Condemned to Repeat It

Res Publica

7/4/2025

Medium-high on the list of egregious abuses of power of the current administration is their cavalier commercial self-dealing and the blithe conflation of personal interest and benefit (financial and psychological) with the good of the nation. This type of corruption is hardly new; many (most?) people in power find ways—consciously or not—to line their pockets or help their friends and families or set up indirect quid-pro-quos to the detriment of those they rule.

Notions of communal benefit are just as long-standing, and are captured today in the concepts of fiduciary duty, altruism, and public service. However, they have struggled against greed and egotism all along. For thousands of years, when governments were merely extensions of family power which dominated localities, and (over the centuries) regions, then countries (i.e. monarchies and aristocracies); rulers’ responsibilities to God (in various configurations) were rarely troubled by the idea that there was any duty to ordinary folks. Much of the development of the modern state in Europe in the 16C-19C was built in conjunction with emerging ideas (e.g. Locke’s liberalism, Montesquieu, Frederick the Great’s “Anti-Machiavel”) that the state was intended to serve the people at large. (Such a notion, I hasten to add, was slightly distinct from democratic theory that the people at large should rule or choose their rulers). Indeed, the very idea that the “state” should be seen as an entity separate from the ruler took quite a while to take hold (as evidenced by Louis XIV’s famous early 18C statement: “L’etat? C’est moi!” [“The state? It’s me!”]).

Indeed, the boundary between “public” and “private” has always been muddled. Kickbacks, “golden shares” in nominally private enterprises, bribes, etc. were pretty much the order of the day and only gradually became seen as improper. Public officials were expected to be personally paid for performing their official duties. Public offices were sold to the highest bidder who then had to recoup their investment. In 18C France, the right to collect taxes in various regions was sold off and tax collection was a business opportunity.

Under the modern mode of government such practices still occur, but less frequently; and are usually deemed improper and criminal. They range from a cop being slipped a C-note to ignore a speeding violation to customs officials lining their pockets to fail to inspect a shipping container to selling subscriptions to personally-owned social media channels which are then used to make official proclamations and statements to the sale of government assets to “friends” for a song (see any number of Russian oligarchs). The recent DOGE effort to expunge “waste, fraud, and abuse” from government operations was led by a leading government contractor (among other attributes) and would be laughably hypocritical if it weren’t for the damage to the beneficiaries of government programs and the livelihood of government employees it engendered.

Our modern democratic theory posits a government whose purpose, Jefferson said, is to enable our citizens to have “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” What we call “democracy” is concerned with the means by which this power is directed and the rule-makers and implementers are chosen. The vehicle for making this happen is a “republic” (i.e., a clearly-demarcated “state” or government as the crystallization of our society). The separation of this entity from private interests is essential and is embodied in such concepts as the “rule of law.” A republic is inherently different from a monarchy in which government is merely an organized administration of society for the benefit of the monarch/aristocracy. All this is adaptation from Socrates, Aristotle, Cicero et al.

The crux is the recognition of the “res publica” [latin for the “public thing”], the political community that is distinct from individual private interests and is more than the sum of those interests. This means that we acknowledge and value a shared life together; that to enhance that life for all of our group we have imagined a locus of the common good. The special value we put on this embodiment makes its abuse by corruption worse than ordinary fraud or theft.

Of course, the existence of the res publica does not mean (Marxist utopianism notwithstanding) that there are no private interests. In addition, the inherent problems with the excess concentration of power means that there is public benefit in dispersing such power across multiple entities and individuals. Government bureaucracies (like other bureaucracies) get stultified and inefficient. In short there are plenty of reasons for a “private sector” and for the state to implement some of its activities through arrangements with companies, NGOs, and individuals.

Precisely where those lines should be drawn is a complex and dynamic set of decisions. Should a state build its own naval ships or hire a private shipyard to do so? Should the care and feeding of the needy be handled by private, religious, or charitable groups or should a government build public housing? Historically, these have been contentious issues and as the scope of government activities has expanded (usually as a product of increased democracy), they have multiplied. There are no simple answers at either the policy or the implementation levels for these and the myriad other functions a government might undertake. There is no room for simple bright lines here.

So, while we have to carry on with doing, we also have to strive to protect this notion of the “res publica.” In our modern semantic salad, we have tossed together “democracy,” “republic,” “constitution,” “government,” “state,” “law,” and a bunch of other sliced fruits and vegetables. There’s lots of ways in which this salad can go bad or be corrupted. Decay will easily spread, so we can’t protect democracy without dealing with the breakdown of the rule of law or the abuse of the public interest (and vice-versa).

On this 249th anniversary of the publication of Jefferson’s powerful expression of our national aspiration, It’s too bad we’re being led by crooks (and ignorant crooks at that.)

1 Comment

O Canada!

6/27/2025

1 Comment

It’s tough to keep up with the international crisis/hoopla ‘de jour.’ I’ll talk more about sorting these challenges in a few weeks, but before it gets lost behind Ukraine, Gaza, China, tariffs, USAID, NATO budgets, immigration and, of course, bombing Iran, I wanted to touch on a 'borderline' issue.

Repeated recent ruminations by HWSNBN have put the independence of Canada on the table. Of course, the Canadians are having none of it (nor their current formal sovereign, Charles III). On top of the bluster about annexation, they also have to deal with the impact of the current tariff upheaval (we are far-and-away their largest trading partner (~75%)).

At the same time, as a stalwart member of NATO, Canadian forces recently engaged in the regular Arctic wargaming with US forces; foreshadowing the potential mischief from a more hostile and aggressive Russia. Canada is also home to critical radar detection systems that would be as essential in the lately-bruited “Golden Dome” missile defense system (adapted, no doubt, from Notre Dame’s fearsome football defense).

So, we actually have a symbiotic relationship with Canada in economic and geopolitical terms; making the threats to their independence (likely unsuccessful) all the more problematic.

Since I (like most people in Metropolitan Detroit) grew up north of Canada and enjoyed watching hockey and curling on Canadian TV, I have a special connection with our slightly boring and slightly kooky cousins.

As a historian, I have also spent a fair amount of time understanding the ups and downs of Canadian/British-US relations over the past 250 years. The current brouhaha would seem only typically ridiculous for our present foreign policy direction but for a pretty extensive history of the US looking longingly northward and trying to grab Canada into our embrace. However, that history makes them take the threat even more seriously.

