July 2, 2008

On Being Good

Posted by Lily under post | Tags: |
Leave a Comment 
This month I am reading a book by Professor Jacob Needleman called Why Can’t We Be Good? It has got me thinking about the connections between our best intentions – in Kantian terms, the good we “will” – and the actions that we take in the real world, when the rubber meets the road. So often, those two don’t match up! Dr. Needleman thinks that the “good things” we know in our minds have to actually enter our “heart” (meaning our emotions/feelings) before they can consistently appear in our actions.He also has some interesting things to say about the role of the mind-body connection in translating ideas along the mind-heart-body loop. Many of the great religious traditions, including Christianity, tend to set the spirit and body up as opposing forces. Dr. Needleman, by contrast, is re-imagining the spirit/heart/emotions as the vital link between the mind (the good/bad we will) and body (the good/bad we do). I have found similar concepts taught by one or two of my favorite yoga instructors – the kind who treat yoga as a mental exercise at least as much as a bodily exercise.

I especially think it is a valid point that, when we intend good and fail to follow through, it is often because there is a missing emotional connection between the intention and the action. An easy place to see this concept is the fitness/weight loss battle. We ALL know we should refrain from consuming chocolate by the pound and exercise 30+ minutes a day, 6 days a week, etc. But what is the difference between those who actually do these good things, and those who only talk about it? I guess we have all been both kinds of person, at one point or another. This week I have been trying to test Dr. Needleman’s thesis in my exercise routine. When my alarm goes off at 5 a.m. and my mind tells me it’s time to pull on my swimsuit and head for the pool, I’ve found that this is much less of a struggle if I consciously (try to) flip on the emotional switch as well as the mental switch. Surprisingly, this actually works. If I hit the snooze and lie in bed weighing the pros and cons of getting up that particular morning – on a mental/intellectual level – mostly the argument for sleep will win out. But, in those critical moments of decision, if I want to want to get up . . . I’ll get up.

This is just my tiny individual battle. But how interesting if these practices of engaging the “heart” could be translated into humans’ collective battle for peace and justice. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for example – instead of focusing on the endless peace negotiations, what would happen if everyone on all sides truly felt that they wanted peace above all else? That is (to use Needleman terminology), what if the whole collective body of Israelis and Palestinians – lawmakers, diplomats, soldiers, voters – desired peace with their hearts as well as their minds?

I’m only about halfway through Why Can’t We Be Good?, and no doubt I am butchering the author’s fairly elegant arguments with my paraphrasing. I’ll try to check back in later to flesh out some of these ideas more fully. Meanwhile, if you are looking for a good summer read, I recommend the book.

 

June 2, 2008

Before the Whiskey Rebellion

Posted by Andrew under Federalist | Tags: , |
[2] Comments 

Damned if you do and don’t, Ham (thanks Lily) must have reckoned one day in the new 19th century. As Lily points out below, the Cato Institute’s ancestor organization was apparently chock full of early American members not much wanting to toss coin to the government’s perception of the common good.

F12 appeared just as the skirmishes of Shays’ Rebellion were ending. Shays led the rebellion against the Massachusetts’s attempt at paying off war debts with a direct tax that most notably hurt subsistence farmers. Lesson learned, Ham notes, “from the experience we have had on the point itself, … it is impracticable to raise any very considerable sums by direct taxation.” And figuring he has the proper alternative, “far the greatest part of the national revenue is derived from taxes of the indirect kind, from imposts, and from excises.”

As Lily pointed out, Ham offers an item on which the government could levy a duty:

The single article of ardent spirits, under federal regulation, might be made to furnish a considerable revenue. Upon a ratio to the importation into this State, the whole quantity imported into the United States may be estimated at four millions of gallons; which, at a shilling per gallon, would produce two hundred thousand pounds. That article would well bear this rate of duty; and if it should tend to diminish the consumption of it, such an effect would be equally favorable to the agriculture, to the economy, to the morals, and to the health of the society. There is, perhaps, nothing so much a subject of national extravagance as these spirits.

A couple years after Publius smiled on the ratified Constitution, Treasure Secretary Hamilton (shed momentarily from Latin pseudonyms) persuaded Congress to take up the war debt. And to help pay it, Congress approved a tax on spirits, as more-or-less suggested in F12. As in the tax that spurred the Shays Rebellion, though, this one hit the small boys; while the big boy producers enjoyed a flat rate, small time producers paid by the gallon, and, frequently using the spirits as a bartering item, had little cash to actually pay anyway. So, eight years after Shays, the Whiskey Rebellion popped up to provide America some notable trivia answers: the first sitting president (an old Washington) leading first American use of military force against its own citizens, and accompanied by Hamilton and Robert E. Lee’s daddy; all of this forcing the Whiskey rebels from western Pennsylvania into Kentucky and Tennessee (outside the scope of the spirits tax) where the easy corn growth spurred corn whiskey, which in turn developed into America’s brown entry into the world of distinctive whiskeys: bourbon.

