Six days a week, I go down to the lobby of the building in which Susie and I live to get the mail. There is always a large pile of mail, and almost all of it is for Susie who is on virtually every promotional mailing list imaginable. Yesterday, when I picked up the mail, there was a small plastic wrapped package for me – anIn intriguing rarity. I opened it and found a copy of a book that I had not ordered and in fact was unaware of.
The book was originally published in 1988 and has an
intriguing title: Toward an American Revolution: Exposing the Constitution and
Other Illusions. I took a look at it and began to read it. The first chapter is
called “Afraid to Reflect” and begins with a rather troubling characterization
of three 18th-century Americans, who turn out to be Washington,
Adams, and Jefferson. At the moment I am swamped with a variety of tasks large
and small, but I look forward to reading the book.
Oh, did I mention that the author is Jerry Fresia?
152 comments:
Comment on Oberlin, NY Times and commenters
Very nice! Over here, I received my order of The Autonomy of Reason.
Thanks for the reference to Jerry Fresia’s book. Simce I imagine Jerry is more interested in being read than in accruing royalties, I hope he doesn’t mind that, following up the reference, I’m reading and enjoying his book at
https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/gbi/fresia/fresia1to4constfp10.pdf
I particularly appreciated the passage by Nietzsche which begins the first chapter, “Afraid to reflect.”
By way of amendment which is not intended as criticism: (1) the beginning of chapter two, where attention is drawn to the fact that many of the ‘declarers’ and ‘framers’ were rather powerful people reminded me of Benedict Anderson’s more general claim, that many of those in the Americas who sought independence from Spain, etc., were men who, although of close European elite origin, having been born in the colonies were denied what they took to be their full rights and privileges; and (2) Sheldon Wolin has written some interesting things on the ‘framers,’ constitutionalism, etc.
Congratulations, Jerry.
I meant to say belated congratulations. Still, it's a tale that sadly needs repeating. jw
Anonymous,
That article also caught my eye. In reading it with the eye of an attorney, I thought, “How could a private college such as Oberlin be held liable for defamation of a local bakery?” Oberlin has a storied history – it is the oldest co-educational institution of higher education in the United States, and one of the first colleges to admit African-Americans, beginning in 1835.
I am often irritated by newspaper articles, especially when published in the NYT, which fail to provide an adequate explanation of the rationale of a court’s decision. The article is woefully deficient in explaining how Oberlin College, a liberal arts college in Ohio known especially for its School of Music and for its progressive curriculum, could be held liable in the amount of $36.59 Million to a local bakery.
There is a saying in law that hard facts make bad law, and I believe this decision is such a case. In order to get a better explanation of the court’s reasoning, I located the decision by the Ohio Court of Appeals and read it. If you are interested, you can find it at the link below:
https://e.casetext.com/api/print/document/gibson-bros-inc-v-oberlin-coll?includeHighlights=false&includeKeyPassages=false&isTwoColumn=true&concat=Gibson%20Bros
The case arose when a male African-American Oberlin student was accused of shop-lifting wine at the bakery and using a fake ID to obtain more alcohol. When an employee of the store confronted the student, the student ran from the store; the employee chased him, caught him and detained him until police arrived. The male student, and three female students who accompanied him in the store, were charged with theft and pled guilty.
Members of the Oberlin student body came to the defense of the shoplifters, accusing the store of profiling and being racist. Students began to picket the store and urged fellow students to boycott the store. Flyers were printed charging the store with profiling and being racist; the Student Senate passed a resolution containing the same accusations against the store, and poste the resolution in the Senate’s glass display case in the student center. But how would any of this implicate the College itself?
(Continued)
The trial court held that while many of the statements in the flyers and the Senate Resolution constituted statements of opinion protected by the free speech provision of the 1st Amendment, several statements in both constituted defamatory statement of fact which were false, and therefore not protected by the 1st Amendment. This conclusion would only implicate the students who prepared the flyers and who voted for the Resolution, not the college itself. However, under the law of defamation, anyone who “publishes” a defamatory statement (in this case constituting libel, since it was written not just verbal) is just as liable as the person who writes the libelous statement and disseminates it. The trial court held that several of the college’s administrators were implicated in the publication of the libelous statements by helping disseminate the flyers. It also held that the college was liable for publishing the libel by allowing the students to use the Senate glass display case to display the resolution. The case was submitted to a jury, which awarded damages in the amount of
I have a problem with both of these rulings. First, in law there is the doctrine of vicarious liability (respondeat superior) by virtue of which an employer can be held liable for the negligent acts of an employee who by virtue of that negligence while acting within the scope of the employee’s job functions injures a third party, e.g., a truck driver is driving negligently and injures a pedestrian. The employer can be held liable for the injuries caused by the negligent employee. However, the doctrine only applies to acts of negligence; it does not apply to intentional actions which result in injury, e.g., the truck driver intentionally runs over a pedestrian. The employer may not be held liable for the truck driver’s intentional actions.
Defamation is an intentional tort. The college administrators, including the Dean of Students, who helped in handing out the flyers was engaging in an intentional act, for which the administrators could be held liable for publishing the false defamatory statements in the flyers, but under standard rules of vicarious liability, the college itself should not have been held liable for he intentional acts of some of its administrators. The college could only be held liable, in my opinion, if it had published an official statement of the college incorporating the false defamatory statements in the flyer.
Regarding the Student Senate’s display case, the trial court held that the college was liable because it subsidized the Senate’s operation and provided the display case for the Senate’s use. But I would argue that under the college’s administrative rules the Senate had a right to use the display case however it wished, within very broad parameters. This was not a case of a high school newspaper where courts have held that the high school administration has the right to monitor and censor contents of the newspaper. The bakery argued that after it filed the lawsuit, the Dean of Students asked the Senate to remove the resolution from the display case, and the Senate complied. This did not mean, however, that the college had the right dictate what could be placed in the display case if the Senate refused to comply.
Faced with a jury verdict of $44 Million, Oberlin decided to settle for a payment of $36,59 Million. In my opinion Oberlin College should not have settled this lawsuit for this extravagant amount, but should have sought certiorari in the Supreme Court, contesting the trial court’s holding it vicariously liable for the intentional acts of some of its administrators in aiding and abetting the students’ defamation. If anything, the case should serve as a warning that college administrators should not immediately assume that students’ claims of racism against a business are accurate.
Marc,
Since you practiced law for many years (and are still practicing), you must have a good idea of how much time and money it takes to litigate cases. This case had been going on since Nov. 2017, according to the first paragraph of the Ohio Court of Appeals' decision.
Oberlin must have already spent a lot to litigate this case in the trial court and the state appellate court. Having lost on appeal, it presumably faced a decision about whether to continue (whether to file for cert in US Sup Ct or maybe it cd petition for rehearing by more appellate ct judges, I'm not sure).
Anyway, it must have decided that its chances of ultimately winning were slim and that it had already spent enough time, money, and energy on the case. If it didn't think it could weather the 36 million hit, it presumably wdn't have settled. But evidently 36 million is a manageable amt for Oberlin and the college president (or whoever made the decision) presumably just said "F*** it, let's just get rid of this thing."
It's a somewhat unusual set of facts, apparently, so the issue may not arise very often. And when it does, some other court in some other state might rule differently. But based on what you've written, which is all I'm going on, the decision to settle doesn't seem irrational. Litigators love litigating, presumably, but the parties they're representing probably often don't. And Oberlin probably figured: why pay a fancy Washington DC (or wherever) Sup Ct practice whatever they charge to prepare a writ of cert that might have little chance of being granted?
Plus, given the current composition of SCOTUS, even if cert were granted how likely is it that the college wd win? (Also, its lawyers must have raised the vicarious liability arguments already in the state cts, which evidently didn't buy them, for whatever reason.)
LFC,
I don’t disagree that sometimes it is advisable to settle a lawsuit rather than spend more money on attorney fees litigating. Here, however, given the amount of the verdict, and the amount Oberlin ultimately settled for, I would have advised giving a certiorari petition a shot. The additional cost of filing a petition would have been around $15-$20,000, a pittance give what they settled for. The case has set a bad precedent in Ohio in particular, but in other courts generally, holding an academic institution liable for the ill-advised intentional acts of its administrators. That’s my two cents worth, anyway.
From what I read above, as LFC says, the current Supreme Court would certainly rule in favor of the bakery.
When will leftists learn that oppressed people or those who are discriminated against lie as much as their oppressors do? Being oppressed or discriminated against doesn't guarantee that you're honest or otherwise virtuous.
I read Dr. Fresia's book last month, and I can honestly say that it's one of the very best books I've read in years. Certainly one of the most thought-provoking. I sent you that copy, Prof Wolff, to be sure you would eventually get a chance to read it (if you hadn't already). Everyone should read it. Unfortunately, it appears to be out of print now.
Btw, that was why I paged Jerry Fresia in my post in the comments the other day:
https://robertpaulwolff.blogspot.com/2022/09/heartfelt-thanks.html?showComment=1662650768715#c8526365809961967539
Some conservative legislators are trying to convene a convention to rewrite the Constitution. Former Democratic Senator Russ Feingold is, predictably, saying it would be a terrible idea to rewrite the Constitution.
Eric
I would propose drawing a sharp distinction between (1) rewriting the Constitution in a progressive, for lack of a better word, direction, and (2) rewriting it in the way conservative legislators want to -- and I think a reasonable concern is that if a convention is convened, there's not much way to ensure it will move in a direction you (and perhaps I) would like, as opposed to the other direction.
Professor Wolff - I just wanted to make a quick comment most likely apropos of nothing that has been commented upon lately. This blog has been a great refuge to me particularly in the early stages of the pandemic. I often think of Jack Nicholson’s comment that all acting/moviemaking is about providing a “stimulating point of departure” to the audience. From the time that I was a freshman at UMass Amherst in 1988 to the moment I discovered this blog in early 2020 I cannot tell you how much your teaching and writing has given me just that. The first class I took with you in early 1988 was intimidating to say the least but the first 20 minutes of the first lecture was an extended riff on the sublimity of Wade Boggs and a convincing argument that 8 straight 200 hit seasons was a feat we were not likely to see again in our lifetimes. I’m not sure anyone here quite gets not just the intellectual tour de force that those Hume/Kant classes were but the performative genius that made it truly indelible. Like a great concert. Or a great Woody Allen movie. To this day I still try to recreate those hand gestures - taken up and shot through. When my Mom passed several years ago I found some old college essays. One was from the first class you taught on “literature and philosophy” and a paper I wrote on Kierkegaard - Philosophical Fragments I think - the comment in the margins was - well argued but you’re straining to much for high flown language. Although it was maybe 30 years ago I remembered it so vividly and as the best advice/feedback I ever received.
Also, I really loved Milton Cantor and could never find anything about him online until I saw your post about his passing. He was also a special guy. One of the few at UMass I took multiple classes with. David Lenson and Peter Fenves were the only others. Anyway just a long winded way of saying thank you for being the mentor I never knew I needed, and for being that stimulating point of departure in a darkening world.
