Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Paging FDR
Phillip Egge sends along this piece about yesterday's assertion by Sen. John Warner (R-Va., but better remembered as an ex-Mr. Elizabeth Taylor) that George W. Bush should engage in "fireside chats" a la FDR:
The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Sunday suggested that President Bush use an FDR-style presentation to update people on progress in the war in Iraq.
Sen. John Warner, R-Va., recalled that during World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt often went on the radio in "fireside chats" to explain to the nation in detail the conduct of the war in Europe and Asia.
"I think it would be to Bush's advantage," said Warner, who served in the Navy during the end of World War II and during the Korean war.
"It would bring him closer to the people, dispel some of this concern that understandably our people have, about the loss of life and limb, the enormous cost of this war to the American public," he said.
More here. Bush will be giving a speech about the war from Annapolis on Wednesday. Personally, I'd prefer to see him take a page from Fiorello LaGuardia and read the comics over the radio (are they still looking for Howard Stern replacements when the shock jock goes satellite in '06?). Or a non-budgetary cue from LBJ and start picking his dog up by the ears. But an honest accounting of the war, in whatever format, would be a nice change of pace.
|11.28.05 @ 9:54AM|#
I don't think it would work out quite a well. Roosevelt had the
advantage of being able to speak English. Ba dum bum.
But seriously folks, FDR was able to draw on the credibility he
built up with the public when he levelled with them during the
Depression. They were willing to give him the benefit of the
doubt.
Bush? Uh...
|11.28.05 @ 9:56AM|#
joe, you know that if you come here and say that FDR built up credibility you'll just wind up in a fight.
|11.28.05 @ 10:00AM|#
joe,
Roosevelt had the advantage of being able to speak
English.
Actually, Roosevelt spoke a brand of English not common to most
Americans at the time. Bush on the other hand speaks one which is
fairly common to most Americans (linguists argue that the way Bush
speaks is the general direction we have been going in since around
WWII).
As to whatever credibility FDR built up during the 1930s for FDR
levelling with them, well, that's really a claim which can't be
verified.
|11.28.05 @ 10:04AM|#
Anyway, if credibility is measured by how one does in elections, the FDR got less credible over time - the 1940 and 1944 elections being competitive races.
Jeff P.|11.28.05 @ 10:11AM|#
Actually the radio listener surveys of FDR's time showed that he
did garner an audience. He was not carried on every station, but
managed to hold his own against some stiff competition. I'll look
up what shows he was up against.
Several books and essays on radio history credit FDR with bringing
a degree of credibility to the medium with his usage of it. He also
became a radio commodity, on par with boxing matches, for
generating revenue. Stations sold lengthy commercial slots before
and after his chats.
Carter's chats, on the other hand, had dismal ratings.
|11.28.05 @ 10:13AM|#
No, it wouldn't work. His tone of voice is a real turn-off. Unless one enjoys condescension reminicent of a frustrated parent lecturing a three-year-old on the way to visit the grandparents.
|11.28.05 @ 10:14AM|#
Rather than a "Fireside Chat", Bush should revive "Space Ghost Coast to Coast" with
himself as host. joe, I'd offer you the Zorak job (as Bush's
arch-enemy), but I'm reluctant to subject any Hit &
Run commentator to regular zapping by Space Bush. Or should
that be Bush Ghost? Hmmm.
FDR emulation is not the direction I want to see the presidency
move, incidentally.
|11.28.05 @ 10:17AM|#
Whatever happened to sneering and muttering "go fuck yourself"?
Didn't work, huh?
No seriously, why are they concerned what the average American
thinks? And who is it precicesly who is concerned? Warner? Come on.
Bush Administration? Not likely.
|11.28.05 @ 10:19AM|#
Anyway, attacking someone because of their dialect seems rather crass. Its a bit like arguing that Faulkner is crap because he uses "non-standard" English (whatever the hell non-standard English is).
Jeff P.|11.28.05 @ 10:31AM|#
I agree that emulating FDR would be bad, but at least FDR
understood the need to embrace media. It's been argued that FDR was
adept at "poisoning the well," (a claim levelled at Bush as well)
but even that takes an understanding what communications
means.
Remember, this was before the DNC and RNC had broadcast policies.
Those were not developed until the 1950's
If Bush's weekly radio addresses are any indication, casual chats
are not his bag, man.
|11.28.05 @ 10:37AM|#
Jeff P.,
Those are scripted. The issue would be whether Bush's personable
and gregarious nature would come across in a "fireside chat"
setting. It might or it might not.
...but at least FDR understood the need to embrace
media.
As I recall, FDR had some significant problems with the media and
he has own share of P.R. snafus - court packing being one of the
most famous.
|11.28.05 @ 10:43AM|#
Good one, joe. Here's one that seems somehow apropos of my
proposal for the POTUS:
|11.28.05 @ 10:45AM|#
Credibility is easy to acheive when you force broadcasters to air your "chats" and not give any time to the opposition. How many rebuttle arguements occured on the radio after the gentle fireside chats? AH FDR, he's not our president, he's our nightly storytime teller, how cute. anyone really think that crap could work today?
|11.28.05 @ 10:48AM|#
mkay,
Like most successful Presidents in the broadcast media age, FDR was
good at bullying the press and deflating their ability to serve
their function as a check against government power.
|11.28.05 @ 10:49AM|#
mkay,
Or I should say that he was generally good at it. His
administration wasn't completely perfect.
|11.28.05 @ 10:50AM|#
Maybe we could have one of our TV Presidents give the chat. Like
Geena Davis, or Dennis Haysbert, or Martin Sheen.
Haysbert: "America, I want to talk to you tonight about our
progress in the War on Terror. Imagine you're in an airplane, when
hijackers suddenly take command. Fortunately, the plane is insured
by AllState, who has a dedicated team of armed private detectives
on the plane. Security comes first. That's AllState's stand. Are
you in good hands?"
|11.28.05 @ 10:52AM|#
mkay, we don't have a Fairness Doctrine today, either. How often are Bush's press conferences followed by a media event by Nancy Pelosi?
Viking Moose|11.28.05 @ 10:54AM|#
Thoreau - you yet again impress with your knowledge. (did you
like the Jimmy Smits/Alan Alda debate from a few weeks ago?)
Is said team lead by my cousin, Jack Bauer?
And just think about how "long" it took to go from the first radio
president to the first TV president. Those Nixon/JFK debates were
interesting. You know, the story about those who saw it thought JFK
won, while those that radio'ed it whent oppo.
Dubyah is doing just fine with the media. Despite all the frothing
about liberal media and all, his people are in good control of the
most-watched cable news channel, fox.
|11.28.05 @ 10:54AM|#
mkay,
Well, the government under FDR (as did Wilson in WWI) actively
censored the press in the U.S. during WWII, keeping pictures of
dead Americans out of photographs in newspapers, etc. until 1943
when it was thought that Americans needed an example of
"sacrifice."
|11.28.05 @ 10:57AM|#
VM-
I don't watch West Wing or Commander in Chief. So I didn't see the
debate.
Of course, President Haysbert's TV chat would be interrupted by
either a coup or a really hot chick attacking him with poison.
|11.28.05 @ 11:00AM|#
joe,
A press conference isn't analagous to a fireside chat (and its
rather obvious why that is the case).
A fireside chat, like any other national performance where no one
may ask questions of the President is a radically different thing
(as far as political risk is concerned especially) than a press
conference where the press will ask generally unscripted questions.
