Excavations


... nothing is more essential to public interest than the preservation of public liberty.

- David Hume



Showing posts with label Trump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trump. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 26, 2022

Plato relaying Socrates: on the danger of misologic

‘But first there is one danger that we must guard against.’

What sort of danger? I asked.

‘Of becoming “misologic”,’ he said, ‘in the sense that people become misanthropic.  No greater misfortune could happen to anyone than that of developing a dislike for argument.  “Misology” and misanthropy arise in just the same way.  Misanthropy is induced by believing in somebody quite uncritically.  You assume that a person is absolutely truthful and sincere and reliable, and a little later you find that he is shoddy and unreliable.  Then the same thing happens again.  After repeated disappointments at the hands of the very people who might be supposed to be your nearest and most intimate friends, constant irritation finally makes you dislike everybody and suppose that there is no sincerity to be found anywhere.  Have you never noticed this happening?’[1]

Plato, The Last Days of Socrates (c. 380 BC)



[1] Plato, The Last Days of Socrates, tr. Hugh Tredennick and Harold Tarrant (Toronto: Penguin, 2003), pp. 161,162.  The Last Days of Socrates is composed of four books: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo.  The above selection derives from Phaedo, when Socrates is about to die.

Thursday, January 13, 2022

James Frazer on ancient Greeks, scapegoat customs, and the plague

The ancient Greeks were also familiar with the use of the human scapegoat.  At Plutarch’s native town of Chaeronea in Boeotia, there was a ceremony of this kind performed by the chief magistrate at the Town Hall, and each householder at his own home.  It was called the “expulsion of hunger.”  A slave was beaten with the rods of the agnus castus, and turned out of doors with the words, “Out with hunger, and in with wealth and health.”  When Plutarch held office of the chief magistrate of his native town he performed this ceremony at the Town Hall, and he recorded the discussion to which the custom always gave rise.  The ceremony closely resembles the Japanese, Hindoo, and Highland customs ….

But in civilized Greece the custom of the scapegoat took darker forms than the innocent rite over which the amiable and pious Plutarch presided.  Whenever Marseilles, one of the busiest and most brilliant of Greek colonies, was ravaged by a plague, a man of the poorer classes used to offer himself as a scapegoat.  For a whole year he was maintained at the public expense, being fed on choice and pure food.  At the expiry of the year he was dressed in sacred garment, checked with holy branches, and led through the whole city, while prayers were uttered that all the evils of the people might fall on his head.  He was then cast out of the city.  The Athenians regularly maintained a number of degraded and useless beings at public expense; and when any calamity, such as plague, drought, or famine befell the city, they sacrificed two of these outcasts as scapegoats.  One of the victims was sacrificed for the men and the other for the women.  The former wore round his neck a string of black, the latter a string of white figs.  Sometimes, it seems, the victim slain on behalf of the women was a woman.  They were led about the city and then sacrificed, apparently by being stoned to death outside the city.  But such sacrifices were not confined to extraordinary occasions of public calamity; it appears that every year, at the festival of the Thargelia in May, two victims, one for the men and ne for the women, were led out of Athens and stoned to death.

From the Lover’s Leap, a white bluff at the southern end of their island, the Leucadians used annually to hurl a criminal into the sea as a scapegoat.  But to lighten his fall they fastened live birds and feathers to him, and a flotilla of small boats waited below to catch him and convey him beyond the boundary.  Doubtless these humane precautions were a mitigation of an earlier custom of flinging the scapegoat into the sea to drown.  The custom of the scapegoat as practiced by the Greeks of Asia Minor in the sixth century B.C. was as follows.  When a city suffered from plague, famine, or other public calamity, an ugly or deformed person was chosen to take upon himself all the evils by which the city was afflicted.  He was brought to a suitable place where dried figs, a barley loaf, and cheese were put into his hand.  These he ate.  Then he was beaten seven times upon his genital organs with squills and branches of the wild fig and other trees.  Afterwards he was burned on a pyre constructed of the wood of forest trees; and his ashes were cast into the sea.  A similar custom appears to have been annually celebrated by the Asiatic Greeks at the harvest festival of the Thargelia.[1]

James Frazer, The Golden Bough (1890)



[1] James G. Frazer, The Golden Bough: The Roots of Religion and Folklore. Vol II (New York: Avenel Books, 1981), pp. 210-213..