Inter-imperial fights between France and Britain in the 18C left the latter in charge in North America, but ensured that relations between the various provinces and the metropole were quite different north and south. In the aftermath of our successful ouster of the Brits, many loyalists moved north to stay under their imperial flag. Nonetheless, in an early example of American expansionism, the post-Revolutionary peace talks in Paris did feature our efforts to get the Brits to give us Canada as part of the overall settlement.

After we got our noses slapped in the War of 1812, we quieted down for a bit. However, during the US Civil War, the British didn’t play fair in terms of their relationship with the (ultimately unsuccessful) Confederacy; so, after the War, the US again sought control of Canada in recompense for British misdeeds. We were again rebuffed.

By this time, the British had come to realize that their heavy-handed management of their former colonies in the 18C should not be replicated in their continued Canadian holdings, so the 1860s saw the adoption of a new model of empire which allowed Canada an increasing autonomy in handling its affairs. Over the past 150 years, this has become more solidified so that by the time of WWII, Canada was de facto independent of Britain, even if formally within the “Commonwealth” and acknowledging the British Monarch (George VI, Elizabeth II, Charles III) as the Canadian Monarch as well.

Indeed, it was not until the 20C that Canadian international relations was actually directed from Ottawa rather than London. During the later 19C, Canadians were only a part (and not necessarily the determinative part) of international negotiations which directly affected Canadian territory and interests. Since a fair amount of those international concerns arose vis-à-vis the US, this repeatedly led to awkward referrals to London or the British Ambassador to the US to handle what would normal have been bilateral affairs.

The late 19C/early 20C saw a large number of border disputes , as well as controversies about pollution and fisheries between Canada and the US. On more than one occasion, the prospect of absorbing Canada was raised by the US, then in full flush of its imperialistic/ “manifest destiny” phase. (The first) President Roosevelt was particularly aggressive in this regard.

The formal annexation front has been pretty quiet since then, only to be replaced by an informal economic and cultural imperialism that continues to this day. A stalwart NATO member and (junior) partner in Northa American defense arrangements, Canadians cherish their formal independence and cultural distinctiveness, even as they consume US brands and watch US media. The vast majority live reasonably close to the US border, speak (pretty much) the same language (Quebec is a whole other story!), and have many of the same cultural and political values.

So, we’ve long been the ‘big brother,’ who (unsurprisingly) has often been a bit of a bully to the kid sibling. The latest bullying has, however, had a more hostile than familial tone. It’s unlikely that it will go anywhere, rather it will join the increasingly long list of erstwhile allies who we are forcing to rethink their relationship with us and their posture in a more dangerous and dynamic world.

1 Comment

More or Less

6/20/2025

0 Comments

More or Less

Inertia, Newton tells us, is a fundamental principal of the universe: Objects in motion stay in motion and objects at rest stay at rest unless they are acted upon by outside forces. The world/universe/cosmos he described, with a variety of additions and refinements, was the basis of physics and defined a fundamental epistemology (for the scientifically literate) for over two hundred years until it was knocked sideways by Einstein, Heisenberg, and Gödel in the early 20C.

Now, I have only a general grasp of relativity, uncertainty, and indeterminateness and I recognize that the vast, vast majority of folks couldn’t care less about them. Almost all humans (including particle physicists outside their laboratories) live happily in a Newtonian world where things are as they seem and fancy-dancy theories of modern physics could just as well be metaphysics for all the difference they make in ordinary lives. We might acknowledge that these models of the universe are “true,” but we just don’t care.

I’ve talked elsewhere about the pitfalls of labels and categories (e.g., “conservatives,” “popular,” “empires”); they’re often semi-deceptive approximations of our experiences and interactions with other people and situations. I’ve talked about how our current political discourse is driven not by fact and truth, but by feelings. I’ve talked about how there is real distance between “what actually happened” and what many of us remember as “history.” Whether in science of history, we seem to live by the 80-20 rule. We’re not too concerned with whether our understanding of the world is entirely accurate (or “true”), so long as it makes do for us in our daily lives.

It may seem ironic, but, actually, it’s entirely consistent that the same modernity which spawned all these labels and rubrics and models to help us make sense of the world arose intertwinedly with the increased complexity of the processes, institutions, and piles of information which surround us. Of course, religious beliefs have been part of humanity for thousands of years. Even if simpler, the life of a hunter-gatherer was replete with unexplained phenomena. Our modern world has provided explanations for many of these (e.g., weather, illness), but has, in parallel, built systems, institutions, and mechanisms (e.g., money, bureaucracy, medicine, technology) that remain outside the mental grasp of the vast majority.

So the underlying need for religion and science as modes of understanding the world remain, despite our strides over the past few millennia. They’re coping mechanisms. They may be more refined and precise and characterized by scientific language than the way ordinary people have understood their world for thousands of years, but that’s part of the illusion. Attributing thunderstorms to Odin, or tsunamis to the wrath of Neptune or a person’s illness to a mis-balance of their four “humors” worked for most people even after more nominally rational explanations were available. Even today, religion is widespread and superstition is deeply embedded even among the most modern and sophisticated. It’s not for nothing that Marx referred to religion as the “opiate of the masses.” For many, organized religion continues to serve that role, providing a coherent world-view (including a rationale for fatalism) that enables adherents to maintain a mental equilibrium with the vagaries of a life that remains (for many) still too “nasty, brutish, and short.” Even for ‘modern’ folks, a generic belief in science serves the same purpose: an epistemological system that gives comfort and assurance that, even if it doesn’t provide all the answers immediately, it has a theory of how all will be revealed in due course.

Lately, many have decried the deconstruction of our shared social picture of reality. Political polarization has engendered epistemological silos, from which each end characterizes the other as being built on “fake news” or some other form of mythology. Of course, each is an approximation of reality and it’s quite difficult for folks who espouse one perspective or the other to contemplate that the other folks’ view is no further ‘off’ than the one they hold. One can go back to Plato and other Greeks of that era to see that the question of whether there actually is a “reality,” and whether it can be accurately perceived by humans are not well-settled questions. On top of this philosophical disorientation, we have to add an understanding that interpretation (whether of “reality” or history) is always flavored by the mental capabilities, psychological parameters, and ethical values of the perceiver/interpreter. In other words, we need to tread cautiously before decrying others’ characterizations as definitively false.