So, Hamilton must have wondered after the lessons of Shays and Whiskey: what kind of taxes can we slip passed these wee Catos?

 

May 22, 2008

short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths

Posted by Andrew under Federalist | Tags: |
[2] Comments 

I’m wondering whether F10’s “factions” are so closely synonymous to political parties as folks sometimes presume. Reading through F10, faction seems to be something closer to something within our human nature (like bias, interestedness) than a term for groups.

The overwhelming point of F10 is: to overcome inevitable human self-interestedness while maintaining liberty (manifested by having some say in governance), you need to get at least one step removed from direct democracy to avoid a tyranny of the majority. Madison then tells us, as Lily describes below, why representatives fit the bill.

Madison’s description of self-governance’s problem is pretty good:

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? … Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail.

…

Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

But, back to factions and parties. It’s clear in Madison’s argument that he believes faction is inevitable and we’ve got to check it. I don’t get, from this, that Madison fears partisanship. It is hard to imagine that the founders and delegates did not imagine something like political parties forming in America. Madison does not, in F10, claim that the Constitution will prevent like-minded people from joining into a coalition to pass desired legislation. With Lily, I’d be interested to see if they imagined smaller several groups forming coalitions, or something more akin to the two-party system. One must remember, though, that we have little coalitions too: think of the blue dog dems, the libertarians that go either Repub or Dem based on the rights to which they cling, and etc. It seems that “factions,” for F10 purposes, is actually a bit like these interests – which form groups within our major parties, or parties within governments like the UK. And, as F10 says, on the national level these factions are diluted to more theoretical interests than pure self interest.

My hunch is that our initial leaders accepted partisanship as much as we do now. Given, “parties” didn’t exist; but, what we now call partisanship existed since the Continental Congresses. Some famously denied partisanship, but then, some folks do that today too.

Some additional quotes:

Shout out to local autonomy

It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.

Nice sentence, James

While teeing up the product of the Philly convention, Madison gives us this gem of a line:

Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

 

May 11, 2008

Monte…who?

Posted by Andrew under Federalist | Tags: |
1 Comment 

Hamilton writes F9 as a reflection on ancient, and more recent, history. My hunch is that the structure intentionally works as part of his argument – which, here, is to address the opponents’ argument, based on some “observations of Montesquieu[,] on the necessity of a contracted territory for a republican government.” Or, a response to the “America is too big to be a republic” argument.

(more…)

 

May 9, 2008

F7 Concerns: Still Viable Today?

Posted by Lily under Federalist | Tags: , |
Leave a Comment 

Some of those conflicts among the young states, which are foretold by F7, continue to hang around now that the states are no longer quite so young (though still pretty restless!)

Boundary disputes? Still around. Georgia v. Tennessee: in this time of drought, who owns the river?

Commercial competition between states? Look at the lengths to which North Carolina is willing to go, in order to lure companies to set up shop here instead of somewhere else: NC gave Dell Computers $300 million in tax breaks to get the company to agree to build a plant in Winston-Salem. NC is even getting sued over it. You bet the states are still competing with each other for economic advantage.

States and local governments in debt? Of course! New Jersey is struggling under a mountain of debt created by increased pensions for public employees, and Vallejo has just achieved the dubious distinction of becoming the largest city in California to declare bankruptcy.

 

April 18, 2008

Pretended Causes of War: Federalist # 4

Posted by Lily under post | Tags: , |
[3] Comments 

Jay’s Federalist #4 is a follow-up to #3′s discussion of why a union of the States is safest for the people. F3 was about how a united America would give other nations less occasion to be angry with us — thus provoking fewer “just causes” for war. F4 supplements this argument by describing how the union would also give other countries fewer “unjust causes” for war — hence, fewer wars based on “jealousies and uneasinesses.” The main point is that a united group of states provides a stronger deterrence to unjust foreign invasion than thirteen nations, or even three or four “confederacies” of colonies. Jay argues that union is essential for military reasons, because that way any foreign attack on one colony’s soil becomes an attack on all 13 colonies. Further, he contends that a well-managed federal government with prosperous trade, established credit, organized militia, and “free, contented, and united” people, will cause foreign nations to be “much more disposed to cultivate our friendship, than provoke our resentment.”