Tuesday, October 19, 2021

Georges Sorel on myth and violence: Trump’s source for 6 January

As long as there are no myths accepted by the masses, one can go on talking of revolts indefinitely, without ever provoking any revolutionary movement; this is what gives such importance to the general strike and renders it odious to socialists who are afraid of a revolution; they do all they can to shake the confidence felt by the workers in the preparations they are making for the revolution; and in order to succeed in this they cast ridicule on the idea of the general strike – the only idea that could have any value as a motive force.  One of the chief means employed by them is to represent it as a Utopia; this is easy enough, because there are very few myths which are perfectly free from any Utopian element.

The revolutionary myths which exist at the present time are almost free from any such mixture; by means of them it is possible to understand the activity, the feelings and the idea of the masses preparing to enter on a decisive struggle; the myths are not descriptions of things, but expressions of a determination to act.  A Utopia is, on the contrary, an intellectual product; it is the work of theorists who, observing and discussing the known facts, seek to establish a model to which they can compare the known facts, seek to establish a model to which they can compare existing society in order to estimate the amount of good and evil it contains.  It is a combination of imaginary institutions having sufficient analogies to real institutions for the jurist to be able to reason about them; it is a construction which can be taken to piece, and certain parts of it have been shaped in such a way that they can (with a few alterations by way of adjustment) be fitted into approaching legislation.  Whilst contemporary myths lead men to prepare themselves for a combat which will destroy the existing state of things, the effect of Utopias has always been to direct men’s minds towards reforms which can be brought about by patching the existing system; it is not surprising, then, that so many makers of Utopias were able to develop into able statesmen when they had acquired a greater experience of political life.  A myth cannot be refuted, since it is, at bottom, identical with the convictions of a group, being the expression of these convictions in the language of movement; and it is, in consequence unanalyzable into parts which could be placed on the plane of historical descriptions. …[1]

The myth must be judged as a means to acting on the present; any attempt to discuss how far it can be taken literally as future history is devoid of sense.  It is the myth in its entirety which is alone important; its parts are only of interest in so far as they bring out the main idea. No useful purpose is served, therefore, in arguing about the incidents which may occur in the course of a social war, and about the decisive conflicts which may give victory to the proletariat; even supposing the revolutionaries to have been wholly and entirely deluded in setting up this imaginary picture of the general strike, this picture may yet have been, in the course of the preparation for the Revolution, a great element of strength, if it has embraced all the aspirations of Socialism, and if it has given to the whole body of Revolutionary thought a precision and a rigidity which no other method of thought could have given. …

… we know that the general strike is indeed what I have said: the myth in which Socialism is wholly comprised, i.e. a body of images capable of evoking instinctively all the sentiments which correspond to the different manifestations of the war undertaken by Socialism against modern society.  Strikes have engendered in the proletariat the noblest, deepest and most moving sentiments that they possess; the general strike groups them all in a co-ordinated picture, and, by bringing them together, gives to each one of them its maximum intensity; appealing to their painful memories of particular conflicts, it colours with an intense life all the details of the composition presented to consciousness.[2]

Georges Sorel, Reflections on Violence (1908)

 

 



[1] Georges Sorel, Reflections on Violence, tr. T.E. Hulme and J. Roth (New York: Collier Books/Macmillan, 1974), pp. 49,50.  See the Introduction: “Letter to Daniel Halévy”.

[2] Ibid., pp. 126,127.  See Chapter Four: “The Proletarian Strike”.

Sunday, October 17, 2021

De Tocqueville on religion in America: warnings?

Americans do not display a crude indifference to the afterlife nor a childish pride in scorning perils they hope to avoid.

Therefore, they practice their religion without shame or weakness but one generally observes at the heart of their zeal something so calm, so methodical, and so calculated that the head rather than the heart leads them to the foot of the altar.

Not only does self-interest guide the religion of the Americans but they often place their interest in following it in this world.  In the Middle Ages priests spoke only of the afterlife, hardly bothering to prove that a sincere Christian might be happy here below.

But American preachers return constantly to this world and have some difficulty in detaching their gaze from it.  So as to touch their listeners more profoundly, they show them every day how religious belief is beneficial to freedom and public order.  It is often hard to know from listening to them whether the main intention of religion is to obtain everlasting joy in the next world or prosperity in this.[1]

De Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol. II (1840)

 

 

 

 

 



[1] Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, tr. Gerald E. Bevan (Toronto: Penguin, 2003), p. 615 [Volume II, Part 2, ch. 9].  See also Lucien Jaume, Tocqueville: The Aristocratic Sources of Liberty, tr. Arthur Goldhammer (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013). p. 134.