Since 13 states would have a veto over the product of any convention calling one would most likely be a waste of time. There are at least that many states that would oppose any sides wish list. Solving the hard wired problems in the Constitution would involve doing away with the Senate, the Electoral College and the presidency as a start and that seems unlikely.
Marc, the item that caught my attention was the employee leaving the store to detain the suspect which should never happen. Oberlin has an endowment of over a billion so whatever - its managers will probably make that back in less then a year.
aaall
I don't think I agree w you about the actions of the employee as described here, but I've decided simply to register my disagreement rather than get into an argument or discussion about it.
LFC, most if not all retail establishments have (or should have) policies that forbid folks involved in sales, etc. from interfering if they see suspected shoplifting occurring. That should be turned over to loss prevention employees who can detain or follow at a safe distance until the cops show up. Doing a citizens arrest can be dangerous as well as creating potential liability for the store. A clerk had me arrested for shoplifting a few decades ago. He was wrong and out of his lane. I sued and they settled (a nice but sadly not an eight figure sum).
aaall,
Merchants have a right to prevent the theft of their merchandise. The employee did not use deadly force to apprehend the student, which is often the unfortunate outcome in these situations.
and which court condemns Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Co. ?
Oh my goodness!! I have no idea who sent you that!! Not I.
I got my degree from UMass Amherst in '82 or '83, can't remember. I didn't get my first full time teaching gig until '86 at UC Santa Barbara and then in '87 at UC Santa Cruz. So I was basically a substitute teaching picking up the courses that someone else had organized.
So at UCSC I was supposed to teach The Founding or some such thing. So I had to go to the library and do research and keep a few weeks ahead of the students.
It was 1987, the bicentennial of the Constitutional Convention so there was much celebration of that event in the media. But as I was digging around, I kept finding things that were in conflict of the theme of celebration. So I contacted some friends from UMass, Amherst....all economists, who had started a cooperative publishing house in Boston called South End Press. I pitched my proposal - a critique of the Constitution - to coincide with celebrations.
Well, I'm a bit embarrassed by the book. You see, I was more an activist in those days than a scholar, to say the least. So the book is a polemic and half of it has zero to do with the Constitution. Anyway, when South End went under, I agreed to have the book made available for free and posted online as well. Somebody might be making money from it, but not I.
Now, I dropped out of academia in 1989 and decided to try my hand at painting as some of you know. But while this critique was somewhat unusual at the time (my argument was that the US Constitution was a counter-revolutionary document), today it is pretty much agreed upon that the Framers feared democracy and that the Constitution was a coup of sorts. In fact, a very distinguised scholar at Harvard Law, Michael J. Klarman has written what might be considered a seminal text on the subject and it is called The Framers'Coup.
Oh...and guess who called me up and loved it? And then promoted it on tours organized by my first wife throughout the US...someone who was hiding from the CIA as they chased him across Europe and who finally returned to the US, someone the first President Bush called "American enemy no. 1"?....Phillip Agree. Another person considered an enemy of sorts also promoted the book, Mumia Abu Jamal. But alas...it didn't earn me any points in academia.
So, I have no idea who sent that to you...you might find it amusing. But not terribly edifying.
This morning I watched the Frontline season premiere, “Lies, Politics and Democracy,” which was broadcast earlier this week. Reliving the events of Trump’s Presidency and the Jan. 6 insurrection was hair-raising. And yet he still commands control of the Republican Party and remains a threat to our democracy.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/lies-politics-and-democracy/
P.S.: Eric indicates above that he sent the book to Prof. Wolff.
It's fairly well known that the founders feared democracy and preferred what would then have been called a "republican form of government".
However, why would it be called a "coup"? A coup indicates a forcible takeover of government or seizure of power by the military or by any armed group. I assume (and it's been a long time since I studied U.S. history) that the well-to-do, including slave-owners, saw to it that their class interests were represented in the text, but that doesn't make it a coup.
Could someone fill me in?
s. wallerstein,
I agree with you. But, as Jerry Fresia states in his comment above, “So the book is a polemic and half of it has zero to do with the Constitution.” The word “coup” is a word used by a polemicist.
I wish to make a point to those who have commented on this blog about the deficiencies of the U.S. Constitution, how an utter disaster it has turned out to be, and how we would be better off ditching the whole thing and starting anew.
In 1786, when the Constitution was ratified, virtually every other nation on Earth was ruled by a monarch, or a tyrant, or a despot. For example, we all know that Great Britain was ruled by King George III, an autocrat. Here are some of the other world leaders at the time:
King Louis XVI, France
Emperor Joseph II, Holy Roman Empire; Austria; Bohemia; Hungary; …
Frederick William II, King Elector, Poland
Empress Catherine II, Russia
King Gustav II, Sweden
King Charles Emmanuel IV. Sardinia
Sultan Azim ud-Din II, Philippines
King Rama I, Thailand
Emir Timur Shah Durrani, Afghanistan
Shah Jafar Khan, Persia
None of the above rulers were elected by their countrymen/women, regardless whether they owned land or not. None of the above countries had a constitution which guaranteed them freedom of speech; freedom of religion; freedom of the press; freedom of assembly; right to trial by a jury of their peers; protection against being twice charged with the same crime upon acquittal; protections against be deprived of their life, liberty or property without due process; and yes, no right to bear arms.
In these uncertain, tumultuous, often brutal times, 39 men gathered together, debated, argued, and finally drafted a Constitution granting all of the above rights to every citizen of the United States who already lived there, as well as to all those who would immigrate here. I would have preferred that they had not included the ambiguously worded right to bear arms, but 7 out of 8 ain’t bad. The Constitution was unique for its time. None of the people living anywhere else on Earth, including in Great Britain, had the rights guaranteed to Americans in their Constitution. The Constitution was not perfect, not then, not now. They failed to abolish slavery; they required property ownership in order to vote; they failed to recognize women as equal in citizenship. But they included a mechanism for amending the Constitution which allowed for correcting these mistakes. And they have been corrected.
The Constitution was unique for its time. President Lincoln recognized this in his Gettysburg Address, stating that the country was engaged in a civil war, “testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.” For Lincoln, this was the primary purpose for fighting the Civil War, to preserve the Union of the republic so conceived and so dedicated; eliminating slavery was a secondary reason.
There are those who claim that the Constitution is so deficient that it deserves to be trashed and re-written. They cite the electoral college as undermining democracy. They cite the Senate as doing the same. They would flippantly throw the Constitution in the gutter in the hope that their more liberal ideals, or their Marxist aspirations, would find greater expression in a revised Constitution, with no guarantee that a new, rewritten document, in which people like Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton, John Cornyn, Lindsay Graham, Joni Ernst. would have their say, would preserve any of the above rights, other than the right to bear arms. They would be willing to risk throwing out the baby with the bath water in order to fulfill their personal sense of fairness and rebellion. If they succeed, I am confident that they will live to regret it.
s. wallerstein,
In answer to your question "why would would it be called a coup?," I refer you to the fact that Jerry Fresia, in his comment above, refers to a book by Michael Klarman called The Framers' Coup: The Making of the United States Constitution, published by Oxford University Press in 2016. Klarman is identified on the book's Amazon page as the Kirkland & Ellis Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.
I have no intention at the moment of reading even a summary of this book b.c I have other more pressing things to do. However, since you asked "why would it be called a coup?" you could look at a summary of Klarman's book, which wd presumably tell you at least why Klarman called it that.
Marc writes above that Britain was ruled by George III, "an autocrat."
But Parliamentary supremacy and certain individual civil rights were guaranteed in Britain in 1689. From Wiki:
"Largely based on the ideas of political theorist John Locke,[3] the Bill [of Rights 1689] sets out certain constitutional requirements of the Crown to seek the consent of the people as represented in Parliament.[4][5] As well as setting limits on the powers of the monarch, it established the rights of Parliament, including regular parliaments, free elections, and freedom of speech.[6] It also listed individual rights, including the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and the right not to pay taxes levied without the approval of Parliament. Finally, it described and condemned several misdeeds of James II of England.[4]
"In the United Kingdom, the Bill is considered a basic document of the uncodified British constitution, along with Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949. A separate but similar document, the Claim of Right Act 1689, applies in Scotland. The Bill was one of the models used to draft the 1789 United States Bill of Rights, the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.[6] Along with the Act of Settlement 1701, it remains in effect within all Commonwealth realms, as amended by the 2011 Perth Agreement."
Sorry, Marc, but despite American views of him George III was not an autocrat. The provisions of the settlements of 1688/9, including the Bill of Rights of 1689, following the ouster of James and his replacement by William and Mary, and the creation of a constitutional monarchy, set limits on what any British king could do. Did George--like Donald T.--have autocratic inclinations? That's a matter of debate among scholars, I suppose, as they seek to unravel what he and his Prime Minister, Lord Bute, were attempting. But Bute and whatever project he and George were up to didn't last long.
Sorry, LFC, I didn't mean to repeat what you just argued in greater detail.
LFC,
We're share this space long enough for you to realize that I'm a lot lazier than you are and so while I am well aware that I could have searched for a summary of the book mentioned by Jerry Fresia, it was easier for me to ask for someone who had read it to explain its thesis.
What's more, lots of people enjoy explaining what they know and so I'm not really asking anyone to do something unpleasant that I don't want to do, like washing my dishes or cleaning my bathroom.
Anonymous,
No problem.
Anyway, as indicated by my use of quotation marks above, I simply quoted Wikipedia.
s.w.
Fair enough!
Marc Susselman: I wish to make a point to those who have commented on this blog about the deficiencies of the U.S. Constitution, how an utter disaster it has turned out to be, and how we would be better off ditching the whole thing and starting anew ...
I assume that Marc Susselman, as a practicing attorney in the state of Michigan, has taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States.
'Nuff said.
LFC and Anonymous,
As usual, a trifling quibble, for quibbling sake. I suspect that is Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, etc., were asked if George III was an autocrat, they would answer in the affirmative.
Regarding the English Bill of Rights, where do you see any reference to freedom of the press; freed of religion; protection against double jeopardy; trial by one’s peers (the Bill only refers to the right to trial for treason by freeholders); protection against deprivation of liberty or property without due process. They are not mentioned. I checked. Although it did include right of “protestants” to have arms for their defense and allowed by law. The Constitution protected more rights than those listed in the English Bill of Rights.
You have come to the defense of Great Britain. What about the other 8 countries I listed in my non-exhaustive list. My point was about the uniqueness of the U.S. Constitution, a uniqueness that is not diminished by the existence of the electoral college or the Senate, a uniqueness which its critics would be willing to risk sacrificing in order to satisfy their pipedreams.
And Eric, I took such an oath which every attorney in Michigan, and presumable in every other state, is required to take as officers of the court. So what? Do you think that if you have your way and the Constitution is gutted and replaced by who knows what, that lawyers would not be required to take an oath to support that Constitution?