At a social/political level, this means (as I have noted previously) that all segments of a political society need to stretch their brains (and hearts) to try to understand the mentality of others without too much judgmentalism. More broadly, it means that if we are to avoid the continued profound differences in human outlooks on the world from hardening into destructive epistemological silos, we need to stretch our imaginations to find new ways of looking at and characterizing the world; acknowledging that neither rational modernity nor religious outlooks are complete and satisfactory.

Alternatively (and more likely), we can continue to muddle along, rather like the famous story of the group of blind people grasping at different parts of an elephant. Newton, Heisenberg, Mohammed, Zoroaster, Aristotle, HWSNBN, and others have each grasped part of the beast and each of us have to construct our own version—more or less.

0 Comments

Great Migration

6/13/2025

0 Comments

I recently read “The Warmth of Other Suns,” Isabel Wilkerson’s remarkable study of the “Great Migration” in which about six million Black Americans left the Deep South and moved North and West in the early and mid-20C. They moved to escape the horrific oppression of the “Jim Crow” era and build new lives for themselves and their progeny. It’s an impressive and moving historical study, combining rich personal stories with some overall sociological context.

Virtually every major US city was deeply affected by this demographic shift and the ubiquitous presence of Black culture (and White reactions) makes it all too easy to think that this has always been the case. Nonetheless, across the 20C and continuing today, US music, labor relations, housing patterns, and political issues and participants are all products of this relatively recent change.

The US has always been a society with considerable racism. However, up through the Civil War, the peculiar institution of chattel slavery was its deepest expression and the principal focus of a modernity which claimed some moral foundation based on the dignity of the individual. It was (relatively) easy to oppose slavery and many who did and likely more of those who merely went along with abolition remained profoundly racist. There’s no small mythologizing of the Civil War as a moral struggle, but few in the North fought for treating Blacks as full citizens and social equals.

Of course, abolition was hardly the end of the story. While the formalities of slavery were prohibited, the flourishing of Black freedom in the South (“Reconstruction”) was all too brief and both in terms of culture and economics, the status of almost all Blacks in the South returned to an appalling state. Whether in terms of lynchings, the economics of farm labor, or daily social relations, the lives of most Blacks were hardly better by 1900 than they had been in 1850.

Reading about the treatment of Blacks in the South at this time brought to mind the stories with which I had been more familiar as a historian of European imperialism in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The conquest and exploitation of indigenous peoples across the 15-20C took place far away from the centers of power (the “metropoles”) in the “home” countries of those empires. While the US was an empire in this sense as well, we can also look at the treatment of Blacks in the South as an imperial project. Rather than leaving the exploited labor ‘in situ,’ we (via the Spanish, Portugues, British etc.) moved them to the work locations in Alabama, Georgia, etc. As a variant in the modes of the projection of power over another people (my definition of imperialism), this seems to fit. Certainly the treatment of the people involved and the motivations were well within the normal frames of imperialism.

All this was quite interesting to me at the “macro” level, and Wilkerson’s writing ensured my deeper understanding of some of the individual stories, but what drew me to the book was a personal, if indirect connection.

I grew up in an upper-middle class household in suburban Detroit in the 1960s. We had a series of household servants—maids and laundresses—throughout that time. They were all Black women. Anniebell Shepherd joined us in the mid-1960s and stayed working for my folks well into the 1990s. I have only fond memories of her warmth, attention, and cooking. At the time (as a child) her presence seemed unremarkable (most of my friends and family had Black household servants). I knew she had been born in the South and had come to Detroit well before I was born.

I never asked her about her motivations and experiences. But later, I came to wonder how her story was part of this broader historical process in the US. I learned she was born in Mississippi in 1912 and moved to Detroit in the mid-1940s. Wilkerson’s book gave me context within which I could place Anniebell.

As the author describes it, the race-based discrimination of America in the North and West was widespread and endemic. It lacked, however, in most cases, the full extent of the physical abuse and legal structures characteristic of the South. Both WWI and WWII brought a sharp increase in the demand for labor and thus created opportunities for Blacks seeking to escape the awfulness of the South. But we should make no mistake: while Blacks were better off and this improvement in conditions was sufficient motivation for the challenges of leaving their homes and families, this attractiveness was only relative to what was left behind. It took the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s to launch another round of legal changes on the road to equality. And, in terms of culture, practice, and attitudes, a lot of work remains to be done (even before the current retrenchment).

I was unaware of all this of course as a child, with little understanding of the history and social practices manifest in our house or, more broadly, that gave rise to the Detroit (and other) race riots of the late 1960s. I didn’t think of myself as racist, nor my parents, nor their friends and families. This book has given me a powerful lesson about the limited scope of my awareness. Just as a fish doesn’t know that its water that they’re swimming in, neither did I appreciate much of blithe assumptions and comforts of upper middle class White life at that time; nor the implicit (even if not malevolent) racism of our situation.

Decades later, I remain a work in progress in this regard. I have to tolerate the discomfort of pushing myself to see how I still act in ways which I find improper/wrong just because of my own history/socialization/laziness—and then change.

(btw, Juneteenth is next week; it’s a federal holiday and a commemoration of the Great Emancipation of the 1860s and a reminder that the legal formalities are often some distance from people’s daily lives.)

0 Comments

Rudderless

6/6/2025

0 Comments

When we look at Early Modern Europe, principally in the 17/18C, we can see the roots of many critical aspects of the modern world. Two of the most significant were the emergence of capitalism and the rise of the coherent, bureaucratic “State.” While each of these has many material/ on-the-ground components and practices, they also reflect the development of ideas and conceptions which have continued (and morphed) down to the 21C. In particular, they both represent means by which human activity could be organized outside of the previously existing moral structure of society. Indeed, each developed distinctive and self-perpetuating rationales for their claims to human attention and loyalty that were, more-or-less consciously, amoral. This untethering has allowed for each of these institutions to develop prodigiously, but there has been a considerable cost and only part of the bill has yet been paid.

As noted by Albert Hirschman (see “The Passions and the Interests”), a key part of the rationale of capitalism was that provided a means of social organization that broke away from the destructive sectarian conflicts of the 16/17C which followed the Protestant Reformation in Europe. Focusing on economic “interests” facilitated commerce, regardless of the beliefs (“passions”) of the merchants involved. The nominal rationality of those “interests” was also consistent with the mentality emerging out of the “scientific revolution” of the same period.

