Steve Harris
  • Home
  • About
  • Courses
  • Research
  • Other Sites
  • Contact
  • Condemned to Repeat It

Democracy in America

1/30/2021

0 Comments

 
Ever since the Greeks effectively invented the model of democracy 2400 years ago, thinkers since Plato have raised concerns about its viability in the face of the demands of the majority and the risks of the ideal model being flipped into its nemesis: mob rule. The rampage in the Capitol on January 6 brought this tension into focus. The challenge of the next generation is to staunch this crisis, but not merely in terms of its acute convulsions and the demands of those whose inability to tolerate change and loss of power. The rule of law and the re-shaping of democratic forms of government are essential, but insufficient.
 
Constructing a robust democratic culture means wrestling with the problems raised by the nature of modern society; not least of which is technology, not only in terms of media and communications, but, more fundamentally, in terms of education and opportunity. In order to understand this, we need to dig into the premises of democracy—particularly liberal democracy—in the modern world.
 
Prior to the American and French Revolutions in the late 18C, there was little idea that the masses of people should be in charge. The complexities of state were best left to those with the time and brains (breeding/blood lines?!) to handle them. In a world where basic literacy, much less awareness of public issues was low; this was hard to argue with as a practical matter.
 
Modern representative democracy has always been aspirational; that is, its theory was well ahead of its practice. Ideas articulated in the American and French revolutions (“We the people”, “Liberty, Fraternity, Equality”) were immediately tempered by the well-known constraints built into the US Constitution (separation of powers, “checks-and-balances”), the exclusion of women, slaves, native Americans, and most white men with little wealth. In France, the Great Revolution of 1789 led to eighty years of bouncing back-and-forth between regime structures, adding monarchy to the set of American problems. British structures also excluded women, most men (for economic reasons), as well as all the natives of the far-flung Empire who were subject to Parliament in London. Progress towards the ideal model of democracy was incremental across the 19C and much of the 20C, chipping away at formal and practical impediments.
 
The essential premise of democracy is that people know enough to exercise sensible judgment about the issues of governance. This shows up in the millennia-long fear of mobocracy whose passions overrun reason. The modern response to this problem was built first on the idea of representative democracy, under which “leading men” chosen by the populace, would deliberate on the issues. The rise of public education in the late 19C was a further answer to this: a hope that “ordinary” folks could be educated to participate sensibly in the democratic process.
 
So far so good, at least in those countries with the social cohesion and wealth to accomplish it (notwithstanding their inbred aristo/oligarchic distortions).  Parachuting democracy into societies lacking that cohesion (Central Europe following WWI, the decolonized empires following WWII) almost always went awry, usually producing regimes that were adept only at the forms and nomenclature (e.g., the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”). Outside of the “West” (Europe, the former British white-run dominions, Japan), democratic success was rare (India?), even against a standard that disregarded the racial and gender short-comings of the nominal exemplars.
 
The rise of modern democracy was coincident with the rise of the “middle class,” itself the product of education and the shift in labor markets to produce enough wealth, leisure, and “stake in the system” to give these “middling sorts” a sense of self-confidence, social prominence, and economic clout sufficient to ameliorate the remaining embedded power of traditional elites and the latter’s concerns about the relinquishing of domination.
 
The opportunity to join the “middle class” (aka the “American Dream”) was sufficient, too, to secure the buy-in of those whose current circumstances were inadequate; built on the intertwined strands of education and economic improvement.
 
The late 20C shift to a post-industrial economy and increasing inequality threatens all this. Not only are “middling” jobs evaporating, but education-based opportunity is thereby left with 1) few targets of opportunity, 2) reduced resources to support educational infrastructure, and 3) the expansion of those included in the rising group who lack either the family, social, or early-educational support to perform at the level formerly expected by those in the higher educational levels. On top of this, our culture promotes college education predominantly as a pre-vocational activity, diminishing attention paid to basic analytic and communications skills, as well as substantive knowledge of the nature of our democratic society.
 
Though itself a product of these broad socio-economic forces, the crisis in education puts the entire theory of democracy at risk. But resolving the educational crisis would only expose an underlying problem: democracy requires not only capability (educated citizens able to understand issues and interests), but also motivation.
 