My impression is that the U.S. Constitution was very progressive in 1787 and now is conservative.
I know that there were republican forms of government previously in Holland and in some Italian city states. I don't much about them nor whether they still were in effect in 1787, but I assume that in none of them did women have the vote and that in all of them voting was limited to those who owned property. Maybe someone can fill me in about that.
My limited historical knowledge tells me that the U.S. was the first overseas colony to liberate itself from the colonial power. I may be wrong about that and by now that seems almost mundane, but it was very progressive at the time.
It seems a bit anachronistic to label the U.S. Constitution and those who drew it up as conservative when they were very progressive for their time. Great Britain had a constitutional monarchy of sorts in the 18th century, but there was still an established church (and there is still one today). Wasn't the U.S. the first country to determine a complete separation of church and state?
s. wallerstein,
Correct, the United States was the first county to enact separation of church and state as an official policy. Today, there are a total of 29 nations which have some form of official separation of church and state.
Surprisingly, the first individual of note who recommended separation of church and state was Martin Luther, in his doctrine of the two kingdoms. This pre-dated John Locke’s endorsement of the principle.
Was there a press to be afforded freedom in 1688? Besides, and more relevantly, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 was not a stand alone Bill. There were quite a number of other constraints around. Why can't you just graciously accept a minor correction?
*****
Setting aside whether or not it was a mere quibble to deny that George III was an autocrat, I'm actually quite curious as to whether and to what degree the powers given to the American President differed from the powers available to a constitutional British monarch.
I understand that both executives have undergone significant evolution since their beginnings in 1789 and 1688, respectively. The British monarchy has considerably diminished in power over the past 3 + centuries and the US presidency has grown considerably in power since G. W. I also understand that they operated under different constraints. But my question is, how did they rank in, say, the first part of the 19th C? My guess is that they didn't differ all that much. But I'm willing to be instructed to the contrary by someone who actually knows whereof they speak.
A second question: hasn't the power of the US Presidency become so enormous at home and abroad that whatever powers George III had in the late 18th C they pale into insignificance when compared with those that the US Constitution supposedly limits today?
The U.S. Constitution (1787) and the Bill of Rights (1791), taken together, have some "progressive" aspects and what appear today to be some not-so-progressive ones.
Because amending the Constitution is so difficult, these founding documents, even as reshaped by the Reconstruction amendments, lock a 21st-century society of some 330 million people into a framework devised by 18th-century mostly upper-class men who were very concerned with balancing the principle of consent-of-the-governed against the "tyranny of the majority," and who were forced into compromises by the presence of both smaller and larger states in the U.S. and other conflicting interests (and who also had to sidestep the issue of slavery, not resolved until the Civil War and the so-called Reconstruction amendments).
That these documents, very difficult to amend, should still be the governing framework in the early 21st century is weird and problematic, to say the least. The system has evolved in such a way that a small proportion of the population wields disproportionate power via the Senate, a small number of "swing" states determine the outcome of presidential elections, and nine Justices of the Sup Ct appointed for life wield an absurd amount of power making what are often basically political decisions clothed in legal language.
Unfortunately, it's not clear (at least not to me) what to do about this, because once you open up the whole thing to a fundamental re-do, what is to keep the Trumpists from mounting a campaign to do whatever they want to do w these documents (presumably nothing good)? The process will presumably replicate the existing divisions in the polity, and the end result could be worse than what is in place now. So I agree with those who say that the present constitutional framework is far from optimal, but I'm not sure what to do about it.
s. wallerstein
When you write: “It seems a bit anachronistic to label the U.S. Constitution and those who drew it up as conservative when they were very progressive for their time,” you are stating the core of a debate raging in academic historiography: Do we judge people by the standards of their time or of ours?
Those who say we judge them by our standards are “presentists.” Their opponents are “contextualists.”
There doesn’t seem to me to be a perfect answer. Presentism can seem arrogant: We assume that if we had lived when, for example, George Washington lived, were raised as he was raised etc., we would not have had his standards with regard to slavery or treatment of the native Americans. I agree with this and therefore side with the contextualists.
But there’s a problem with that too. Bernard Bailyn, a leading historian of the Colonial period, a contextualist himself, points out that to be a contextualist is to some degree to excuse. We excuse the brutality of slavery and the slaughter of American Indians because that was widely accepted behavior at the time.
Bailyn’s solution is to emphasize that the reason we study history is not to judge people of the past, but to understand them and their world. Easier said than done sometimes.
The Senate thing is complicated.
In the Chilean constitutional convention, which was dominated by progressives, some wanted to eliminate the Senate, which, as in the U.S., gave too much power to conservative rural regions.
However, another group, not necessarily conservative, spoke up for the regions and against a society dominated by large urban centers, which tend to be progressive, but above all, very unaware of the needs and desires of the rural population.
So they settled on a bicameral system, with a second chamber, not called "Senate", but
"Chamber of the regions", with less power than the first chamber called "Chamber of Deputies", but with certain veto powers over what the first chamber decided.
A compromise which pleased no one, as usually occurs with compromises, but the question of a second chamber not based on population, but on regions (or states) is complicated.
Of course the constitutional draft was rejected by a plebiscite a week ago.
Dear David Palmeter
Nice point about presentism but we do the same thing in the present with those both westerners and non westerners who have a different outlook and position in the world.
People are just different and it is futile to try to corral all the cattle in the same fence.
I mean it's a fun sport but if you take it too seriously it just brings on rancor and strife,
It's enough to conscientiously strive to get things right and engage in debate.
But politics isn't a hard science nor is psychology or history or sociology
Perhaps the Convention was a coup in the sense that they were charged with fixing the unworkable Articles and they just threw them out and started over.
"They would flippantly throw the Constitution in the gutter in the hope that their more liberal ideals, or their Marxist aspirations, would find greater expression in a revised Constitution, with no guarantee..."
The delegates were really flying blind (and in a Philadelphia summer with no AC) so that they screwed up here and there is understandable. I believe Madison opposed the Senate. The Electoral College never functioned as intended and had to be fixed early on. It was adopted at the last minute when time was running out (Madison's notes reflects wishing and hoping). They figured that parties could be wished away and adopted a presidential system which guarantees two parties and the Civil War as well as the current chaos. The 1787 Constitution (as Willmoore Kendall termed it) broke down in the mid-19th century. The Reconstruction Constitution is currently breaking down. It's hardly liberal or Marxist to acknowledge that.
As I pointed out above thirteen states can veto any proposed changes so our would be herrenvolk overlords don't have an Article V path. They do have a clear path under the current Constitution and we are up against a demographic wall. Oh, and Parliament settled matters with an ax in the mid 17th century.
Marc, I was thinking of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Latasha_Harlins
"Right" and "should" are two different things. Clerks and owners most likely lack the necessities to play cop and policies should reflect that.
"by someone who knows whereof they speak."
Well, Anonymous, every President of the United States, from George Wasington to, thak God, Joe Biden, was elected pursuant to the vote of the people, as modified by the electoral college.
To the best of my knowledge, no English monarch, from George III forward was ever elected to be the monarch.
We have 51 elections for president that happen on the same day. The Electoral College doesn't modify, it nullifies. Should the pending NC suit succeed, the vote of the people will mean even less.
Parliament, through a series of acts dating back to the seventeenth century, determines how succession takes place. As the sovereign in the UK lacks power, who that soverign happens to be is less important then who is president over here. I believe Parliament could abolish the monarchy with an act. The UK does share some of our flaws - districts and FPTP elections.
aaall,
The killing of Latasha Harlans proves my point. She was shot and killed with a revolver by the Korean proprietor of the store, thinking that Latasha was stealing a bottle of orange juice, when it turned out she had money in her hand to pay.
The employee of the Gibson Bakery who apprehended the student who was stealing alcohol did not use a weapon to do so. The bakery was a small mom-and-pop operation and did not have a security force to prevent theft, like Target and or Walmart. Had the employee not chased the culprit, he likely would have gotten away. The lesson is not that employees should not try to apprehend thieves, but that they should not use a weapon to do so.
s.w., the problem is that rural regions (in the U.S. at least) tend to be hierarchical and reflect the needs and desires of the few who dominate them. That is the con of the "populist" right. A little kayfabe keeps the rubes in line.
Social Democracy (New Deal/Great Society) did more for rural areas then Progressives and Populists ever did. It's not the "progressive" urban areas that are denying rural folk in Republican states access to the Medicaid expansion.
Perhaps it would have been better to have put off most of the wish list and to have paid more attention to the nuts and bolts of governing - like adopt a parliamentary system with proportional representation.
aaall,
It seems to me that your gripe is not so much with the system, but with people. Echoing Professor Higgins’ complaint about women, you appear to be saying, “Why can’t those rubes in the rural areas of our country be more like me!’
Marc, your brief gets things out of order. As far as I'm concerned the proprietor was under-charged and under-sentenced.
In my view proprietors need to be risk adverse. If the employee engaged in pursuit and capture was acting in the course of his employment then the business is on the hook if things go south. With a sole proprietorship that can be devastating. Note that the clerk in my example wound up with a felony conviction (and lawyer fees) and I doubt their insurance company was happy eating $300k. They wound up losing their business over a $1.79 drink.
I've seen things that were minor turn into ADW and murder. I would never put a likely minimum wage clerk (and my solvency) at risk over a few bucks. Shrinkage is a cost of doing business, figure it in and cope.
Marc, I live on the edge of a forest (lions and bears but no tigers) in a rural area (my congressional district is larger then nine of our states), so I'm a "rube" too. I have no problem allowing that folks who vote against their material interests are being conned which is the situation in our Red states. God and guns are kayfabe, that's all.
"Why can’t those rubes in the rural areas of our country be more like me!"
Just to be clear, I'd be happy to have my vote be equal to the residents of some of our Red states instead of ~40:1 their favor.
I'm kind of stunned as are the tankies but for different reasons:
https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/1568623220961550336?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1568623220961550336%7Ctwgr%5E83cc3c6a699645c405b65c912706daadc2e437ba%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fballoon-juice.com%2F
https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/1568691713526603776?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1568691713526603776%7Ctwgr%5E83cc3c6a699645c405b65c912706daadc2e437ba%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fballoon-juice.com%2F
aaall,
Since you are a wonk for precision, mountain lions (aka cougar, puma) are not really lions and are not in the same family as the big cats.
aaall, you frequently refer to "tankies." I've no idea what these are. Please enlighten me.
Not to be catty*, but the second definition of lion in Merriam-Webster’s is:
1b : any of several large wildcats; especially : COUGAR
(The all-caps is in the original.)
*Also from M-W’s: second definition for second entry for catty is : slyly spiteful : MALICIOUS (as in: “made several catty comments”)
Sounds to me like catty is more or less synonymous with snarky, on which M-W (online) has some interesting comments. But I’m not sure about that. Also, catty is some unit of Chinese weight measure, which is news to me.