Presidential handlers have a hierarchy of perferred media events
and they themselves see the very different natures of these two
types of events.
|11.28.05 @ 11:01AM|#
I'm still waiting for President Sheen to have an on-air flashback to when he had to go up the river and kill Col. Kurtz. The horror...
Viking Moose|11.28.05 @ 11:02AM|#
"keeping pictures of dead Americans out of photographs in
newspapers, etc. until 1943 when it was thought that Americans
needed an example of "sacrifice.""
and think of the propaganda movies of the day ("Wake Island")
too!
Dr. T: (i didn't know it was WW that had the debate - my lovely and
intelligent and libertarian wife saw someone who sounded like "a
pretty good candidate" and we watched). as for 69 errrr 24, as long
as the daughter is elsewhere (like on the home shopping network),
then that's fine.
|11.28.05 @ 11:03AM|#
VM,
That's why one should read such debates. Reading allows you combat
appeals to emotion and discover inconsistencies in thought, etc.
more readily. Something Plutarch taught me (blame your teacher!). I
read Presidential debates and State of the Union addresses these
days.
Jeff P.|11.28.05 @ 11:03AM|#
FDR was able to tell when he had a P.R. snafu or when he gave a
bad performance. Once again that requires an understanding of how
the medium works.
Once again, I'm not defending him, just staing that he was the
first prez with the capability to vocally address that large of an
audience at a given a time, and he took advantage of it
brilliantly.
|11.28.05 @ 11:07AM|#
Jeff P.,
As I recall, there have been some studies comparing the techniques
of Hitler with that of FDR and they were quite similar. Speaking in
simple messages evoking a "shared" ethos being a common
strategy.
Viking Moose sans Plutarch but|11.28.05 @ 11:09AM|#
"Something Plutarch taught me (blame your teacher!)."
for oh so many things!
JeffP: agreed, and just as this citizen feels there's a JFK myth
and a Reagan myth, there's this FDR myth (Just because Wilke-mania
never caught on!). and all three had major flaws that are
constantly overlooked (the allegations of FDR being somewhat
antisemetic; womanizing; not really for small government).
FDR seems to be as sacred a cow as is reagan: both provided, via
the media, a soothing image that people grabbed and held.
|11.28.05 @ 11:12AM|#
VM,
Yeah, criticism of either FDR or Reagan seems to bring about a
certain measure of ranting from offended parties.
Jeff P.|11.28.05 @ 11:23AM|#
Hitler and FDR were both taught in the Propaganda class I took
in college.
It should be noted that Propaganda was a required course for a
Telecommunications degree in the early 80s.
Modern pundits abandoned good ol' fashioned propaganda for mundane
shrieking and grandiose moral outrage. Subtle as a fart.
Oh. I miss Propaganda.
|11.28.05 @ 11:24AM|#
I can see it all now:
"Why? Why do we hurt the one's we love? Why Brownie? Brownie!
Brownie! Browwwniiiieeee!"
I guess that would mean Cheney playing the part of Zorak, and Karl
Rove as Moltar...
...but who, oh who could be cast as Brak?
Viking Moose|11.28.05 @ 11:25AM|#
"As I recall, there have been some studies comparing the
techniques of Hitler with that of FDR"
and i'm sure you've seen Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the
Will".
On a slightly different movie track, have you seen the Kenneth
Branaugh (yeah yeah, i know - he overacts dreadfully) movie,
"Conspiracy" about the Wannsee Conference? powerful stuff.
|11.28.05 @ 11:36AM|#
Bush can not speak truth to this debacle, period. What would he
say?
All he can say is the usual tripe like, 'The soldiers that died is
dying for a noble cause, cause freedom is the cause they died
in.'
Or something like that.
|11.28.05 @ 11:40AM|#
Jeff P.,
My university required a "Politics and the Media" course of
political philosophy, political science and journalism
majors.
VM,
But I have read some of the materials associated with the Wannsee
Conference's Endlosung der Judenfrage for a paper I wrote
on the subject. If you go to the villa (its now a museum) you can
see much of the material (letters, memos, etc.) on display there.
Was Branuagh Eichmann?
|11.28.05 @ 11:40AM|#
"Bush will be giving a speech about the war from Annapolis on
Wednesday."
Of course. He only talks in front of audiences he can have
court-martialed if they fail to suck up enough.
That's pretty bad. When was the last time he gave a speech in front
of an audience that wasn't the subservient military?
|11.28.05 @ 11:41AM|#
James Carville?
Well, I was expecting someone in the administration, but the face,
voice, and mentality seems about right.
"Hi! My name is JAAAAAMES!"
|11.28.05 @ 11:43AM|#
"Anyway, attacking someone because of their dialect seems rather
crass."
Would that be the Kennebunkport dialect, the New Haven dialect, the
Greenwich dialect, the Andover dialect, the Hahvahd dialect, the
affected Texas dialect, or the substance abuse brain damage
dialect?
|11.28.05 @ 11:44AM|#
Jon H,
Bush tends to speak to pre-selected audiences. Not that such is
unusual for an American politician.
|11.28.05 @ 11:45AM|#
Bush speaks as well as the average American.
That's the problem.
Exactly. Despite all of our claims to extoll average, everyday guys
as our leaders, what Onosander said in the 1st century AD still
holds true: men prefer leaders of noble birth, meaning that we want
our leaders to be better than ourselves. FDR and JFK exuded their
aristocratic breeding and used it to advantage; Reagan made up for
a lack of it with his charm and presence.
Bush, on the other hand, is more of a spoiled prince who cannot
speak or radiate a lasting charisma. His State of the Union
speeches are grueling to sit through. Fireside chats with him would
be mentally tuned out at this point.
|11.28.05 @ 11:47AM|#
Jon H,
Linguists say that the way Bush speaks today is likely the way he's
always spoken. Honestly, you don't build a house where he did in
Texas without having a real affinity for the state.
I've been to Kennebunkport twice, BTW. Its not too bad of a tourist
trap.
|11.28.05 @ 11:48AM|#
joe writes: "I'm still waiting for President Sheen to have an
on-air flashback to when he had to go up the river and kill Col.
Kurtz."
Have you seen the gag in, I think, Hot Shots Part 2, where Charlie
Sheen is shown riding a boat upriver, doing a monologue, ala
Apocalypse Now, and his father floats by in the opposite direction,
doing the same thing?
|11.28.05 @ 11:49AM|#
"Honestly, you don't build a house where he did in Texas without
having a real affinity for the state."
Bah, he built it for the '00 campaign. It's mostly a prop, probably
dictated by Rove.
|11.28.05 @ 11:49AM|#
Bush tends to speak to pre-selected audiences. Not that such
is unusual for an American politician.
Except until a short time ago, you didn't need a ticket to attend a
stump speech; now, if you're not on the list as an official
cheerleader, you're escorted out.
|11.28.05 @ 11:51AM|#
"Bush tends to speak to pre-selected audiences. Not that such is
unusual for an American politician."
Yes, but he *used* to be able to find audiences that didn't consist
only of people under his command.
|11.28.05 @ 11:53AM|#
Jon H,
Yeah, that's why he spends more time there than he does in the WH
it seems. I really can't take your "Rove the Jedi Political Master"
stuff seriously.
cdunlea,
Except until a short time ago, you didn't need a ticket to
attend a stump speech...