At the same time, the theorists of a distinctive, permanent “State” (even if not yet rooted in democratic nationalism), who also rejected religious-tinged morality as the basis of governmental action (Machiavelli is key here), were on a parallel path. The doctrine of “raison d’etat” enabled those in power to base their actions (both domestically and internationally) without regard to Christian compassion, but on the self-perpetuation of the State.

With some centuries of momentum behind them, both capitalism (profit) and the State seem to have acquired some degree of self-perpetuating rationalization; apologists for each claim that their continuation is an important goal in and of themselves, outweighing the costs of that preservation. We can see this in the rise of the national security state in many countries around the world, as well as the vast amount of intellectual and financial resources devoted to corporate profitability (and lower taxes!).

Despite Adam Smith’s championing of moral sentiments (often lost in the shadows of “The Wealth of Nations”), various resurgences of Christian/religious beliefs, and the claims for “social justice” (especially from the political left), the hoped-for constraints of morality on the acts of states and business enterprises have largely evaporated leaving these principal parts of human societies adrift. Relatively recent initiatives (i.e., late 20C), such as the promotion of “human rights” and democracy as the basis for international relations or “ESG” and “DEI” in the corporate world, notwithstanding. Indeed, the current repositioning of both US domestic and international policy under HWSNBN shows that this hard-nosed stance is very much alive, despite decades of the US claiming to “don” (sorry!) moral clothing globally.

More broadly, the stark evidence of economic and social inequality so visible both within individual societies and on an international/comparative basis, speaks volumes as to the tenuous place of moral arguments in our world. Maintenance (expansion?) of privilege and wealth seems to drive much domestic and international policy-making, both here and elsewhere. The aspiration—dating from the 17C—that America should be a shining city on a hill and an example for all finds no place in the current rhetoric.

The risks of this course have hardly gone unnoticed. There is a long line of cultural, religious, aesthetic, and social thinkers who have sought to warn the “West” of its moral peril. Many of these arguments have been rooted in the preservation of the past (conservatives), a disconnect with nature, or a disconnect with humanity (romantics). Actual policies and practices, too, have swung back and forth showing varying degrees of awareness of this challenge. Among the most notable is the critique that arose in the aftermath of the two “World Wars” of the 20C, particularly the rabid destructiveness of Nazi Germany. These arguments stressed that modernity has gone too far in its focus on untethered rationality.

Many philosophers have struggled to find a moral anchor for modernity, once Christianity was dethroned by schism, deism, and rationality; especially since non-Western belief systems have had limited purchase. Without an “author” (i.e. God), it’s difficult to have authority; and, given the vagaries of human nature, there seems to be little firm ground upon which to build an ethical edifice.

It is the human condition to struggle for meaning. Christian nationalists (an oxymoron!) inherently offer little of universal appeal, the Roman Church, too, is saddled with history and scandal, non-Western sources are too much on the defensive against modernity to spark a new formulation. Musk-ean profit is simple and superficially attractive, as is national tribalism; but the former is out of reach for all but a few and the latter rings hollow and superficial in a well-melded and interconnected world.

I have asked in the past whether modernity was “worth it,” but I certainly don’t advocate returning to the 15C. The resolution is not clear. If I’m looking for a response rooted in something other than morality, perhaps I’ll ask ChatGPT for the answer.

0 Comments

In Defense of the Nation

5/30/2025

1 Comment

As a historian, I am acutely aware of the development and impact of nationalism on European and world history. As part of the modernizing 19C, nationalism was a force for broadening of horizons and for a positive sense of personal identification with a community that extended beyond the traditional and parochial when those older modes were being increasingly overrun by deeper trade and communication with an integrating world. It was a step towards a more ecumenical (in multiple senses) perspective; even if not embracing the global cosmopolitanism of the most avant-garde of the era.

There is no doubt that the idea has been taken to extremes and was a frequent source of horrific acts taken by governments and populations over the past 200 years. Its fetishization at the international political level resulted in further instability, rigidity, and oppression of minorities across the 20C and 21C.

It’s no wonder that I’ve been rather cosmopolitan in my outlook, as a result of the education, resources, and information flows to which I’ve been a party most of my life. A streak of idealism, too—a touch of the “brotherhood of man”—has also encouraged me to see nationalism as a passing phase in human socio-political development; a way station en route to a global culture.

In taking this stance, I’ve come to realize, I have perhaps let my ideals get ahead of the realities of the world and one of my key learnings as a historian: the slow, almost glacial, pace of social change (a phenomenon which is not “inevitable, but certainly without much contrary historical evidence). In other words, just because I’d like folks to think “sensibly and go with the “tides of history,” doesn’t mean that they will rush to it: aspirations need to be in contact with the real world if they’re to come about.

I’ve been thinking about this recently in the context of immigration. An issue of global importance and impact which has spurred reaction and reactionaries into political power in many countries; not just here in our own “nation of immigrants.”

My belief in democracy holds that we must start with a cohesive community (i.e. “we the people”) combined with a respect for the views of the other members of that community. I then have to take seriously apparent fear held by many members of that community of being overrun/diluted/disrupted by “others”. At least if by “others,” I mean those who are not yet part of our community. This highlights the tension between the dream of human universality and the continued presence of countries/nations/states (most of whom are not very democratic) as the basis of how our societies are currently organized.

If, while we are working on toleration and inclusion, we wish to have functioning political societies—including (not cheap) social services—supported by the breadth of that society, then we can’t take an absolutist stand on the issue of who’s “in.” This, however, is not a defense of unbridled, simplistic tribalism. That too is pretty deeply embedded in human culture (if not human nature). In its more common forms in democratic cultures, it manifests not just in racism and misogyny, but more benignly in sports team affiliations and language/dialect/accent signals. It can also turn ugly on a global scale, as articulated by Carl Schmitt’s “Concept of the Political.”

So, as an ameliorative measure (or muddle, as some might say), perhaps we can try to keep our country going as a functioning community; not with harsh absolute rules and xenophobia, but with some incremental steps towards allowing some others in under a regime which accommodates the evolution of our culture (the “melting pot”) and the security of knowing that we are controlling the pace of immigration. To some degree, this will be facilitated by the core economics of the labor market, accelerated by declining birth rates and extended lifespans. Those market drivers will, likely over time, ease cultural accommodation, toleration, and integration.