David Palmeter: We assume that if we had lived when, for example, George Washington lived, were raised as he was raised etc., we would not have had his standards with regard to slavery or treatment of the native Americans. I agree with this....
We excuse the brutality of slavery and the slaughter of American Indians because that was widely accepted behavior at the time.
I have made this point before, and I will keep returning to it:
Why should we always adopt the viewpoints of the rich white settlers when we are contextualizing?
They were not the only people alive then. In fact, they were not even the majority of people alive then. So, if we are going by the standards of their day, why should their feelings count more than the feelings of the people whose land and labor they were stealing? Their savage behavior was widely accepted *by members of their own class* at the time, not by all of humanity, and certainly not by those who were their victims.
From Jerry Fresia Toward an American Revolution: Exposing The :
"At the time of the War of Independence, three out of four persons in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia were or had been indentured servants. Of the 250,000 indentured servants that had arrived by 1700, more than 100,000 had either been kidnapped or released from their prison sentences.... Jefferson was clear about this when he said that 'our ancestors who migrated here were laborers not lawyers.'"
Can we take a moment to question this widespread tendency to assume that the lives of people that are memorialized in written records and other artifacts (ie, the wealthy elite) were richer than those of other people?
s. wallerstein: A coup indicates a forcible takeover of government or seizure of power by the military or by any armed group.
A coup is also a "a brilliant, sudden, and usually highly successful stroke or act" or "a highly successful, unexpected stroke, act, or move."
In the case of the adoption of the Constitution, the framers got a system of government enacted that most of the citizens were opposed to.
Eric,
What evidence is there that "most of the citizens were opposed to" the Constitution, as you claim?
There were no public opinion polls, no alternative voting system, etc.
s. wallerstein: My impression is that the U.S. Constitution was very progressive in 1787 and now is conservative....
It seems a bit anachronistic to label the U.S. Constitution and those who drew it up as conservative when they were very progressive for their time.
And that belief is precisely why Jerry's book is so important.
Just read the first few chapters of his book. It's an easy read. You'll see why your assumptions are incorrect.
We have been propagandized to believe George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and the rest were progressive champions of Democracy. They absolutely were not.
And when you or Marc Susselman are comparing the system enacted with the US Constitution to the contemporary systems of government of Britain or Russia, you are using the wrong comparator. The Americans obviously didn't want governments like those: they had just fought a revolution to get rid of that kind of system.
Jerry Fresia again:
"The constitution that the Pennsylvania backwoods farmers came up with [for the new state of Pennsylvania in 1776] was impressive. Kenneth M. Dolbeare ... concludes that 'the extent of popular control' put forward by these common people 'exceeds that of any American government before or since.' Although it was not radical by some twentieth century standards (it ignored women, slaves, servants and the poor but did challenge property rights as we now know them), it dramatically reveals the degree to which our present federal Constitution is elitist by eighteenth century standards of common people."
The Pennsylvanians also composed "a bill of rights to be considered which included the assertion that 'an enormous proportion of property vested in a few individuals is dangerous to the rights, and destructive of the common happiness, of mankind; and therefore every free state hath a right by its laws to discourage the possession of such property.'"
Eric,
Very interesting. We should all read Jerry Fresia's book.
However, what evidence is there that the Pennsylvania backwoods farmers represented the majority of people any more than Adams and Jefferson did?
There were no public opinion polls. The majority of people were illiterate and uneducated.
The recent plebiscite in Chile as well as the massive working class vote for Trump tells us that people often take positions that contradict their apparent class interests.
Is that an argument in favor of more democracy or for Plato's Republic? Complicated questions that cannot be easily settled.
LFC: The system has evolved in such a way that a small proportion of the population wields disproportionate power via the Senate
That was the whole point of having a Senate from the beginning.
Fresia: "In order to prevent common people from having an equal say in public affairs and to safeguard private power in general by limiting public power, the Framers chose to discard the arrangement under the Articles of Confederation where the important powers of government were vested in a single legislature and resurrect England's aristocratic system of 'checks and balances.' The purpose of checks and balances was this: public power would be 'checked,' especially the House of Representatives which was closest to the people. Morever, the House of Representatives would be 'balanced' by the interests of property by giving property owners a greater voice in two ways: 1) the Presidency and the Senate would be elected directly by property owners through the electoral college and state legislatures respectively, and 2) the Presidency and Senate would be given more power than the House in the government....
The Senate would represent property by virtue of representing entire states (as Madison correctly noted a very large district such as a state takes in a greater variety of parties and interests making it more difficult for underclass people to sustain a majority, not to mention the greater and prohibitive campaign costs) and by having Senators elected by state representatives (who were far more connected to property than the general electorate). Senators would also be given longer terms than members of the House (six years as opposed to two)....
Historian Arthur Lovejoy concludes that the intention of the Framers in adding a senate to the legislative branch was to insure that 'the poor' could never get a law passed which would be unfavorable to the economic interests of 'the rich.'"
Eric
I am aware of the framers' motivations for the Senate.
Two quick points:
1) One of the Progressive Era reforms/amendments was direct election of Senators, but that didn't get at the underlying problem, which is
2) the question of population: the sparsely populated western states like Montana and Idaho etc obvs weren't states at the time of the Founding, so the disproportion in that sense might be said to have become more marked over time. I think that's what I was trying to get at w my use of the phrase "has evolved."
p.s. I don't know exactly what the right reform, the right answer, is. I'm sure there's a body of work on this that I'm not v. familiar with.
It's clear what the motives of many of the Founders were. Btw not all them were from wealthy backgrounds: Benjamin Franklin's wealth, for example, was mostly self-made not inherited. There are probably some good ideas in The Federalist along w some not-so-good ones. So I don't think the whole thing has to be tossed out, but clearly the framework is not working well right now, bracketing the question of whether it ever worked that well in the past.
Question is how to fix it.
The framework at the Founding had many elitist features as well as a few not. I was never taught in school (went to high school in first half of 1970s, graduated h.s. '75) that George Washington, John Adams and the others were "champions of democracy". I am quite sure that phrase did not appear in my 12th grade US history textbook. The Federalist vs anti-Federalist controversy revolved around strength of central govt vs the states, among other things. At least that's what I was taught.
This notion that we're all propagandized to believe that the Framers were "champions of democracy" can be overdone. Before the popularity of the musical Hamilton, prob 60 percent of the population barely knew who Hamilton was. And of the 40 percent who did know, prob half of them didn't give a s***.
I have not studied U.S. history since high school, from which I graduated in 1964, but I vaguely remember that my excellent history teacher, Mr. Huntington, mentioned this book by Charles Beard, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, published in 1913, which outlines how the Constitution was determined by the economic interests of the founders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Economic_Interpretation_of_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States
That is, back in 1964, during the cold war, a high school history teacher in a public high school in New Jersey made no secret of the fact that the founders looked out for their class interests and cited a book which was then 50 years old to support his position.
The position that the Constitution was not an impartial document benefitting everyone equally was not a secret back then.
I often had better teachers in high school than in the university, maybe because they didn't have to worry about tenure or about working their way up the academic ladder.
The above comments by Eric and LFC bring me back to the discussion/debate which I had with Prof. Zimmerman several posts back. Eric and LFC assert that the Constitution is defective because it favored land owners over former indentured servants, that it gave greater proportional power to sparsely populated areas over more heavily populated areas, etc., etc. Eric objects to it because it is “unfair” in the sense that it fails to incorporate his Marxist ideals, etc., etc. On what basis, however, do they claim that “fairness” is the correct guiding principle for government? On what basis do they claim that equal treatment of similarly situated human beings is more correct, more ethical, than unequal treatment. Eric denies that there are morally correct precepts without proof; he claims that my affirmance of this position is so much hogwash. So, Eric, on what do you base your adamant position that the Constitution is defective because it is basically “unfair”? Where is your proof that “fairness” is mandatory, or even preferable, other than your instinct that this is the case?
Opinions varied on democracy:
"Mr. SHERMAN opposed the election by the people, insisting that it ought to be by the State Legislatures. The people he said, immediately should have as little to do as may be about the Government. They want information and are constantly liable to be misled."
"Mr. GERRY. (N.B. the name!) The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want virtue, but are the dupes of pretended patriots.
On the other hand:
"Mr. MASON, argued strongly for an election of the larger branch by the people. It was to be the grand depository of the democratic principle of the Govtt. It was, so to speak, to be our House of Commons-It ought to know & sympathise with every part of the community; and ought therefore to be taken not only from different parts of the whole republic, but also from different districts of the larger members of it, which had in several instances particularly in Virga., different interests and views arising from difference of produce, of habits &c &c. He admitted that we had been too democratic but was afraid we sd. incautiously run into the opposite extreme."
"Mr. WILSON contended strenuously for drawing the most numerous branch of the Legislature immediately from the people. He was for raising the federal pyramid to a considerable altitude, and for that reason wished to give it as broad a basis as possible."
"Mr. MADISON considered the popular election of one branch of the National Legislature as essential to every plan of free Government."
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_531.asp
It was noted that JF mentioned the Articles. Did he also note that under them each state had one vote (i.e. kind of a Senate) except for certain important matters that required a 69% super majority. There was not a whole lot of democracy in the Articles:
"The United States in Congress assembled shall never engage in a war, nor grant letters of marque or reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value thereof, nor ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the defense and welfare of the United States, or any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of the United States, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the number of vessels of war, to be built or purchased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander in chief of the army or navy, unless nine States assent to the same: nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning from day to day be determined, unless by the votes of the majority of the United States in Congress assembled."
The coup happened on May 30, 1787:
"On the question as moved by Mr. Butler, on the third proposition it was resolved in Committee of the whole that a national governt. ought to be established consisting of a supreme Legislative Executive & Judiciary."
Anon, "tankie" originally referred to folks on the left who engaged in various rationalizations around the excesses of Soviet imperialism e.g. Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. They had no problems with the USSR using tanks to build socialism.
By extension the term is used to describe usually far left folks who seem to always find reasons to justify Russian bad behavior (NATO, Nazis, whatever) and is often accompanied by a cult of personality around a former mid-level KGB apparatchik. Marc kindly gifted us with some examples in a couple of threads south of here.
Lately some folks on the far Right (National Conservatives, fascists, etc.) have fallen in line.
I'm glad Anon asked that question about "tankies," bc I had no idea what aaall meant by it either; was going to ask myself but Anon beat me to it.
P.s. I cd tell it was a term of derogation or derision, but that was all.
Tankies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsqE9kEsDVY
Well thanks for the definition. I'm relieved to find I'm absolved of the 'crime' since (a) all my left wing political heroes repudiated the Hungarian invasion as did I at the time, though I was only a teenager (I was also about then repudiating the British-French-Israeli Suez conspiracy/attack), and since (b) having no gods and precious few heroes, I've never been inclined to defend or attack any particular politics/war in a knee-jerk sort of way. I have noticed, however, that there has been an occasional tendency on this blog and elsewhere to apply the term in the derogatory fashion LFC notes to those who've asked questions respecting the war in/on Ukraine and have suggested that it's always appropriate to try to take a critical perspective on all those who wield great power. It seems to me that's as regrettable as being in lockstep with anyone else in other ways.