That's an issue of evolution within an already secret-oriented
system.
|11.28.05 @ 11:55AM|#
We've had numerous Presidents who weren't of "noble"
birth.
Not all, but many were, and those who weren't became president
either through military prowess (Harrison, Grant, Teddy R, Ike) or
through their wealth. Only recently has "likeability" become a
factor, due to TV.
|11.28.05 @ 11:56AM|#
"Yeah, that's why he spends more time there than he does in the
WH it seems. I really can't take your "Rove the Jedi Political
Master" stuff seriously."
That's just because he's congenitally lazy.
Come on, they call the damn place the "prairie chapel", and you
claim it's not a PR set?
|11.28.05 @ 11:59AM|#
I think the fatal assumption being made here is that old George
isn't "getting his message out." As if all of Bush's previous press
conferences and must-see-TV-interupting speeches to explain the war
and its necessity never happened. The truth is Senator Warner, we
got Dubbya's point loud and clear the first time around. We just
don't agree with it and no amount of nostolgic, WWII symbolism will
change that.
(BTW, if I hear one more WoT/WWII comparision from the warpigs, I'm
going to puke. I now all of you right-wingers have had this
militaristic hard-on since watching "Saving Private Ryan" and "Band
Of Brothers," but bin Ladin isn't Hitler. Hell, he isn't even
Hitler's shoe-shine boy.)
So spare us the fireside chat crap, bring our troops home, and
figure out a way to fight terrorism that DOSEN'T include trashing
our Bill Of Rights and turning our nation into a gang of jingoistic
thugs.
|11.28.05 @ 11:59AM|#
cdunlea,
Reagan was a Hollywood celebrity, which is its own kind of popular
aristocracy.
The tension between the desire for "noble" leaders and "regular
people" as leaders in American society resolves itself in some odd
ways.
|11.28.05 @ 12:01PM|#
The tension between the desire for "noble" leaders and
"regular people" as leaders in American society resolves itself in
some odd ways.
True enough. Celebrity is the new aristocracy (see SCHWARTZENEGGER,
Arnold; VENTURA, Jesse).
|11.28.05 @ 12:02PM|#
As long as we're talking about ranches, the guy has been clearing brush on camera for 5 years now. What exactly is he planning to do with the land that he's clearing?
Viking Moose|11.28.05 @ 12:04PM|#
"So spare us the fireside chat crap, bring our troops home, and
figure out a way to fight terrorism that DOSEN'T include trashing
our Bill Of Rights and turning our nation into a gang of jingoistic
thugs."
hear hear!
ps., others here: be sure to wish Mr. MacKenzie a happy belated
Birthday (11/25).
|11.28.05 @ 12:06PM|#
cdunlea,
So, where do you put Lincoln, Coolidge, Nixon, etc. into the
mix?
Jon H,
,i>Come on, they call the damn place the "prairie chapel", and
you claim it's not a PR set?
That folks might find it a place to go on pilgramage doesn't
exclude the notion that Bush Bush loves Texas.
cdunlea,
I had no problem getting in to see Kerry or Nader speak without
a ticket.
Well, Nader is a not a real Presidential candidate; he's a gadfly.
Also, you miss my point. Politics is built around secrecy and
message control for the two major parties - that one has gotten a
bit more exteme on the matter than the other in this particular
instance is a sign of evolution, not a change in overall
agenda.
|11.28.05 @ 12:08PM|#
cdunlea,
Ventura left office after one term. Arnold is in deep shit in
California.
thoreau,
Heh. Have you ever owned a nice spread of land in your life?
Clearing brush and such for many people is an end unto itself.
|11.28.05 @ 12:12PM|#
Bush strikes me as the sort of guy who would clear brush just to clear it. Git 'R Done! :)
|11.28.05 @ 12:14PM|#
I've been to Kennebunkport twice, BTW. Its not too bad of a
tourist trap.
Go to Kennebunkport after Labor Day. Go everywhere after Labor
Day.
|11.28.05 @ 12:17PM|#
D. Anghelone,
I've been there in March and in October (off-season obviously). In
both instances it was a tourist trap. The one place I liked on the
New England coast (that was a town) was Woods Hole in October for a
conference I went to.
|11.28.05 @ 12:20PM|#
Hak,
Coolidge was a Brahmin WASP and had the social cred to get in
office. Lincoln...almost didn't make it several times, and narrowly
avoided defeat in 1864 (that is, until the election itself his
prospects for re-election were dismal). He was elected only on the
basis of the prevailing issues of the day, ie. Dred Scott and the
expansion of slavery. He survived because of Grant's military
successes. Nixon...was a hoax, and his general scumbaggery became
clear in 1974.
Re getting in to see a candidate, I agree it's getting worse all
around, as campaign managers try to keep their candidate's image
tight. It may be evolution, as you put it, but it doesn't speak
well for Bush as a leader that he apparently needs the staging and
scripting. Compare him with, say, James Michael Curley or Huey
Long, neither of whom needed such props to succeed.
And clearing brush is a fine way to spend an afternoon outdoors.
:)
|11.28.05 @ 12:23PM|#
Whatever the trends may be on the interaction between the
executive and the media, it can't be a good sign when the
pre-screened attendees are saying things like "I just feel like God
is in the White House again."
And can somebody tell me what the point of clearing brush is? And
whether any brush gets cleared when the cameras are gone?
|11.28.05 @ 12:27PM|#
cdunlea,
Coolidge was from a small town in rural Vermont (I've been to his
house there); he became President because Harding died in office on
him. Its unlikely that he would have ever won the Republican
nomination outright if not for Harding croaking.
Your statement about Lincoln doesn't explain what category he
belongs in. The same is true of Nixon.
I'll take Bush over a tyrant like Huey P. Long anyday.
|11.28.05 @ 12:28PM|#
"I've been there in March and in October (off-season obviously).
In both instances it was a tourist trap."
October would probably be tourists looking at the 'fall
color'.
Dunno why anyone would want to be in Maine in March, but I suppose
they can't really turn off the tourist-trap nature in the
offseason.
|11.28.05 @ 12:30PM|#
"And can somebody tell me what the point of clearing brush
is?"
Especially when there's 6,000 acres or something, as in Bush's
ranch.
I can see clearing brush you can see from the house, but come
on...
|11.28.05 @ 12:30PM|#
thoreau,
Clearing brush is fun. Its an enjoyable activity by itself. If you
don't understand it, don't expect me to explain it to you. Indeed,
its a bit like asking: "Why do you like to shoot guns?"
And whether any brush gets cleared when the cameras are
gone?
That's a bit like the old "tree falling in the forest" question.
Who knows.
|11.28.05 @ 12:32PM|#
Florence King wrote an interesting article whose topic brushes
against this one; she wasn't talking about politics so much as the
love/hate relationship Americans have toward celebrities, and she
blamed much of it on TV. Some of the points she made, in no
particular order:
Radio was merely a disembodied voice in the room (and you never
heard people say things like "I need to cut back on my
radio-listening," let alone brag "Heck, I don't even OWN a radio."
Movies, at least in the old days, featured these godlike, gorgeous
people, literally larger than life on those enormous old screens.
But television shrinks people down and brings them right into your
house. (Familiarity breeds contempt.) Also, the talk show format,
with celebrities sitting in a fake living room having an ordinary
conversation, makes the viewer feel excluded--there's a
conversation happening, and I can't participate!
