Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Hello Everyone,

Welcome to our relaxed discussion and read of Alan Ryan's book - On Politics: A History of Political Thought from Herodotus to the Present.

For the weeks of March 16th, 2015 through March 15th, 2015, we are reading the Introduction of the book - On Politics: A History of Political Thought from Herodotus to the Present by Alan Ryan.

The first week's reading assignment is:

Week One - March 16th, 2015 through March 29th, 2015
Introduction - Thinking About Politics page xi to page 4
BOOK ONE: Herodotus to Machiavelli
Part I: The Classical Conception
Chapter One - Why Herodotus - all of Chapter One

We will open up a thread for each bi-monthly assignment.. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.

This book is being kicked off on March 16th

We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, local bookstore or on your Kindle.

This first week's thread will be opened up on March 16th..

There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.

Bentley will be leading this discussion and back-up will be Assisting Moderators in Training Teri and Jose.

Welcome,

~Bentley

TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL

by Alan Ryan

REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS - ON EACH WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREAD - WE ONLY DISCUSS THE PAGES ASSIGNED OR THE PAGES WHICH WERE COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEEKS. IF YOU GO AHEAD OR WANT TO ENGAGE IN MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION - POST THOSE COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE SPOILER THREADS. THESE CHAPTERS HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION SO WHEN IN DOUBT CHECK WITH THE CHAPTER OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY TO RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS ARE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES OF SPOILER THREADS ARE THE GLOSSARY, THE BIBLIOGRAPHY, THE INTRODUCTION AND THE BOOK AS A WHOLE THREADS.

Notes:

It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.

Citations:

If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.

If you need help - here is a thread called the Mechanics of the Board which will show you how:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...

Introduction Thread:

/topic/show/...

Table of Contents and Syllabus

/topic/show/...

Glossary

Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.

Here is the link:

/topic/show/...

Bibliography

There is a Bibliography where books cited in the text are posted with proper citations and reviews. We also post the books that the author used in his research or in his notes. Please also feel free to add to the Bibliography thread any related books, etc with proper citations. No self promotion, please.

/topic/show/...

Book as a Whole and Final Thoughts - SPOILER THREAD

/topic/show/...

by Alan Ryan (no photo)

Directions on how to participate in book discussions and how to follow the t's and c's - look at directives given for the discussion Landslide - What Do I Do Next?

I will modify these directives as we go along but for now utilize the information here.

/topic/show/...

All, we do not have to do citations regarding the book or the author being discussed during the book discussion on these discussion threads - nor do we have to cite any personage in the book being discussed while on the discussion threads related to this book.

However if we discuss folks outside the scope of the book or another book is cited which is not the book and author discussed then we do have to do that citation according to our citation rules. That makes it easier to not disrupt the discussion.

Everyone, for the week of March 16th, 2015 through March 29th, 2015, we are reading the Introduction.

The first segment's reading assignment is:

Week 1, 2, 3 - March 16th, 2015 through March 29th, 2015
Introduction: Thinking About Politics page xi
BOOK ONE: Herodotus to Machiavelli
Part I: The Classical Conception
Chapter One - Why Herodotus - Read all of Chapter One

Chapter Overview and Summary

Introduction: Thinking About Politics page xi

This week we will be discussing what is politics and what are the hypotheses of the book. We will discuss the various thematic strands which will connect the various time periods and philosophical thoughts on political theory, politics and philosophy starting with Herodotus.

Chapter One

This chapter discusses the importance of Herodotus to the study of political history in general.

Folks, we are kicking off the long term discussion on politics and philosophy. The book we will be using is a very comprehensive work by Alan Ryan titled On Politics: A History of Political Thought from Herodotus to the Present.- we welcome you to this discussion which will last for a year. There is no rush, we are taking our time and enjoying a lot of history, discussion, videos along the way. We are happy to have all of you with us. I look forward to reading your posts in the months ahead.

Hello everyone - this is the beginning of the survey discussion of political thought and theory from Herodotus to the present day. There is a table of contents and a syllabus. This discussion will last a year and we will use the two volume Ryan book - On Politics: A History of Political Thought from Herodotus to the Present .

We have purposely kept the assignments short and concise so that everyone will be able to join in and participate. Anybody can be successful here with the subject matter and the book. As you can see - we are allowing folks three weeks to read the Introduction and Chapter One allowing everybody the opportunity to get the book, read the material and discuss this at leisure.

I have opened up this first thread because I know that some folks have been waiting for this discussion to open up and because I was ill we had to put it off until now. But now we are ready to begin and we are giving everybody ample time to get caught up, get started, get the book and begin. There is no pressure - take your time and start when you are ready.

Here is the Table of Contents and the Syllabus.

/topic/show/...

I have sent out the event notification as well. When you go into the main group site - just scroll down and you should see the event notification for On Politics - just open it up and respond yes and then you are ready to go.

Official kickoff is Monday but I am opening the threads early for those of you who are already digging in and ready to go.

Topics for Discussion:

1. How many of you have read The Histories by Herodotus? What are your thoughts on that work? And of Herodotus himself and some of things he reported?

by Herodotus

The Histories was one of the first books that our group tackled.

We have also started a thread on Herodotus and I have already added quite a few links and information that may be useful to you if you have not read this work. Here is the link to the thread:

/topic/show/...

Additionally in the video area - I added a great discussion by Tom Holland regarding his translation of Herodotus and his impression of The Histories. A worthwhile listen - /videos/8056...

Tom Holland

Also, I looked for all of the threads on the very old discussion of The Histories back in 2008 when we were a private group and I have added them to this folder - just scroll down and if you are interested in rereading or reading or listening to The Histories - some of the threads might be a good companion. There is also a Table of Contents and Syllabus so you can pace your reading and there a bunch of ancillary threads as well as all of the weekly non spoiler threads, etc.

I have only read the Introduction so far, but I was struck by how there was so little agreement on what the goal of politics or political theory should be.

Is it to maximize public involvement? Allow the most choices? Make choices that make people better off even if they don't know it? And then who's opinion should count? How much should strength of belief count?

It seems unlikely that there can be much agreement on the best political theory if you don't know what you are trying to accomplish.

I think folks know what they want to try to accomplish - maybe be able to ask the right questions and separate what you know or think you know from what you don't know. Many folks never ask the right questions even to figure out what they don't know. Maybe it is to make people think rather than simply react,

Right now when you think of America - I think the populace reacts to sound bytes. - and carefully crafted ones at that.

And Matthew where does Herodotus fit into the scheme of things?

I was struck by the extent to which democracy in Athens is so different from what we would describe as democracy. Particularly, it's interesting to have it highlighted that so much that we associate with western democracy has to do with rights rather than decision making per se. The notion that we have a system of competing elites is a thought-provoking one, and a contrast to the direct democracy practiced by (elite) Athenians.

Matthew wrote: "I have only read the Introduction so far, but I was struck by how there was so little agreement on what the goal of politics or political theory should be."

I wonder if politics and political theory have to be descriptions of how power's asserted and goals are something different (which is a little chilling).

For politics, is it steps for some constituency to achieve collective goals? (be it the tyrant's goals or the town deciding where to put the dump?)

Looks like our theorists are going to have ideas about what the goals are, mind you.

Jim wrote: "For politics, is it steps for some constituency to achieve collective goals? (be it the tyrant's goals or the town deciding where to put the dump?)."