Most people have limited perspectives on life or have little interest in spending time on public issues. Education would not turn us all into noble sages; nor would some miraculous techno-economic revolution in which everyone becomes a member of the leisure. Modern complexity, bureaucracy, and alienation are large deterrents. Yet we are all entitled, under democratic theory, to participate. Again, representative democracy provides some solution, at least to the problem of governance. But as to the problem of culture and participation, big gaps remain and no good solutions are in sight. Mandatory voting produces participation, but not necessarily informed participation.
 
A bit over one hundred years ago, Vladimir Lenin said:
 
“If Socialism can only be realized when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least five hundred years.”
 
His answer, of course, was to assert that he and other leading thinkers had to assume control of Russia in the name of the people and Socialism: An all-powerful elite, the withering-away of the state, the (eventual) triumph of the masses. We all know how that turned out.
 
My own approach is to teach; to help students/citizens to participate more effectively: to understand and communicate their interests and beliefs, to assess the arguments of others (ideological diversity being inevitable), to resolve differences through discussion and negotiation and to awaken a sense of stake and interest in the process and outcomes for themselves, their communities, and society as a whole.
 
Others work to awaken citizens to their rights to vote.  Others work on specific issues. What is clear is that personal participation is not enough. We have to take some responsibility and action in support of wider engagement. The fundamental premise of democracy is community, a shared commitment to each other to work out our differences and deal with the evolving world. To whatever degree you were appalled by the scene at the Capitol three weeks ago and the precarious state of our body politic up to then, you can see that sending in your ballot every two/four years is not enough and will be cold comfort if the next crisis turns out worse. This is not a partisan issue. The Democratic majority in Congress is precarious and, as I have noted elsewhere, is hardly a panacea to our broad range of social ills.
 
The Constitution starts with “We the people”; there’s no one else to do it.
 
0 Comments

In Media Res

1/22/2021

0 Comments

 

Historians look forward to decades of a parlor game entitled “the worst thing Trump did was….” There are many contestants. A related version will run the catalogue of Trumpians through memoirs, exposes, and somber histories. How shall we categorize them? Can we get Dante to write a sequel and add a few more levels of Hell? Family, criminals, racists, ass-kissers, apologists, collaborators, moral bankrupts (and the merely weak), sociopaths, un-indicted co-conspirators, delusionals, deplorables, and avatars of every deadly sin (categories not mutually exclusive).

Certainly some space should be reserved for the media, by which I mean more than the famous Fox & Friends gang, Breitbart, and those further to the loony right. I refer to the “lame-steam” media who, from a position of market dominance, both resented and facilitated His rise and rule: CNN, MSNBC, NYT, dozens of journals, papers, magazines, and websites.

The rapidity of Trump’s rise to power caught them off-guard. They couldn’t believe anyone could be so brazen in their disregard for the truth and for the conventions of American public life (“democracy”). They didn’t know how to react: “How can we not take him at his word?” they must have said. And so, they covered him, reported his words, played his speeches and generally completely fell for his schtick.

During the 2016 campaign, Selena Zito wrote in The Atlantic, that Trump’s supporters were taking him “seriously, but not literally;” but that the media and the “left” were taking him “literally, but not seriously.” It was a trenchant observation. Hillary didn’t pay attention, to her (& our) chagrin. Despite the warning, he became President; to whom great deference is owed. Even while the Emperor repeatedly demonstrated that he had no clothes  (scary thought: is he orange all over?); that he said what he said for effect, not for accuracy, the media couldn’t stop themselves. It took years to not cover his antics and press conferences and media events; to call out his untruths. Eventually (after the loss in 2020) even Fox dropped him. Even Twitter is Trump-free.

The media loves drama and controversy. (“If it bleeds, it leads.”) Attention drives ratings, which drives revenues. Horror drives excitement and all sorts of sanctimony and rationalization of the actions of the noble and “objective” fifth estate. Most of it, at least on the journalistic side of the media is unconscious (although headline writers have clearly slid over the line); probably less so on the business side of the media conglomerates.  The result was a joint venture: the Trumpian circus feeds his ego and his politics, the media gets lots of excitement (feeding their egos and economics): he gets the spotlight and all the air gets sucked out of the room.

For those of us who were not buying it; there was little choice: Fox sycophancy or MSNBC outrage or pulling the plug (“Real Housewives of Downton Abbey” etc.).

