Consensual Government, Intellectual History, Liberal Arts, Uncategorized

On Democracy, an Index

by Dave Seng

The democracy series was a large project, so I decided to collect all the links and post them here in a kind of index. The hope is to organize the entire series and allow easier discovery of the posts. I also posted the works cited here as a helpful resource.

A final thought. I hope the series has been helpful in coming to terms with what a democracy actually is and why America is no longer one. It has become fashionable in some circles to claim that there is an inherent extreme individualism in the Western definition of democracy that is to blame for the decline of democratic societies in the West. Although it is true that many such as Locke did emphasize a kind of individualism, an unbridled or unrestricted individualism was never part of the Western idea of democracy. This should be clear from reading the Greeks and Roman (primarily Stoic) presentations of consensual representation. When things go bad (and they certainly are today) often it is because the fundamentals have been forgotten or rejected.

The posts:

On Democracy, Part One can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Two can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Three can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Four can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Five can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Six can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Seven can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Eight can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Nine can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Ten can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Eleven can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Twelve can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Thirteen can be found here.

On Democracy, Part Fourteen can be found here.

Works cited:

Adler, Mortimer. Adler’s Philosophical Dictionary. New York: Scribner, 1995.

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 9, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952.

— Politics, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 9, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952.

Euripides, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes., Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 5, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952.

Goodwin, Gerald, Richard Current, Paula A. Franklin. A History of the United States. 2nd ed. New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1985.

Herodotus, The History of Herodotus, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 6, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952.

Homer. Iliad. Trans. by Robert Fagles. New York: Penguin Books, 1991.

Hutchins, Robert. The Great Conversation: A Reader’s Guide to Great Books of the Western World. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1994.

Kagan, Donald. Pericles of Athens And The Birth of Democracy, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991.

Lukacs, John. Democracy and Populism: Fear and Hatred. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. 11th ed.

Miller, Ed. Questions That Matter: An Invitation to Philosophy. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 1996.

Pascal, The Provincial Letters, Pensees, Scientific Treatises, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 33, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952.

Plato, The Republic,tr. Francis MacDonald Cornford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1945.

“Stoicism.” Encyclopedia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopedia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD 5 July 2006.

The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Ed. Hammond, N.G. L. and H.H. Scullard. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.

The Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization. Ed. by Hornblower, Simon and Anthony Spawforth. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1998.

Thucydides. The History of The Peloponnesian War, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 6, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952.

Woodruff, Paul. First Democracy: The Challenge of An Ancient Idea. New York: Oxford University Press.

Consensual Government, Intellectual History, Liberal Arts

On Democracy, Part Fourteen

by Dave Seng
Alexander Hamilton

This is the final installment in the series on democracy. Part thirteen can be found here.

America began as a republic, shifted to a democracy, and now is little more than a constitutional bureaucracy. For example, the Western idea of debate and discussion among political parties in Congress is largely over. Parliamentarianism has died and much of the real work of Congress is now conducted in committees. Congressmen and women do spend time on the floor to promote their views but little real discussion occurs and the genuine work is done in committee to serve a particular party, not the people. In addition, presidential executive orders are often used to sidestep the work of congress. Either way, with these procedural moves, participatory and consensual government is undermined and rule of law is generally ignored. A bureaucracy of elites now determines what is best for the party, not the people or country at large. Another evidence of American bureaucratization is the specialized governmental departments and the sheer size of government. The historian John Lukacs gives us this telling example,

In the Middle Ages – indeed, until about the seventeenth century – kings had no specialized ministries; they depended on the councils of intimate advisors. In the second half of the twentieth century the elective monarchy of the American presidency assumed more and more of the characteristics of medieval kingship, with liege lords having the power to determine the very access to the monarch, to the extent that even cabinet officers could no longer call on the president on their own – that is, without the consent of the above-mentioned liege lords, who decided not only what and whom the president should see but also what he should hear – and perhaps what he should think.1

It is amazing to see how bureaucratic America has become and to contrast our current situation with Hamilton’s or Madison’s vision of America. Now, both parties will enlarge the government to maintain their own power at the expense of the individual citizen. This bureaucratic tendency can also be seen in another example. In the 1980’s the staff of Ronald Reagan’s wife in the White House was larger than Franklin Roosevelt’s at the height of the Second World War.2

These problems, the lack of proportional representation, the media, and the age of bureaucracy point to the need of recovering what the classical thinkers would call civic virtue. This idea of civic virtue is especially important since many elementary schools have now eliminated grades for citizenship and citizenship education. Aristotle would remind us that the success of nations rests on the education of our children. The Athenian and Roman empires fell because the people no longer understood what it meant to be an Athenian or Roman and no longer protected what they had. Likewise, America has moved from understanding itself as a “melting pot” to a mere clash of wills among different people groups.