A few years ago, my town put out bids to privatize the local water utility, but all the bids came in "too low." The Democrats crowed about fighting back against privatization. The Republicans scolded that in a free market there was no such thing as a price that was "too low," and the highest bid reflected what it was worth.

TIme passed, last year we put out bids again, and this time the highest bid was over twice as high as last time. The Democrats made the same arguments against the dangers of privitization, ignoring the fact that the price was twice as high. The Republicans made the same arguments as well, ignoring the fact that the argument would have led to selling the utility for less than half price a few years ago.

The difference this time was that under local laws, when the Commissioners decide the sell (but not if they decide not to), there has to be a referendum. So, me and my 10,000 neighbors (well, 8,000 adult neighbors because kids can't vote) had to decide if the sale should go through. To which, after much examination, I could only say, "How the heck should I know?" I'm not an economist who can tell whether this price is a good one. A lot of the decision would depend on what we did with the money, and I don't get a vote on the annual budget. The two sides had lined up, but they were all making general arguments about how privitization is always right or always wrong, not speaking to someone who though it would be a good idea in some circumstances, but not others.

The requirement for a referendum was supposed to "increase democratic involvement," in a way that Herodotus might have approved of, but I just felt like it took the decision away from the people who had the time and were tasked with figuring it out, and left it in the hands of people who weren't given all of tools they would need to reach a sensible decision.

This is why I think that political theorists aren't sure what they are trying to accomplish.

Jim wrote: "I was struck by the extent to which democracy in Athens is so different from what we would describe as democracy. Particularly, it's interesting to have it highlighted that so much that we associat..."

You raise some good points Jim. It does seem that what we call democracy has evolved.

I was looking at definitions for politics and political theory because frankly I think we need to start out with some definitive definitions of what we are talking about - what is in the box and what is not.

Here is one for politics:

The science of government; that part of ethics which has to do with the regulation and government of a nation or state, the preservation of its safety, peace, and prosperity, the defense of its existence and rights against foreign control or conquest, the augmentation of its strength and resources, and the protection of its citizens in their rights, with the preservation and improvement of their morals.

Here is one for political theory and political science: (as defined on Wesleyan University's site)

Political Theory & Political Science

Political Theory is a distinct field within the discipline of political science. Political theorists tend to focus more on theoretical claims rather than empirical claims about the nature of the politics. Normative political theory is concerned with questions about such concepts as justice, equality, and rights. Historical political theory engages political philosophers from the past (e.g. Thucyides and Plato) to the present (e.g. Wendy Brown and Seyla Benahabib), and may focus on how particular philosophers engaged political problems that continue to be relevant today. While the focus has traditionally been on Western traditions, that is beginning to change in this field.

From the Government Department website: Political theory is engaged with current political issues and is self-reflective about political life. It has a strong ethical component and develops alternative conceptualizations of how we might organize social and political relations. Theory thus understood is an aspect of the whole discipline, interwoven with each concentration; it also has its own tradition of discourse, from ancient to contemporary theorists. The tradition focuses on the ethical bases for relationships of authority among individuals, those invested with legitimate and illegitimate power. It studies the forces that expand and limit human potential. In Western political theory, theorists tend to have research specialties in one or more of three historical periods: ancient (the Golden Age of Greece and Rome); modern (from Machiavelli and Hobbes through Marx and Nietzsche); and contemporary. Theorists also read and teach broadly across these historical periods.

It is a mistake to think that the work political theorists do is completely distinct from the work that other political scientists do. There are many ways in which the approaches are complementary and benefit when they engage each other. A recent volume edited by Mantzavinos, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, includes contributions by both philosophers and social scientists, where they react to and learn from each other. Social scientists can often benefit from the close attention philosophers pay to concepts; theorists can often benefit from the descriptions of the world that social scientists provide.

There are number of ways in which writing a paper or senior thesis in political theory is different from the process of doing the more empirical work that other political scientists engage in. Empirical work often involves such tasks as hypothesis testing, the collection of new empirical data, and the use of specific methodologies to collect and or analyze the data (statistics, field research, surveys, etc.). Typically, the focus for political theory work is on two things: the logical consistency of your own ideas and the way you engage other theorists.

As suggested above, there are several different ways of doing political theory. While many theorists engage philosophers from the past, this is not always necessary.

Source: Wesleyan and Brainy-quotes

Topics for Discussion:

What do you think of these definitions? Are they close and what do you think Ryan would agree with or not?

Matthew wrote: "Jim wrote: "For politics, is it steps for some constituency to achieve collective goals? (be it the tyrant's goals or the town deciding where to put the dump?)."


A few years ago, my town put out ..."

Matthew a very concrete example of how power is a dangerous thing if in the wrong hands. Maybe this was the case of illegitimate power and legitimate power. The folks who had the knowledge versus the ones who were not given the tools and knowledge they needed to make an informed decision. Why couldn't both be joined in making the right decision? A very sad tale which I think occurs daily in the US.

I've also only read the intro, but anxious to dig into chapter 1. Outside of reading about various POTUS and VPOTUS, etc., my exposure to politics/political science was from a poli-sci college course 30 years ago. I've heard of Herodotus and that alone sums up my knowledge of him. Now I'll be adding The Histories to my TBR pile.

Thanks for the definitions of Politics and Political Theory and Science, Bentley. It will be helpful to have those handy.

by Herodotus

According to Leo Strauss - the basis of these theories is the quest for truth not necessarily the possession of truth.

I will be adding to the glossary ancillary reading and discussion - as well as some historic audios or videos - whatever I can find to add to the discussion here. Also I will set up some threads so that folks who want to read other books along the way (such as some of the philosopher's discussed) can do that as well.

There is a thread that has been set up on Herodotus and I have added a video awhile ago to the main video area of the main site where Tom Holland discusses his translation of The Histories by Herodotus. So there will be many different opportunities to branch off and dive deeper.

Teri we will all learn from each other and we are doing this leisurely so just enjoy and you should have time to read Herodotus if you would like. I think that audible also has an audio version if you would like to tackle it while driving and on trips.

by Herodotus

Tom Holland

Leo Strauss

Bentley wrote: "The folks who had the knowledge versus the ones who were not given the tools and knowledge they needed to make an informed decision. Why couldn't both be joined in making the right decision? A very sad tale which I think occurs daily in the US."

The point is that there wasn't necessarily a "right decision." Is the right decision the one that the majority of voters picks? Is it the decision that a majority of "sufficiently informed" voters picks? Is it the decision that our chosen representatives pick? These can all be different decisions, and they could all be the "right decision" for different reasons.

What is considered right to one group may not be what another group considers to be right - that is always true.

Also, you could have gotten a better deal price wise before and you also knew that your group was not given the right tools and right information - and if you had both - you would have been able to get to a "better" decision.

Have cracked the cover of Ryan's book and looking forward to completing the first leg of the reading journey.

In the interest of full disclosure, philosophy is one of those disciplines, like math, that was Greek to me; pun fully intended. I am faaaar more comfortable with Eastern philosophies. The primary difference, I think, is that Western philosophies are rooted in the system of dual thinking that the Greeks evolved back in the day that employed trying to locate the truth at some point between two paradoxical poles.

In the instance cited by Bentley in #19, where on the scale between right and wrong (or as Bentley said: not right) is some phenomena seen.