Sunday, June 20, 2021

Invasion of the National Assembly: De Tocqueville’s ‘Recollections’ of May 15, 1848. An extended excerpt

Since our first sitting, a vague and widespread agitation had never ceased to reign in the town. The mob met every day in the streets and squares; it spread aimlessly, like the swell of the waves. The approaches to the Assembly were always filled with a gathering of these redoubtable idlers. A demagogic party has so many heads, chance always plays so great, and reason so small, a part in its actions that it is almost impossible to say, either before or after the event, what it wants or what it wanted. Nevertheless, my opinion then was, and has since remained, that the leading demagogues did not aim at destroying the Assembly, and that, as yet, they only sought to make use of it by mastering it. The attack directed against it on the 15th of May seemed intended rather to frighten than to overthrow it; it was at least one of those equivocal enterprises which so frequently occur in times of popular excitement, in which the promoters themselves are careful not to trace or define precisely their plan or their aim, so as to remain free to limit themselves to a peaceful demonstration or force on a revolution, according to the incidents of the day.

Some attempt of this kind had been expected for over a week; but the habit of living in a continual state of alarm ends in rendering both individuals and assemblies incapable of discerning, amid the signs announcing the approach of danger, that which immediately precedes it. We only knew that there was a question of a great popular demonstration in favour of Poland,[1] and we were but vaguely disturbed at it. Doubtless the members of the Government were better informed and more alarmed than we, but they kept their own counsel, and I was not sufficiently in touch with them to penetrate into their secret thoughts.

Thus it happened that, on the 15th of May, I reached the Assembly without foreseeing what was going to happen. The sitting began as any other sitting might have begun; and what was very strange, twenty thousand men already surrounded the chamber, without a single sound from the outside having announced their presence. Wolowski was in the tribune: he was mumbling between his teeth I know not what commonplaces about Poland, when the mob at last betrayed its approach with a terrible shout, which penetrated from every side through the upper windows, left open because of the heat, and fell upon us as though from the sky. Never had I imagined that a number of human voices could together produce so immense a volume of sound, and the sight of the crowd itself, when it surged into the Assembly, did not seem to me so formidable as that first roar which it had uttered before showing itself. Many members, yielding to a first impulse of curiosity or fear, sprang to their feet; others shouted violently, “Keep your seats!” Everyone sat down again firmly on his bench, and kept silence. Wolowski resumed his speech, and continued it for some time. It must have been the first time in his life that he was listened to in silence; and even now it was not he to whom we listened, but the crowd outside, whose murmurs grew momentarily louder and nearer.

Suddenly Degousée, one of our questors, solemnly mounted the steps of the tribune, silently pushed Wolowski aside, and said, “Contrary to the wishes of the questors, General Courtais has ordered the Gardes Mobiles guarding the doors of the Assembly to sheathe their bayonets.”

After uttering these few words he stopped. This Degousée, who was a very good man, had the most hang-dog look and the hollowest voice imaginable. The news, the man and the voice combined to create a curious impression. The Assembly was roused, but immediately grew calm again; it was too late to do anything: the chamber was forced.

Lamartine, who had gone out at the first noise, returned to the door with a disconcerted air; he crossed the central gangway and regained his seat with great strides, as though pursued by some enemy invisible to us. Almost immediately, there appeared behind him a number of men of the people, who stopped still on the threshold, surprised at the sight of this immense seated assembly. At the same moment, as on the 24th of February,[2] the galleries were noisily opened and invaded by a flood of people, who filled and more than filled them. Pressed forward by the mob who followed and pushed them without seeing them, the first comers climbed over the balustrades of the galleries, trusting to find room in the Chamber itself, the floor of which was not more than ten feet beneath them, hung down along the walls, and dropped the distance of four or five feet into the Chamber. The fall of each of these bodies striking the floor in succession produced a dull concussion which at first, amid the tumult, I took for the distant sound of cannon. While one part of the mob was thus falling into the house, the other, composed principally of the club-leaders, entered by every door. They carried various emblems of the Terror, and waved flags of which some were surmounted by a red cap.

In an instant the mob had filled the large empty space in the centre of the Assembly; and finding itself pressed for room, it climbed all the little gangways leading to our benches, and crowded more and more into these narrow spaces without ceasing its agitation. Amid this tumultuous and incessant commotion, the dust became very thick and the heat so oppressive that perhaps I would have gone out to breathe some fresh air, had it been merely a question of the public interest. But honour kept us glued to our seats.