To our modern eyes, F4 contains a haunting matter-of-factness about the risks of an invasion of America by foreign nations — an event that has been well-nigh inconceivable for the vast majority of American history.* Even the two most infamous encroachments of American soil, Pearl Harbor and 9/11, were essentially attacks — not invasions, by any stretch. This historical record of impregnability bears out the worthiness of Jay’s arguments. He’s right — America’s strength has ensured no nation, not even our worst enemies, seriously contemplates invading us. Almost no one has ever dared, not even the USSR during the Cold War. But as F4′s pragmatic discussion made me realize, that kind of security was not always something we could take for granted. F4 was addressed to an audience of people who had had to fight, in hand-to-hand combat, to defend their own hometowns and families.

A couple of additional points about F4 that intrigue me:

1) In the first three Federalist papers, there are lots of references to the “people,” but none to “the People.” But right here in paragraph two of F4, Jay discusses “the safety of the People of America” . He follows up on that zinger with about a million references to “we” and “us” and “our” — almost like he is working to create a sense of American unity subliminally within his prose. By the time you’re finished reading, you can’t help but feel like an American, instead of a New Yorker. Kinda cool.

2) In further demonstration of Jay’s willingness to appeal to his audience’s emotions as well as their intellect, F4′s closing paragraph is a description of how all the other nations will scorn America as “a poor, pitiful figure” if it splinters into 13 colonies or 3-4 “confederacies.” He’s not above making people feel embarrassed to vote against union!

On a more general note, I applaud Andrew’s prescience in starting up this examination of The Federalist. These issues about union are SO alive and well today, and not just in America. Ryan Crocker, US Ambassador to Iraq, testified to Congress last week that Iraq’s recent passage of a crucial law defining the relationship between the central government and the Iraqi provinces followed a debate “similar in its complexity to our own lengthy and difficult debate over states’ rights.”

* When was the last time we were truly invaded? War of 1812? Did the Spanish technically invade us via Mexico a few times?

 

April 13, 2008

Fewer chances to pick fights (Federalist No.3)

Posted by Andrew under Federalist | Tags: , |
[5] Comments 

With his second ‘post,’ John Jay offers some specific arguments for the benefits of union when regards foreign policy. As an added bonus, he defines just causes for war:

1) broken treaties; or

2) direct violence.

Jay argues that a single government will better prevent war on both potential causes. And for both, the more convincing argument is that a national government would pick fewer fights than the several states or confederacies–legal or physical. More states = more treaties = more chances for breach. Also, inconsistency among the various treaties would lead to equally various interpretations and subsequent political action on the treaties (which I suppose to mean more chances for breach or, eek, managerial headaches).

Jay then argues that the states are more willing than the national government to pick fights. By way of example, he notes that not “a single Indian war has yet been produced by aggressions of the present federal government … but there are several instances of Indian hostilities having been provoked by the improper conduct of individual States, who, either unable or unwilling to restrain or punish offenses, have given occasion to the slaughter of many innocent inhabitants.”

Jay figures that the national government will be less prideful than State governments, and being more coolheaded, will be the better to dissolve conflicts. This seems right, but I would be interested in a book that examines this claim in light of U.S. history and compared to other balkanized governments that Jay figures would have been picking hot-headed little wars.

It is worth highlighting one of Jay’s key assumptions: the national government will draw wiser leaders. “When once the national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also will generally be appointed to manage it ….”

His reasoning is that the bigger pool of contestants for the national government will produce the very best results. State and local governments may have fine folk, but the national government will require “more extensive reputation for talents and other qualifications.” Jay figures that an mediocre mayor that might reign in provincial backwoods would not stand up to the scrutiny of national government. I wonder whether this notion holds up.

Jay assumes the similar types of scrutiny and selection go on in local and national politics–so that a bigger pool of contestants simply means better quality in the ultimate selection. But isn’t it so that a national candidate will be much more unknowable to most selectors than those local candidates that towns and states choose? Except for the few powers-that-be that prop up national-scope leaders, we are not really aware of these interstate candidates until well-nigh election time.

It is only slightly possible today–with internets, medias, and so forth–to earnestly track and reasonably compare would-be national leaders. How, exactly, did Jay envision voters doing this in 1788? Assuming he envisioned State legislators tracking would-be Senators, or, Congress tracking would-be Presidents – how would these folks really elevate the best folks to National attention? It seems to me Jay is ignoring the role of chance, etc, in such things.