For my money, it seems more meaningful to consider the process, or as Otto reportedly said:

"Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable � the art of the next best.� --Bismark

Yes the quest for truth was important:

"Rightness" is in the eyes of the beholder. That is the problem with folks who believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are "right".

I think we will discover that all of the schools have certain things in common - like the quest for truth, justice, ethical behavior, morality, goodness, and that these things are not equated with one point on a line but reside more in a spectrum of characteristics to look for. I am not sure for instance that truth lies as a point between two poles. I think that possibly the quest for truth is more a moving target as you get more information and become more enlightened. What constitutes truth may be something quite different and may evolve as information and tools become available. There is a lot to ponder.

Glad to have you Martin. I think we will all learn from each other..

As we kick off our first week with Ryan's book I will bring in all sorts of ideas to kick around and discuss - articles, videos, audios - make sure to always check the glossary as well. And I will steer all of you in different directions so that as you have more time you can sample and do a deep dive of some of the philosophers discussed or their ideas - of course as you have time.

I encourage all of you to try sometime this year to conquer The Histories by Herodotus where it all began and where Ryan begins.

I mentioned in one of the previous posts the University of Chicago's school and the late Leo Strauss - we will of course discuss other schools as we go along. However this article - I think poses some ideas to ponder and to discuss:

What if Leo Strauss was right?
By Damon Linker



Maybe it was Irving Kristol's fault.

When the intellectual godfather of neoconservatism pointed to Leo Strauss as a seminal influence on his thinking, the stage was set for a seemingly endless season of journalistic silliness.

I can just imagine how it started.

"Why are the neocons in and around the Bush administration so intent on overthrowing Saddam Hussein?" asks an intrepid reporter some time during the fall of 2002. "I just don't get it."

"Hey, look at this: Bill Kristol's father refers to Leo Strauss in this 1995 memoir," a colleague in the newsroom responds. "I've heard that Strauss was some kind of conservative guru. And people say he believed in secrets and advocated lies. I think I'm onto something."

"Well, looking at his books, I'm not seeing any arguments in favor of preemptive war or the wisdom of imposing liberal democracy on the Muslim Middle East by military force. Come to think of it, there aren't many specific references to politics at all. Just lots of paraphrases of Plato and Xenophon, Maimonides and Hobbes."

"Oh, yeah? It says here that Bill Kristol studied with Harvey Mansfield, who's a Straussian. And Paul Wolfowitz studied with Allan Bloom, and he's a Straussian, too. And Abram Shulsky at the Office for Special Plans in the Pentagon was a student of Strauss himself! I think we've found our smoking gun�"

In the 12 years since this conversation (or one very much like it) sparked a million ill-informed, fantastical hit pieces on Strauss for his insidious influence on the administration of George W. Bush, a series of Strauss' students and admirers have stepped forward to defend his work: Steven Smith, Thomas Pangle, Catherine and Michael Zuckert, Peter Minowitz.

There's much to recommend in each of these books. But for my money, the best by far is Arthur Melzer's just published study, Philosophy Between the Lines: The Lost History of Esoteric Writing. And yes, I would have come to that judgment even if I hadn't studied with the author in graduate school. Melzer has written the most compelling, surprising, and persuasive defense of Strauss's thought that I have ever read. It deserves a wide and appreciative audience. And if it gets one, the consequences could be enormous.

Because if Strauss was right in the way he interpreted the Western philosophical tradition, then much of modern scholarship � and, by extension, our civilization's understanding of its intellectual and political inheritance � will need to be radically revised.

Staying far away from questions of foreign (or any other kind of) policy, Melzer has chosen as his subject Strauss' notorious assertion that virtually all philosophers up until the early 19th century wrote their books "esoterically" � that is, using a rhetoric of concealment, with a surface teaching meant for general readers and a hidden teaching for those who were intelligent, clever, and tenacious enough to uncover it. This contention has been dismissed by most non-Straussian scholars, who have tended to suggest that Strauss projected the phenomenon onto most of the canonical authors he discussed in his many learned books and essays.

Melzer supplies a mountain of evidence in support of Strauss' claims � quotes from just about every major philosopher (and many other writers) from ancient Greece to 19th-century Germany testifying to the reality of esotericism. (An online appendix of supporting quotes and citations runs about 100 pages.) It seems that up until roughly two centuries ago, almost every culturally educated person took for granted that books of philosophy (and sometimes also works of scripture and literature) were written in a style of deliberate obscurity.

In some of the most intriguing sections of the book, Melzer proposes various explanations for how such a widely acknowledged practice could have come to be almost entirely forgotten, only to be single-handedly recovered by Strauss in the mid-20th century. Esoteric writing offends our democratic sensibilities (which assume that in principle everyone is capable of discovering the truth); it runs afoul of the norms of modern scholarship (which assume truths should be publicized and made available equally to all); and it clashes with the modern West's valorization of clarity and directness in communication. As Melzer shows through an engagement with recent research in anthropology and comparative rhetoric � and even a perusal of Culture Matters: The Peace Corps Cross-Cultural Workbook � most societies outside of the modern West have prized (and to this day continue to prize) indirect, implicit, ambiguous modes of speaking and writing.

It was within such cultures that esoteric writing arose and was practiced, and the bulk of Melzer's book is devoted to elaborating four philosophical motives for writing in a style of deliberate obscurity.

Like dissident intellectuals toiling in fear behind the Iron Curtain, philosophers prior to the rise of modern liberal democracies usually found themselves in politically oppressive regimes where their intellectual investigations ran the risk of arousing suspicion of disloyalty or treason. (The case of Socrates' execution for impiety and corrupting the youth of Athens is the iconic example, but there are many others.) This led to the use of what Melzer calls defensive esotericism , in which a thinker deliberately conceals the most radical aspects of his thought in order to protect himself from persecution.

Pedagogical esotericism , meanwhile, presumes that readers who are capable of philosophic wisdom will be more likely to acquire it if they learn to think for themselves by following hints and suggestions in the text, rather than having such wisdom spoon-fed to them by the author.

Then there's political esotericism , which was employed mainly in the early modern period by philosophers associated with the Enlightenment who hoped to bring about the liberalization of politics and society, creating a more tolerant world in which most forms of philosophic self-concealment would no longer be necessary.

Though some may quibble with Melzer's presentation of these three styles of esotericism, none of them challenge prevailing assumptions as much as the mode of writing that he dubs protective esotericism. Elaborated in a 40-page chapter titled "Dangerous Truths," this is the most thoroughly "Straussian" section of the book, and the one that raises the most troubling questions � not just for scholars but for all thoughtful human beings.

Following philosopher Karl Popper in describing tolerance-based liberal democracies as "open" societies, Melzer sharply contrasts them with just about every other form of society the world has ever known. These are comparatively "closed" societies based on settled and largely unquestioned customs that are themselves founded on authoritative claims about the divine origins of the political community, the human race, and the universe as a whole.

Philosophy originally arose as a way of life singularly devoted to determining whether a particular society's customs are good and whether its origin stories are true. This placed philosophy in a fundamentally antagonistic position to society, which understandably viewed radical philosophical questioning as a grave threat. Theory and practice, contemplation and social-communal-moral life, were presumed to stand in ineradicable tension with one another. It was because of this seemingly permanent tension that philosophers chose to practice protective esotericism.

