under certain circumstances, states may
choose to bandwagon with an existing threat, especially if they believe
that resistance is impossible or if they are convinced a threat can be
deflected or appeased by accommodating it
Friedberg The Future of U.S.-China Relations
For realist pessimists, the single most important feature of the PRC today is its
rising power...since the start of economic reforms in 1978, the
PRC’s gross national product (GNP) is thought to have increased by a factor of
four and, according to some estimates, it could double again by the middle of
the second decade of the twenty-first century...Given the sheer size
of its population and the rising productivity of its workers, China may one day
regain its historic position as the world’s largest economy...The combination of the speed and the magnitude of China’s growth in recent decades appears to be unprecedented.
As was true of the United States in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, so too is China’s rapidly growing economy bringing expanding military capabilities in its train.
...throughout history, rising powers have tended to
be troublemakers, at least insofar as their more established counterparts in the
international system are concerned. This is the case, in the realists’ view, regardless of regime type
As a state’s capabilities grow, its leaders tend to define their interests more expansively and to
seek a greater degree of influence over what is going on around them. Rising
powers seek not only to secure their frontiers but to reach out beyond them
As they seek to assert themselves, rising powers are often drawn to challenge territorial boundaries, international institutional arrangements, and hierarchies of prestige that were put in place when they were relatively weak
the United States is vastly more powerful than China
there is a significant probability that China’s power will not continue to grow at anything resembling the pace of the past two decades. The process of economic expansion, in particular, may well be disrupted by domestic social and political turbulence
realist optimists argue that the United States is now so overwhelmingly powerful that its position is essentially unassailable
Instead of balancing against American power, most other states will seek to jump on the U.S.
bandwagon, or at least to stay well out of its way. Moreover, the very size of
the power gap separating the United States from the rest of the world is so
large as to diminish the prospects for misperception or miscalculation.
Thursday, February 6, 2014
The Shrinking Man by Richard Matheson
Kafkaesque to say the least, Matheson explores several fears all at once that I and many others have had and connects them to the loss of status among our fellow humans. The fear of death is prevalent in Scott's, the shrinking man, preoccupation with what will happen when he shrinks from 1/7 of an inch to 0 inches. It is the most terrifying thought since like death there is no knowledge of what happens afterward because, like in case of shrinking men, nobody has come back to tell the tale.
Also the loss of physical vigor is a constant reminder of our impending end. Shrinking becomes aging but so much more obvious. He loses everything that he has accomplished in life, his job wife and child, due to something he cannot control. There is no rationalization, no magical thinking that can save Scott. The oh so apparent handicap forces him to constantly adapt just to survive.
But from all this there is a positive ending, contrary to Matheson's I am Legend. Even though he has no hope to escape his plight, the mystery of what will happen at the end keeps him going. That is the message of this story. We keep living through life's hurdles because we don't know what is coming next. The uncertainty of the future and its inevitability ushers us forward.
Also the loss of physical vigor is a constant reminder of our impending end. Shrinking becomes aging but so much more obvious. He loses everything that he has accomplished in life, his job wife and child, due to something he cannot control. There is no rationalization, no magical thinking that can save Scott. The oh so apparent handicap forces him to constantly adapt just to survive.
But from all this there is a positive ending, contrary to Matheson's I am Legend. Even though he has no hope to escape his plight, the mystery of what will happen at the end keeps him going. That is the message of this story. We keep living through life's hurdles because we don't know what is coming next. The uncertainty of the future and its inevitability ushers us forward.