There was a way to cover him, responsibly, without giving in to the circus. And here, I am not talking about the (finally) clear characterization of his falsehoods. Perhaps some writers did so; but not too many, too early, or too prominently. To restate what Zito wrote: Trump and his supporters were having a feelings conversation and which the media and many responsible citizens read as a solutions (literal) conversation. What if the media had reported the news based on that stance:

* “The President today expressed anxiety over the fact that America is declining relative to China and used his trade powers to slap them since it was much easier than motivating American productivity.”

* “Trump’s meeting today with the North Korean leader satisfied his urge to garner attention but brought nothing tangible beyond a photo-op at the DMZ.”

* “Fearing for the erosion of White privilege and power, the Administration kidnapped small (brown) children and put them in cages.”

Might things have played out a bit different?

He was right, of course, the “lame-stream” media was hooked on “fake news”: all his stunts were at least good for outrage and self-righteousness, the breathless reports of Congressional negotiations made it easy not to cover the lives of millions feeling disconnected from elites. Trump was too good a show to pass up. Why did it take so long to look into the real concerns of MAGA-ites? Could it be the same reason as the elite-focused media had to “discover” that Black lives matter and that systemic racism (and sexism, etc.) exists in American society?

In this they were just a reflection of the broader society; which wouldn’t be so terrible if they didn’t claim a status as tribune of the people, with a unique role in our democracy. Rarely has the standard of “objectivity” been so dutifully observed in form (“equal time” for all sides); and abused in practice (truth is a much less interesting story than histrionics). He wanted/lusted for/lived for coverage (even that which he didn’t read). He designed his Presidency around it and the media largely gave him what he wanted.

Now that he’s out of office and (among a majority of the population) disgraced, We will see if the media will wean itself off his daily diatribes. The implosion of his media presence after the Capitol rampage may be a start of a new (or stealthier) Trump. However, even if the 2d impeachment never goes to trial, there will be other trials; scandals at Mar-a-Lago, Melania departing for quieter climes; not to mention the always juicy kids. On the other end, already the farthest wing is feeling betrayed by his apparent “surrender”; punctured delusions can be hard. Will QAnon survive? Or will they sign- up for a 12-step QAnon-anon program?

As for me, I would like to be done with him. No reruns of Leonard Pinth-Garnell’s “Bad Political Theater,” (from SNL in the ‘70s) no speculation on whether he will be convicted by the Senate, no intrigues about his incipient bankruptcy. Let’s leave him to the historians and move on; there is real work to be done.
0 Comments

Role Model

1/15/2021

0 Comments

 
There was a time when the Soviet Union was a leading beacon of progress for the world. In 1919, Lincoln Steffens, an American journalist visited the new revolutionary state and proclaimed “I have seen the future and it works!” By the 1930s, with the “liberal” West in the convulsions and dreariness of the Great Depression, the Soviet Union was again held out as a model for the world. Since it had been economically isolated in retaliation for the Bolshevik revolution, the USSR had little choice but to go it alone. It was also a pioneer in state-directed economic management driving the most rapid modern industrialization program in history. As a result its relative economic success in the 1930s (the foundation for its strength against the Nazis in the 1940s), made it a formidable role model across the world in the 1950s and ‘60s.

We know now that this leap forward was to collapse a few decades later. We have known for some time (although not then) the brutal costs paid by the peoples of the USSR for this over-centralization of power.

My topic today, however, is not the Soviet system’s successes or failures. Rather, I want to highlight the precariousness of the current American image in the world.

While the US was eventually dominant in the global cultural cold war of the 20C, the competition between the US and China in the 21C could well come out differently. The smugness of the ‘90s about the triumphalism of the modern/liberal/Western/capitalist approach to the world was severely punctured on 9/11. Still, the absence, until recently, of any viable competitor has made it easy for Americans to pretend that our exceptionalism was unique/inevitable/eternal and to dismiss the Chinese as parvenus, whose dictatorial tendencies and inscrutable language made them—at most—problematic.

The expectation that China will overtake the US in terms of GDP in the next decade and the emergence of China as an active wielder of the world’s second most powerful military will affect our broad understanding of the two countries’ relationship. But these phenomena will not be tangible to most folks whether Chinese, American, or otherwise.

Instead, the two biggest developments of the last 12 months have the potential to shift the global perceptions of these two giants. China has successfully managed the outbreak of the Coronavirus and the US has been incompetent. Both in terms of culture and governmental power, China has got the pandemic under control and those who challenge its success on the ground of the surrender or suppression of individual liberty must get past a tall list of deaths, disabilities, disease, and economic pain at both the macro and micro levels as an “acceptable” cost for political “freedom” and cultural individualism.