When I read Karl Marx’ comments on other flavors of socialism in the 19C, I had to laugh at his critiquing them as “utopian.” This was the same guy who talked about leaping towards a workers’ paradise and the withering away of the State without any real sense of how that particular nirvana was to emerge out of the heap of ordinary human affairs and existing power structures. It’s now wonder that Lenin’s attempt to short-circuit the process went awry.

We, too, have to maintain our sense of utopia, at least directionally, while allowing the normal processes of human social evolution to grind forward incrementally. The “nation” may be all we can handle at this point. And before we rush to grant non-citizens the vote, much less throw down borders and dissolve local/regional/national communities into a grand global continuum over the course of a few decades, we may be better off taking it slow. We can—I would argue that we have to—respect he views of our fellows (the basis of democracy), address their concerns at a world seemingly spinning much too fast, and still make progress.

So much for the view from the US and other more-or-less mongrel nations. There are, however, a bunch of places where there is more-or-less ethnic homogeneity. Several grew up in central Europe amid the collapse of the Russian, Austro-Hungarian, and Turkish empires. Others arose out of domination of a particular ethic group as arbitrary lines were drawn in the aftermath of European empires in Asia and Africa. The challenge in those countries is the protection of minorities—both in terms of law/security and political power; i.e., the need for limits on majoritarianism. Particularly where the dominant group has a long history of being persecuted in larger, imperial contexts, there is a fine line between defensive ethno-nationalism and the exercise of newly-found power vis-à-vis even smaller minorities. Rwanda, Israel, and Bhutan (in decreasing order of barbarity) all come to mind in this regard.

1 Comment

Eager for Change

5/23/2025

0 Comments

Eager for Change

I’ve talked previously about the need to resist the current Trumpian chaos and lawlessness. I’ve also urged that some of the current Administration’s underlying concerns are valid and that there are some nuggets of useful policy amid the muck of its rhetoric and nihilistic actions. Going back to the “good old days” of 2024 is simplistic and bad policy, even if it were feasible. Except….

One characteristic of institutions is their resilience to change. That’s much praised by those who want to preserve the status quo (i.e., usually conservatives, but most Democrats and democrats today). Assuming we come out of the current chaos in 2029, that same institutional inertia will allow much of the damage to continue to harm individuals, the country, and the world for years to come. So, it’s worthwhile to think about how to roll things back as aggressively as possible.

Here's one (outside the box) idea of how to do it: The Emergency Action and Government Efficacy Restoration (EAGER) Act of 2029.

The basic idea is to get Congress (presumably Democratic-controlled) to suspend some of the usual rules so that the new Administration can repair things as promptly as possible while Congress considers new models and approaches to address the issues and problems (both long-standing and recently engendered). There are several aspects of the normal institutionalized process that will likely delay getting necessary remedies deployed to actually affect people’s lives. First, appointing the senior and mid-level executives to write and implement changes to policies and programs will take months. After all, hardly anyone will be left from these ranks. Senior folks need Senate confirmation and then they need to hire the mid-level folks. Second, the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) requires lengthy rule-drafting processes and the prospect of multi-year litigation. Together, this means that few new policies could be in place much before 2031.

To remedy these concerns, the EAGER Act would authorize the appointment of interim officials without Senate confirmation and the expedited hiring of mid-level folks. Such officials would (a la “recess appointments”) be in office for no more than two years. For an added degree of comfort, the pool for such appointments could be limited to those who (for normally confirmable posts) had previously been confirmed by the Senate for some senior position or (for lower slots) previously held a comparable level Government position.

The Act would also authorize the implementation of regulations without normal APA processes, so long as they were interim (expired within 2-3 years) or were previously in place. Regulations enacted since 2025 could, similarly, be revoked. Accommodation would need to be made for the inevitable delays of reviewing legislation, although most of those concerns are actually statutory in nature and could, by law, be waived and much judicial review avoided.

There are those who will protest that the short-circuiting of traditional controls on Executive Branch actions is dangerous, unconstitutional, and demonstrative of the same disregard for the “rule of law” which has brought us to the present crisis. These are significant and real concerns. The EAGER Act can certainly be closely designed to minimize these and ensure constitutional compliance, as I have suggested. On the other hand, the continuation of the damage likely to occur while Congress takes its usual time to design and enact legislation, not to mention the processes of administrative implementation, seems to outweigh those concerns. Those who see the current situation as a uniquely dangerous time for this country should not shirk at drastic remedies, especially where (as here) they are carefully crafted and their exceptional nature is acknowledged.

In addition, EAGER supporters can expressly articulate that the nature of our government and political culture is built on trust, that they have trust in the incoming Administration, and that the recent undermining of that trust by HWSNBN should not poison the confidence Americans should have in their government. Indeed, beyond the substantive benefits of accelerating policy repair and change, this cultural commitment would help on its own terms. In contrast, layering on additional constraints—a predictable reaction to what has been going on lately—would merely extend the bureaucratic and overly legalistic mentality which has already made it difficult to resolve a wide range of our current policy problems.

All of these extraordinary steps could accelerate the process of damage control, demonstrate immediate responsiveness to public concerns (important from a political perspective), and set the stage for the development and deployment of new policies across a range of areas (listed in the recent posting) which the country sorely needs.

Along a similar line, a coherent and focused Democratic Congressional leadership (now there’s something to imagine!) might well avoid getting tied up in all the minutiae of the necessary substantive legislative changes by enacting—promptly and simply—a set of policy directions that would provide guidance to the executive branch and set the parameters of more detailed legislative actions to follow. This would have the benefit of demonstrating to both domestic and international audiences the reversal of direction (and style). New tax schedules, carbon markets, civil rights and due process, minimum wage and AI responses, parameters for health care and social support all could be sketched out to help the country reposition itself for the longer term task of creating a new era.

The damage caused by the current administration won’t be remedied within the term of the next one. As a country, we were already behind the curve in addressing the pressing problems of the age even before the last election. Dealing with them, with the damage repair, AND with the new set of emerging issues (e.g., AI’s impact on labor markets and education) will require more governmental genius than we have any right (or experience) to expect. By 2029, we will need (well-considered) extraordinary measures to have any shot at handling them. EAGER is one way to improve the odds.