Anon, speaking for myself, the folks I've termed "tankies" aren't asking questions. They made up their minds long ago. The guy you referenced, Vijay Prashad, is a perfect example. Too bad he can't own it. Checked out a few other vids and his Twitter. Fidel, Che, Lenin, a shout out to Stalin; "no enemies to the left" didn't work for Kerensky and it makes for stupid today. Even though Imperial Russia and the USSR were as imperialistic as any Western power as well as China and Japan and the RF under Putin models Peter the Great and fascism, some folks on the left can't get past the sins of the US and Europe.
Ukraine seems as simple as Chile, Iraq, and Vietnam. The aggressor in all three needed to step back as Russia needs to do in Ukraine.
Interesting article:
https://www.thebulwark.com/i-commanded-u-s-army-europe-heres-what-i-saw-in-the-russian-and-ukrainian-armies/
The current home for "tankies" is the Scheerpost site.
Endless articles on how the Russians are attempting the "de-nazification" of Ukraine and other such nonsense.
Here is the latest.... by one Patrick Lawrence:
https://scheerpost.com/2022/09/11/patrick-lawrence-the-narrative-is-coming-apart/
Ok. A tankie is someone who apologizes for Putin's unjustified aggression against Ukraine.
Fine.
Now what catchy nickname can we think up for someone who, out of justified indignation against Putin's aggression, becomes an apologist for NATO/U.S. expansionism in Eastern Europe?
Whoever first thinks up the catchy nickname wins a....
There's a thin line between condemning Putin's aggression and becoming an unwitting tool of U.S. imperialism and few (maybe not me) walk it successfully.
s.w., one need not devise apologies when the answer is simple and obvious. The Eastern European nations that the USSR colonized and used as buffer states after WWII joined NATO voluntarily (N.B. voluntarily not "voluntarily") after requesting admission to which the members agreed. Ditto Finland and Sweden recently. A relationship that ends in divorce AND a restraining order was likely not a happy one.
Bush speaking out of turn in 2007 (I believe) provided Putin an excuse for his heel turn but hardly drove it.
The line seems obvious when one reflects on actual examples. No major nation has clean hands - calling balls and strikes is easy if ones priors are in order. Bhutan and Costa Rico seem nice but they are quite small.
Amused that the slick rube who shoplifted and sued for being detained is belittling Vijay Prishad in the same section
Anon, thank you for a prefect example of how tankies process information and transmit it. You should get your own Substack.
Oops, s/b "perfect," of course.
Yes - "tankies" will literally read your shitty posts back to you and draw amusing connections between them. That's the function of "tankies" in society, a clearly useful classification
Anonymous,
aaall did not state that he had shoplifted. He stated he was falsely accused of shoplifting and sued for his unlawful detention for a crime he did not commit. False imprisonment is a tort, and an excellent basis for a lawsuit. There is a significant difference between reading one's "shitty posts" back, and mischaracterizing the posts. If that is something which "tankies" do, then it is not something to be proud of. You can now proceed and attack me by mischaracterizing my comments.
aaall,
In a prior comment I noted that your writing style reminded me of Walter Winchell speaking.
Upon further reflection, it also reminds me of the satire of H. L. Mencken. Here are some choice Menckenisms:
“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”
“In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican.” (Here, here!)
“Most people want security in this world, not liberty.” (Echoing Eric Fromm)
“Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.”
“God is a comedian, playing to an audience too afraid too laugh.”
“Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who would want to live in an institution?”
“A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers.” (True)
“It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office.”
“An idealist is one who, on noticing that roses smell better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.”
“If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner.”
“Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.”
“Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.”
“It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by a resort to mathematic, though she is still forbidden to resort to physics or chemistry.” (And now with the reversal of Roe v. Wade, medical science.)
“The worst government is often the most moral. One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics are on top there is not limit to oppression.”
“The only really happy folk are married women and single men.”
“I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time.”
“Conscience is the inner voice that tells that someone might be looking.”
“A man may be a fool and not know it, but not if he is married.”
“Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice.”
“All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.”
“Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrenc of the improbable.”
And finally, this gem”
“No one in this world, so far as I know – and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me – has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.”
I see that Jean Luc Godard just died. I don't know if he qualifies as a "tankie", but if he was one, then I'm one too.
He was one of my teenage heroes and still matters to me.
No, I don’t see how Godard could qualify as a “tankie.” He revolutionized cinema with his first film, “Breathless,” and its homage to American film noir and Belmondo’s inimitable imitation of Bogart. I am going to rewatch Breathless and several of his other films in remembrance.
https://forward.com/culture/132013/are-they-giving-an-oscar-to-an-anti-semite/
By chance I posted on Facebook Godard's last major film Goodbye to Language when it popped up on YouTube a few weeks ago. Hello to opaque dialogue, psychedelic forests, nudity, and ennui: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3Gz9FbGrws&ab_channel=kinolorber
Anonymous,
I was unaware of Godard’s anti-Semitic statements and sentiments. His statements comparing Israelis to Nazis are quite sickening. Thank you for the link. While it will not deter me from re-watching some of his films, the disappointing revelation has lowered my opinion and respect for him considerably.
All this stuff about tankies and Godard reminds me of a French slogan which has been running through my mind the last few weeks: "I'd rather be wrong with Sartre than right with Aron".
Godard was wrong with Sartre.
When we make political judgements, we're choosing ourselves, we're choosing who we want to hang out with, who we want to mate with, how we want to construct our identity.
I, for one, prefer to hang out with tankies than with neocons or with liberal hawks, although actually I don't hang out with either or have so many people to hang out with these days. I'm too contradictory and contrarian to be a tankie, still less a liberal hawk.
However, I am aware that my "political" opinions are not just political or ethical or even aesthetic: they run deeper, they're existential, as Sartre might say and they involve very profund choices about who I am and who I want to hang out with.
That jibes with social psychological research such as that of Jonathan Haidt about how political choices generally are made: they are rationalizations of very deep and often unconscious factors in our psyche.
The two Godard films I have seen (or at least definitely recall seeing), in the AFI Theater when it was still located in the Kennedy Center (before it moved to Silver Spring Md.), are Masculin Féminin and Bande à part.
From Wiki:
"Masculin Féminin (1966), based on two Guy de Maupassant stories, La Femme de Paul and Le Signe, was a study of contemporary French youth and their involvement with cultural politics. An intertitle refers to the characters as "The children of Marx and Coca-Cola." Although Godard's cinema is sometimes thought to depict a wholly masculine point of view, Phillip John Usher has demonstrated how the film, by the way it connects images and disparate events, seems to blur gender lines."
The only thing I remember vividly from the movie is the famous "intertitle" -- basically just the words on the screen, as I recall -- about the children of Marx of Coca-Cola.
correction: *and* Coca-Cola
Nah sorry Marc, the wording was pretty obviously ambiguous and does indeed lend itself to my interpretation since he conveniently said nothing about whether he was actually falsely accused. You're also mindless enough to fall for the "Godard is an anti-Semite" canard based on your perfunctory reading of an article so your opinions aren't worth noting. Might be worth reflecting on why you guys don't actually seem to know anything but formulate your boring generic thoughts on cursory glances at articles or Twitter feeds. Kind of grim to see this place's comment section in shambles like this.
Anonymous,
As I recall, aaall wrote that the person who detained him "was wrong" -- i.e., he was falsely accused.
Nah I'm correct and he shoplifted. I'm pulling up the court logs now
s.w., I don't get your preferences. Tankies and neocons are flip sides of the same coin - ideologues whose priors are well past their sell by dates. I see no use in having much of anything to do with either as one can't rely on anything they say. Liberal Hawks are an extinct species; the Blob is mostly careerist.
Currently we see the far Left and the Far Right/not-so-far Right converging in an attack on liberal democracy (each plans on being the last ones standing). Folks like Trump, Putin, and Orban are their avatars. Recognizing that is merely accepting reality. Adopting any flavor of "no enemies" is merely setting oneself up to be played.
Tankie Anon, as LFC and Marc, both with academic/professional degrees that require a certain proficiency in the English language, had no problem understanding my post, I once again thank you for making my point.
aaall,
You might be surprised that I don't get your preferences either.
I've spent most of my life in Chile, reading and watching media that you don't read or watch, talking to people who have grown up and been educated in a culture that you don't get and I divide up the world into other categories than you do.
Anyway, I'd rather be wrong with Sartre than right with Aron.
nah you obviously shoplifted and are now pointlessly citing imaginary academic credentials, just like you reserve nebulous terms of abuse for whatever unnerves you. Why don't you try and write something to "Vijay the Tankie" refuting him, instead of hiding out in this comment section?
Anonymous,
aaall wrote:
“A clerk had me arrested for shoplifting a few decades ago. He was wrong and out of his lane. I sued and they settled (a nice but sadly not an eight figure sum),” This statement is hardly ambiguous. Although the use of the word “wrong” could be referring to “out of his lane,” meaning, perhaps, “Although I did shop lift, it was not the clerk’s job function to arrest me.” In that case, however, the business would not have settled the lawsuit by paying aaall.
And Anonymous, whoever you are, I did not give a “perfunctory ” reading to the Forward article. Regarding Godard’s anti-Semitism, according to the Forward article, he said the following at varying times:
In the presence of Francois Truffaut, he referred to the producer Pierre Braunberger as “sale juif” (“filthy Jew”). Truffaut ended their friendship due to this comment.
In a 1976 documentary, he juxtaposed photographs of Golda Meir with Adolph Hitler.
He is reported to have defended the 1972 Olympic massacre of the Israeli athletes by Palestinian terrorists.
He stated, “Israel is a paradoxical form of Nazism’s historical resurgence.” (Although I do not equate criticism of Israel automatically with anti-Semitism, criticizing Israel by comparing it to Nazi Germany is a particularly pernicious and insulting equation, and, more importantly, false. No Palestinians have been forced into gas chambers and then cremated, and claiming, “Well, so what. Their mistreatment of the Palestinians and their jailing of Palestinians whom they accuse of terrorism is just as bad” is a despicably false comparison.
In his movie “A Married Woman,” one of the characters says, ”Today in Germany, I said to someone, ‘How about if tomorrow, we kill all the Jews and the hairdressers?’ He replied, ‘Why the hairdressers.?’’”
He stated, “Strange thing Hollywood – Jews invented it.”
When a Jewish colleague who had worked with him on one of his films and contacted Godard about being paid, Godard said, “Ah, it’s always the same: Jews call you when they hear a cash register opening.”
In an article in Le Monde, he stated” “Palestinians’ suicide bombings in order to bring a Palestinian State into existence ultimately resemble what the Jews did by allowing themselves to be led like sheep to be slaughtered in gas chambers, sacrificing themselves to bring into existence the State of Israel.”