The insurrectionist spasm at the Capitol on January 6 could profoundly undercut the US as a role model for the rest of the world. As one Columbian newspaper asked: “Who’s the banana republic now?” There are many reasons (economic inequality, racial treatment, hyper-active military) why the US’ global image has plausibly suffered of late, but Confederate flags in the halls of Congress make it difficult for us to claim to be the “shining city on a hill” of our national mythology. Even if Trump is an aberration as a person, the endorsement of over a quarter of Congress undermines our desperate claims that “this is not who we are.” To the extent we have been successful in promoting democracy on a global basis, there are many countries who manage better-run (and more-widely accepted) electoral systems than we operate. [What would it mean for Rudy Giuliani to be as passionate about real voter suppression as he has been about his fantasies?]

China recognizes and is taking advantage of this, as they have generally, as Trumpian withdrawal of American presence and influence across the world has created opportunities for the opportunistic and ambitious Chinese. They are often clumsy and prone to repeat the arrogance of American power in countries around the world, but they are also sufficiently savvy to repress freedoms in Hong Kong and across China itself just when the US is hobbled from its usual finger-pointing about the global preservation of democracy.

Beyond the fact that the “leader of the free world” is MIA when it comes to freedom, our sorry performance in pandemic management undermines our claim to technocratic and moral leadership. While our science has performed miracles, our social fabric has unraveled. At a global level, this is evident in our refusal to join the world-wide vaccine alliance.

Global public opinion is no longer limited to gentlemen who can decipher the discreet implications of the Times (of London). The social and traditional media of the 21C ensure that ordinary people around the world will see these pictures and words and have some sense of our fumbling pandemic management. What happens in the US is still far more likely to show up on the news everywhere just because we are the center of the media universe. The pictures and numbers of the impact of the pandemic are all the more startling to those who expected that, if we were going to hoard our resources in order to take care of our own, we would at least do a better job of it.

PR matters. Soft power matters. Geopolitics is not just about the range and sophistication of drones  and the number of “feet-on-the-ground.” Regardless of bragging rights, there is something in the argument that it is in the American national interest to have friends overseas (lots of them!). There is something in the argument that we have something important to offer to others to see our example (positive and negative).

Our self-inflicted wounds will require considerable attention if we are to heal for our own benefit. They will require more and attention if we are to resume the effort to show other countries “how its done.”

It might be that China’s pandemic-management success is an echo of the Soviet’s industrialization and growth of the 1920s and ‘30s and that the underlying hollowness of an unconstrained bureaucratic system will, in due time, become clear. Or, it might be that we will look back on the US of 2020 and say: “I have seen the past, and it didn’t work.”

0 Comments

Judgments

1/8/2021

0 Comments

 
Judgments

Back when I was in law school (shortly after Moses came down with two tablets), we were instructed in the process of judicial appeals: trial courts, intermediate courts of appeal, and the Supreme Court. One wag (NOT me) asked whether there was any appeal from the judgments of the Supreme Court.  The professor looked over the rims of his glasses and said sardonically: “Only to the Law Reviews.” It was the legal equivalent of the old truism that “History is written by the winners” and akin to the fears expressed by Trumpians that their efforts to MAGA would be stymied by the “Deep State.”

In thinking about this in the context of the soon-to-be-former President and the recent hubbub about self-pardons, family pardons, Stone/Flynn/Giuliani pardons. He may have the legal power to pardon others (self-pardoning seems to me to be a non-starter). But their only effects will be as narrow and short-term as most of the thinking which has characterized this Administration. Legal exoneration doesn’t protect against social shunning or professional disregard. Who (outside the coterie) would hire Giuliani? How many new “Trump Towers” are likely to attract premium tenants paying for The Donald’s brand cachet? Will Ivanka really be welcomed on society/philanthropic boards?

On top of this, without risk of prosecution, those pardoned will no longer have 5th Amendment protections and are likely to trip themselves up into (unpardoned) perjury charges if they try to wrangle themselves out of difficulties. Not to mention the charges coming from NY State.

The history of the Trump years will be written by the winners, of course. And, as I have noted before, we historians should avoid predicting the future; especially as to who the “winners” will be. All we can do is interpret and extend trends and patterns. Still, it seems pretty likely that those histories will be written by historians: actual professional historians (once we get past the “tell-alls” and “rough-draft-of-history” journalists).