0 Comments

Dueling AIs

5/23/2025

0 Comments

Duelling AIs

Yesterday, just as an exercise, I asked two AI programs (ChatGPT and Google Gemini) to summarize my “oeuvre” on a particular topic. ChatGPT 3.0 failed pretty miserably, even with a follow-up reference to my specific site. I then sent the same prompt to the new Google app and it aced it!

My wife then sent the prompt to her paid ChatGPT (4.0) app and it came back with a much better response, even if not as detailed and complex as the Google Gemini summary. She asked again and got a completely different response.

You can compare for yourself below.

Of course, I’m not plugging for anyone’s algorithm in particular. There’s clearly an arms race going on here. It’s good to see one way in which this technology is advancing.

Prompt: drawing solely on the blog "condemned to repeat it", summarize the author's views on the nature and role of history in our society.

ChatGPT response:

The blog "Condemned to Repeat It" offers a critical perspective on the role of history in contemporary society, emphasizing the importance of historical awareness in preventing the recurrence of past injustices.

The Imperative of Historical Memory
Drawing from George Santayana's famous aphorism, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," the blog underscores the necessity of remembering history to avoid repeating its mistakes. This sentiment is echoed in various posts that critique current societal issues by highlighting historical precedents.(Wikipedia)

Historical Patterns and Their Modern Implications
The blog examines how historical patterns, such as voter suppression and economic inequality, persist in modern times. For instance, it references conservative activist Paul Weyrich's statement, "I don't want everybody to vote… our leverage in the elections goes up as the voting populace goes down," to illustrate ongoing efforts to suppress voting rights. By drawing parallels between past and present, the blog argues that understanding these patterns is crucial for addressing contemporary challenges. (condemnedhistorian.blogspot.com)

The Role of History in Shaping Society
The blog posits that history is not merely a record of past events but a tool for shaping a more just and equitable society. It advocates for a collective memory that acknowledges past wrongs and uses that knowledge to inform present actions. This approach aims to prevent the repetition of historical injustices and promote societal progress.

In summary, "Condemned to Repeat It" views history as a vital resource for understanding and addressing current societal issues. By learning from the past, individuals and communities can work towards a more informed and equitable future.
****

Chat GPT (3.0) 2d response:
(revised prompt: rewrite the response limited to material at www.steveharris.net)

Based on the blog Condemned to Repeat It by Steven Harris, the author challenges the conventional wisdom encapsulated in George Santayana's adage, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Harris explicitly states his disagreement with this quote, suggesting a more nuanced view of history's role in society.

Throughout his writings, Harris emphasizes the importance of critically engaging with history rather than accepting it at face value. He explores how historical narratives are often shaped by those in power, leading to a distorted understanding of past events. By examining topics such as entitlements, Brexit, and societal needs, Harris illustrates the complexities of historical interpretation and its impact on contemporary issues .(Steve Harris)

In summary, Harris advocates for a critical and reflective approach to history, recognizing that understanding the past requires more than mere recollection—it demands thoughtful analysis and a willingness to question established narratives.
***

Chat GPT (4.0) response:

"Steve Harris, in his blog Condemned to Repeat It, offers a nuanced perspective on the nature and role of history in society. Contrary to the widely cited adage by George Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," Harris expresses skepticism about the deterministic view that history inevitably repeats itself.

Harris argues that while history is replete with patterns and recurring themes, it does not operate in a cyclical or predetermined manner. He emphasizes that understanding history requires more than just memorizing dates and events; it necessitates a critical examination of the contexts, motivations, and consequences surrounding historical occurrences.

In his writings, Harris underscores the importance of engaging with history to inform present and future decisions. He suggests that history should serve as a tool for reflection and learning, enabling society to recognize and address contemporary challenges with a deeper awareness of past experiences.

Ultimately, Harris advocates for a thoughtful and analytical approach to history, one that acknowledges its complexities and resists oversimplified interpretations. By doing so, he believes society can better navigate the present and shape a more informed future."
***

Chat GPT (4.0) 2d response:
Certainly! Based on the blog post "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" by Steve Harris, here is a detailed summary of the author's views on the nature and role of history in our society:blog.steveharris.uk

Steve Harris's Perspective on History

1. Skepticism Toward Historical Clichés

Harris critically examines the famous adage by George Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." He suggests that this saying is often invoked superficially, without a deep understanding of historical complexities. Harris implies that merely recalling historical facts does not necessarily prevent the recurrence of past mistakes.

2. The Importance of Institutional Memory

Through the anecdote of the Bromyard Folk Festival, where organizers reused a slippery dance floor that had previously caused accidents, Harris illustrates how a lack of institutional memory can lead to repeated errors. He points out that organizational turnover can result in the loss of valuable experiential knowledge, leading to the repetition of past mistakes.blog.steveharris.uk

3. The "New Broom" Phenomenon

Harris discusses the tendency of new leaders or decision-makers to disregard historical practices in favor of implementing novel ideas. This "new broom" approach can lead to the reintroduction of previously discarded methods, without understanding why they were abandoned in the first place. He emphasizes the importance of consulting with experienced individuals to gain insights into past decisions.blog.steveharris.uk

4. Mutual Responsibility in Knowledge Transfer

The author underscores that both new and seasoned members of an organization share the responsibility of preserving and transferring knowledge. While newcomers should seek out historical context, veterans should strive to communicate their experiences in engaging and accessible ways.

5. History as a Tool for Critical Thinking

Harris advocates for viewing history not as a prescriptive guide but as a means to foster critical thinking. He suggests that understanding the nuances and contexts of past events can inform better decision-making in the present, rather than relying on oversimplified lessons.

?? Conclusion

Steve Harris's blog post emphasizes that history should be engaged with thoughtfully and critically. Rather than serving as a straightforward manual to avoid past mistakes, history offers a complex tapestry of experiences that, when examined carefully, can provide valuable insights for contemporary society.

***

Google Gemini response:

Drawing solely on the "Condemned to Repeat It" blog, the author, Steve Harris, presents a nuanced and somewhat skeptical view of history's nature and role in society, particularly challenging the popular interpretation of Santayana's famous aphorism.