Aristotle, however, connects morality, education, and politics together to build a virtuous society. For the ancients, the purpose of virtuous action aims at “eudaimonia” which means “well-being” or “happy-life.” The virtues are habits of conduct that provide a happy well being. Essentially this is achieved by finding the mean in ethical reflection and action. However, Aristotle’s starting point (along with much of ancient political philosophy) is that man is primarily a political animal. Moral excellence is not only necessary at the individual level but also at the social level, because society is made up of individuals and all forms of moral excellence (individual and social) strive for the common good – that which is good for everyone. When one works for the common good, he or she is working for their own good. Ancient moral philosophy stresses the idea of the “polis,” or social community, which is formed for the realization of a common good and, as in the individual; the virtues are conducive to the common good, or well-being of the community.3 In other words, the polis or state is then responsible for nurturing moral excellence and enacting laws contributing to the common good and well-being. The morally responsible individual contributes to the common good by encouraging the state or community to pass laws and behave in ways that support moral excellence and human well-being.

A core value for the ancient Romans was the Stoic notion of “officium.” This was a strong sense of commitment to fulfill the responsibilities the individual was born to fulfill within the state for the common good. Stoic moral philosophy is also based on the view that the world, as one great city, is a unity. Man, as a world citizen, has an obligation and loyalty to all things in that city. He must play an active role in world affairs, remembering that the world exemplifies virtue and right action.4 Therefore, Stoic political philosophy corresponds with much of Aristotle’s political thought in the emphasis of virtuous action aimed toward the common good, natural law, and a moral life based on rational reflection.

From the classical perspective, modern American individualism looks very strange. Classical ethical theory is focused on the larger community and the shared, common good to which the individual participants in that community contribute through their virtuous activity.5 Much more holistic in its approach, classical virtue theory would question much of modern American individualism focused simplistically on the rights of individuals. No one can pursue their own good completely isolated and independent from their social community or government. Furthermore, classical political theory would question the ideas of valuing a candidate simply because he was good looking, wealthy, popular, or articulate. The ancients would be first interested in the candidate’s ethical code and moral principles. The classical thinkers, therefore, would educate citizens to be virtuous contributors to society which is one of the greatest tasks of education today. The classical thinkers, therefore, would educate citizens to be virtuous contributors to society which is one of the greatest tasks of education today.

Time and again we find wisdom in ancients. The greatest thing about studying history is discovering the wisdom of the ages. Certainly, the ancients made mistakes, and we should learn from their errors, but they were different mistakes than we are making today. We learn from the Greeks the enduring nature of mankind. The Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski said that we don’t study history merely for finding facts or to acquire knowledge about events, but to discover who we are as a race. History shows us what it means to be alive on this planet. We can learn much from the ancients because they too believed in the Great Ideas. They began the great discussion of these ideas. Their self-reflective questioning, discussion, and debate of these ideas are often more thoughtful than contemporary thinking on many of these subjects, especially when it comes to a proper understanding of democracy. Aristotle considered democracy and ideal. Democracy will always be an ideal because it goes against the grain of human nature. Like the fabled Icarus, humans will always strive for more than they can attain, and always be tempted to go beyond natural human limitations. Human beings do not want to share power with others. Nonetheless, democracy, as an ideal should be attempted. Historically, it has given rise to the middle class and has provided more freedom and affluence than any other political system. Furthermore, democracy is an evolving idea. The values of Western civilization are not static but always seeking to improve and adapt. The Greeks and Romans were always willing to adapt and change when necessary. Therefore, we can be thankful to the great classical thinkers for the conversation and heritage built into the conversation of democracy.

1 Lukacs, John. Democracy and Populism: Fear and Hatred. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005.), 189.

2 Ibid.

3 Miller, 557.

4 “Stoicism.” Encyclopedia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopedia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD 5 July 2006.

5 Miller, 558.

Consensual Government, Intellectual History, Liberal Arts

On Democracy: Part Thirteen

by Dave Seng
John Jay 1745 – 1829

It is important to remember, however, that America is a product of the Enlightenment. Madison, Jay, Hamilton, and Washington were all (some more, some less) men of their times. The Enlightenment was a philosophical period of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, characterized by belief in the power of human reason and the perfectibility of mankind. There are several ideas that were emphasized during the Enlightenment but the primary ones are – all humans are by nature rational and inherently good and the idea of progress and whatever is new is intrinsically better than anything that has existed before. Also, a strong anti-authoritarianism existed among Enlightenment thinkers and custom, tradition, and especially religion have little value due to their irrational and superstitious nature. Some of the founders of America had a strong sense that America would be a source of progress and enlightenment to the rest of the world. Progress and democracy were now the rulers of a new world and provided the best hope for the world – the days of kings, lords, and nobles were clearly seen as over. Even Abraham Lincoln said that America “was the last best hope of mankind.” America would eventually see the rise of the Progressive Party.1 However, the twentieth century saw the disintegration of Enlightenment and Modernist ideas with the advent of two world wars. Progress seemed to be incredibly elusive. The twentieth century experienced the rise of postmodernism.