Sunday, January 5, 2014
Windsor's Wave: The Zeitgeist of Gay Marriage
Despite most likely being overshadowed by the outcome of the all important 2014 midterms, 2013 will be looked back upon as the year when support for gay marriage hit the tipping point. As recently as 2012 North Carolina voters passed an amendment to their state constitution banning same sex marriage. In Iowa three state judge who approved gay marriage in 2009 was facing possible defeat, possibly tipping the state's supreme court towards anti-gay conservatives. A Gallup poll measured stronger support for "traditional values" among younger voters. Until November 2012, no state which had legalized gay marriage had done it through popular referendum. Even the Democratic president of the United States had until that point opposed gay marriage. California voters, perhaps the bluests of states, passed on leading the issue by voting for prop. 8. Then in an interview, vice president Joe Biden came out in favor of gay marriage, forcing Obama to claify his position. He choose not to contradict Biden and came out in full support of gay marriage, but only at a state level. His reelection solidified the viability of a pro gay marriage candidate. That November, Maine, Washington and Minnesotta became the first states to legalize gay marriage by popular vote. Minnesotta voters voted down an anti gay marriage amendment. The final talking point that every time gay marriage was put to a popular vote it would lose was moot.
2012 saw the national mood shift, but 2013 is when that turned into real world action. 2013 is pivotal because of the nature of our constitutional system. The constitution's supremacy clause states that the federal constitution is the highest and final law of the land. Since the Supreme Court is the interpreter of the constitution's meaning, their word is what gives ultimate sanction. So when the court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act provision in 2013 which forbade federal benefits to spouses of the same sex, gay marriage gained constitutional muster. It was no longer the product of renegage judges, it could be seen as part of the larger constitutional rights gained for groups who deserved them.
Antonin Scalia of all people realized the legitimacy given to the issue by the majority in United States v. Windsor. His dissent predicted an end to the issue without much struggle over the next few years.
"As far as this Court is concerned, no one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe.
By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition"
The language used in the majority opinion declared the discrimination against same sex partners to have no rational basis, so therefore the purpose of such laws is only to demean a group of people. The laws have no legitimacy, and will fall like dominoes.
And in 2013 within months this happened. The New Jersey Supreme Court struck down that state's ban on same sex marriage, which the Republican governor Chris Christie chose not to appeal. But New Jersey is a reliably Democratic state, so it wasn't going against the grain. But very late in 2013, the 10th federal district court knocked down Utah's state ban. Utah is one of the most conservative states in the union, so this was a big deal. Instantaneously marriage licenses were being granted. This could be the tipping point where gay rights become national and not just restricted to the more liberal parts of the country. There are now 18 states where gay marriage is legal, up from only one in Massachusetts in 2003 a decade before Utah. And now a majority of those states have done it either through the legislature or by referendum, marking the stage of popular viability and not only court action.7 out of the so far 18 are by court decision, 8 by legislatures, and 3 by ballot initiative. Windsor came right when support for same sex marriage has tipped past 50% in national polls, and for the future it seems a dual route will be taken. Democratically in blue states and by courts, following the Supreme Court, in the red states.
Antonin Scalia of all people realized the legitimacy given to the issue by the majority in United States v. Windsor. His dissent predicted an end to the issue without much struggle over the next few years.
"As far as this Court is concerned, no one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe.
By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition"
The language used in the majority opinion declared the discrimination against same sex partners to have no rational basis, so therefore the purpose of such laws is only to demean a group of people. The laws have no legitimacy, and will fall like dominoes.
And in 2013 within months this happened. The New Jersey Supreme Court struck down that state's ban on same sex marriage, which the Republican governor Chris Christie chose not to appeal. But New Jersey is a reliably Democratic state, so it wasn't going against the grain. But very late in 2013, the 10th federal district court knocked down Utah's state ban. Utah is one of the most conservative states in the union, so this was a big deal. Instantaneously marriage licenses were being granted. This could be the tipping point where gay rights become national and not just restricted to the more liberal parts of the country. There are now 18 states where gay marriage is legal, up from only one in Massachusetts in 2003 a decade before Utah. And now a majority of those states have done it either through the legislature or by referendum, marking the stage of popular viability and not only court action.7 out of the so far 18 are by court decision, 8 by legislatures, and 3 by ballot initiative. Windsor came right when support for same sex marriage has tipped past 50% in national polls, and for the future it seems a dual route will be taken. Democratically in blue states and by courts, following the Supreme Court, in the red states.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)