Here's a summary of his views:

On the Nature of History:
* Not a Simple Guide to Avoiding Mistakes: Harris explicitly states that the idea of history providing "lessons" to avoid past mistakes is "just isn't true." He argues that historical events are the result of a "complex stew of choice, chance and human agency," making direct repetition impossible and "cross-chronological historical comparisons rather frustrating and futile."
* Social Construction, Not Natural Progression: He challenges the notion of historical development as a "normal" or natural progression, suggesting that the idea of "moving forward" is a social construction. Good historians, according to Harris, recognize and deconstruct this to make history explicable.
* The Importance of Rigor and Evidence: Harris emphasizes the crucial role of evidence and clear referencing (e.g., footnotes) in historical writing. This "scientific rigour" is essential for supporting claims and allowing others to verify or dispute interpretations. Without it, he argues, "the work of holocaust deniers such as David Irving would be just as credible as those who offer alternative interpretations."1
* A Reflection of Culture and Identity: History is presented as fundamental to human culture, distinguishing us from other animals. He notes that being aware of our "place in time" and remembering collective pasts is a natural act, and those cut off from their past are often seen as lacking identity.
* A "Many-Headed Monster": The blog title itself, "What is history for? Or: Doing history/thinking historically - the many-headed monster," suggests a complex, multifaceted, and perhaps even challenging nature to history.
On the Role of History in Society:
* Challenging the "Condemned to Repeat It" Mantra: While the blog is titled "Condemned to Repeat It," Harris explicitly states, "I don't actually agree with Santayana's famous quote." He notes that the popular understanding of Santayana's quote, as a warning about repeating past societal errors, is a misinterpretation of Santayana's original philosophical principle about the incremental nature of knowledge and memory. Santayana, he argues, was discussing individual intellectual growth, not societal historical lessons.
* The Weight of the Past: Harris observes how history can "weigh heavily" on societies, citing the English as an example, who are "overly focused on the past" due to the sheer volume and presence of their history. This suggests a potential downside to an excessive or uncritical focus on the past.
* Beyond Simple Lessons: While he rejects the idea of history offering simple "lessons" to avoid repetition, the blog's existence implies an underlying belief in the value of historical understanding, even if it's not for predicting or preventing future events in a straightforward manner. The discussion of rigor and cultural identity suggests a role in intellectual development and self-understanding.
* Not a Crystal Ball: The author implies that history is not a tool for predicting the future or for simply avoiding "mistakes," because the complexities of human agency and chance prevent exact repetition.

In essence, Steve Harris views history not as a straightforward instructional manual for avoiding past errors, but as a complex, culturally embedded phenomenon that demands rigorous analysis and a critical understanding of its own interpretations. He emphasizes that while remembering the past is a fundamental human trait and essential for intellectual growth, it does not guarantee a deviation from similar patterns or "repetitions," which he attributes more to the nature of being alive.
***

0 Comments

This Sceptered Isle

5/16/2025

0 Comments

This Sceptered Isle

In Richard II (Act II, scene 1), the Bard waxes eloquent about his English homeland, using the above line as one paean. It’s a gushy, emotive, and resonant speech, oft-cited down the years; and one that seems profoundly out of date in the prosaic Britain of Charles III and Keir Starmer. In previous posts, I’ve talked at some length about Britain’s politics and its post-imperial epistemic deflation. Having visited here about ten times over the years, I have some sense of the place and my latest foray was full of surprises and historical echoes.

This time, we spent most of our trip in Cornwall, the proudly distinctive (in terms of culture and climate) southwestern corner of Britain. Lush landscapes, friendly people, and beautiful weather awaited us. Into the 20C, Cornwall was tied to the sea and small fishing ports dot the shoreline all around. Proximity to the Gulf Stream made fishing common work and made the land fecund. These days, fishing has faded and tourism is a major part of the economy. Part is based on the innumerable beaches, part on the unutterably charming port towns, art colonies in St. Ives, and a respectable smattering of ruins provide a nice mix for both domestic and international travelers.

One highlight was a day’s jaunt to Tintagel in the northwest corner of the county. The castle (now in ruins) dates from the 13C, built by a local prince on the site of the (then-recent) account by Geoffrey of Monmouth of the legend of King Arthur (mid-11C). Geoffrey’s account was already suspect by the 12C, but the prince invoked it anyway and built a traditional castle on a promontory which was actively occupied into the 15C, then effectively abandoned. For our own age which often seems fascinated with history and legend, it’s remarkable to think that this 13C noble was as much interested in leveraging a dubious mythos in an era with no prospect of tourism profits. In any event, it’s a dramatic site (and a good hike) with extensive ruins and stories that have accumulated over the centuries.

At the other end of the chronological spectrum, we stopped also at the Eden Project, a 21C botanical garden and environmental education center in the southeast of the county. There are many traditional gardens across Cornwall, but this was more about science than aesthetics.

Cornish place names increasingly gave way to English as we moved east. By the time we got to Bovey Castle in Devon’s Dartmoor National Park, we felt well back in the traditional English culture in a grand pile (originally a country house, built by the retailer W.H. Smith at the end of the 19C) on spectacular grounds; it was all quite “Downton Abbey-esque.” We didn’t participate in the archery, shooting, falconry (or even golf) on the property; opting instead for a genteel walk to a nearby village (highly picturesque) and a drive across the moors.

Thence to Salisbury, with its stunning cathedral (dating from the 13C) and its copy of Magna Carta. Also, lunch with an old English friend from high school who lives nearby.

The next day, nearby, we went to Stonehenge, on a cold and windy plain. A remarkable site, living up to the (considerable) hype. The great thing about pre-history is that the “we-don’t-know, but…” factor goes up by an order of magnitude. Indeed, a history of the theories about Stonehenge provides a fascinating window into the cultures that have tried to suss it out. Even now, much of the interpretation remains “contested.” One amazing fact is that the smaller (2-5 tons) “blue” stones of the inner circle were transported from Wales, about 150 miles away in the middle of the 3d millennium BC—quite an impressive engineering/transport project!

Finally, reaching London, our group went to a variety of places and events. One highlight for me was a visit to the Tower of London, famous for the Crown Jewels and the site of numerous famous imprisonments and executions over the centuries. I was there the week of the 80th anniversary of VE day, marked at the Tower by the replanting of 30,000 of the ceramic poppies originally placed there for the 100th anniversary of the commencement of WWI in 2014. In addition, we stayed right near the British Library, where I had spent many hours doing research for my dissertation. This time, we checked out a second copy of the original Magna Carta (the other two are in Kew and Lincoln).