Postmodernism is a contemporary interdisciplinary movement that stresses the wholistic, pragmatic, historically relative, character of reality and knowledge.2 Postmodernism in some respects contains serious problems. Nonetheless, it has also clearly shown the errors of the Enlightenment and Modern eras.3 The perfectibility of mankind is no longer seen as inevitable. That which is new is no longer seen as better. People are now more likely to question a blind allegiance to progress. Postmodernism now provides some interesting possibilities for democracy and this is where the Greeks can help us. Since that which is new is no longer seen as valid, we can once again learn from the wisdom of the past. Because, in some ways, the Enlightenment project of progress and perfectibility failed, we can once again listen to the Greeks who would remind us of the unchanging nature of mankind. This nature is not always inherently good or perfectible. We, tragically, and concretely live in a world of absolutes and social programs that seek the utopian perfection of humanity are sorely disappointing. Reality (including political reality) has its own intractable way of being. This is why Plato’s utopian project failed when he tried to implement it in Syracuse. There is a certain logic and rhythm to human existence that transcends the rational and empirical. Human beings do not think or act in strict Enlightenment or rationalist categories. Enlightenment and Modernist theories of human nature were failures. The Greeks would remind us that we are all moved by the same desires, appetites, and impulses. Human nature is always guided by honor, status, a desire for recognition, and plagued by envy and jealousy. Mankind would be quite crass and uncouth without the thin veneer of civilization based on law, culture, tradition, and religion. Further, the Greeks would cause us to doubt any self-acclaimed theorist that would claim to have overcome human nature. The Athenians held no illusions of what it means to be human but they did believe in the equality of human beings and the wisdom of careful reflection and debate when it comes to democratic self-rule. The Athenians were aware of the innate human desire to grasp for more than it ought and many were ostracized or exiled whenever they sought more political power than one should have. If the Athenians feared anything, they feared tyranny in all its forms. The Athenians were not strictly concerned with the economy either, for they were aware of other cultures that had more wealth such as the Persians. But the Athenians understood that law and civic virtue supplied their freedom.

The Greeks provide us with ways to think about our current American democratic situation. It is hard to assess the contemporary American political situation as democratic. I can only give a few examples here of American democratic failure but there are many more. Whenever a representative places himself or herself above the law this person is functioning in an undemocratic manner. The same is true for political parties. Whenever one party dominates the political scene, the democratic process shuts down. The nomination process in America is equally nondemocratic, and parties are served instead of the people.

Today, candidates are chosen based on their popularity, not their merit or qualifications. In fact, political races today are a little more than publicity contests. A law enacted in Oregon in 1954 states that only candidates recognized by the national news media will be allowed on the ballots. This makes the media the nominators instead of the people. And media may, or may not, allow third parties representation. It is unclear how the fairness doctrine will accommodate third parties because it is based on a two-party framework. Since the 1920’s the media has become a major force in determining the contours of American politics often in the form of entertainment and at the expense of content and thoughtful debate. The media is more capable of shaping a candidate’s “image” rather than his or her ideas. Mass communication itself is not the problem, however, or at least, not the only one. Media as a technology and product of human beings will always bring with it the virtues and vices of human beings. Humans bring to the media the problems of the human condition itself. In America, the communication industry is largely unreflective and thoughtless because as a whole people are not given over to reflecting on the important issues of the day. But it must also be remembered that populism is not democracy.

In the next post, we will reflect on how America has shifted from a republic, to democracy, to populism, and finally to a thinly veiled constitutional bureaucracy.

1 Of course, the Progressive Party was a result of modernity but the Enlightenment provided the foundation of modernity and shared the same concerns.

2 Miller, 589.

3 Postmodernism can be taken too far. But some of its critiques of the Enlightenment and Modernity are valid.

Consensual Government, Intellectual History, Liberal Arts

On Democracy, Part Eleven

by Dave Seng

Part ten can be found here.

In this post I examine the classical influence on the founding of America and the vision of James Madison.