Some of the intruders were openly armed, others showed glimpses of concealed weapons, but none seemed to entertain a fixed intention of striking us. Their expression was one of astonishment and ill-will rather than enmity; with many of them a sort of vulgar curiosity in course of gratifying itself seemed to dominate every other sentiment; for even in our most sanguinary insurrections there are always a number of people half scoundrels, half sightseers, who fancy themselves at the play. Moreover, there was no common leader whom they seemed to obey; it was a mob of men, not a troop. I saw some drunken men among them, but the majority seemed to be the prey of a feverish excitement imparted to them by the enthusiasm and shouting without and the stifling heat, the close packing and general discomfort within. They dripped with sweat, although the nature and condition of their clothing was not calculated to make the heat very uncomfortable for them, for several were quite bare-breasted. There rose from this multitude a confused noise from the midst of which one sometimes heard very threatening observations. I caught sight of men who shook their fists at us and called us their agents. This expression was often repeated; for several days the ultra-democratic newspapers had done nothing but call the representatives the agents of the people, and these blackguards had taken kindly to the idea. A moment after, I had an opportunity of observing with what vivacity and clearness the popular mind receives and reflects images. I heard a man in a blouse, standing next to me, say to his fellow, “See that vulture down there? I should like to twist its neck.” I followed the movement of his arm and his eyes and saw without difficulty that he was speaking of Lacordaire, who was sitting in his Dominican’s frock on the top bench of the Left. The sentiment struck me as very unhandsome, but the comparison was admirable; the priest’s long, bony neck issuing from its white cowl, his bald head surrounded only with a tuft of black hair, his narrow face, his hooked nose and his fixed, glittering eyes really gave him a striking resemblance to the bird of prey in question.

During all this disorder in its midst, the Assembly sat passive and motionless on its benches, neither resisting nor giving way, silent and firm. A few members of the Mountain fraternized with the mob, but stealthily and in whispers. Raspail had taken possession of the tribune and was preparing to read the petition of the clubs; a young deputy, d’Adelsward, rose and exclaimed, “By what right does Citizen Raspail claim to speak here?” A furious howling arose; some men of the people made a rush at d’Adelsward, but were stopped and held back. With great difficulty, Raspail obtained a moment’s silence from his friends, and read the petition, or rather the orders, of the clubs, which enjoined us to pronounce forthwith in favour of Poland.

“No delay, we’re waiting for the answer!” was shouted on every side. The Assembly continued to give no sign of life; the mob, in its disorder and impatience, made a horrible noise, which by itself alone saved us from making a reply. Buchez, the President, whom some would make out to be a rascal and others a saint, but who undoubtedly, on that day, was a great blockhead, rang his bell with all his might to obtain silence, as though the silence of that multitude was not, under the present circumstances, more to be dreaded than its cries.

It was then that I saw appear, in his turn, in the tribune a man whom I have never seen since, but the recollection of whom has always filled me with horror and disgust. He had wan, emaciated cheeks, white lips, a sickly, wicked and repulsive expression, a dirty pallor, the appearance of a mouldy corpse; he wore no visible linen; an old black frock-coat tightly covered his lean, withered limbs; he seemed to have passed his life in a sewer, and to have just left it. I was told it was Blanqui.[3]

Blanqui said one word about Poland; then, turning sharply to domestic affairs, he asked for revenge for what he called the massacres of Rouen, recalled with threats the wretchedness in which the people had been left, and complained of the wrongs done to the latter by the Assembly. After thus exciting his hearers, he returned to Poland and, like Raspail, demanded an immediate vote.

The Assembly continued to sit motionless, the people to move about and utter a thousand contradictory exclamations, the President to ring his bell. Ledru-Rollin tried to persuade the mob to withdraw, but nobody was now able to exercise any influence over it. Ledru-Rollin, almost hooted, left the tribune.

The tumult was renewed, increased, multiplied itself as it were, for the mob was no longer sufficiently master of itself to be able even to understand the necessity for a moment’s self-restraint in order to attain the object of its passion. A long interval passed; at last Barbès darted up and climbed, or rather leapt, into the tribune. He was one of those men in whom the demagogue, the madman and the knight-errant are so closely intermingled that it is not possible to say where one ends or the other commences, and who can only make their way in a society as sick and troubled as ours. I am inclined to believe that it was the madman that predominated in him, and his madness became raging when he heard the voice of the people. His soul boiled as naturally amid popular passion as water does on the fire. Since our invasion by the mob, I had not taken my eyes from him; I considered him by far the most formidable of our adversaries, because he was the most insane, the most disinterested, and the most resolute of them all. I had seen him mount the platform on which the President sat, and stand for a long time motionless, only turning his agitated gaze about the Assembly; I had observed and pointed out to my neighbours the distortion of his features, his livid pallor, the convulsive excitement which caused him each moment to twist his moustache between his fingers; he stood there as the image of irresolution, leaning already towards an extreme side. This time, Barbès had made up his mind; he proposed in some way to sum up the passions of the people, and to make sure of victory by stating its object in terms of precision:

“I demand,” said he, in panting, jerking tones, “that, immediately and before rising, the Assembly shall vote the departure of an army for Poland, a tax of a milliard upon the rich, the removal of the troops from Paris, and shall forbid the beating to arms; if not, the representatives to be declared traitors to the country.”

The Recollections of Alexis de Tocqueville (1850-1851)[4]



[1] Poland at the time was divided between Russia, Prussia, and Austria.

[2] A reference to the first stage of the Revolution of 1848 in France when King Louis Philippe abdicated on February 24 in an effort to limit further bloodshed, ushering in the Second Republic and putting an end to the July Monarchy and Orleanist as well as Legitimist dynasties.  Tocqueville is writing here from the vantage point of the Chamber of Deputies to which he was elected after the Second Republic was proclaimed.

[3] A socialist, Blanqui spent considerable time in prison over his lifetime. He had recently been released.  The historian T.J. Clark assesses this passage as “a prejudice that believes itself to be a description.”  See Alexis de Tocqueville, Recollections: The French Revolution and Its Aftermath, ed. Olivier Zunz and tr. Arthur Goldhammer (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2016), p. xxxiii.

[4] Alexis de Tocqueville, The Recollections of Alexis de Tocqueville, ed. Comte de Tocqueville, tr. Alexander Teixeira de Mattos, 1896. See Chapter VII The 15th of May 1858. Accessed from the Online Library of Liberty (Liberty Fund), pp. 157-165.  De Tocqueville did not wish to see this memoir to appear while he and the list of characters were alive, and it was not published until 1893, though somewhat expunged.  A more accurate version was published in 1942.  The definitive English version appeared in 2016. See Alexis de Tocqueville, Recollections: The French Revolution and Its Aftermath, ed. Olivier Zunz and tr. Arthur Goldhammer (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2016), p. xv.




Wednesday, January 20, 2021

Milton on Trump in Biden’s Inaugural Address – and the English Revolution

Thy country sought of thee, it sought unjustly,
Against the law of nature, law of nations,
No more thy country, but an impious crew
Of men conspiring to uphold their state
By worse than hostile deeds, violating the ends
For which our country is a name so dear
Not therefore to be obey’d
.[1] 


Milton, Samson Agonistes (1671)



[1] John Milton, “Samson Agonistes” in John Milton: The Major Works, ed. Stephen Orgel and Jonathan Goldberg (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 694 (889-895).

Saturday, January 16, 2021

Updating King Louis XVI's 'flight to Varennes'

 

Will there be a flight from Mar-a-Lago (above) to Jerusalem?

On Trump's Second Impeachment: Montesquieu's "Considerations"

Modern translation, Chapter XXII:

It would be an error to believe that there has never existed anywhere in the world a human authority that is despotic in all its aspects … Even the greatest power is limited in some way.  If the Grand Seigneur … were to attempt to impose some new tax, the resulting outcry would be such as to make him observe the limits to which he had not known he was subject.  Although the King of Persia may be able to force a son to kill his father …, that same King cannot force his subjects to drink wine. Every nation is dominated by a general spirit, on which its very power is founded.  Anything undertaken in defiance of that spirit is a blow against that power, and as such must necessarily come to a stop.[1]


Older version (finished in 1876, following the American Civil War and published in 1882)

It is an error to suppose that there is any human in the world which is, in all respects, despotic.  There never was and there never will be such.  The most enormous power is always limited on some side.  Let the Grand Seigneur impose a novel tax upon Constantinople, and the general outcry will immediately disclose limits to his power which he had not known.  A king of Persia may indeed constrain a son to kill his father, or a father to kill his son; but to compel his subjects to drink wine would be beyond his power.  There is in every nation a general spirit upon which power itself is founded.  When it shocks this spirit, power disturbs its own foundation, and thus necessarily checks itself.[2] 

Original French (published in Amsterdam in 1734, without author's name)

C’est une erreur de croire qu’il y ait dans le monde une autorité humaine, A tous les égards despotique; il n’en a jamais eu, et il n’y en aura jamais. Le pouvoir le plus immense est toujours borné par quelque coin.  Que le Grand Seigneur mette un nouvel impôt à Constantinople, un cri général lui fait d’abord trouver des limites qu’il n’avait pas connues.  Un roi de Perse peut bien contraindre un fils de tuer son père ou un père de tuer son fils ; mais obliger ses sujets de boire du vin, il ne le peut pas.  Il y a, dans chaque nation, un esprit général sur lequel la puissance même est fondée.  Quand elle choque cet esprit, elle se choque elle-même, et elle s’arrête nécessairement.[3] 



[1] See the topic on “Despotism” in Vol. II of the Dictionary of the History of Ideas, ed. Philip P. Weiner (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1973), p. 9.

[2] Montesquieu, Considerations of the Causes of the Grandeur and Decadence of the Romans, tr. Jehu Baker (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1882 [Alpha Editions, 2019]), p. 460. Chapter XXII.  Jehu Baker was also a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, first as Republican, and later as Democrat.

[3] Montesquieu, Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des romains et de leur décadence, ed. Irena Montreal, 1873 [Bolton, ON: Amazon, nd], p. 151. Chapter XXII.

Tuesday, October 20, 2020

Trump’s source on Anarchy and Insurrection – Hippolyte Taine

In every important insurrection there are similar evil-doers and vagabonds, enemies of the law, savage, prowling desperadoes, who, like wolves, roam about wherever they scent a prey.  It is they who serve as the directors and executioners of public or private malice.  Near Usès twenty-five masked men, with guns and clubs, enter the house of a notary, fire a pistol at him, beat him, wreck the premises, and burn his register along with the title-deeds and papers which he has in keeping for the count of Rouvres: seven of them are arrested, but the people are on their side, and fall on the constabulary and free them – They are known by their acts, by their love of destruction for the sake of destruction, by their foreign accent, by their savage faces and their rags.  Some of them come from Paris to Rouen, and, for four days, the town is at their mercy; the stores are forced open, train wagons are discharged, wheat is wasted, and convents and seminaries are put to ransom; they invade the dwelling of the attorney-general, who has begun proceedings against them, and want to tear him to pieces; they break his mirrors and his furniture, leave the premises laden with booty, and go into the town and its outskirts to pillage the manufactories and break up or burn all the machinery. – Henceforth these constitute the new leaders for in every mob it is the boldest and last scrupulous who march ahead and set the example of insurrection.  The example is contagious: the beginning was the craving for bread, the end is murder and incendiarism; the savagery which is unchained adding its unlimited violence to the limited revolt of necessity.[1]

Taine, The French Revolution (1878)


[1] Hippolyte Taine, The French Revolution, Vol. I, tr. John Durand (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2002), pp. 17, 18.  This is the second volume to Taine’s unfinished life’s work, The Origins of Contemporary France, begun in 1876.

Wednesday, September 30, 2020

Hobbes on Trump’s debating ‘style’ and tax records –a tweet

Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues.[1]

Hobbes, Leviathan (1651)



[1] Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ed A.P. Martinich (Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press), p. 97 (Ch. XIII).

Tuesday, September 8, 2020

Trump and the Enlightenment: the consistency of an “illawgical” mind - a snapshot

 

Thanks to the Scientific Revolution and Newton in particular, we have laws of nature as understood by science: gravity is universal.  Newton’s considerable impact on the Enlightenment is undeniable, and Voltaire, a main torchbearer in France, was in England at the time of Newton’s funeral, whose passing was a national event, buried as he was inside Westminster Abbey. From the laws of nature and Newton’s clockwork universe, laws of society and those governing man – regarded as rational and self-determining - were inferred.  The concept of progress was also developed during the Enlightenment from Bacon and Descartes’ earlier notion of man who was seen as having power over nature and as having the ability to shape his environment.

Even the nature of law itself was wedded to science and based on reason. We find it in Montesquieu, who writes near the beginning of The Spirit of the Laws (1748):  “Law in general is human reason insofar as it governs all the peoples of the earth; and the political and civil laws of each nation should be only the particular cases to which reason is applied.”[1] Reasonable law is, of course, not arbitrary, but written and for all to see, hence the rise of the idea of constitutions.

An early instance of experimenting with written constitutional laws occurred at the middle of the 17th century – also the height of the Scientific Revolution, at least judging from Hobbes’ work on the mechanics of English politics post-Charles I as expressed in Leviathan (1651) - during Cromwell’s ill-fated Protectorate. This was a brief deviation from the much longer English tradition of an unwritten Constitution.  The American Declaration of Independence (1776), with its Lockean objection to “a long train of abuses” as observed prior to the Glorious Revolution of 1688, is a document also inspired by the Interregnum of the English Civil Wars, yet an Enlightenment product, as well.[2]  Similarly, the U.S. Constitution (1789), with its “separation of powers”, its framing of American self-governance, and supreme legal authority is an expression of Enlightenment reasoning.

However, with Trump we see the rise of the Anti-Enlightenment: racism, xenophobia, nationalism, populism, prejudice, abuses of power, and, of course, pronounced anti-science rhetoric made more evident by his appalling mishandling of the Coronavirus.  The Revolutionary “Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen” of 1789, although French, was addressed to “man” – a quintessential Enlightenment notion, much like the Paris Climate Accord (2016) which speaks to the future of mankind.  Any informed individual knows that Trump’s denial of climate change is anti-science and not based on the evidence or sound reasoning. But what we also need to realize is that his attacks on the American Constitution, his defence of a 17—year-old alleged killer of two Black Lives Matter protesters, and his chronic abuse of law in general – is, in effect, profoundly anti-scientific. With respect to this impeached President’s stance on “law”, Trump mind - from the perspective of Enlightenment reasoning - is wholly non-science, or rather nonsense, and consistently anti-scientific.



[1] Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, ed. and tr. Anne Cohler, Basia Miller and Harold Stone (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 8. (Book I, Ch. 3).

[2] John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, ed. Peter Laslett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), p. 415. Second Treatise, para. 225.  See also Carl Lotus Backer, The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas (Bolton, ON: Amazon, 2017 [First published by Harcourt, Bruce and Company in 1922.]), p. 98. Becker points out that “The complete works of both Locke and Newton were at the Harvard library at least as early as 1773.  Locke’s works were listed in the Princeton catalogue of 1760. As early as 1755 the Yale library contained the works of Locke, Newton, and Descartes, besides two popular expositions of the Newtonian philosophy.” (p. 42).

Thursday, August 6, 2020

Plato on Trump’s America: a tweet from Hellas

The excess of liberty, whether in States or individuals, seems only to pass into excess of slavery.

Plato, The Republic (c. 370 BC)[1]

 



[1] Plato, The Republic, tr. Benjamin Jowett (Project Gutenberg EBook) Book VIII, 564a.


Tuesday, April 21, 2020

Self-Isolation Reading List for China Watchers: From Mao to Trump. Review of "Two Tears on the Window" and "Claws of the Panda"


As we practice self-isolation and social distancing in Canada and around the world, let us not forget diplomat-on-leave Michael Kovrig and businessman Michael Spavor, who have been detained in a tit-for-tat move by China for the past 16 months, the last 3 of which without consular access allegedly because of the Covid-19 pandemic: no visitors allowed.  Wrongful imprisonment at the hands of Communist authorities, with the prison lights on in their cells for 24 hours a day, accompanied by daily interrogations, may be hard to fathom, especially when Meng Wanzhou, the Huawei CFO, traipses around her Vancouver mansion encumbered only by an ankle bracelet.
    
However, ‘the two Michaels’ are not the only Canadians ever to run afoul of China’s so-called “rule of law”, where the Communist Party is accountable to no one.  We also have the example of Kevin and Julia Garratt, two missionaries who ran a coffee shop on China’s border with North Korea at the Yalu River in Dandong.  They ‘disappeared’ - she for 6 months, he for 775 days – in a chess game of sorts, after Canada accused the Chinese of hacking the National Research Council, and following the arrest of a Chinese spy by Canada at the behest of the United States.[1] The ordeal and suffering of ‘the two Garratts’ – and their devastating sense of isolation – is recounted in Two Tears on the Window, a book I recommend for anyone who wants a compelling description of psychological struggle at the hands of China’s Ministry of State Security.

The Garratts endured because of their evident faith and because of their love – and because they had each other: in their first six months, for example, when both were in isolation at the same facility, they would sometimes have the opportunity to leave messages in the snow in their all too brief outdoor exercise sessions.  But after she was released Julia remained isolated in her apartment, and Kevin continued to suffer mentally and deteriorate physically, always reinventing hope in his “black prison” – a for-profit venture, where relatives were expected to pay for inmate food expenses, none of it nutritious or palatable.  Despite the grim storyline, there are generous streaks of humour to the narrative, for instance Kevin’s exuberance upon eating the best meal of his life – airplane food – during the flight home to Canada.

If Two Tears on the Window were the only book about Canada-China relations one ever read, it would come as a surprise to learn that Chinese security forces operate in Canada, too.  A necessary corrective is Jonathan Manthorpe’s Claws of the Panda ominously subtitled: Bejing’s Campaign of Influence and Intimidation in Canada.  Manthorpe offers an historical perspective of our ‘missionary’ approach to China – after Canada opened up relations, for example, the first three Ambassadors to Beijing were “Mish Kids”, or the children of missionaries.[2]  Manthorpe also details how the federal Liberal Party especially is now imbedded with China interests, in multiple – and deeply concerning ways - following Pierre Trudeau’s opening of the doors (for which he was well primed) in 1972. Later Jean Chretien, who in 1994 led Team Canada to Beijing, brought China out of international purgatory following the Tiananmen Massacre of 1989.  In return Canada has received no particular favour from China as the Garratt case - and our current imbroglio - indicate.

Claws of the Panda puts an end to any romantic notions one might have had of China, as does Two Tears on the Window, though Kevin and Julian Garratt continue to think wistfully of their time there, outside of prison.  Manthorpe underscores how naïve Canadian thinking is with regards to China, and the Garretts – the endearing missionary couple who provided aid to North Korea - serve as an example of this, at least in their early years.  The Garratts began their careers in China in 1984 teaching English at its National University of Defence Technology, which does not come across as the most innocuous of institutions.  At the time they joked that they were picked because of their youth, and because they were “least likely to be spies”.[3]  After spending upwards of 30 years in the country, most-likely observed, they were in the end falsely accused of spying, a bitter irony. In Two Tears, moreover, the Tiananmen events are summed up in a single short paragraph thereby minimizing the degree of shock it induced – in China, and, of course, beyond.[4]

Despite these minor flaws, Two Tears on the Window, published in 2019, is perfect for our times because it’s a book about enforced isolation – in the most populous land in the world.  In short, it’s an intimate look at differing degrees of torture, and how one couple coped.  It comes as a something of a surprise that local lending libraries do not have copies available for the public.  The copiously detailed Claws of the Panda, also published in 2019, is flawed only because it stops too early.  It mentions the Garratt family twice, but there is no mention of ‘the two Michaels’; this would have resulted in a much longer book, given that current events were unfolding as writing was finishing.  Furthermore, it was published well before the current Covid-19 pandemic about which the best-selling Manthorpe must have volumes to say.

Manthorpe does bring to the reader’s attention, for instance, the criticism of Beijing’s official silence during the early stages of the SARS outbreak in March and April 2003.  A similar silence occurred in early 2020, with the unfortunate ophthalmologist, Dr. Li Wenliang, who was forced to confess to spreading rumours, and who later died from the coronavirus.  This time, however, there was no criticism by the World Health Organization, which also recommended that international borders remain open, thus apparently following China’s lead, something Donald Trump rejected, his only good move – driven by populist preoccupation with contamination, however - when dealing with the pandemic.  A study by the University of Southampton indicates that China could have prevented the spread of Covid-19 by 95 percent - a kind of magic number when it comes to statistics - had it acted three weeks earlier than it did, that is, around the time when Dr. Li sounded the alarm.[5]

“Check your sources” - these are remarks that frequent any number of student papers as they are graded if they present dubious arguments or infelicitous writing.  The WHO failed properly to consider its sources, otherwise known as the Chinese Communist Party, never known for transparency.   Ancient China is famous for its development of silk, tea, and gunpowder, among quite a number of other inventions; the CCP’s gift to the world is Covid-19. By the time this global pandemic becomes a spent force, President Xi could be in the positon to have outdone himself – and Mao, given the international scale of this disaster.

But as irony would have it, Trump, who is more dictatorial than democratic by instinct, also resembles Mao, particularly in his callous disregard for life, given the former’s decision to withhold funding to the WHO during a pandemic thereby valuing money over humanity.[6]   Like Trump, Mao was unmethodical in his speeches, preoccupied with his position in history, taking offence at any slight, and prone to browbeating.  So by quirk of history, as Trump engages in China-bashing with hopes of winning a second term, he is in effect battling an alter ego, that other Chairman - Mao.  Sometimes self-isolation can clear the mind.




[1] Julia and Kevin Garratt, Two Tears on the Window: A True Story (Victoria, BC: First Choice Books, 2019), p. 189.
[2] Jonathan Manthorpe, Claws of the Panda: Beijing’s Campaign of Influence and Intimidation in Canada (Toronto: Cormorant Book, 2019), p. 58.
[3] Garratt, Two Tears on the Window, p. 17.
[4] Consider instead Jan Wang’s captivating memoir Out of the Blue: My Long March from Mao to Now (1996) which provides a gripping first-hand account of the Tiananmen Massacre.
[5] See, for example: “Hold China to account on COVID-19: Cotler”, The Globe and Mail, Thursday, April 16, 2020, p. A1.
[6] See Frank Dikötter, Mao’s Great Famine, The History of China’s Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958-1962 (New York: Bloomsbury, 2017), p. xv.  First published in 2010.

Thursday, February 6, 2020

Trump’s Senate “Acquittal” – a tweet


Given that neo-infantilism is all the rage at the White House, it’s not surprising to see a bunch of toddler-types (bar one) play follow the leader.[1]


[1] For more on Trump the “neo-infantilist”, etc., see Adam Shatz, “Too Important to Kill” in The London Review of Books, Vol 42, No. 2 (23 January 2020), p. 3 ff.