There is no ambiguity or indefiniteness about the above statements. Godard was a virulent, despicable anti-Semite, who also happened to be a creative film-maker.
Above there are some 7 comments attributed to someone signing in as “Anonymous.” I have no idea whether they are all submitted by the same person, or several different people. But one of them is a complete ah.
s.w., "tankie," "neocon," and "liberal hawk" are all terms that have meanings in U.S. politics. However it's impossible to evaluate those terms without understanding their effects on the rest of the world. I don't have to engage with Chilean media to understand that our role in your 9/11 was wrong; ditto Iraq, Central America, Vietnam, etc. How is vice versa different?
aaall,
Why should I view the world through your categories, which are the product of your cultural background, which is increasingly not mine?
Your categories may enable you to understand the world, but I'm one of several people who often does not understand what you are saying. Like several others, I didn't understand the meaning of the word "tankie", but I am so used to not understanding stuff you write, for example, your use of abbreviations, that I didn't bother to ask.
You have your own idiolect (which has a certain poetry to it, to be sure). Maybe I have mine.
aaall
Most of the above anonymous postings aren't mine, though the one asking for a definition of a word you use a lot was mine. And in a later response that seemed to be directed to me you seemed to think I'd made some reference to Vijay someone or other, whom I don't think I've ever referred to. But that's all just by way of introduction.
I seem to be in need of another definition. I'm mystified nowadays as to what constitutes the left, the far left, or what you will. Who/what are you referring to?
Thanks again for an explanation.
s.w., understanding and imposing are different. Understanding the categories that Hayek and National Review used to report on Chile back in the day didn't mean that I accepted them. All of the "ideolects" I use are googleable and, IMO, useful as well as being in common use. For example, carny terms/WWE are useful (actually indispensable) when trying to understand contemporary American politics. "Tankie" actually defines a set, etc.
Anon x (not to be confused with tankie anon, anon dudes, use some extra letters - electrons are cheap), books have been written. As a cursory survey you might go to Greyzone, Democracy Now, the despised LGM blog, and Daily Kos (which our host has referenced). That will produce all sorts of sources and perhaps answer your question.
aaall,
I myself am going to try to find a less coldwarlike term to refer to those you designate as "tankies".
"Useful idiots" might serve instead of "tankies" --- if we're referring to Putin apologists.
Are we?
David Zimmerman,
I suppose we might let aaall define the class of people he refers to with the term "tankie".
We might also have to clarify what constitutes a "Putin apologist".
Are the journalists of RT Putin apologists? For sure.
Is Chomsky a Putin apologist? Not in my book, but some might differ about that.
Re Chomsky on war in Ukraine:
https://truthout.org/articles/chomsky-six-months-into-war-diplomatic-settlement-in-ukraine-is-still-possible/
From the interview: See last paragraph on Ch's condemnation of Russia's invasion ... along the lines of "to understand is not to condone"
"That Russia felt threatened by NATO expansion to the East, in violation of firm and unambiguous promises to Gorbachev, has been stressed by virtually every high-level U.S. diplomat with any familiarity with Russia for 30 years, well before Putin. To take just one of a rich array of examples, in 2008 when he was ambassador to Russia and Bush II recklessly invited Ukraine to join NATO, current CIA director William Burns warned that “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin).” He added that “I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” More generally, Burns called NATO expansion into Eastern Europe “premature at best, and needlessly provocative at worst.” And if the expansion reached Ukraine, Burns warned, 'There could be no doubt that Putin would fight back hard.'
“In brief, provocations continued to the last minute. They were not confined to undermining negotiations but included expansion of the project of integrating Ukraine into the NATO military command, turning it into a “de facto” member of NATO, as U.S. military journals put it.
“Though the provocations were consistent and conscious over many years, despite the warnings, they of course in no way justify Putin’s resort to “the supreme international crime” of aggression. Though it may help explain a crime, provocation provides no justification for it."
aaall
Sorry, I don't find your advice helpful. Since, as i see it, there's a lot of talk about left wings and claims to be left wing floating around out there, often tied in to me confusing ways to claims to being progresssive, e.g., say Adolph Reed vs. the 1619 project, or e.g., transgenderists vs. women's righists (to pick a couple of perhaps ill-chosen cases), I'd really appreciate knowing how you are using the term. Thanks again.
David Zimmerman,
We seem to agree about Chomsky not being a Putin apologist. Chomsky is one of the few capable of stirring me from my congenital cynicism and contrarionism. I love the guy.
Putin apologists, from what I can see, not only condemn the role the U.S. had in provoking Putin, as does Chomsky, but also see Putin as the "good guy", as attacking Ukraine to clean it of Nazis. You have to be pretty naive, ideologically blinded or on Putin's pay roll to believe that.
I participate, at this point passively, in a closed online Chilean leftwing group and many of the participants were tortured by the Pinochet dictatorship and/or had friends and family members killed or disappeared. They uniformly see Putin as the "good guy" since for them, as a result of Nixon's role in the 1973 coup, the U.S. is the eternal villain in world affairs and the enemy of my enemy (Putin being the enemy of the U.S.) is not only my friend, but also "good" as are we too.
This sad situation reached the point in which someone in the group linked to a ultra-rightwing pro-Putin site, full of violently homophobic remarks and after that, I lost interest in participating actively in the group.
It's not necessary to have Chomsky's intellectual brilliance (at least, I assume he's brilliant, at least in linguistics) to underscore the principle that "to understand is not to condone."
I myself said this repeatedly in threads here about the Ukraine/Russia war. At one point, I recall writing that the saying tout comprendre c'est tout pardonner does not apply here.
(Btw that's sort of why I don't really agree w Bailyn's point about "contextualist" history that David Palmeter has mentioned here a couple of times. I don't think that understanding the context in which someone acted and thought has to imply any excuse for those actions or thoughts.)
I am going to go out on a limb and make another of my controversial comments.
I disagree that to say one understands x’s actions is not to condone x’s actions. It is, in fact, offering an explanation or an excuse for x’s actions. One can only understand what makes sense. If x’s actions do not make sense, then they cannot properly be said to be cognitively understood. Irrational actions cannot be understood. To say “I understand why x took action y” can mean one of two things: (1) I empathize with why x took action y, i.e., he killed his mother because he was abused as a child; or (2) I understand x’s justification for taking action y. When Chomsky and others say they understand why Putin invaded Ukraine, they are not saying they empathize with why he invaded Ukraine. They are saying they understand his justification for invading Ukraine. But stating that action y had a justification is, in fact, providing condonation for action y. To then state that, although I understand the justification for why Putin invaded Ukraine, and then state, I nonetheless disapprove of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, is to engage in cognitive dissonance. Asserting that x had a justification for taking action y implies that the justification had a degree of legitimacy – otherwise it is not a justification. There is a difference between saying, “I understand Putin’s justification for invading Ukraine,” and “I understand the justification which Putin claims justified his invasion of Ukraine.” The latter is not justifying the invasion; the former is.
Marc,
It's simply to assume that human nature exists and that there are a series of motives which
all human beings who are not completely insane act from and that after studying one's own motives and impulses and those of people who one is close to, one can more or less understand the motives of someone like Putin.
I don't see why that would justify what he did any more than if I understand why I myself did something which with time I've come to disapprove of, for example, abandoning a friend who needed my help, I justify it.
An explanation is not an excuse.
"X killed his lover because he was a psychologically somewhat volatile person who came home from having six beers at the local bar and found her in bed with a man" is an explanation for the murder in question. It doesn't excuse the murder or suggest that X should not be punished.
P.s. Busy this evening w other things, so I may not be able to comment further for a while.
Sorry Marc,
... but there is a basic distinction between explaining an action, on the one hand, and excusing or justifying it, on the other.
There just is.
One might want to understand why Eichmann played the role he did in the Holocaust without wanting to excuse or justify it.
s. wallerstein and LFC,
Sorry, this is just more sophistry.
Saying of Prof. Chomsky’s comments about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that he is not condoning the invasion, only stating he understands the invasion is playing on the ambiguity between the empathic use of the word “understand” and the “justification” use of “understand.” The phrase “to understand is not to condone” is a bromide with a superficial appeal which evaporates upon examination. When Chomsky says he understands Putin’s motives for invading Ukraine, is he really saying he understands it the way that s. wallerstein’s fallibility as a human being explains why he abandoned his friend; or why X killed his lover because he was a psychologically somewhat volatile person. If Chomsky is only speaking empathically, why in the world would he have empathy for Putin’s invasion when it has resulted in the death of thousands, including women and children; the total destruction of towns and cities; the ruin of untold Ukrainian lives? If he is using the word “understand” empathically, then his empathy is disgraceful. No, he is saying he understands Putin’s justification for invading Ukraine. Here lies the ambiguity which allows him to insulate himself from criticism. Is he saying he understands Putin’s justification from a cognitive standpoint, i.e., that the justification has legitimacy which, since it is legitimate, excuses Putin’s conduct, or is he saying he understand what Putin claims is the justification, and therefore is not asserting that the purported justification has legitimacy. Chomsky, and those who flippantly assert “to understand is not to condone” are playing on the ambiguity between these two possible interpretations, and thereby giving Chomsky, and those who share his view, a free ride.
David,
Your Eichmann example makes my point.
There is a difference between saying, “to explain is not to condone” and “to understand is not to condone.” No rational person would say, whatever Eichmann’s explanation was for implementing the Final Solution, that the explanation constituted a justification. What kind of “understanding” are we involved with, then? We understand that he was raised in a society where obedience to orders was expected; that he had no personal antipathy for Jews, but he was just following the orders of his superiors; etc. But understanding the explanation is not the same as understanding the actions themselves. Chomsky is claiming to understand Putin’s actions in invading Ukraine, not just explaining Putin’s claimed rationale for invading Ukraine. Claiming to understand Putin’s actions is more than an explanation; it is clothing the actions themselves with a degree of legitimacy, and in this sense constitutes condonation.
Marc---
Even allowing for your tendentious gloss on the word "understand," Chomsky nowhere says in this interview that he "understands" Putin's actions in invading Ukraine. Here is what he actually says:
“Though the provocations were consistent and conscious over many years, despite the warnings, they of course in no way justify Putin’s resort to 'the supreme international crime' of aggression. Though it may help explain a crime, provocation provides no justification for it."
Marc
Let's take Chomsky and Putin out of the picture for a moment sand talk more generally.
If you pick up a historical monograph or a popular work if history, you'll find explanations of actions on every page; those explanations aren't excuses.
What annoys you about Chomsky is that his explanation, by citing some U.S. behavior, appears to you to be an excuse. It's not an excuse but you think somehow it must be because it takes attention away from Putin's perfidy.
If you look at the last paragraph in the Chomsky passage, he uses the word "explain" not the word "understand". There's no ambiguity here. You simply don't like the explanation. That's fine, that's your prerogative. But don't proceed to muddy the waters by writing a long exegesis about the ambiguities of "understand" bc Chomsky does not use the word.