Now we must jump many years to the founding of the American republic. It is not surprising to find that the founders of America were influenced by classical thought – and all the values of the Western intellectual and political tradition can be seen in the American State Papers and Federalist Papers, including debate, dissent, civic virtue, and the free exchange of ideas. The classical influence of early America can be discovered from the works they read, the architecture they built, and the documents they wrote. One obvious piece of evidence rests in the fact that the authors of the Federalist Papers wrote under the names of significant Roman leaders. Furthermore, many of the founders such as John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison, were well versed in the classics and read Latin.

In America, constitutional government evolved from the idea of constitutional monarchy found in Europe. Although the founders envisioned a republic and not a democracy (they were very cautious of an extreme democracy), America finally became a popular democracy in 1828 with the election of Andrew Jackson. Nonetheless, at the beginning of American Republicanism was the conviction that consensual rule was possible and that governments existed to protect citizen’s natural rights and to promote the common good of all people.1 This is the idea of classical liberalism and has become the social-political theory that stresses freedom from undue governmental interference and views the state as the guarantor of the basic liberties and rights of the individual. This is basically a classical idea; however, a thinker like Aristotle would see a closer relationship between the individual and the state.

In the early days of the American republic, there was much debate about the constitution itself. The parties were divided between those who wanted a stronger national government, the federalists, and those who wanted more sovereignty among the individual states – the antifederalists. The friends of the Constitution (the federalists) had the advantage of superior intellectual firepower. Among the federalists were the two most eminent men in America at the time, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington.2 Washington himself declared that the choice lay between the Constitution and disunion. Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay, under the joint pseudonym “Publius,” wrote a long series of newspaper essays explaining and extolling the new document.3 These essays were later published in book form and are considered the greatest intellectual defense of the Constitution by some of the early Republic’s greatest thinkers.

For example, James Madison, one of the writers of the Federalist Papers, was very concerned about the role of human nature and the propensity for people to divide into factions. For Madison, factions are different than regular political parties. He defines a faction as, “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”4 In other words, factions are those groups which will seek there own power illegitimately and disregard the rights of others in the process. Factions do not regard the democratic principle of equality as an important ideal nor understand or value the idea that in a democracy harmony is essential. People have to be united – a government for the people and by the people must first of all be supported by the people and truly believed in if it is going to work. Madison understands the corrosive effects of factions on a consensual government. Nonetheless, it seems to be part of human nature to divide into factions as soon as individuals are given the freedom to do so. Madison was concerned about how to keep a faction from becoming a tyranny on one hand and how to maintain fair representation on the other. But Madison understood that factions would be a problem to any liberal republic because it is so basic to the human instinct,

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions and many other points as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment of different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have in turn divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to cooperate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their most violent conflicts.5

Madison understands that factions are a part of any liberal society. He is also aware that there are only two solutions to the problem of factions. The first is to eliminate the cause of factions. But this would require the elimination of liberty, an unacceptable option. The other is to give every citizen the same interests, passions, and opinions – and this option is clearly impossible. Madison knows there will always be independent thinkers. So the third option for Madison is to control the effects of factions. Madison believes the best possibility for this rests in the rule of law and to allow factions a voice in their own government.6 He explains, “The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.”7 Much like Aristotle, Madison understands the value of allowing differing parties a voice in their own government functioning under legitimate legal protection and constraints (consensual government always seeks a check on majority rule to ensure the rights of the minority). Of course, when factions are in the minority they are less likely to prevail in their evil intentions. Madison’s concern rests in what could happen if a faction became a majority. Madison concludes that a pure democracy can not protect itself from this phenomenon. “From this view of the subject it may be concluded that pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.”8 He goes on to explain,

A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.9

For Madison then, a pure democracy is a government in which every citizen participates, is small in size, and contains no check on majority rule. It is unclear, however, if any such government has existed because the ancient Athenians functioned under the rule of law, and was regulated by assembly, councils, and archons. Rome itself transformed from a republic (also under the rule of law) to an empire without becoming a direct democracy. Nonetheless, Athens was close to being a direct democracy and Thucydides does point out the mob mentality of the Athenians after the death of Pericles. But the point that a democracy can become a tyranny is a legitimate concern, the French revolution being the primary example. The ancient Greek political thinkers were all aware of the tyranny of the majority. And there was nothing more they hated than tyranny.

Next time, I will examine the particular definition of republic held by Madison.

1 Goodwin, Gerald, Richard Current, Paula A. Franklin. A History of the United States. 2nd ed. (New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1985), 119.

2 Ibid., 131.

3 Ibid.

4 The Federalist, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 43, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), 50.

5 Ibid.

6 Hamilton believes most factions arise from differences between the propertied and non-propertied classes.

7 Ibid., 50.

8 Ibid. 51.

9 Ibid.