But the main thing she mentioned was the fact that many modern
celebrities simply don';t deserve to be so. King's thesis was that
Americans can and do respect talent, but are no longer given much
to respect. Today we have singers who can't sing, actors who can't
act, and (in Bush's case, and many others) leaders who can't lead.
Celebrities and leaders are no longer people who are "better" than
us in terms of talent or intellect or anything else; they're
basically lottery winners.
And King, an admitted misanthrope, deplored the modern idea that
instead of voting for a leader, we should vote for a guy who would
be fuun to have a beer with. Her book With Charity Toward None:
A Fond Look at Misanthropy had an interesting hypothesis about
Nixon: he was a misanthrope who would have been one of our greatest
ever presidents had we just left him alone; it's the stress of
having to do all this nicey-nice "I'm just a friendly average guy"
stuff that made him snap.
|11.28.05 @ 12:33PM|#
"That folks might find it a place to go on pilgramage doesn't
exclude the notion that Bush Bush loves Texas."
Er, no, the "prairie chapel" name isn't something given to it by
devotees of Bush, the name is what Bush calls it.
Sorry, but that just reeks of calculation. Unless, that is, Bush
thinks that he's doing God's work by watching TV, riding his bike
and clearing brush.
|11.28.05 @ 12:34PM|#
Jon H,
Buy a nice spread of land with a lot of overgrown brush on it (be
it kudzu, blackberry bushes, or whatever other crap might be there)
and start clearing it. You'll find it to be an enjoyable experience
by itself.
R C Dean|11.28.05 @ 12:35PM|#
And can somebody tell me what the point of clearing brush
is?
That part of Texas is covered up with all kinds of thorny stuff
that makes the land impassable and unusable unless and until it is
cleared.
The fun way to do it is to drag an anchor chain between two big-ass
caterpillars, then burn it.
The hard way is to do it by hand.
|11.28.05 @ 12:36PM|#
Jon H,
Well, if that is what he calls it then that seems to be an even
greater indication that he really loves living there. Its kind of
his 'Fortress of Solitude.'
|11.28.05 @ 12:38PM|#
Anyway, I can't speak to the particulars of Texas brush clearing, since most of the brush and/or tree clearing I've done was in L.A. or Oregon. Totally different climates.
|11.28.05 @ 12:39PM|#
Here's my guess on what will happen to Bush's ranch in 2009 or
shortly thereafter - Bush will be needing a location for a
presidential library. The committee or corporation or whatever for
his library will raise funds, and buy the land from him, at an
inflated price.
(Apparently, there's already a site-selection committee considering
alternatives, none of which is Bush's ranch. But we all know how
Bush does this sort of thing. Cheney finds Cheney, Miers finds
Miers, Bush finds Prairie Chapel.)
|11.28.05 @ 12:39PM|#
R.C. Dean,
Since it is a relatively newly acquired spread it makes sense for
him to be doing a lot of clearing.
|11.28.05 @ 12:43PM|#
R C-
That does sound like fun!
It would probably be even more fun if the burning was initiated
with a flamethrower!
|11.28.05 @ 12:43PM|#
Jon H,
In the fall and the spring Maine provides for some rough and fun
sea kayaking weather.
|11.28.05 @ 12:44PM|#
"Since it is a relatively newly acquired spread it makes sense
for him to be doing a lot of clearing"
I'm thinking it's really not a good use of his time, given that
he's supposed to be running a war and all, and given that he's a
multi-millionaire we're paying $400,000 a year.
He can afford to have it done for him, and he should.
Either that, or he should step down and devote all his time to what
he seems to love most, which ain't governmenting.
|11.28.05 @ 12:45PM|#
Jon H,
Dude, there was a selection committee being formed in January of
2001 I am sure. having that library is part of the whole 'control
your legacy' deal modern Presidents and their supporters go apeshit
over.
|11.28.05 @ 12:55PM|#
Hak, Coolidge was from Vermont, yes, but he was of the old Brahmin nobility; nobody got elected Governor of Massachusetts in those days without being part of it (Curley's election to the State House in 1934 was considered an outrage, and not just because of his crimes). Lincoln did have the ability to become an attorney, something out of reach for the common man from Illinois in the 1840's, so I would call that "elite" too. And Nixon? Well, you might have me there...but Long over Bush? I don't know, Long never invaded Alabama...
|11.28.05 @ 12:57PM|#
Cdunlea--
I read that the "poor Abe Lincoln" is a myth; his family, as he
grew up, was one of the wealthiest in the area. He was poor by
modern standards, of course, but for the time and place where he
lived he wasn't badly off at all.
|11.28.05 @ 1:22PM|#
Cdunlea,
Lincoln didn't spring from paupers. His family experienced the ups
and downs of economic life on the frontier of Illinois during the
early republic but they were hardly poor.
I don't know, Long never invaded Alabama...
Long was a tyrant.
|11.28.05 @ 1:38PM|#
"It would probably be even more fun if the burning was initiated
with a flamethrower!"
Or with thermobaric bombs dropped from an F-15.
gaius marius|11.28.05 @ 1:40PM|#
Despite all of our claims to extoll average, everyday guys
as our leaders, what Onosander said in the 1st century AD still
holds true: men prefer leaders of noble birth, meaning that we want
our leaders to be better than ourselves.
agreed, mr cdunlea -- but it should be noted that, as republics
devolve into democracies which devolve into tyrannies, the taint of
leadership goes further and further from a narrow aristocracy. what
is most notable about western leadership (as it was of roman) is
its drive toward populism. aristocrats are replaced by aristocratic
bourgeoisie are replaced by populist bourgeoisie are replaced by
actual proletarians. many later roman emperors were born of the
provinces and decidedly pedestrian in manner (such an antoninus
pius and, later, pertinax, septimus severus and his son caracalla).
while all these were indeed equites, caracalla, for example,
extended citizenship to all freemen within the empire -- as
populist as it gets. yet later, the likes of elagabalus and after
had only the most ancillary breeding, if any. by the time of
diocletian, who was a lowborn, nothing of the kind was
necessary.
|11.28.05 @ 1:48PM|#
gaius marius,
what is most notable about western leadership (as it was of
roman) is its drive toward populism.
Wrong. Roman leadership devolved from populism over time to the
worship of Roman Emporers as Gods.
|11.28.05 @ 1:49PM|#
Those are scripted. The issue would be whether Bush's
personable and gregarious nature would come across in a "fireside
chat" setting. It might or it might not.
It wouldn't. Bush doesn't have a very good track record in
unscripted attempts at communication. For one thing, he begins
sentences without having any idea where they going, with the result
that he has to stop to think at virtually every word other than
"the", "a", "and" and "Laura". And on radio, pauses = dead air.
|11.28.05 @ 1:49PM|#
gaius marius,
Which of course falls in line with the "iron law of oligarchy"
rule.
|11.28.05 @ 1:51PM|#
gaius marius,
That Roman Emporers were treated like Gods is even apparent in the
lives of emporers like Constantine. Take a gander at his statuary
sometime.
|11.28.05 @ 1:54PM|#
gaius-
Two problems with what you're saying:
1) With gerrymandering being what it is, an increasing number of
members of Congress are able to pass on their seats to their
offspring. Daddy's connections are enough to get the party leaders
on board to ensure an easy primary victory, and if the seat is
gerrymandered for the party, the general election is a foregone
conclusion. Toss in Sen. Lisa Mikulski, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen.