Apologies for the typos in the above.
I for one don't see anything wrong with trying to understand Putin, whether Chomsky does or not.
First of all, there are at least two kinds of empathy, cognitive and emotional; and cognitive empathy is simply understanding how another's person's mind works. A good detective would need it to solve some crimes for example.
I'm able to understand someone who does something wrong and at the same time to see that what they did was wrong.
Maybe that's because psychology interests me: I try to understand, yes, Marc, I try to understand David Zimmerman, I try to understand LFC, I try to understand the cashier in the supermarket, I try to understand the neighbor who doesn't say "hello" to me as well as the one who does. Trying to understand people is what I do all day and actually, besides the sensual pleasures of life, it is what most motivates me to stay alive. It's my chief interest in life besides eating, sleeping, sex, etc. and it in no way interferes with my ability to tell right from wrong.
I was thinking about this stuff earlier as well - the various ways in which to "understand" a person's action: explaining it versus justifying or excusing it. Taking an initial stab at some characterizations of these...
To explain why person P chooses to perform action A, means to say something to this effect: "P desires outcome X, and P believes the following: (i) In light of what is known about the world, the most efficient way to bring about X is to do A; and (ii) It's morally acceptable to do A."
To justify P's performance of A: "Each of P's beliefs - (i) and (ii) - is reasonable."
To excuse P's performance of A, when justification is unavailable: "One of those beliefs is false, or both are false, but P was not unreasonable to believe it/them (e.g., in light of P's best available evidence). Alternatively, P acted with a degree of viciousness or irrationality not uncommon to normal human beings, and practical considerations require us here to exercise sympathy or at least tolerance (e.g., by practicing forgiveness, by acknowledging that we might've chosen similarly)."
It seems to follow, for one thing, that inexcusable actions are unjustifiable but not necessarily unexplainable. Again, just an initial stab - would welcome corrections or suggestions to improve these.
I’m sorry, but I still have a problem with Chomsky’s explanation that he is only explaining the provocations by he U.S. and NATO which motivated Putin to act as he did, but they are not a justification for what he did. What does it mean to say, “X’s conduct provoked Y to act as /she did, but they do not justify Y’s acting as s/he did”? If an act actually provoked Y to act as s/he did, why is it not a justification for what Y did? Isn’t this a question of balancing the alleged provocation against the action it purportedly provoked? Is it not a justification to say that X’s acts provoked Y to take the action s/he did. Again, it seems to me that Chomsky and his supporters are trying to have it both ways – condemning Putin’s actions on the one hand, at the same time that they excuse it by asserting that his actions were provoked. This is double-talk. If they were truly provoked, then they were justified. If Putin had a choice not to be provoked, then his actions were not justified. Yet Chomsky uses both words in the same sentence, which I maintain is a rationalization. By using the word “provocation,” Chomsky is implying that there is shared blame, i.e., that Putin’s invasions was “somewhat” justified. But then he says the provocation does not mean the aggression was justified. Being “somewhat justified” and “not being justified” are not the same thing.
Post-script:
And there is also a difference between saying “X’s actions provoked Y to act as s/he did,” which is an assertion that Y’s response was at least somewhat justified, and “X’s actions were interpreted by Y as provoking Y to act as s/he did,” which is not an assertion that Y’s acts were justified. Chomsky is stating the former, not the latter.
Btw, as I've doubtless said here before, I don't think there is a *single* explanation for Putin's actions. U.S. policy is relevant, but so are several other factors that may be, or may have been, more important. Wherever one comes down on explanation, nothing can justify the invasion.
Recent highly-publicized Ukrainian gains in an offensive suggest that Putin may be facing some unpalatable choices, and this seems to me, just on the basis of the coverage I've heard, to be possibly an esp crucial moment.
Michael
Re your comment above: under yr "justify" definition, I think maybe replace "reasonable" with "true" -- otherwise you run into some ambiguity/overlap w "excuse" -- bc for "justify" istm you need some notion like "objectively reasonable." The word "true" here approximates that. So replace "reasonable" there with "true" or with "objectively reasonable," I'd say.
People who do monstruous deeds are not necessarily monstruos people. Neither JFK nor LBJ nor even Nixon were monsters, but they committed atrocities in Viet Nam and waged a war of aggression comparable to Putin in Ukraine. Not even Eichmann was a monster, at least according to Hannah Arendt, simply an unfeeling and unthinking bureaucrat concerned about his own career advancement.
There are monsters. Hitler was one, Mao was one and I'm not sure if Stalin was one. By "monster", I refer to someone whose motives for doing wrong a supposedly normal person like myself cannot understand even if I try.
The first argument in favor of understanding those who commit monstruous deeds is that if one understands them, one has an instrument for seeing that such deeds are not committed in the future, not an instrument that rules out their future occurence in absolute form, but makes their future occurence more unlikely. Well and good.
In addition, those of us who are more interested in understanding history and human psychology, more interested in that than in handing down moral condemnations, try to understand because understanding matters, to us at least. That should not seem weird to philoosophers.
There are those who prefer moral condemnation to understanding and that's life. Understanding is in no sense the same as moral justification. In fact, they're different games.
To Michael:
You suggest:
"To explain why person P chooses to perform action A, means to say something to this effect: 'P desires outcome X, and P believes the following: (i) In light of what is known about the world, the most efficient way to bring about X is to do A; and (ii) It's morally acceptable to do A'."
Clause ii. cannot be a condition of an analysis of the concept of explanation--- since there are many cases in which P has no views one way or the other about the moral acceptability of doing A, but it is nonetheless true that P did A because clause i. is true of her.
To Marc:
You do have a point about the implications of bringing "provoke" and its cognates (e.g. "provocation" and the like) into claims about what explains someone's actions:
Using the word does raise the question of whether the action was excused or justified. It would be too strong to say that it settles the question, but it does leave it open for further discussion. By contrast, to say that an attack was "unprovoked" tends to close that very question. ("Tends", because there may be reasons for attacking someone independently of whether he provoked it.)
I do understand your complaint about the conversational implicatures of statements like Chomsky's-- He vehemently insists that there is no justification for Putin's attack on Ukraine just after claiming that there was provocation, which leaves it an open question whether he was justified to attack in response.
I understand that you would rather that people like Chomsky not start off by noting that the West provided Putin with provocation by breaking promises made to Gorbachev and later to Russia re Nato membership closer to Russia's western border. You would rather that they just get to their point about the unjustifiability of the Russian invaision and skip the earlier historical bit. But if they are right about the history, is that not an important part of the explanation (not justification) of why Russia invaded Ukraine?
Question to you: How would you have the Chomsky's of the world: 1. Make the pertinent historical points about the background to the war and 2. Go on to express their moral condemnation of the invasion?
David,
Thank you for acknowledging the merit of my criticism of Prof. Chomsky’s combining his provocation analysis of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine with his assertion that the invasion was unjustified. I get the sense that Chomsky is seeking to preserve his credentials with his supporters on the far left by offering the history of purported provocations, without as the same time alienating those who are offended by Putin’s conduct by asserting that the invasion was unjustified. That way he preserves his reputation as a person of moral character. But he cannot have it both ways, and by attempting to have it both ways he slips into hypocrisy.
How would I have Prof. Chomsky and his supporters address the issue? By making it clear that they are explaining why Putin believes he was provoked into launching the invasion, without conceding that his explanation is meritorious. This way they can state that they are explaining why Putin launched the invasion, but that the provocations were not sufficient to justify his invasion, i.e., that the invasion, regardless Putin’s belief that he was provoked, was unjustified.
Marc:
You may be correct about Chomsky's motivation for stating the issue in the two-barrelled way that he does... to please two sides.
But in explaining what he should say, you say---
"This way they can state that they are explaining why Putin launched the invasion, but that the provocations were not sufficient to justify his invasion...."
Given your position about the implications of "provocation", Shouldn't you have said: "This way they can state that they are explaining why Putin launched the invasion, but also that PUTIN'S BELIEF that there were provocations was not sufficient to justify his invasion...." ??
That you put it the way you did shows how easy it is to slip into the use of "provocation" without intending any suggestion that the provocation justifies the response. You just did it.... why not allow Chomsky the same latitude?
David,
I made that distinction in my post-script, supra.
Agreed, I should have stated "purported provocations were not sufficient to justify the invasion."
Why am I not willing to grant Prof. Chomsky the same latitude? Because I believe his wording is not an inadvertent oversight, but a deliberate shell game. Based on my reading his other writings, and listening to his interviews, in which he persistently criticizes U.S. foreign policy, I believe he does believe that what Putin regards as provocations by the U.S. justifying the invasion of Ukraine were in fact legitimate provocations justifying Putin's invasion. And then he tries to preserve his reputation for morality by stating that the invasion was, nonetheless, unjustified, as an afterthought. He is engaging in linguistic sleight of hand, and for a professor whose expertise is linguistics, I find this sleight of hand unacceptable.
s. wallerstein (my friend and fellow New Jerseyan),
You state: “In addition, those of us who are more interested in understanding history and human psychology, more interested in that than in handing down moral condemnations, try to understand because understanding matters, to us at least. That should not seem weird to philosophers.”
Well it does seem a bit weird to me that at the same time you decry making moral condemnations, you engage in making prolific moral condemnations, such as that JFK, LBJ and Nixon engaged in atrocities in Viet Nam, and that Hitler, Mao and Stalin were “monsters,” surely a morally pejorative term.
I keep repeating myself. You, Eric, and sometimes LFC, profess to be moral relativists, and yet you repeatedly engage in making moral judgements, at the same time you criticize others (particularly me) for making moral judgments. On what do you base the assertion that the policies pursued by JFK (who was stuck with Eisenhower’s Viet Nam policy), LBJ and Nixon committed atrocities in Viet Nam, which you regard as morally deplorable? On what do you base your claim that war atrocities are morally deplorable? You, like Eric, have rejected my contention that there are valid moral precepts that do not require proof. What is the basis for your view that committing war atrocities, the indiscriminate taking of human life, is morally unacceptable? Is this based on your gut instinct? Similarly, why did the actions of Hitler, Mao and, possibly Stalin, qualify them as “monsters.” Again, gut instinct? Do your gut instincts require no proof?
Last night I watched for probably the 30th time Cool Hand Luke. During the scene, after Luke is told that his mother has died, when Luke is placed in the hot-box to prevent him from trying to escape to attend his mother’s funeral, the guard says to Luke, “I’m sorry Luke, I’m just doing my job.” Luke responds, “Saying it’s your job doesn’t make it right.” For those of us who grew to adulthood during the Viet Nam war, this was a self-evident, valid moral precept. Why? We accepted it without proof.