 

April 9, 2008

Calm and Mature Enquiries and Reflections: Federalist # 2

Posted by Lily under Federalist | Tags: , |
[6] Comments 

Federalist # 2 is John Jay’s first appearance as “Publius.” He echoes several of Hamilton’s themes from Federalist # 1, not least Hamilton’s caution that “we are not always sure, that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists.” As a logical consequence, Jay adds, “[L]et it be remembered, that [the Constitution] is neither recommended to blind approbation, nor to blind reprobation; but to that sedate and candid consideration, which the magnitude and importance of the subject demand, and which it certainly ought to receive.” (Emphasis original.)

What an extraordinary way to argue! They are effectively saying, we don’t want you to agree with us unless you’ve really thought hard about it. Don’t just follow the herd in endorsing our desired outcome (i.e. the ratification of the Constitution), and be done with it. Instead, agree with us for the right reasons (i.e. the reasons we are going to lay out for you in these papers).

These days we are pretty familiar with exhortations to civic engagement, but if you think about the historical context of Hamilton and Jay, you begin to see how groundbreaking and imaginative this is. A mere generation before Publius, the mass of the governed were not expected to participate in their government. They might get to send representatives to Parliament, but that was theoretically only because the king allowed it. Sovereignty ultimately rested in the Crown, not in the people. But Federalist # 2 is setting the bar higher by saying: “Look, you are free to accept or reject this, but at least give it some thought.” I think that is one reason why so much space is given throughout the Federalist Papers to arguing that the decision about whether to ratify is IMPORTANT. People were not yet in the habit of having to think about these things very hard. (In fact, we still might not be in that habit . . . )

The last few lines of Federalist #2 contain more evidence of Jay’s imagination and his effective use of emotional as well as logical argument. “Farewell! A long farewell, to all my greatness!” is a quotation from Shakespeare’s Henry VIII. The speaker is Cardinal Wolsey, reflecting on his fall from power. (Read the Cardinal’s full speech here.) But as of October 31, 1787, the date of Federalist # 2, America was a long way from achieving greatness! It was a ten-year-old, motley collection of squabbling colonies. But Jay has the foresight to see the huge potential of the new united nation. His patriotism, indeed is reflected throughout the paper, from his descriptions of America’s beauty and vast natural resources (“This country and this people seem to have been made for each other”), to his repeated praise of the Philadelphia delegates, who he describes as “highly distinguished by their patriotism, virtue, and wisdom, in times which tried the minds and hearts of men.”

 

April 8, 2008

Reading the Federalist; Hello, Publius

Posted by Andrew under Federalist | Tags: , |
[2] Comments 

We are taking up a project, tonight, to read and blog The Federalist. We will record at least a post to each of the columns that appeared in the New York papers to urge adoption of the newly written Constitution. The famous defense of the Philly convention’s product needs little more introduction.

So, starting with No.1, the introduction

Alexander Hamilton, the initiator of The Federalist, wrote an introduction to the columns to set a high-minded tone: we believe in dispassionate deliberation (so, trust us, we’re smart and came to our opinions through the best of reasoning). Federalist No. 1 is a quick discussion on the fallibility of human reasoning, the subsequent need for caution in political discussion, and an outline of what’s to come.

The intro’s main point is that it is impossible for folks to think on an issue without bias. I like this point, less startling as it is now by post-modern sensibility. Hamilton tees up the upcoming arguments by saying, look- there is no such thing as an objective point of view. And you all thought Stanley Fish came up with that?

Various arguments might be dismissed as coming from folks afraid of change, or coming from an opportunistic urge for change, or coming from this that or another wicked motivation. Truth is, says Hamilton, even the truth might be argued by someone with bad motives. So it is best to avoid distractions and stick to the substance.

This is a good point–as I read it, I overlooked it. Thinking back now, it is forward thinking and important to today’s distraction-prone political conversations.

Hamilton closes with an unsurprising admission that the authors favor adoption of the Constitution, and will adress all the criticisms they’ve so far heard from the cynics.

One more nice twist: Hamilton begins No.1 with an evocation of the momentous occasion before his audience–they will be proving to the world whether or not deliberative democracy is possible; and more pressing, whether it is possible to create a government “from reflection and choice, or

whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.

This passage is, I think, simply urging the audience to take up the question of ratification, or not, and to think it through with due consideration. I can’t help but wonder, though, if the rhetoric sends an undercurrent message as well: is the “wrong election” that will ruin mankind rejection of the Constitution? New slogan: Adopt the Constitution, save the world.

 

« Previous Page

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 41 other followers