Today, in societies that allow and even encourage the criticism that virtually all other forms of political life have sought to control or stamp out, philosophers are perfectly free to pose any subversive question they wish. Yet Melzer wants his readers to see that even our own open societies typically refrain from questioning certain foundational customs and opinions � and that the pursuit of philosophic wisdom requires that we subject even these most cherished convictions to relentless examination and scrutiny.

Take the account of the "noble lie" in Plato's Republic. In this passage of the classic dialogue, Socrates tells his conversation partners that the perfectly just political community they are constructing in speech will require a four-part foundational lie or salutary myth: that all of its citizens are born from the ground on which the community makes its home; that all citizens are brothers; that each citizen is born as one of three races (gold, silver, or iron/bronze); and that each comes into the world along with certain tools that indicate the job he was meant to do in life.

On Melzer's reading (which closely follows the interpretation of Strauss' student Allan Bloom), each element in this myth is meant to expose a lie that can be found at work in every human society, even our own.

Every society denies the fact that the land it occupies was taken by force from some group of human beings who was there first. (Hence the need to teach the lie that citizens are literally children of the land the society occupies.) Every society arbitrarily grants the rights and benefits of citizenship to some people and denies them to others. (Hence the need to teach the lie that all citizens are members of a natural family.) Every society allows some people to rule over others � in a democracy, the majority rules over everyone else � and attempts to justify this arrangement as founded in the natural order of things. (Hence the need to teach the myth of the metals.) Finally, every society requires that certain undesirable jobs be done, even when they are harmful to the individuals who do them � coal mining, for example, or soldiering. (Hence the need to teach the myth of the tools.)

In sum, every society makes use of myths and lies to cover over injustices that are coeval with political life as such. This isn't to deny that liberal democracies strive to lessen these injustices in some areas. In comparison to most societies in history, for example, the U.S. permits a relatively large number of immigrants to become citizens. The upward mobility fostered by capitalistic exchange likewise alleviates the worst economic injustices.

Yet we still exclude people from citizenship, and we still need some people to do dangerous or otherwise harmful jobs. There is no complete solution to the problem of political injustice. Even though every society uses a variation on the noble lie to convince itself that it has somehow achieved exactly that.

Strauss didn't teach his students to tell lies. He taught them how to liberate themselves from the lies we tell ourselves.

Continued in next post

Continued from post above:

Toward the end of his book, Melzer urges scholars and other interested readers to undertake esoteric interpretations of the entire Western philosophical tradition, at least up through the end of the 18th century. If he merely meant to encourage careful, creative readings of old texts, the suggestion would be a little banal.

But of course that isn't all that Melzer has in mind. After all, his invitation follows an elaborate (and remarkably persuasive) effort to establish not only that pre-modern writers wrote esoterically but also why they did so � in part to shield society from truths that puncture the ersatz nobility of politics and point beyond it altogether, toward the fully examined life of philosophy.

A world in which readers regularly produced revisionist esoteric interpretations that exposed these truths to the light of day would be one in which our understanding of the Western philosophical tradition was radically transformed. It would, for one thing, look far more deeply skeptical, profoundly anti-utopian, and brutally realistic about the permanent problems of political and moral life than it is usually presumed to be.

If Leo Strauss was right, we have an awful lot of thinking � and rethinking � ahead of us.

Source(s): The Week

by Arthur M. Melzer (no photo)

by Plato

Socrates

Of course, Alan Ryan is not aligned with Strauss - he is more aligned with Quentin Skinner and the Oxford folks which we will get into later but then again Ryan is his own thinker and not a Skinnerian either although he was a colleague of Skinner and has written with him - so in some things they must share some community of thought but Ryan still gleans great insight from the classical thinkers and thoughts of the ages. So keep this in mind as I introduce some of the various schools of political thought - each one with their own twist.

This was a nice excerpt which focuses on how we can learn from our predecessors which was part of the review done in The Economist of Ryan's book:

It is also important that, as Mr Ryan puts it, “long-dead writers often speak to us with greater freshness and immediacy than our contemporaries.� James Madison has the best advice for Egyptian liberals who want to prevent Muhammad Morsi from turning democracy into dictatorship. John Stuart Mill (pictured centre) has the best arguments against Michael Bloomberg and the “soft despotism� entailed in his soft-drink regulations. Immanuel Kant has the best insights into the gay-marriage debate—he argues that, once you have stripped away the nonsense, marriage is nothing more than a contract for the mutual use of the sex organs. Mr Ryan’s historical approach helps us at the very least to look at our problems from new angles, and at best to harness the help of history’s sharpest minds in producing policies.

Mr Ryan’s approach to political theory is thoroughly old-fashioned—and all the better for it. In recent years historians and political theorists have been busily undermining the Western canon—dissolving the great political theorists in their wider intellectual contexts or discovering seminal thinkers in the rest of the world. This has produced some admirable results in the skilful hands of Quentin Skinner and John Pocock, but it has also threatened to rob the great tradition of its greatness. Mr Ryan is happy to put the greatness back in. He treats Hobbes and company as thinkers to be grappled with rather than historical figures to be contextualised.

Source: The Economist

I have to admit, that I haven't read all the posts here, so I may be repeating something already said.

First, I really like the book so far (I've only read the first 100 pages). I found the Ancients point of view interesting compared to modern Democracy.

I've been looking into some of the voting practices in different Democracies. Switzerland for example has a semi-direct Democracy, where they vote on a number of initiatives and referendums during the year (issues that are handled here in the U.S. by the House and the Senate).

I thought Matthew's post in message 12 was interesting about privatization vs. government run ventures: Post office, train service, etc., and who should make those decisions.

Karen you have to stay on track with the reading on the weekly non spoiler threads. This is a leisurely study (smile) - also the spoiler threads are different and there are many of those in the folder too.

Also I am glad that you like the book. You will see weekly non spoiler threads and this is one of them - we are only reading the Introduction and Chapter One through March 29th. That seems like a long time but in that time you might want to start reading The Histories by Herodotus or Plato's Republic - both mentioned. Or reading all 25 posts. It is always a good idea to read the posts and then comment on the topics for discussion. And just popping in on a daily basis and just staying on track. There will be tons of opportunities to deep dive into all sorts of other books and philosophers along the way which of course is all up to you and what you have time for.

Remember though you only can discuss the assigned reading on a non spoiler thread (the ones numbered with weeks and dates) or any page or chapter that came before the assigned reading for that week. However we also have tons of spoiler threads - the Bibliography, Glossary, Book as a Whole, any of the separate ancillary threads like the one set up on Herodotus - on all of those - you can talk about anything related to that thread so you are not defined by the assignment on the spoiler threads.

Ryan does focus on the thinkers of the past and their greatness and I like that about him too.

The Greek's version of democracy and the American one have differences and that is something that we can talk about on this thread as well. You did allude to it in your second paragraph. What has surprised you about the differences?

What about Herodotus - why does Ryan and others consider him to be so important - Have you read The Histories by Herodotus - if not why not pick up a copy and start diving in or listen to one of the audio versions available - you can get it free on line and even audible has a copy. You can also get free on line ebook versions. Check out the Herodotus thread for more details.

You are right - you will find differences in many of the European democracies from our government structure. We can also discuss some of these differences here as well.

As far as the post office - I think in days gone by - we use to get delivery twice a day - can you imagine and on Sunday - businesses got delivery four times a day - now you are lucky if you get your mail once a day on Monday through Saturday and you even get the right mail that belongs to you.

I am not sure that the changes that they have made to the postal service have really helped the quality of the delivery and the institution itself (just as an aside since you mentioned it and the railway service) - I think things are better not privatized in some of these instances - the cost to use them is at the very least monitored but others might disagree and I am interested in hearing and reading all points of view.

Here is a history of the postal service - it wasn't until 1863 that you even had to put your address on your mail (smile) - and

I do think that Matthew raises the important point that the decision making process was greatly impacted by the lack of proper tools and no transfer of knowledge from the folks who knew more about what had transpired and how to judge the current situation. If you have folks who have limited time and limited knowledge making decisions you are not actually doing a better job by having the complete freedom and autonomy to make these kinds of decisions - the end result might end up being worse. Some things do not work well by crowd rule - it is as simple as that - maybe having the authority to select the decision makers and the ability to discuss, affirm or deny might be enough. There are many things to discuss about illegitimate and legitimate power and making sure that the folks in government who by the way are working for you get at the truth and gather all of the facts to make good decisions. What Matthew pointed out is the double edged sword - if you have the power - do you also have the power and time to make the best informed decision. I think that Matthew was questioning that.

As Ryan has put it - Be skeptical, but not cynical. PS � It takes some time to work out the difference.

Also make sure to check out message one on this thread and the other threads - it points you in the right directions for a variety of threads which you might find interesting and also points to the table of contents and syllabus thread and introduction.

Here is the link to the thread on Herodotus:

/topic/show/...

Here is the link to the table of contents and syllabus:

/topic/show/...

Here is the link to the introduction thread:

/topic/show/...

Here is the link to the glossary:

/topic/show/...

Here is the link to the bibliography:

/topic/show/...

by Herodotus

by Plato

Two quotes from Chapter 1. p.30 of the Nook Edition:

[Athenians were very involved in politics] "what we moderns would do if we shared that passion with the same intensity is an interesting question, but it is doubtful we could keep many of our present arrangements."

Then, the middle of the next paragraph: "It is a crucial difference between the Athenians and ourselves that we rely on elected representatives whereas they took a random sample of the citizenry."

Would America be better or worse if we replaced elections with random draws? Could 400+ citizens pulled out of a hat do better than Congress? Could they do worse?

Ah two quotes that are certainly applicable to the modern day scenario you found yourself in and posted about Matthew. Good so far - but then.

Hmmm - you were doing great with the first three paragraphs and then you sort of when off a bit like Strauss and not Skinner or Ryan in the last paragraph. Worse is my answer because remember we have a quest for truth and justice - doesn't mean we have the truth or the answers but we are striving to get to that point. And if a person you don't choose belongs to a party and a belief system which would unravel our Constitution and modify our institutions so that we are no longer recognizable would that work for you? At least what the person stands for and their belief system should be in line with your own - at least that is not too much truth to be looking for or expecting an individual to grapple with - I would imagine. As far as Congress I see your point (lol) but remember one of the original goals was for all of us to serve in that capacity and rotate us through but that would not really work either - so we are dealing with the best of the unworkable options - the least bad maybe (lol) - the jury selection pool is probably the closest we come to an ideal and even that has its flaws.

Others might want to weigh in on your Strauss detour or the Matthew one (smile) - both quite good for discussion. What do the rest of you think of Matthew's post, the quotes from chapter one and the questions posed by Matthew in message 27?

Remember folks just jump right in and post - there really are no perfect answers - just a lot of questions and ideas to think and ponder and of course always a search for truth. And you might find that what is considered the truth changes with time and with circumstances and with many other changes in variables.

Here is where we begin - we begin with the Introduction - Thinking About Politics

Here is how Alan Ryan begins:

Alan Ryan writes:

"This is a Long Book, and a long time in the making. At first, I was reluctant to embark on it at all, knowing how long such projects take.

In 1892, the brothers R. W. and A.J. Carlyle began to write an account of medieval political theory. The six volumes appeared between 1903 and 1936; by the time the final volume of A History of Mediaeval Political Theory in the West appeared, Sir Robert Carlyle had been dead two years; he did not die young, but at the age of seventy-five in retirement from a long career in the India Office. It remains an indispensable source for students of the subject, but today it would be the work of a team of authors and research assistants.

When a publishing friend suggested thirty-five years ago that I might write a successor to George Sabine’s History of Political Theory, I thought of the Carlyles and demurred. It was not merely that I had no brothers to help me - Robert Carlyle was fully employed in managing the affairs of India; most of the work fell to his brother, a historian at Oxford. More importantly, I was not sure what would give a long book its intellectual unity.

If history is, as Henry Ford, inelegantly put it, one damn� thing after another, was the history of thinking about politics merely one damn� thing after another? Was it even, as Macbeth more elegantly but more despairingly might have feared, a tale full of sound and fury signifying nothing, a chronicle of verbal fisticuffs at the end of which were were no wiser than at the beginning?

But a flood of interesting work then appeared on particular writers and particular history periods - Quentin Skinner’s Foundations of Modern Political Thought, for instance, or John Pocock’s work of the history of republican thought, The Machiavellian Moment. The plot formulated itself behind my back.

by Quentin Skinner

by J.G.A. Pocock (no photo)

by William Shakespeare

by George H. Sabine (no photo)

(no image) A History of Mediaeval Political Theory in the West Volume 2 by Sir Robert Warrand Carlyle (no photo) - 6 volumes

This is the first time that I have joined one of these discussions and study groups so please forgive any lapses in protocol that I might make. Fascinated to read this thread so far and the questions that have been raised. I think that the next year is going to be quite interesting and informative. I am fully expecting that my existing political thoughts and views will be challenged which won't necessarily be a bad thing. I hope to be able to contribute to the discussion when I am able to do so and from the perspective of the British political system. But first I have some catch up reading to do. See you around.

Thank you for joining in Mark - it will be an interesting discussion with plenty of time to read other books along the way or simply take part in this discussion - the beauty of this sort of survey discussion is that everyone's existing thoughts and views might be challenged - and everybody will react differently to various schools of thought and theory and that is a good thing because then the quest for what you believe in becomes a personal journey and everybody will have their own unique experience. I am looking forward to reading your posts and learning about your perspectives on the British political system as it pertains to the classical idea of democracy and political thought. You have until March 29th to get through the Introduction and Chapter One so you are well on your way.

For me, it's also my first time doing such a reading challenge, and I very much look forward to reading this book, to learn more about politics and the philosophical theories behind it and to discuss it or read the discussions on here.

So far I have read the introduction and one quote I found remarkable was

"Notoriously, almost every modern government calls itself a democracy; but self-described democracies do not much resemble one another, and none resemble the political system for which Athenians fought and died two and a half thousand years ago" (p. xxii in my penguin edition). I think it'll be interesting to see then what really a democracy would be and I think a notion that is connected with that is that of 'legitimacy'; what makes a political institution legitimate and why ought we to obey it?

Anyway, looking forward to reading it and even when my English lets me down sometimes, hope I can contribute to the discussion and convey some of my ideas to you.

An excellent quote Floris and you are doing remarkably well and your English has not let you down yet.

There are quite a few differences even among modern democracies never mind any comparisons to the political system of Athens 2500 years ago.

It is interesting to see the etymological roots of the word democracy.