Post-script:
1967, the year in which Cool Hand Luke was released, was a banner year for great films. Paul Newman was nominated for Best Actor, but he encountered stiff competition from Rod Steiger in “In The Heat of The Night”; Warren Beatty in “Bonnie and Clyde”; Dustin Hoffman in “The Graduate”: and Spencer Tracy in “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.” Steiger won, and I cannot say the win was undeserved. Moreover, the ending of “In The Heat of The Night,” in which Mr. Tibbs wins the respect of a bigoted Southern sheriff, was more uplifting than seeing Cool Hand Luke, who is constantly sticking his finger in the eye of authority, shot to death by the authority figures he has antagonized.
Marc,
I've explained my thoughts and feelings about morality here about 70 times. I see no point in going through this same argument again.
If you're interested, you can look at previous threads where I've explained at length my thoughts and feelings on the topic.
I know yours and those of David Zimmerman.
s. wallerstien,
In prior threads you do the same thing you are doing here. You avoid, and refuse to address, the basic inconsistency between your moral relativism and your persistence in making moral judgments, like that JFK's, LBJ's, Nixon's and Hitler's actions were morally wrong, and that you prefer to understand what motivated their conduct, without making moral judgments, and then you proceed to make moral judgments.
Marc,
I never said that JFK's, LBJ's, etc., actions were morally wrong. I said that they were monstruous. If you interpet that as a moral judgement, that's your issue, not mine.
Oh, come on, S. Wallerstein... that is just disingenuous of you.
"Monstrous" is OBVIOUSLY a term of moral denigration.
That is the English language... not Marc's "issue."
Marc
As you know, Chomsky has a long history of taking positions on intl and foreign-policy issues. Some of his positions have been controversial. He first came to prominence in this area for his incisive critique of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. I see no reason to think that Chomsky's view that Putin"s actions constitute the crime of aggression is anything other than sincere. Your charge that he is engaging in linguistic sleight-of-hand is uncharitable and reflects the fact that you don't like Chomsky's general political orientation.
Putin's actions are so obviously illegal aggression that even a persistent critic of U.S. foreign policy like Chomsky recognizes this. Instead of welcoming Chomsky's recognition of this, you choose to engage in an uncharitable, hair-splitting reading of his remarks. Why not rather say something like "I usually disagree with Chomsky, but on this particular point [Putin's aggression] I agree with him"?
David Zimmerman,
yes, of course I realize how you probably use the word "monstrous". maybe it's an aesthetic judgment for me. maybe it's something in-between an aesthetic and a moral judgment. maybe it's neither-nor. why do you assume that everyone sees the world as you do? or that's there's only one "right" way to see the world, the morality way?
“I see no reason to think that Chomsky's view that Putin"s actions constitute the crime of aggression is anything other than sincere.”
Well, I do, whether it is “uncharitable” or not. He goes to great length in the interview cited above to point out all of the alleged provocations which Putin perceived as justifying the invasion. For example, he states: “That Russia felt threatened by NATO expansion to the East, in violation of firm and unambiguous promises to Gorbachev, has been stressed by virtually every high-level U.S. diplomat with any familiarity with Russia for 30 years, well before Putin. To take just one of a rich array of examples, in 2008 when he was ambassador to Russia and Bush II recklessly invited Ukraine to join NATO, current CIA director William Burns warned that ‘Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin)” … “ Nowhere in the interview does Prof. Chomsky state that the fact that Putin believed that this, and other events, constituted legitimate provocations justifying the invasion were insufficient to justify the invasion, on the scale, with the loss of life and destruction of property, that the invasion has caused. He then proceeds to refer to these events as provocations, not purported provocations, which, as I have argued above entails that they justified the invasion. Prof. Chomsky is too intelligent not to know the difference. He is, as I say, trying to have it both ways, criticizing the U.S. actions as provocations, at the same time that he seeks to preserve his reputation for morality by stating that the invasion was not justified. The fact that Prof. Chomsky is an esteemed academic, and deservedly highly respected, does not insulate him from legitimate criticism, regardless whether it is “uncharitable.,”
s. wallerstein,
You do yourself, and your credibility, a disservice by engaging in this “I don’t know nothin’ about the distinction between aesthetic and moral judgments” two-step.
To SW:
I see that you donned the Humpty Dumpty mantle:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."
Not at all, David, because everyone knows what the word "monstruous" means.
I can say that he was "monstruously fat" and no one takes that to be a moral judgment. I can say that they did a "monstrously bad job" painting the house and no one takes that to be a moral judgment.
You seem to believe that philosophy is about fitting everything into a set of academic categories that dates back to Plato or Aristotle and maybe that's what it is in academia, but the word means "love of wisdom" and for me that's more than fitting everything into pre-set categories dating back to ancient Athens.
Besides that, there are great philosophers who criticize, question or reject morality such as Nietzsche or Rorty and I take my cue from them.
s. wallerstein,
You are just digging your hole deeper and deeper.
What does the sentence “People who do very deeds are not necessarily very people” mean?
Oh gosh, SW--- more disingenuousness.
OF COURSE, adjectives like "monstrous" have non-moral uses. So do adjectives like "good" and "right"--- but that does not entail that in contexts in which they are obviously being used to make moral judgments they are not being used to make moral judgments.
"Eichmann's treatment of the Jews was monstrous." That is a moral judgment. You don't get to transform it into an aesthetic one.... and neither does Nietzsche or Richard Rorty.
What you do get to do is refrain from ever making judgments like "Eichmann's treatment of the Jews was monstrous"... or making any other moral judgment. Knock yourself out.... refrain from ever making moral judgments. I can't force you to make them... and neither can Marc S.
But when you do make them.... and then pretend that they are really aesthetic judgments.... you ought to be called out.
And THAT is not a moral judgment, but a dialectical one.
Let's just say that it's a judgement. Why do you have to put a label on everything?
Maybe philosophy, as you understand it, is about labelling everything. If so, fine.
Maybe that's one of the reasons I didn't study philosophy. It seems like a form of accounting to me and my father, who was an accountant, warned me never to become one because it was boring.
To SW--
Because labels enable us to think.
LFC: Putin's actions are so obviously illegal aggression
Define "illegal."
(And while you're there, spare a few moments to meditate on the definitions of "democracy" and "rules-based international order.")
Eric
Basically, "illegal" here means contrary to the UN Charter Art. 2(4).
p.s. yes, there was an ongoing conflict but Feb. 24 was a major escalation of it. The thwarted drive on Kiev seems, to me at any rate, clearly an act of unlawful aggression. I think we've been through this discussion before...
Marc Susselman: In prior threads you do the same thing you are doing here. You avoid, and refuse to address, the basic inconsistency between your moral relativism and your persistence in making moral judgments
Moral relativism ≠ moral nihilism
"Moral nihilism and moral relativism are metaethical theories, theories of the nature of morality. Nihilism is the view that there are no moral facts. It says nothing is right or wrong, or morally good or bad....
Relativism is the view that moral statements are true or false only relative to some standard or other, that things are right or wrong relative to Catholic morality, say, and different things are right or wrong relative to Confucian morality, but nothing is right or wrong simpliciter. Just as Einstein's theory of relativity says that various physical attributes like mass, length, and duration have definite quantitative measures only relative to a frame of reference, so moral relativism says that determinate answers to questions about what we morally ought to do can only be had once a frame is specified, either explicitly or tacitly. There are a number of versions of relativism, because there are various candidates for sources of frames....
Both doctrines are skeptical about freestanding moral facts, of some principles of action having special authority that picks them out of the hodgepodge of conventions. Instead, relativists and nihilists see just us people with our moral feelings and social rules, valuing some things in a special way, perhaps, and then projecting these values into the world."
James Dreier in The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory 6th ed
LFC,
Who is the supreme authority on interpretations of the meanings of the UN charter and its application in various situations?
Intl law is not like domestic law; there is not always a singular "supreme authority." There is the ICJ, but it hasn't pronounced on this particular case.
Eric, you're obviously very capable of doing your own research. Plus, I do not "do" intl law on a professional basis and while I did study it (among other things), it's been a while.
There are a couple of good intl law blogs, run by academics etc. Don't recall the names offhand. Mark Janis, if I recall the name correctly, had a good survey or primer, might look at latest edition.
In my judgment Putin's actions since Feb. 24 violate intl law. You are of course free to disagree. I have no strong interest in persuading you of my view. You're clearly an intelligent person and you can arrive at your own judgments.
LFC,
So long as the US, Russia, and China hold permanent seats on the Security Council, with veto powers, nothing anyone of them says is "obviously illegal" is illegal unless they all agree that it is illegal.
David Zimmerman,
To be sure, labels are part of the thinking process, but it seems to me that then one thinks about and criticizes one's labels, and after a label-less moment one experiments with new labels, a never ending process. At least that's my experience of thinking.
I don't agree with that, Eric. I would think, for example, that Israel's building of West Bank settlements is pretty obviously illegal, even though the U.S. has, if I'm not mistaken, vetoed resolutions to that effect. I'm sure other examples would not be hard to find. For another example, what China is doing to the Uighurs is obviously illegal, even though China will veto any resolution on it. The '03 invasion of Iraq was illegal -- no resolution to that effect.
The Security Council is not really the arbiter of what is illegal or legal, iirc. Its remit is inter alia "threats to intl peace and security," a slightly different category. But if you don't like the word "obviously," removing it does not harm the point. I have the sense that a perusal of the intl. law blogs might be useful.
These are from recent Truthout interviews with Chomsky:
"All else pales into insignificance. We will find ways to cooperate to avert disaster and create a better world, as we still can. Or we will bring the human experiment to an inglorious end."
"For what it’s worth, I personally respect the words of Jeremy Corbyn...: 'There must be an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine followed by a Russian troop withdrawal and agreement between Russia and Ukraine on future security arrangements. All wars end in a negotiation of some sort — so why not now?'” [and a pony!]
Chomsky's concerns are global warming and nuclear war. His calculus has put him in "if one only has a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail" territory on other issues. I'm sure he is appalled by Putin's invasion of Ukraine but global warming and nuclear war. He seems unaware that Putin sees Russia benefiting from GW and the opening Northeast Passage. Ditto China (at Russia's expense).
Fundies on the right do the same thing with abortion. Back in the day, there was often one person who would derail a meeting by insisting that before we did anything else we had to deal with overpopulation.
This is special, another one bites the dust:
"Sungorkin’s passing comes amid a string of mysterious deaths of top Putin allies this month. Most recently, Ivan Pechorin, aviation director for Russia’s Far East and Arctic Development Corporation, was reported dead after allegedly “falling from a boat” in Vladivostok, according to local Russian media outlets."
https://news.yahoo.com/another-putin-ally-dead-suffocating-182142397.html
Russia never had a chance, A corrupt lush followed by a petty thug who lucked out by being in the right place at the right time (hardly a capo more less di tutti di i capi part).
Eric, when the North Koreans invaded South Korea the Soviet Union was boycotting the UN allowing the Security Council to vote to intervene. Had they been present they would have vetoed it.
Post a Comment