Lincoln Chafee, Sen. Teddy Kennedy, and others, plus the current
President, and there's no sign that politics is veering out of the
noble families.
2) Why is it a sign of decadence if we elect people whose parents
weren't leaders? My parents were decidedly middle class, now I'm a
Ph.D. If I decided to go for public office some day (trust me,
won't happen, but still), would you take some mediocrity from the
right family over me?
|11.28.05 @ 1:58PM|#
Come to think of it, gaius, I got my Ph.D. from an excellent
department, but the school overall doesn't have the same pedigree
as the Ivy League schools. Meanwhile, some of my colleagues have
parents who were academics.
Should that lack of pedigree count against me when seeking an
academic job? Or should we just go by my research?
|11.28.05 @ 2:05PM|#
Gaius, you seem to prefer the model of the hereditary aristocracy. What is your opinion of the Founding Father's "natural aristocrat" theory?
|11.28.05 @ 2:07PM|#
Thoreau--Maybe you should adopt a more medieval outlook. If God
wanted you to be an academic, he would have had you born into an
academic family!
"God bless the squire and his relations
And keep us in our proper stations."
|11.28.05 @ 2:40PM|#
gaius:
You might want to flesh that last post out a bit. There are not
many charitable ways to read it, as far as I can tell. I'll hold
off on commentary until I can see exactly how it is you aren't on
record defending governance through bloodlines as the way to
go.
gaius marius|11.28.05 @ 2:53PM|#
there's no sign that politics is veering out of the noble
families.
i would say, mr thoreau, that the difference is one of scale. i
agree to some extent -- parts of our system have worked toward
dynastic tendencies. (and i wouldn't blame that entirely on
gerrymandering -- the election of bush ii isn't a districting
issue, after all.) however, on the whole, it is much less dynastic
than it once was (compared to, say, 1600) and is now far more prone
to populist revolution to upend any temporary
neo-aristocracy.
it should be said that the roman system too became less dynastic
over time as well. the field of possible political families
consistently expanded from the 2nd c bc on, then came to include
equites and then the lowborn -- our preconceptions of the roman
imperial system notwithstanding. simply because there were not
elections did not mean the system was not increasingly
populist.
Why is it a sign of decadence if we elect people whose parents
weren't leaders?
it isn't, mr thoreau -- rather, meritocracy itself isn't a sign of
decadence. one of the fundamental problems with democracy, however,
is that it frequently isn't meritocratic -- it's merely populist.
and populism is a sign of decadence.
you seem to prefer the model of the hereditary aristocracy.
i don't, ms jennifer. but a lot of people seem to want me to be
that demon. :)
|11.28.05 @ 2:59PM|#
it isn't, mr thoreau -- rather, meritocracy itself isn't a
sign of decadence. one of the fundamental problems with democracy,
however, is that it frequently isn't meritocratic -- it's merely
populist. and populism is a sign of decadence.
Democracy doesn't always lead to meritocracy, but it's more likely
than a hereditary aristocracy to do so.
If you don't want a hereditary aristocracy, Gaius, then what DO you
want?
gaius marius|11.28.05 @ 3:01PM|#
defending governance through bloodlines
lol -- i seem to have become the vent by which the board's
frustrations with the ineffectiveness of meritocracy in democratic
postmodernity get spewed. or maybe better, the performer to the
brickbats. :)
fwiw, the benefit of a bloodline aristocracy, afaic, is that it can
keep power in the hands of a group small enough to be thoroughly
vetted and entirely known in common -- reducing the possibility of
unvetted demons kniving their way into power -- for a reasonably
long time. that isn't a feature exclusive to the system -- that is,
there are possibly other ways of making sure the informed, the
responsive and the vetted rule. (plato's philosopher-kings being
one such speculation.) bloodline aristocracy is simply the one that
most frequently arises, probably out of the ease of institutional
organization.
gaius marius|11.28.05 @ 3:03PM|#
it's more likely than a hereditary aristocracy to do
so.
i don't think so, ms jennifer -- that is, i can imagine better
systems than bloodline aristocracy to institute meritocracy, but i
can imagine none worse than a plebiscitarian democracy.
R C Dean|11.28.05 @ 3:03PM|#
Either that, or he should step down and devote all his time
to what he seems to love most, which ain't
governmenting.
Actually, the last thing we need is rulers who love governmenting
more than anything else.
For this reason alone, Bush is probably preferable to Gore or
Kerry.
R C Dean|11.28.05 @ 3:05PM|#
i can imagine better systems than bloodline aristocracy to
institute meritocracy, but i can imagine none worse than a
plebiscitarian democracy.
How about rule by psychotic dictator?
|11.28.05 @ 3:07PM|#
i don't think so, ms jennifer -- that is, i can imagine
better systems than bloodline aristocracy to institute meritocracy,
but i can imagine none worse than a plebiscitarian
democracy
Gaius, you're saying that we're more likely to get a meritocracy in
a society where only the leader's son gets to be leader, rather
than in a system where a nobody has the (at least theoretical)
chance to work his way up through the ranks? How so?
R C Dean|11.28.05 @ 3:07PM|#
Scratch that last post - fingers outran eyeballs.
So, gaius, just what governing systems do you think could establish
and maintain a meritocracy?
gaius marius|11.28.05 @ 3:09PM|#
If God wanted you to be an academic, he would have had you
born into an academic family!
you know, though, ms jennifer, the church often saw fit to promote
the promising lowborn into academia -- while bloodline aristocracy
in the medieval period wasn't open, the church was and presented
itself as a parallel and often superior government. (when that
meritocracy devolved into simony, however, the church lost that
claim to merit and forfeited the bulk of its support.)
not that any of that is going to make any modernist forget their
ensconced ideas about those thoroughly and abjectly evil middle
ages. ;)
gaius marius|11.28.05 @ 3:11PM|#
How about rule by psychotic dictator?
unfortunately too often the very product to democracy, mr
dean.
|11.28.05 @ 3:18PM|#
I think what he's saying, Jennifer, is that accrueing power in a democracy is not a function of "working your way up through the ranks."
gaius marius|11.28.05 @ 3:23PM|#
(at least theoretical)
this is the weakness of the democratic system, it seems to me, ms
jennifer. that benefit is merely theoretical. in practice, power in
a democracy is popularity, and popularity is propaganda.
again, the primary benefit i can see in an exclusionary aristocracy
is that the potential rulers and their electors alike are
well-known quantities -- and can be managed, mitigated, encouraged
or rejected by their well-informed peers. that's really only
possible in small groups. the hereditary component is, it seems to
me, merely a vehicle to keep the group small enough to be
knowable.
in a democracy, as we are finding, 95% of the electorate really
don't know anything about the candidates, their patrons, their
alliances or their policies -- before, during or after the
elections. hard to be meritocratic in that way.
perhaps you'd prefer an economic qualifier to the electorate -- a
bourgeois republic of landowners, as this country was 230 years
ago, for example? i find far less to dislike about that, although
it has some much lesser amount of the same stability
issues.
gaius marius|11.28.05 @ 3:26PM|#
Alexander Hamilton would have been screwed in gaius marius's
perferred world.
and so would have hitler, gg. (godwin! godwin!) :)
|11.28.05 @ 3:28PM|#
Ahem. Can we please return to the Space Ghost thread?
Clearly, Howard Dean should be Brak. And, if joe doesn't want the
Zorak role, I think John McCain is the guy. Zaaap.
Aristocracy isn't all bad. In fact, the founders certainly had some
leanings in that direction, with the Senate being the most obvious
place where the American aristocracy was supposed to live. Of
course, we killed that with one of them newfangled constitutional
amendment thingees. I risk showing almost gaius-like reverence for
the past here, but I kind of like Polybius' viewpoint that a mixed
government (i.e., a little monarchy, a little democracy, and a
little aristocracy) is best. Probably to be expected from a
classical liberal, I suppose. Of course, we won't need anything
other than dictatorial rule once the robots are in power. . . .
gaius marius|11.28.05 @ 3:35PM|#
Actually, the last thing we need is rulers who love
governmenting more than anything else.
fwiw, mr dean, i think that if you have a government that disdains
governing, you're going to get disdainful government. i'd prefer to
get people in there who love not governing but governance -- the
lawful and responsible use of power to help people. (which sure as
hell ain't bush, kerry or gore, obviously.)
|11.28.05 @ 3:38PM|#
gaius marius,
again, the primary benefit i can see in an exclusionary
aristocracy is that the potential rulers and their electors alike
are well-known quantities...
But they aren't. Aristocracies by their very nature are very
secretive and stamp out discussion about the nature of society.
Indeed, they tend to be based on "natural" pecking orders where the
ethos of society is resembes Plato's Republic of lies. Face it, you
just despise human choice, human choice being low on the level of
values that are part of an aristocracy's esprit de corps.
gaius marius|11.28.05 @ 3:41PM|#
Face it, you just despise human choice
lol -- pass without comment.
R C Dean|11.28.05 @ 3:42PM|#
i think that if you have a government that disdains
governing, you're going to get disdainful government.
I'm talking about being ruled by people who love being rulers more
than anything else, gaius. That is the original recipe for
trouble.
i'd prefer to get people in there who love not governing but
governance -- the lawful and responsible use of power to help
people.
Still going to have to split hairs with you, gaius, as the use of
power to help people is every dictator's vision of himself. What's
missing is the notion of limited power, and accountability.
But at least we see eye to eye on Gore and Kerry.
|11.28.05 @ 3:44PM|#
"Actually, the last thing we need is rulers who love
governmenting more than anything else."
Can you imagine how much it would have sucked if the FEMA Director
had been someone who understood and respected Emergency
Response?
If you don't care about having the government operate well, why not
sell jobs to the highest bidder, or hand them out to your college
buddies' college buddies?
|11.28.05 @ 3:47PM|#
gaius marius,
If you love an aristocracy, then you love a society which severely
inhibits human choice. Aristocracies cannot survive any other
way.
gaius marius|11.28.05 @ 3:49PM|#
limited power, and accountability
which i had hoped to convey by "lawful and responsible", mr
dean.
but, in the end, i imagine you and i basically agree that there is
a need for government and for government to be invested with both
power and the right to choose how to use it. the debate is a matter
of arranging how that is to be done best.
because some dictators believe themselves to be helping when they
aren't is not an effective argument showing that all government is
harmful and cannot help people, right?
gaius marius|11.28.05 @ 3:50PM|#
But at least we see eye to eye on Gore and Kerry.
and bush, i should think, mr dean.
|11.28.05 @ 3:51PM|#
gaius marius,
i'd prefer to get people in there who love not governing but
governance -- the lawful and responsible use of power to help
people.
That's a utopian Adamsian dream and one recognized so by Hamilton
and Madison. The whole notion that only if we had "good people" in
office has been undone in every federal election we've had since
the first Congress and the election of Washington. Good structures
are what you must count on to protect liberty, not good people.
|11.28.05 @ 3:53PM|#
gaius marius,
Oh, I have to ask, how do guarantee that "good people" get into
office? What measures do you take to do so?
|11.28.05 @ 3:53PM|#
Hakluyt's right about aristocracies. However, ALL of the major
forms of government have serious flaws. Democracy has that whole
uneducated urban rabble thing going, aristocracy tends to
unresponsive clubbishness (yes, that's a perfectly sound word), and
monarchy is too dependent on the quality of the individual head of
state (e.g., nice when you get Trajan, not so nice when you get
Nero).
At its best, aristocracy has some nice qualities. There's that
whole "honor" business, which does seem to be of heightened
importance in an aristocratic society (it also gets you stabbed for
looking too long at some guy's girlfriend--oh, well, no system's
perfect). Aristocrats also tend to be more educated than your
standard proletarian, which would in theory be a good
thing. Unfortunately, aristocrats also seem highly prone to
decadence and other lovely traits. Which is why I come back to
preferring a blended system.
|11.28.05 @ 4:03PM|#
Pro Libertate,
Well, our system is a blended one.
However, ALL of the major forms of government have serious
flaws.
That goes without saying.
...not so nice when you get Nero...
Or Commodus.
|11.28.05 @ 4:05PM|#
I also agree with Hakluyt that you build your political system
to work regardless of what idiots are plugged into it. Monarchy
fails horribly because it depends on one guy (or gal) knowing what
he's doing, giving a heck about the people, and not being crazy.
That's a lot to ask, year after year.
Our body political--along with the UK system and even the old Roman
system--works because of severe checks and balances and the
enshrinement of the rule of law. It was really quite brilliant to
take all of the power bases and turn them against each other within
the government. Most groups are represented in some way and are
able to assault the enemy in the seats of government rather than in
the streets. Imagine what the histories of France and Russia (and
of the rest of the world) would've been like if they had become
constitutional monarchies in the 1700s.
|11.28.05 @ 4:10PM|#
gaius writes: "fwiw, the benefit of a bloodline aristocracy,
afaic, is that it can keep power in the hands of a group small
enough to be thoroughly vetted and entirely known in common"
And that group in power will set things up so that the vetting is
focused on maintaining their power, rather than being focused on
providing good governance.
There's little or no chance that they'll cede power just because
their one eligible heir is a psychotic cretin.
|11.28.05 @ 4:11PM|#
Hakluyt, is our system really a blended one anymore? The Senate is elected by popular vote, so it's hard to label it as "aristocratic". Lifetime appointments don't really fill that role either, at least, not necessarily. I think the rise of populism and an over-emphasis on democratic principles has been a big problem for us. I don't mean that I don't think people have a right to self-determination, but I do think the progressive/populist movement of the early 20th Century did some real damage to our political system (e.g., income taxes, popular election of the Senate and of the president, the "Impreial Presidency", etc., etc.). Not that it was all bad, I hasten to add.
|11.28.05 @ 4:13PM|#
Make that an "Imperial Presidency", por favor. The Impreial Presidency is something altogether different.
gaius marius|11.28.05 @ 4:13PM|#
If you love an aristocracy, then you love a society which
severely inhibits human choice.
i see no error with your syllogism, gg -- but i think that you can
substitute for "aristocracy" any other manner of government and it
would be equally true. does not a democracy severely limit human
choices? a simple perusal of the body of democratic legislation
passed in this country is proof enough of that. a monarchy? a
theocracy? a republic?
i think what you may mean to say -- unless you are advocating
anarchy -- is that 10th c aristocracy is somehow a lesser guarantor
of liberty and therefore less desirable than, say, 20th c
democracy.
i would dispute this on the grounds that liberty -- not
freedom/freiheit but liberty, which are too often confused -- is
the product of an lawful society. he who is at war with all has all
freedom and no liberty, would you not agree? it seems to me that a
healthy society guarantees liberty by circumscribing individual
freedom in law. moreover, many of the ills of our time come as a
result of the abdication of law in search of freedom, and the
resulting encroachment upon liberty by reactionary democratic
legislation that makes so many here fearful.
populist fear (eg post-9/11) is one of the fastest paths to the
abdication of law and liberty even as it seeks to maximize freedom.
it seems to me that an aristocracy can be in practice a better
bulwark against such indulgences.
|11.28.05 @ 4:17PM|#
Pro Libertate,
Hakluyt, is our system really a blended one anymore?
Well, the Supreme Court is partly aristocratic in nature because of
the life tenure issue (barring a lapse of "good behavior").
The Senate is less of an aristocratic institution than it was prior
to 1916, but given the long terms in office generally afforded
Senators and the like it still has its aristocratic tendencies.
|11.28.05 @ 4:19PM|#
"Can you imagine how much it would have sucked if the FEMA
Director had been someone who understood and respected Emergency
Response?"
yeah I can imagine how it would suck...sort of like how north korea
sucks....inept centralized government is a libertarians best friend
for more then one reason.
|11.28.05 @ 4:20PM|#
gaius marius,
My perferred form of government is well known. It does not severely
or even moderately limit human choice. You are assuming that I am
defending democracy, when I come to bury it.
gaius marius|11.28.05 @ 4:22PM|#
Good structures are what you must count on to protect
liberty, not good people.
you build your political system to work regardless of what idiots
are plugged into it.
such is the hope of law and institution, gg, mr liberate -- but do
not abdicate the power of human choice here which you have so
staunchly defended. there is no system impervious to human choice
-- and if you do not have "good people" and instead have "idiots",
no goverment will function well.
an institutional means of selecting good people is paramount in
practice even as some might pooh-pooh its necessity for some form
of "automatic" management. any such automatic system is
chimerical.
as it happens, i think healthy aristocratic systems choose good
people better than most others, certainly better than
democracy.
|11.28.05 @ 4:25PM|#
gaius marius,
...i think healthy aristocratic systems...
There's the rub - healthy aristocratic systems. They don't exist
and never have.
gaius marius|11.28.05 @ 4:30PM|#
My perferred form of government is well known.
except to me, it would seem, gg. :) forgive my memory -- what was
it again?
|11.28.05 @ 4:34PM|#
gaius:
Again, it seems to me that you take a necessary condition for
liberty, rule of law, and proceed as if it were the only relevant
factor.
Do you really feel that "liberty" is a good word to describe what
90% of people experienced in the 10th century? If public choice
applied to a democracy gives us reason to be skeptical, how must we
feel about an utter disconnect between interests of the governed
and those of the government?
Rich Ard|11.28.05 @ 5:03PM|#
Only here can I expect to see "of course" after "Nozickian minarchist".
|11.28.05 @ 5:15PM|#
gaius marius,
All of your solutions are government centered, and a centralized
government at that. But your analysis of the bios
politikos ignores the agora where lexis
leads to praxis.
R C Dean|11.28.05 @ 5:18PM|#
and bush, i should think, mr dean.
I have very little use for Bush on virtually the entire range of
domestic issues, gaius, it is true.
but, in the end, i imagine you and i basically agree that there
is a need for government and for government to be invested with
both power and the right to choose how to use it.
The devil is in the details, gaius.
The government needs to be invested with limited powers, and the
system for putting our rulers in their seats needs to be
chockablock with mechanisms for turning them out on a regular
basis.
Can you imagine how much it would have sucked if the FEMA
Director had been someone who understood and respected Emergency
Response?
Competence in administration is not synonymous with ambition to
rule. I was disparaging those, like Gore and Kerry, whose whole
lives are built around getting and using power.
|11.28.05 @ 8:18PM|#
Senator John Warner is a magnificent bastard for illustrating
how far we've come.
A fireside chat from any government type is a nonstarter.
For fireside chats we now have Jessica Simpson, Paris Hilton, et
al.
That's progress!
Rich Ard|11.28.05 @ 11:08PM|#
I must be a rather dark comic, Haklyut, if I
elicit laughs from you. :)
OTOH, it allows me to be a member of the community here without
being expected to offer anything of substance on a regular
basis.
|11.28.05 @ 11:21PM|#
gaius-
Let's talk some more about the hereditary character of public
office. Consider former US Congresswoman Carrie Meek: Daughter of a
sharecropper (take that Janice Rogers Brown!), earned a
graduate degree, taught at the college level, first black woman in
the FL State Senate, and first black person to represent FL in
Congress since Reconstruction. An inspiring story of a society
becoming more open and meritocratic, right?
Um, well, her son inherited her State Senate seat and now sits in
her former Congressional seat. With his family name and mommy's
political clout it was easy to win election.
I applaud Carrie Meek's accomplishments, but it's sad that the old
patterns continue with new faces.
In a completely unrelated story, the governor of Florida is the son
of a former President.
|11.29.05 @ 9:05AM|#
In a sense, the trained, professional bureaucracy - within the public, nonprofit, and private sectors - has replaced the aristocracy of old, and improved on it. It is the combination of elected officeholders/directors/senior management and career functionaries [in Brave New World-speak, Alphas and Betas ;-)], that makes the American system a mixed one.
|11.29.05 @ 11:58AM|#
I'm not sure I see bureaucrats as the new aristocrats. Although
the lower levels seem to stick around for a long time, the top
changes quite frequently. Besides, functionaries are nothing new,
so I don't think that's what the Founders had in mind when they
were establishing a mixed system.
Of course, I do agree that the administrative agencies have evolved
into something quite different from what was originally conceived
for our federal government. I tend to see that as mostly bad,
because you have nonelected, less accountable people making what
are, in effect, legislative (and judicial!) decisions without
effective checks on their authority. That's really Congress' fault,
because it keeps making the government (and the U.S. Code) bigger
and bigger, which means that someone has to administer
everything.
|11.29.05 @ 12:03PM|#
joe,
Aristocracies also had bureaucracies as did monarchies. Get a clue.
See the "privy council" of the English monarchs for an example of
the latter.
Pro Libertate,
joe acts like bureaucratic systems were created in some recent
past. The Roman, Chinese and Ottoman empires were run by
bureaucrats.
I tend to see that as mostly bad....
Hayek had a lot to say as to why that is.
|11.29.05 @ 12:12PM|#
Pro L,
"Although the lower levels seem to stick around for a long time,
the top changes quite frequently." First, be careful of confusing
political figures, such as Cabinet Secs, with bureaucrats. Second,
while high-level bureacrats may change their specific positions on
a regular basis, they tend to remain as high-level
bureaucrats.
"Besides, functionaries are nothing new," Functionaries are, of
course, nothing new, but the number of them and the role they play
have grown and changed considerably, as they've taken over powers
from other bodies and institutions. The Clean Air Act that came out
of Congress, for example, is mainly an exercise in empowering the
EPA to create a much longer set of regulations.
"...so I don't think that's what the Founders had in mind when they
were establishing a mixed system." No, it is not. They intended for
their to be a more old-style aristocracy, both in and out of
government. My point is, the responsibilities of this blood- and
contact-based aristocracy have been taken over by the "New Class"
types.
|11.29.05 @ 1:24PM|#
joe, I'm no fan of bureaucracy in its current American iteration; however, your opinion that the bureaucrats fufill one prong of the "mix" in our system is in interesting one. It certainly is a major player in our government--perhaps the major player. Not to get too pendantic (too late, I know), I think some political scientist out there should evaluate bureaucracy (or technocratism?) ala Polybius or Montesquieu: What's its ideal form, what does it degenerate into when it goes bad, does is fit into the aristocracy-democracy-monarchy cycle?
|11.29.05 @ 1:30PM|#
While not delving into aristocracy-democracy-monarchy cycles, I'd recommend Bureaucracy by James Wilson. It provides some interesting insights about how government bureaucracies work at all levels from the street to managers to executives. The tagline on the cover of my copy says "What government agencies do and why they do it." Pretty interesting really. It's fairly free of any good/bad language about government.
gaius marius|11.29.05 @ 1:37PM|#
Again, it seems to me that you take a necessary condition
for liberty, rule of law, and proceed as if it were the only
relevant factor.
i think it is, mr ligon, though we must be careful not to confuse
"legislation" (that which man is free to alter) with law (that
which he is not). law is the product of experience and is inviolate
to the ideas of any one man -- man cannot change law through ideas.
legislation, however, is something else again, infinitely malleable
in the hands of the foolish and wise alike.
Do you really feel that "liberty" is a good word to describe what
90% of people experienced in the 10th century?
mr ligon, i do think so. the debilitation of liberty that so many
modernists incorrectly associate with the medieval is in fact a
product of the italian rennaissance and its rediscovery of imperial
rome -- the groundwork for absolute secular political authority is
machiavellian, not augustinian -- and the corruption of the roman
church coincides with the seedlings of humanism not by
accident.
much has been written on this point -- a short quote here from
a rather polemical book is the best i can do on short
notice.
gaius marius|11.29.05 @ 2:27PM|#
In a completely unrelated story, the governor of Florida is
the son of a former President.
and probably our future president, mr thoreau -- bush iii, if one
can countenance it.
it's sad that the old patterns continue with new faces.
is it? i'm unsure, mr thoreau. old patterns can indicate great
intrinsic merit. is it inherently wrong that the basic political
unit is in the eyes of many not the individual but the
family?
while i certainly favor meritocracy -- and in that i think there is
a broad consensus here -- such candidates can win elections easily
because freedom and revolution are not the sole pursuit of man.
stability is its very effective counterpoint -- and to the extent
that liberty is guaranteed by an immutable law, stability is the
final guarantor of liberty against freedom.
now, obviously, when people seek stability beyond the proscriptions
of law for its own sake and abandon merit, terrible problems arise.
again, law is the guarantor of liberty, not its destroyer. law can
and does stand against legislation as well -- the constitution is
an lesser approximation, imperfect (and now failing) because its
footing was not solely in a law of ancient experience but also in
ideas, a window to legislation which cannot now be shut.
|11.29.05 @ 5:17PM|#
joe,
The Clean Air Act that came out of Congress, for example, is
mainly an exercise in empowering the EPA to create a much longer
set of regulations.
No, you'd find the Roman, Chinese, etc. imperial governments doing
the same thing. There is nothing new under the sun. Devolving power
to bureaucracies has been a common practice across human
history.
Pro Libertate,
...I think some political scientist out there should evaluate
bureaucracy (or technocratism?) ala Polybius or
Montesquieu...
What the heck do you think Max Weber did?
|11.29.05 @ 9:17PM|#
Did Weber do that? I haven't read anything by him since I took
"Sociology of Law" in college. Now that I think about it, that
class was more interesting than most of law school. Hmmm. Anyway,
my secondary brain (i.e., the Internet) has located that of which
you speak. I suppose it's good to encounter areas where one is
completely ignorant where one shouldn't be. At least, so long as it
doesn't happen often :)
Interesting. I'll read something closer to the source on my own,
but here's something from the
bureaucracy Wiki entry--joe, you should check this stuff
out:
Weber described the ideal type bureaucracy in positive terms,
considering it to be a more rational and efficient form of
organization than the alternatives that preceded it, which he
characterized as charismatic domination and traditional domination.
According to his terminology, bureaucracy is part of legal
domination. However, he also emphasized that bureaucracy becomes
inefficient when a decision must be adopted to an individual
case.
According to Weber, the attributes of modern bureaucracy
include its impersonality, concentration of the means of
administration, a leveling effect on social and economic
differences and implementation of a system of authority that is
practically indestructible.
Here's an interesting tidbit: Weber and the Austrian School
thinkers apparently had a little feud going. Huh.
|11.29.05 @ 9:55PM|#
Pro L,
Interesting stuff. This part especially was drummed into us in
planning school:
"This quote refers to a traditional controversy about bureaucracy,
namely the perversion of means and ends so that means become ends
in themselves, and the greater good is lost sight of; as a
corollary, the substitution of sectional interests for the general
interest. The suggestion here is that, left uncontrolled, the
bureauracy will become increasingly self-serving and corrupt,
rather than serving society."
Contra gaius, meritocratic bureaucracy can only be a force for good
if it is tied to and subordinated by the people. Public servants
need to be servants, and the consent of the governed needs to be
earned and requested every day. The hazards listed at the end of
the entry are best curtailed, in my opinion, by popular sovereignty
and oversight.
Obviously, this is a substantial difference from an aristocracy;
perhaps my point would have been better stated as, "the modern
bureacracy has replaced many of the functions of the old
aristocracy."
|11.29.05 @ 10:13PM|#
Although that could be expanded upon, to explain that the threat of "sectional interest" is two-fold. The first sense is that a "captured agency" could become the tool of a narrow interest, and the second is that the agency could continue to pursue what it conceives of as the overall public good, but which is actually a perverted and harmful agenda. Urban renewal and the violent replacement of urban fabric with the carscape in the mid-20th century are the examples that were always brought up.
|11.29.05 @ 10:29PM|#
Given the importance of the bureaucracy in our system--for good
or for ill--it's a shame we don't do more to avoid some of the
pitfalls that bureaucrats are liable to stumble into. From the
constitutional law perspective, I've wondered whether there isn't
some structural way to make the administrative agencies more
accountable (directly, I mean) to the people. It's a difficult
issue, really, because if every bureaucrat were elected, say, I
don't think we'd like the results. Corruption aside, you'd also
face people very unqualified for the positions they hold. Weber's
point about meritocracy is a good one.
I have dealt with state and federal regulators fairly often in the
banking industry, and I've encountered some pretty arbitrary
behavior on occasion. One recurring theme is that regulators will
try to prevent the regulated from doing something they don't like,
despite the lack of any blackletter law supporting the position.
That's a serious problem in my book. Maybe if the ability to
challenge agency actions was a little more robust, we'd have fewer
such problems. I should say briefly that not all bureaucrats are
bad--I worked with some fine folks at OMB during my fellowship at
the White House.
Thanks for the Weber pointer, Hakluyt. Interesting material.
Viking "rend mig" Moose|11.30.05 @ 12:16AM|#
... and assuming that people are more free to do what they
choose (keeping with non-coercive, minimally invasive principles),
otherwise, we're stuck with the social dynamic i encountered in
europe. you know, the kind that caused the rage against cars in
france...
or about that 23 year old who didn't know his beta blocker class
from angiotensin II receptor blockers, who tried telling us what
would be "acceptable" in his particular state's leftist insurance
policy. what a fucking tool. but he was for a responsible,
benevolent bureaucracy. and no spell check (which i'm in favor of,
too)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245