Word Origin and History for democracy

noun -
1570s, from Middle French démocratie (14c.), from Medieval Latin democratia (13c.), from Greek demokratia "popular government," from demos "common people," originally "district" (see demotic ), + kratos "rule, strength" (see -cracy ).

Democracy implies that the man must take the responsibility for choosing his rulers and representatives, and for the maintenance of his own 'rights' against the possible and probable encroachments of the government which he has sanctioned to act for him in public matters. [Ezra Pound, "ABC of Economics," 1933]

by Ezra Pound

Have read the introduction so far. A few thoughts on the idea of competing political elites from the British perspective. In the UK we have a General Election in just over seven weeks time on May 7th and as you can imagine the politicians of all parties are doing their level best to persuade us that their vision of utopia is the one that we should buy into. But this election promises to be a little different to previous British General Elections because of the growth in new political parties on the British political scene. Britain has, by and large, historically been a two party system (rather similar to the US). In the 18th and early 19th century the spilt was between the Whigs and the Tories. By the mid to the latter part of the 19th century these parties had coalesced into the Liberal and Conservative parties. The early part of the 20th century saw the rise of the Labour Party and its gradual supplantation of the Liberal Party as the main opposition to the Conservatives. British political history since the end of the Second World War has been one of rule by either a Conservative or a Labour government who have been able to win the majority of the seats in the House of Commons. There have always been a handful of smaller parties who gained a handful of seats between them (the Liberals, the SNP (Scottish Nationalists), the Welsh Nationalists and the parties from Northern Ireland (it is a convention of the British political system that the main UK parties don't stand in Northern Ireland)but these parties have rarely gained enough seats to play any real role in the government of Britain. But this has begun to change. There has been a growing trend in Britain over the past ten to fifteen years of the growth of anti political establishment thought. The political elites have become increasingly criticised for being out of touch with the voters and no longer representative of the people they claim to serve (the voters). At the last General Election in May 2010 the Liberal Democrats were able to harness a lot of this sentiment and gained enough votes and seats to create a hung parliament (one in which no party by itself has reached the magic number of 326 seats out of 650 required to form a government in its own right). The result was the present British Conservative/Liberal coalition government, the Conservatives having won the most seats of any party but dependent upon the support of the Liberals to ensure a majority in the House of Commons. The past five years have been difficult. Like many Western countries Britain has been dealing with the aftermath of the global financial crisis of 2008 and a lot of unpopular decisions around public expenditure cuts have been made. The result has been an increase in the level of anti political establishment thought and a collapse in support for all the main parties (Conservatives, Labour and Liberals). The Liberals has suffered extremely badly as a result of their participation in some of the unpopular decisions made by the government of which they are now part. This political vacuum has been filled by the rise of several new parties and progress by one established party. UKIP (the United Kingdom Independence Party)was established primarily as a political vehicle to campaign for a referendum on Britain's continued membership of the European Union. UKIP is opposed and campaigns for British withdrawal. It is also largely opposed to immigration into Britain. UKIP has traditionally done well in the elections to the European Parliament and in May 2014 actually topped the poll in Britain and sent more British MEP's (Member of the European Parliament) to Brussels (where the European Parliament sits) then any other British political party. It then won a couple of by-elections in the autumn of 2014 caused by former Conservative MP's leaving the Conservative Party and joining UKIP. UKIP initially gained a lot of its support from the right wing of the Conservative Party but has now been gaining support from a number of former Labour supporters. In recent opinion polls it has been averaging around 15%. It's message is an anti political establishment one and designed to garner support from voters frustrated with the mainstream political parties. UKIP calls itself the "Peoples Army". It tends to refer to mainstream parties as the "metropolitan political elite". Another growing party in Britain is the Green Party which has been gathering support from disaffected former Liberal and Labour voters. It promotes a very different vision and has grown of the ecological movement. It is currently gaining about 8% in the opinion polls and in some polls is actually now polling higher then the Liberals. In Scotland the Scottish Nationalist Party has been growing at a rapid rate largely in response to its failure to win the referendum held in September 2014 for Scottish independence from the rest of Britain. It also campaigns against the political elite which it sees as distant, based in London, English centred and diametrically opposed to Scottish needs and concerns. The SNP is forecast to be the largest party in Scotland after the election in May. So where does that leave us here in Britain. Well another hung parliament after the May election seems an absolute certainty. The two main parties, the Conservatives and Labour and currently each polling around the 33 to 35% mark, not enough under the British constituency first past the post voting system to get anywhere near the magic number of 326 seats. UKIP come next on around 15%, then the Greens and Liberals on around 8% each. The SNP are miles ahead in Scotland and are forecast to win around 45 of the 59 Scottish seats. To get close to the magic number of 326 either the Conservatives or Labour must get to around 40 to 42% in the polls and there is no sign that either of them will get anywhere close to that. On their current polling percentages both of them will get somewhere around 270 to 290 of the seats in the House of Commons. Then the political horse trading will start to see can persuade the smaller parties to enter into coalition with them. Under the British Constitution, unwritten as it is, the party with the most seats will get the first attempt at putting together sufficient support to get its Queens Speech (its legislative programme) through the House of Commons. If it can't then the next party in terms of total seats will get a go. Interesting times lay ahead I think. The result of voters losing confidence in the traditional political elites and looking for alternatives or an exercise in democracy. The jury may still be out.

I hadn't thought to connect it to this book, but we're having a federal election here in Canada later this year as well (likely October). It will be interesting to compare to what the political theorists of days gone by think SHOULD be done.

The Athenian system of randomly assigning citizens to political office (if I have that right) struck me as very interesting. I can't recall the source, but I remember reading that in the early days of Kibbutzim, the intention was for everyone to take a turn in political / governance roles. The follow up point to that description was that some people REALLY aren't interested in politics, and some people aren't quite as capable as others.

Mark,

Your post looks most interesting, but is near impossible to read.

You need to make it accessible by breaking it up into paragraphs. You took the time to think and to write, don't cheat us or yourself.

Bentley wrote: "Hmmm - you were doing great with the first three paragraphs and then you sort of when off a bit like Strauss and not Skinner or Ryan in the last paragraph. Worse is my answer because remember we have a quest for truth and justice - doesn't mean we have the truth or the answers but we are striving to get to that point. ."

What you are describing as my Strauss detour was intended to be more along the lines of Kenneth Arrow in his brilliant work on voting theory, Social Choice and Individual Values.

The idea isn't so much that the relevant information wasn't disclosed in a democratically neccessary way, but that it COULDN'T be. This is Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. Let's make it concrete:

A. 40% of voters ("Greens") want to sell the water plant and use the money to purchase and preserve "Open Space" to save green areas from development -- an purchase that can reasonably be made only by the government. (If the money isn't going to be used for Open Space, though, only 10% of this group support the sale. The other 30% would rather keep the water plant if the proceeds are just going to be used for tax reductions or used for other non-environmental purposes.)

B. 35% of voters ("Conservatives") want to sell the water plant and use the money for tax reductions -- a reasonable use for the windfall money. If the money is just going to be used for additional spending, like buying land for "Open Space" preservation, they figure why bother. They are all always for Sale and always against Open Space.

C. 25% of voters ("Labour") don't want to sell the water plant because they believe in public ownership under all circumstances, and therefore figure there's no money for Open Space. (If the plant is sold, though, 15% want to use the money to buy Open Space, and 10% want tax reductions).

Now, imagine we have Election (1) Should we sell the water plant? 75% vote yes (all Green and Conservatives), so we sell. Then we have election (2), Should we buy Open Space? That election ends with 55% voting to buy Open Space (all of the Greens and the 15% of Labour), so we buy Open Space. The Democracy has spoken! Sale of water plant and preservation of Open Space!

But what if we did it the other way? First, we hold the Election (1) of whether or not to buy Open Space. Now, only the Greens votes for Open Space, and it loses 40-60%. The Conservatives are against it on principal, and Labour thinks it is unaffordable due to their commitment to public ownership. Now, we hold a Election (2) on whether to sell the water plant, and it also loses 45%-55%, getting only the support of all of the Conservatives, and 10% from the Greens. Labour is relieved that they pretty much got their first choice. The Democracy has spoken! Keep the water plant and don't buy Open Space!

Kenneth Arrow's Impossibility Theorem essentially says that there is no way to decide which one of the above paragraphs is the true "Will of the Majority." Either one seems to be a reasonable result, given the viewpoints of the citizens, even though the two results are diametrically opposite. There is simply no such thing as the "correct democratic result."



Kenneth J. Arrow

That is OK Matthew - Strauss happens to be very well thought of - a bit different from Ryan and Skinner - but that is OK and if you feel that the post was along the lines of Arrow that is fine too (smile).

Matthew I am certain that more information could have been provided to your group had they had a) enough time b) enough inclination and c) enough guidance and transfer of knowledge - the end result might not have been perfect but you would have been moving in the right direction rather than throwing in the towel so to speak. Just MHO (smile).

Regarding your theorem - I think our forefathers thought about this and the fact that the majority might make it miserable for the minorities and they tried to build in checks and balances and one of them was the electoral college to protect the little states in terms of choosing a president. There are quite a few instances where discussions about minorities and majorities were discussed even in the Federalist Papers I believe.

I am not sure that you can ever get a correct democratic result and I don't believe that we have even discussed this here or in Ryan's book in the Introduction or Chapter One but I am willing to be corrected if that is the case and I missed it.

But you raise an interesting case and I do hope that folks weigh in.

Mark wrote: "Have read the introduction so far. A few thoughts on the idea of competing political elites from the British perspective. In the UK we have a General Election in just over seven weeks time on May 7..."

Mark it is difficult to read - so I suggest breaking up long posts every few lines with paragraphs (maybe every 4 or 5 lines) - but I am fairly familiar with some of the problems you are describing and they are real indeed for Great Britain - The Conservatives had to work with the Liberals and soften their views which is not necessarily a bad thing. I think you are indicating that the same thing will most likely happen again.

I am not surprised because the UK is not happy about the EU on many different levels - you do not want to lose your culture or what is in the best interests of the English people because a bunch of folks from another country take over by just showing up and create massive social problems for the UK - simply because they have to abide by the rules of the EU. Somehow it does not seem to be in the best interests of the average English citizen. I think the same thing is brewing in Scotland - the issue is that the UK is probably stronger and better staying the course. I am really not sure about the benefits of the EU frankly aside from it benefitting Germany - but you are closer to that than I am.

Sometimes this sort of unrest and splintering of parties leaves a country open to groups gaining power that under normal circumstances would never rise to power on their own. It can be quite dangerous because some fringe constituencies stick together and form a bloc.

You will have to keep us posted as to what happens next. Right now this week we are reading the introduction and Chapter One through March 29th.

A couple of things impress me in the intro:

1) I have read some of Berlin's essays on the two types of freedom, negative & positive, and it's informative to me to see Ryan trace them back to western civilization's inception, with the caveat that he will explore five revolutions that have more recently changed the political landscape.

2) It also is encouraging to see that he breathes relevance into what could be a tiresome exercise by bridging the gap between the history of political examination and discourse and current concerns. As he makes clear in the intro, it's nice to see the relevance of say those who regard freedom as the lack of regulatory constraint (Tea Party) versus those who see freedom involving the completion of a social contract by participating in politics (progressives, but I think an argument could also be made for the Tea Partiers).

Excellent Martin - you are referring to the reading material.

I guess I see the point you are making in number 2 - but then again any group can coalesce and run for office although it appears we are a two party system in America for the most part - and the Tea Partiers seem to be taking over the platform of one of them. Our constitution allows them to come together - I think the problem is the voice of the folks who do not agree with them or any group like them - do they have an equal voice in the government or do folks like the Tea Partiers who are so far outside the norm bring everything to a screeching halt. In terms of the classical origins of democracy - Ryan appears to be emphasizing that what we have now which we call democracy is not the same as Athenian democracy and that many countries are also interpreting democracy differently along the same lines and also with their own model and twist. Would an Athenian type democracy even be viable in this day and age?

I find the discussions of British or other non-American elections interesting because America seems to be such an anomaly in having a two-party system. England appears to be moving away from a two-party system as well.

In the 2010 British election, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats formed a majority coalition, but the Lib-Dems could have just as well formed a coalition with the Labour government and some small regional parties to form a different "majority."


I think our American view of "Democracy" is clouded by the historical oddity that we seem to see things as a choice between two things. We don't have "Greens" or "Socialists" or "National Front" parties that run on separate platforms and get significant votes. Instead, we have them within the two parties' "big tents", which just give the other party ammunition -- Look at those crazy Tea Partiers, Republicans are crazy! Look at that Socialist, Democrats are insane!

If we wanted to have an Athenian style democracy, we would have to limit government power to the minimal things that Athenians did. No Department of Agriculture or EPA or CIA or Immigration Department. If we want a government that does things that a modern one does, we have to acknowledge that the form of government must be very different, and move on from there.

The Founding Fathers set up our government to very competently avoid most of the problems that the Articles of Confederation faced. I do not think, however, were very prescient about the types of issues that would emerge 200 years later, or the types of criticisms that theorists like Arrow would formulate.

Once we acknowledge them, though, it doesn't give us a definite answer about what to "Do" about it, but at least it gets us to acknowledge that there is an issue to address.

Please accept my apologies for my earlier Woolfian "stream of consciousness". I guess that I got a little bit carried away with myself.

I guess that the point that I was trying to make was stimulated by the section in the Introduction where Ryan talks about competing elites vying for political power and what can happen when the voters gradually begin to loose confidence in those competing elites and begin to look for political alternatives. In Britain the old Them and Us almost tribal loyalty to one of two main parties is breaking down. Previously both the Conservatives and the Labour parties have been "big tent" parties as have the Liberals. The Conservatives managed to contain centre-rightist "One Nation" Conservatives alongside more right-wing small state members. The Labour Party managed to contain both Social Democrats and more left-wing socialists. Even the Liberals were spilt between economic liberals and social liberals. There were fault lines in all three parties but they managed to keep their respective boats afloat and offer a reasonably appealing message to the electorate.

But what has happened over the past ten to fifteen years is that in an attempt to be all things to all people their messages have become blurred to such as extent that an increasing number of voters no longer believe or have confidence in them and their messages. Coupled with an increasing number of political sleaze episodes as well, such as the expenses scandal when a large number of MP's were found to have been somewhat economical with the truth regarding their Parliamentary expense claims, the impact on the electorate has been quite profound. Hence the rise of the anti politics parties such as UKIP who are often compared by British political commentators to the Tea Party in the United States.

The danger I think that we face in Britain is that in our rejection of the established political elites is that we end up with such a mish-mash of a Government that effective government is compromised.

"Would an Athenian type democracy even be viable in this day and age?"

To my horror and I'm sure Alexander Hamilton's, Athenian democracy, or something very much like it, is what the Internet is bringing us.

We the people, get that their Internet provides a vehicle for participation in our democracy, whether it is writing our elected official, participating in the various political forums, registering @ DMV, registering to vote, communicating with various organizations such as local government bodies, on and on and on.

Yet, we don't retain a mind to the opinion, insights, or claims of others if they don't agree with us.

There's also the impact on elected officials, who are most responsive to the latest wave to work its way through the public.

Matthew wrote: "I find the discussions of British or other non-American elections interesting because America seems to be such an anomaly in having a two-party system. England appears to be moving away from a two..."


Matthew I disagree that the UK was a two party system and is moving away from the two party system,

I think the UK has always been considered a multi-party system.

As far as America - some of these 'other" parties that you named do run platforms within the Democratic and Republican parties but many do not.

These were all of the parties and their candidates in the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns:

2008:


2012:


I agree with you that they do not get significant votes. And I also agree with this paragraph up to this point as follows - although oddly enough they were quite familiar with how men handle power and authority and that has not changed one iota.

The Founding Fathers set up our government to very competently avoid most of the problems that the Articles of Confederation faced. I do not think, however, were very prescient about the types of issues that would emerge 200 years later

I do think the founding fathers told us how to handle these things - some of these are found in the Constitution, other discussions are in the Bill or Rights, the Federalist papers and some frankly are not. I doubt they could have even fathomed the power of the internet or of computers and technology.

Mark wrote: "Please accept my apologies for my earlier Woolfian "stream of consciousness". I guess that I got a little bit carried away with myself.

I guess that the point that I was trying to make was stimula..."

No need to apologize Mark - I found your remarks interesting and informative and thank you for the paragraphing this time. When you have time edit 34 and add blank lines and break it up into paragraphs so others can benefit from reading your post. It was a good one. Yes you are right about competing elites losing the confidence of the populace - it has happened time and time again through history.

I agree with you Mark about your concerns.

Martin wrote: ""Would an Athenian type democracy even be viable in this day and age?"

To my horror and I'm sure Alexander Hamilton's, Athenian democracy, or something very much like it, is what the Internet is b..."

Interesting Martin - fallout from the internet and how we are governed.

Matthew wrote: "I find the discussions of British or other non-American elections interesting because America seems to be such an anomaly in having a two-party system. England appears to be moving away from a two..."

The Canadian federal government has typically switched between Liberal and Conservative since confederation in 1867. The loyal opposition (i.e., second place) in the House of Commons has differed, though, particularly in the last 20 years. It's currently the New Democratic Party (social democrats to the left of the Liberals), was the Canadian Alliance in the '90s (populist conservatives), as well as the Quebec Nationalist Bloc Quebecois at one point. Currently, the Conservatives, New Democrats, Liberals and (single digit) members of parliament from the Bloc Quebecois and the Green party make up the federal parliament.

At a provincial level, there's more variety, with the NDP and, in Quebec, Parti Quebecois (sovereignists / nationalists) often in power.

Are state politics usually just the big two (Republicans and Democrats) as well?

My mind just flashed to Bob Dole urging campaign finance reform many decades ago. Money seems a big barrier in many constituencies, which is a whole topic unto itself...

Yes Jim I think that the two big parties usually are the folks who hold the offices - although there are some who are declared independents.

Angus King is a Senator from Maine who is independent - the two senators from Minnesota are Minnesota-Democratic-Farmer-Labor party which is aligned with the Democratic party however. Bernie Sanders from Vermont (Senator) is deemed independent but is also considered a Democratic Socialist. He is also quite popular.

Bill Walker is a governor from Alaska and he is an independent. Some of the territories have independents running them.

Thank you Jim for jumping in and giving us some insight into the Canadian political party structure. I find it fascinating learning about each country's set up.

As we move through the introduction:

Ryan writes: "Yet Persia was an effective state, gathering taxes, administering justice, fielding armies; its subjects were more prosperous than the Greeks. It is not too fanciful to see Persia as the prototype of the modern nation-state, and not only because the U.S Post Office is so deeply attached to Herodotus’s description of the great king’s messengers of whom he wrote, “Neither rain, not snow, nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.�

The essence of a modern state is centralized authority, bureaucratic management, the efficient delivery of the public services that only a state can provide; Persia provided fewer services than a modern state and ‘outsourced� much of the work to officials in semiautonomous political dependencies, but the principle was there. As to the early modern states to which our own political systems are the heirs, Louis XIV may have said, “L’etat, c’est moi,� but he knew what a state was: a legal person rather than a physical one. It was on the state’s all encompassing authority that he embodied in his own majestic person.

It was on the state’s behalf that was obsessed with the need to know whatever could be known about the resources of his kingdom and the lives of his subjects so that he could better manage their lives and resources for their own welfare.

The contrast between the Persian state - and by the same token the late Imperial Roman, Bismarckian, or modern European state - and the Greek polis is far from the only theme that dominates this story."

Topics for Discussion:

1. Why do you think the Persians were more prosperous than the Greeks?

2. Ryan states that it is not too fanciful to see Persia as the prototype of the modern nation- state, and not only because the U.S. Post Office is so deeply attached to Herodotus’s description of the great king’s messengers. He states that the essence of a modern state is centralized authority, bureaucratic management, the efficient delivery of the public services that only a state can provide. However Persia provided few services and outsourced work to semiautonomous political dependencies - but the principle was there. Do you agree with Ryan?

3. What are the characteristics of a modern state according to Ryan? What do you think that Ryan is talking about - any particular countries?

4. I thought this quote was particularly interesting - As to the early modern states to which our own political systems are the heirs, Louis XIV may have said, “L’etat, c’est moi,� but he knew what a state was: a legal person rather than a physical one. - This was interesting to me in terms of the interpretation of the corporation as a legal person in the US by the Supreme Court in a highly contested decision gutting the McCain/Feingold bill on campaign finance. Funny Jim that you should bring up campaign finance.

Wikipedia stated the following:

After that hearing, the Supreme Court requested re-argument specifically to address whether deciding the case required the Court to reconsider those earlier decisions in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. FEC. The case was re-argued on September 9. On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court overturned the provision of McCain-Feingold barring corporations and unions from paying for political ads made independently of candidate campaigns.

A dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens was joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor. It concurred in the Court's decision to sustain BCRA's disclosure provisions, but dissented from the principal holding of the majority opinion. The 90-page dissent argued that the Court's ruling "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will...do damage to this institution." The dissent also argued that the Court's holding that BCRA §203 was facially unconstitutional was ruling on a question not brought before it by the litigants, and so claimed that the majority "changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law." Stevens concluded his dissent with:

At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.

In September 2010, Americans United for Life Action - a 501(c) affiliated with Americans United for Life - ran radio ads advocating that incumbent Members of Congress John Boccieri, Chris Carney, and Baron Hill be defeated. News reports at the time indicated that the ads were "among the first ads to capitalize" on the decision.

5. Is this what Ryan is referring to and is this how the Supreme Court connected the dots from corporations to legal persons? - Far fetched maybe.