Magna Carta doesn’t stand so much in the history of democracy, per se. It’s much more about the struggle between the King and the nobles than the rights of ordinary folks, but the outcome of that struggle was the fundamental principle of limitations on monarchical power and the codification of various aspects of the rule of law.

My one theatre experience in London was “Dear England.” It’s nominally about football (soccer) and, in particular, the manager of the English national team during 2016-2024. It was pretty good.

As a historian, however, what struck me about the play and what it crystallized for me about the trip as a whole was how fixed the English are about their history. It weighs on them heavily. There’s a lot of it and they live right in the middle of it in a way quite differently from our US experience. Living up to that history—however polished/mythologized/sanitized—keeps the English overly focused on the past. As Nigel Farage has discovered, it’s fertile ground for his longer-term political angle, now expressed as “Make Britain Great Again.” This weight of the past is at the root of the struggle to get beyond the Empire, the reflexive “Little England” mentality of Brexit, the difficulty of fully integrating an increasingly diverse set of global cultures, and, in general, remembrance of past riches and glory.

The English are ahead of the pack in dealing with national decline and it’s not pretty. It’s also a useful example for the US, even as we enjoy the royal pageantry, the rural charm, the cute towns, and the castle ruins.

0 Comments

Carbon Rainbow

4/25/2025

0 Comments

I remain convinced that climate change is the greatest concern facing the world today, more dire than the threats to democracy or the rise of AI. Long-time readers are aware of my priority on tree-planting and other nature-based solutions (“NBS”) to the crisis. Even without the sharp reversals in policy and attitude by the current Administration, changing human behaviors and public policies (including mandatory comprehensive carbon markets) on a world-wide basis will only occur once the impact—storms, famine, heat waves—starts killing millions of people. Those focused on voluntary carbon markets are doing good work, but their scope is small and (as we’ve seen lately in the US political contexts) voluntary corporate commitments to carbon are ephemeral and politically vulnerable.

It's a daunting prospect. Motivating people to take steps in the short-term that will only have the benefit of mitigating (not preventing) these disasters in decades to come is a challenge in any case. The many well-meaning people who “get” the climate crisis are trying to connect and energize broader swaths of the population to take steps to make a difference, but far more is needed. We need the marketing/advertising masters who have promoted our consumer culture to put their insights and inspiration to a more meaningful cause than selling dishwashing detergent or ginning up audiences for “The Real Housewives of South Podunk.” Again, I’m not talking about campaigns to change behavior (reducing power usage, recycling, etc.) or promoting legislation for carbon markets; I’m focused on means to work with nature to avoid the release of carbon or lock up more of it in the natural world around us. NBS can, by reasonably reliable estimates, handle about 1/3 of the world’s carbon problem over the next few decades and make a real difference in the world of the mid-21C.

We need to make carbon fun/engaging/interesting (or at least as fun as possible given the context). The story can’t just be scientific reports and tables of data. That’s not how you sell tortilla chips or athletic shoes and it won’t work with this tougher item. We need catchy phrases, punch lines, and (probably) some adorable creature/mascot.

As one trained in the law and in history, I claim no great skill set in this regard. However clever I might be at word-play and cultural allusions, I have no illusions about my “common touch.” But, since it’s “all hands on deck” for the climate crisis, here’s one way to think about carbon sequestration.

There is a wide range of environments in which nature can contribute to solving the carbon problem. I think of it as a “carbon rainbow.” I got the idea from the “Blue Carbon” deals which the Nature Conservancy (and others) have done with an increasing list of small and less-developed countries in which commitments are made to preserve/extend/protect ocean and lake areas in return for a reduction/rescheduling of the country’s existing public debt load. Then I thought about the various other modes of reducing/storing carbon. The “green” leaves of trees, the “brown” of peat bogs, the “yellow” of grasslands, the “black” of coal/oil,

My initial engagement in this area was in planting trees. Several groups raised funds by offering to plant a tree for a fixed amount. I quickly noticed that the cost to plant in the US was much higher than overseas and, focused on getting the biggest carbon “bang for the buck,” I got involved with several groups in this regard. Some of them also worked with consumer-oriented businesses and offered to plant a tree if you bought a jar of their product or similar schticks. This model had the advantage of being consumer friendly—allowing ordinary folks to participate in the climate-solutions process. However, they had the disadvantage of mis-characterizing the nature of the climate solution. Trees involve much more than planting. They need to be sustained over decades and the “dollar-a-tree” model doesn’t really work. Most of these groups have moved to a less-specific model, raising funds for projects, but in less discrete bites.

So, there’s a gap. We need simple-to-understand programs to connect with ordinary folks at the “small bite” level. In the US, the “Arbor Day Foundation has been working this angle for decades, but needs a real ‘juice-up.’One idea in this regard is to adapt a program that was effective back in the 1960s: the UNICEF milk-carton program by which school kids would raise money for UNICEF by collecting small change in a small orange milk carton when we went around “trick-or-treating” at Halloween. In addition to its financial benefits, this program was quite effective at raising awareness of UNICEF with both children and adults and gave children the opportunity to participate directly in a public-service program. Today, with QR codes and “Go Fund Me” similar programs are digitized, but the underlying public awareness campaign is lacking.

As long as the solutions advanced are macro and distant from daily life and contact, it will remain easy to ignore them and let “somebody else” take care of them. We list saturated fat on all food items, why not their carbon cost as well.

Most of the effort in carbon markets has gone towards large corporations and mega, globe-spanning systems. Those would be great if there was a consensus for action by governments world-wide or even a massive upswelling of popular demand. But that is not the world we live in (even before the present retreat). In the meantime, ordinary folks need to be involved and given the opportunity to participate directly in saving the planet. I’m not sure what the right messaging is or how to combine scare tactics with some kumbaya sensibility. But there are experienced communications professionals out there who need to get us all together on this campaign.

0 Comments

<<Previous

Res Publica

O Canada!

More or Less

Great Migration

Rudderless

In Defense of the Nation

Eager for Change

Dueling AIs

This Sceptered Isle

Carbon Rainbow

Condemned to Repeat It --
Musings on history, society, and the world.

Archives

Sign up for alerts when there's a new post

Condemned to Repeat It --Musings on history, society, and the world.

Archives

Sign up for alerts when there's a new post

Condemned to Repeat It --
Musings on history, society, and the world.