Trump’s problem is that these are people who have an (unnatural) affinity for facts—and evidence. Hmmm. Also, most are likely “liberal,” “lame-stream,” “pointy-headed intellectuals” (George Wallace, 1972), or otherwise members of the “effete corps of impudent snobs” (Spiro Agnew, 1970). Finally, market-driven publishers are more likely to appeal to those who buy/read books who (I suspect) are skewed left, too.

Now, some historians are already rejiggering their lists of Presidents ranked best-to-worst. Despite his aspirations to Mt. Rushmore status, and even if historians of the late 21C find secret merit in Trump’s approach to taxes, China, Iran, or border management, I suspect that his handling of the pandemic and attempted demolition of the democratic body politic seem likely to leave him languishing in the Buchanan-Pierce zone.

The “Deep State” is already reasserting itself more openly, after four years underground (“Deep” underground). EPA staffers are slow-rolling deregulatory changes. The DOJ is investigating potential bribery for pardon schemes. Even ex-AG Barr (no idiot) had disavowed allegations of widespread election fraud (there goes his pardon!). Anthony Fauci is still there (Amen.) and his brilliance (which extends far beyond epidemiology) should earn him a Medal of Freedom (i.e. another one, (since he was already recognized by Bush 43). Republican election officials in Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, and Michigan have stood up for the “process” and the “system.” That’s the thing about institutions; they’re resilient. Not that they can’t be taken down; another Trump term would have done irreversible damage. But, for now, it looks like we have big rebuilding job.

Bigger than we might have thought a week or so ago, given the rampage in the Capitol. Trump’s fostering of that attack mob will be the hallmark of his legacy; appropriate for one who’s view of the world has been sharply narrowed by ego and instant gratification. A Presidential Library…? More likely, NYC will name a sewer after him.

They would never acknowledge being part of the “deep state,” but during the charade in Congress on January 6, the debate on accepting the Electoral College votes featured a statesman-like (!!) Mitch McConnell and a Vice-President who proclaimed his love for the Constitution despite the entreaties of his boss. Yes, while there are those who yearn to pick up the post-Trumpian flag (Cruz, Hawley), even Tom Cotton didn’t ‘cotton to’ this ploy. Loyal lieutenants Chao and DeVos have—suddenly (with 13 days left in their terms!) found conscience, as has Mulvaney. We had to go pretty far to find their limits. Hopefully, the image of Trump-inspired mobs storming the Capitol will scare off even more soon-to-be-former MAGA-ites. The “center” as T.S. Eliot warned, may or may not be able to “hold,” but the right is about to come crashing into itself.

Law journals, historians, the “Deep State”: each has a litany of flaws and failings. Yet, they share a commitment to at least trying to act with intellectual integrity and public service. They take a long view of proposals, policies, and actions. In doing so, they are—in the best sense—anti-democratic. They are a necessary complement to democracy as a core social value.

Plato thought it would be great if the Republic were ruled by a council of educated wise guardians. It’s a nice thought exercise. It’s never worked since the small group designing the education of the wise and selecting the council have always been corrupted (eventually). In the meantime, as Churchill (and others) have said: “democracy is the worst form of government—except for all the others that have been tried.” But pure democracy, as Plato and Aristotle (and Madison and Hamilton) feared leads to its own corruption: the chaos of the French Revolution, the plebiscites of Louis Napoleon, Mussolini, Hitler, the current authoritarian slides of Erdogan, Duterte, Bolsonaro, and Orban, and the constitutional debacle of Brexit.

So, some limits or balance seem to be best. The Deep State and the academy are parts of that. They are hardly infallible, and they can be petty and frustrating; but they provide a stabilizing force. Law journals’ critiques of Supreme Court decisions sometimes work long-term reversals. Historians—while they never resolve anything—give us a long-term perspective. Trump and his pardons will fade—pretty quickly given the large and real issues facing our country/world. Whoever the “winners” are in twenty (or two hundred) years can make up their own minds what kind of history to write.



0 Comments

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

    I don't actually agree with Santayana's famous quote, but this is my contribution to my version of it: "Anyone who hears Santayana's quote is condemned to repeat it."

    Archives

    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020

      Sign up for alerts when there's a new post

      Enter your email address and click 'subscribe.'
    Subscribe

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly