Chasing Phantoms: a comment on ideology

Familiarity and habit, even in the worst social environments, bring with them an endearing level of predictability to human interaction (better the devil you know). As such, there is a tendency to view social or political change as an all or nothing endeavor--either "our" side prevails and the system is saved or "we" are defeated, ensuring the onset of a new Dark Age. When the latter is perceived to be the case, it is often blamed on weak-willed turncoats and sinister opponents with no regard for the sanctity of the established order.

Of course, the world, to say nothing of politics, would be infinitely easier to understand if it did indeed operate in this manner. But alas, it rarely does. Conspiracies are almost never vast and few dissenters live up to their "Dick Dastardly" caricatures. Moreover, although there will always be fools and knaves, partisan fervor tends to grossly overestimate their number and influence.

Which brings us to the heart of modern political conflict in the United States: an excessive reliance on ideology. To surrender the exercise of one's reason to the will of party or ideology is to commit oneself to an intellectually shallow concept of human motives. For the very aspect which makes ideological principles easy to grasp through talking points, cable news, and talk radio echo chambers, is also what prevents adherents from understanding the difficulties of turning generalities into specific policy initiatives. That is to say, avoidance of the details of governance can lead one to equate skepticism with disloyalty or to demonize the underlying motives of competing ideas

The educated in this country have, in recent decades, increasingly fallen victim to such misguided suspicion. The academic emphasis on critical thinking--even when it is focused on refining a particular idea for the better--can lead to cries of "America hater", "Nazi" or "socialist". Yet, disagreement over particular ideas does not automatically place one in the camp of radical opposition. Such knee-jerk aspersions are inconsistent with the basic tenants of rational debate and unbecoming of any individual who wishes to have his or her own ideas taken seriously.

It is folly to presume that the US has nothing to learn from other countries, political systems, or ideological perspectives. The taking of specific ideas from either of these sources does not entail a complete and irrevocable conversion. ALL existing governments, including the one outlined in the US Constitution, are syntheses of competing political ideas. You simply could not have the hybrid system known as federalism without the opposing views of Jefferson and Hamilton; nor could you have those giants of the Revolution without the competing philosophical influences of Hobbes and Rousseau, and so on.

As a consequence, to assume that political purity is a precondition for effective government is to embark upon a crusade for a world that never was, and never will be. Searching for evil phantoms and dupes to rationalize the failure of society to embrace a singular ideological perspective is equally quixotic. For in the final analysis, the devil is in the details; complex societies can only be understood within the context of equally complex explanations.
Read more...

The U.S. Constitution: an 18th century Patriot Act?

To be frank, 9/11 scared the hell out of the American public. How could this have happened? Was it part of a larger problem? Could it have been prevented? All of these questions were being asked in an atmosphere of conflicting information and a general feeling of helplessness. As with most crises of this magnitude, advocates for strong leadership—who were perhaps looked upon with ridicule or suspicion prior to that moment—found their way to the forefront of the quick-fix circles. Their solution was fairly standard: strengthen the powers of the central government. This combination of uncertainty and promises of security through consolidation led to the adoption of the Patriot Act —a document now derided in many quarters as the product of fear-mongering and creeping despotism.

What appears to escape the popular imagination is that the federal government itself was established under similar circumstances. Like the Patriot Act, the US Constitution was hastily debated and implemented in the aftermath of a crisis. As such, both the Constitution and the Patriot Act have a few things in common.

First, both documents were meant to correct well-known and legitimate problems with the existing system. According to the Department of Justice, the Patriot Act was intended to update anti-terrorism laws and break down communication barriers between federal agencies [1]. Likewise, the US Constitution was meant to strengthen the central government’s ability to protect Americans from insurrection, interstate rivalry, and foreign intrigue [2].

Second, the crises the Constitution and Patriot Act were meant to address had already been weathered by existing mechanisms. In the case of the former, Shays’ Rebellion had been put down by the Massachusetts state militia and steps were being taken to address the chaos of interstate commerce. Similarly, pre-9/11 institutions had traced the attacks to the Al-Qaeda network and had successfully overthrown the Taliban government in Afghanistan.

Third, the powers granted under both the Constitution and the Patriot Act represented the long-held views of particular interest groups. In 2001, the neo-conservatives—which had been lobbying for a more imperial American foreign policy since the fall of the Soviet Union—painted the 9/11 crisis as an example of federal weakness, countering any opposition to their emergency measures as encouraging further attacks [3]. In 1787, the supporters of the Constitution—known to posterity as Federalists—represented various commercial interests that wanted to recreate British mercantilism. As one anti-federalist writer at the time put it, all the distresses and difficulties [we] experience, proceeding from various causes, have been


ascribed to the impotency of the present confederation, and thence [the people] have been led to expect full relief from the adoption of the proposed system of government; and in the other event, immediately ruin and annihilation [4].


I know what you’re thinking at this point: he’s some sort of anarchist or whack-job conspiracy theorist who hates America. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I think the individuals involved with both documents were just as much patriots as they were politically dangerous. Strength is sexy. It is comforting to think that someone or something has all the answers. But of course they rarely do.

Increasing the power of a central authority also increases the destructive impact of its mistakes and excesses. The Patriot Act, for example, certainly streamlined anti-terrorism tactics, but it has also led to dubious, possibly illegal, federal behavior. All of which previous institutional “barriers” had been erected to prevent. Likewise, the Constitution allowed the thirteen states to speak with one voice abroad, but it also gave rise to a period of military dictatorship (1861-1877) and a consolidated federal empire in all but name [5]. The Articles of Confederation—as flawed as they were—had been designed to prevent the central government from overstepping its bounds in this manner.

I just don’t get the double-standard. The Patriot Act is readily dismissed as the product of an executive power grab. The Constitution, however, is revered as a sacred document bequeathed to us by political geniuses. Both were products of a mix of fear, miscalculation, good intentions, and special interests. Nothing created by man should ever be viewed as sacred or infallible—especially if it was devised and implemented with unusual haste. If change is truly what Americans seek, then they must come to terms with the systemic roots of current dilemmas and reexamine the existing approach to federal union.
Read more...

A Path To Caesar?

Like so many around the world, I am interested to see the extent to which President Obama pursues criminal investigations into the activities of the previous administration. Of course, the natural inclination for anyone concerned with upholding the rule of law is to call for blood. Judicial recriminations would serve as a deterrent for future administrations and Obama’s re-branding of American foreign policy will create a political environment hostile to any return to the high-handed tactics of the Bush era. America’s reputation as a system governed by laws is restored and the bad guys are punished …so the theory goes anyway.

On strictly moral/legal grounds it is difficult not to side with this line of thinking. Yet, although I am no fan of the Bush Doctrine, I feel as though someone should offer an alternative way of looking at this situation. Humans behave in a manner so far from how morality would dictate that basing public policy on how things ought to be can have serious long-term consequences.

In these United States, the federal government has been entrusted with every means of coercion and legal redress (i.e. the military, police, and federal courts). When a governmental body possesses this kind of monopoly on the use of force, the extent to which it behaves according to its own rules depends on the interests of those wielding its power [1]. Should anything go seriously wrong in Washington D.C., there are very few means by which peripheral governmental institutions, such as the 50 states, could prevent a radical change in federal policy. The question before us is this: with this kind of personal vulnerability, is it really in the interest of the American public to encourage political vendettas at the federal level?

American national politics has become a zero-sum game in which nothing is off-limits, not even the family of a candidate. An individual’s entire life is paraded and scrutinized in front of the world. As a consequence, the acquisition of even the lowest national office is likely to be purchased at great personal cost. This type of vetting process almost guarantees that good men and women shy away.

What remains of the candidate pool often consists of ambitious opportunists, who are just as likely to break the rules as they are to follow them; the deciding factor being how either path affects their position. If history is any guide, when overweening ambition is combined with high-stakes power politics, competition is bound to become personal and the likelihood of the machinery of state being misappropriated increases with every confrontation.

In such an environment, repeated demonstrations of political rivals using their offices to settle old scores increases the personal risks involved with relinquishing power; at some point, someone is likely to feel compelled to go all in. Julius Caesar provides the most famous example of this. His military exploits in Gaul and the die-hard loyalty of his army made him a political threat to the Roman Senate. Fearing his popularity, Caesar was ordered to give up his governorship of Gaul and disband his army.

Although he was a brilliant military strategist, Caesar’s career was built upon immense financial debt and dubious political dealings. If he had disbanded his army, his enemies would have been able to prosecute him under Roman law. True to form, Caesar decided to gamble that his political/military skills would trump those of his opponents; he was right. Caesar’s victory put an end to the Roman Republic and paved the way for one-man rule.

The point I’m trying to make is that so far the United States have been lucky. Law is ultimately an abstract concept, a collection of papers and opinions. What gives legal decisions their teeth is the state’s monopoly on the use of force [2, 3]. Resting so much of that power in so few hands in the federal government is a dangerous arrangement every American citizen should be cognizant of. To date, the men and women we have sent to Washington have largely submitted to the rule of law. Yet, if we set a precedent for post-administration legal actions, how long will it be until they don’t…until they can’t?

Read more...

Are Our Methods Unsound?

A fascinating thing happened last month. The current governor of Texas, Rick Perry, began using secessionist language in various speeches and interviews to convey his displeasure with the Obama administration. My interest in this recent phenomenon has little to do with his remarks. Rather, the concern is with the media response to the very topic of secession. For instance, in an interview with Tom Delay, Chris Mathews responded to the former congressman’s remarks on the subject with utter abhorrence and a tone of condescending disbelief. After all, everyone knows that the American Civil War proved definitively that secession was illegal…an unthinkable treason. Only a far-right survivalist, praying for the end-of-days could possibly consider threatening the integrity of the American Union….right?

To be fair, Obama is taking the hit for many of his predecessors, moving forward with long overdue and politically divisive reforms for an ailing imperial system. If one wishes to be innovative in the future, it is imperative that existing institutions are stabilized—no matter how antiquated or counterproductive they have become. Whether he gets four years or eight, it will be up to the rest of us to take advantage of the state of flux he leaves in his wake. Furthermore, Governor Perry’s ode to states’ rights smacks of political opportunism; an attempt to energize his more conservative base for an impending and uncertain gubernatorial election.

This brings us to the current state of American political discourse. The Texas governor’s tactics are at the heart of what undermines traditional states’ rights arguments. So long as state autonomy within the Union continues to be associated with the Confederate flag, extremism, and political opportunism, advocates for the more practical aspects of states’ rights will continue to be marginalized with the rest. In my mind, Mr. Mathews’ reaction indicates that conventional battle cries for decentralized governance are unsound and counterproductive. Moreover, attempts to stem the tide of centralization or improve the efficacy of federal governance via national parties have failed and will continue to do so.

In short, there is something fundamentally wrong with the current condition of political thought in the United States. Terms such as nation, state, union, law, and freedom are tossed about with very little thought as to their true meaning or implications. What passes for serious philosophical deliberation consists of talking points, two minute interviews, watered-down campaign slogans, and catchy sound bites. While it is easy (convenient?) to dismiss an in-depth discussion on history and terminology as semantics, anyone who has ever signed a dense legal document for a car or student loan knows that the devil is in the details. Nothing of value can ever be gleaned from such anti-intellectualism. It is time for states' rights advocates to set aside conventional wisdom and articulate a new way forward.
Read more...