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.

Comments

[joe]

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...

[Hakluyt]

How about a la Jimmy Carter? 🙂

[thoreau]

joe, you know that if you come here and say that FDR built up credibility you'll just wind up in a fight.

[Hakluyt]

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.

[Hakluyt]

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.]

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.

[saw-whet]

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.

[Pro Libertate]

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.

[rdkraus]

Bush speaks as well as the average American.

That's the problem.

[joe]

Green is the color
Of my loved one's exoskeleton...

[saw-whet]

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.

[Dave W.]

"start picking his dog up by the ears"

You would.

[Hakluyt]

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.]

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.

[Hakluyt]

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.

[Pro Libertate]

Good one, joe. Here's one that seems somehow apropos of my proposal for the POTUS:

Space Ghost: Chambraigne: It's shampoo for your hair and your brain.

[mkay]

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?

[Hakluyt]

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.

[Hakluyt]

mkay,

Or I should say that he was generally good at it. His administration wasn't completely perfect.

[thoreau]

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?"

[joe]

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]

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.

[Hakluyt]

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."

[thoreau]

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.

[Hakluyt]

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.

[joe]

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]

"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.

[Hakluyt]

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.]

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.

[Hakluyt]

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]

"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.

[Hakluyt]

VM,

Yeah, criticism of either FDR or Reagan seems to bring about a certain measure of ranting from offended parties.

[Jeff P.]

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.

[Akira MacKenzie]

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]

"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.

[Rich Ard]

"...but who, oh who could be cast as Brak?"

James Carville?

[Jersey McJones]

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.

[Hakluyt]

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?

[Jon H]

"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?

[Akira MacKenzie]

James Carville?

Well, I was expecting someone in the administration, but the face, voice, and mentality seems about right.

"Hi! My name is JAAAAAMES!"

[Jon H]

"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?

[Hakluyt]

Jon H,

Bush tends to speak to pre-selected audiences. Not that such is unusual for an American politician.

[cdunlea]

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.

[Hakluyt]

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.

[Jon H]

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?

[Jon H]

"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.

[cdunlea]

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.

[Hakluyt]

cdunlea,

We've had numerous Presidents who weren't of "noble" birth.

[Jon H]

"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.

[Hakluyt]

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.

[cdunlea]

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.

[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."

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?

[cdunlea]

That's an issue of evolution within an already secret-oriented system.

[Akira MacKenzie]

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.

[joe]

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.

[cdunlea]

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).

[thoreau]

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]

"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).

[Hakluyt]

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.

[Hakluyt]

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.

[Akira MacKenzie]

EDIT: "...DOESN'T..."

I fear that passion often trumps grammar.

[Hakluyt]

Bush strikes me as the sort of guy who would clear brush just to clear it. Git 'R Done! 🙂

[D Anghelone]

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.

[Hakluyt]

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.

[cdunlea]

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. 🙂

[thoreau]

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?

[Hakluyt]

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.

[Jon H]

"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.

[joe]

thoreau,

Brush + Fire = Brush fire.

Texas is dry.

[Jon H]

"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...

[Hakluyt]

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.

[Hakluyt]

Jon H.,

I got out the sea kayak both times and had a blast.

[Jennifer]

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.

[Jon H]

"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.

[Hakluyt]

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]

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.

[Hakluyt]

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.'

[Hakluyt]

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.

[Jon H]

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.)

[Hakluyt]

R.C. Dean,

Since it is a relatively newly acquired spread it makes sense for him to be doing a lot of clearing.

[thoreau]

R C-

That does sound like fun!

It would probably be even more fun if the burning was initiated with a flamethrower!

[Hakluyt]

Jon H,

In the fall and the spring Maine provides for some rough and fun sea kayaking weather.

[Jon H]

"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.

[Hakluyt]

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.

[Hakluyt]

Jon H,

🙂

[cdunlea]

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...

[Jennifer]

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.

[Hakluyt]

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.

[SR]

"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]

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.

[Hakluyt]

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.

[Ethan]

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.

[Hakluyt]

gaius marius,

Which of course falls in line with the "iron law of oligarchy" rule.

[Hakluyt]

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.

[thoreau]

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?

[thoreau]

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?

[Jennifer]

Gaius, you seem to prefer the model of the hereditary aristocracy. What is your opinion of the Founding Father's "natural aristocrat" theory?

[Jennifer]

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."

[Jason Ligon]

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]

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. 🙂

[Jennifer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Jennifer]

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]

Scratch that last post - fingers outran eyeballs.

So, gaius, just what governing systems do you think could establish and maintain a meritocracy?

[gaius marius]

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]

How about rule by psychotic dictator?

unfortunately too often the very product to democracy, mr dean.

[Hakluyt]

Alexander Hamilton would have been screwed in gaius marius's perferred world.

[joe]

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]

(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]

Alexander Hamilton would have been screwed in gaius marius's perferred world.

and so would have hitler, gg. (godwin! godwin!) 🙂

[Pro Libertate]

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]

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.)

[Hakluyt]

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]

Face it, you just despise human choice

lol -- pass without comment.

[R C Dean]

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.

[joe]

"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?

[Hakluyt]

gaius marius,

If you love an aristocracy, then you love a society which severely inhibits human choice. Aristocracies cannot survive any other way.

[Hakluyt]

gaius marius,

If you find some error in my syllogism do tell me.

[gaius marius]

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]

But at least we see eye to eye on Gore and Kerry.

and bush, i should think, mr dean.

[Hakluyt]

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.

[Hakluyt]

gaius marius,

Oh, I have to ask, how do guarantee that "good people" get into office? What measures do you take to do so?

[Pro Libertate]

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.

[Hakluyt]

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.

[Pro Libertate]

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.

[Jon H]

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.

[Pro Libertate]

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.

[Pro Libertate]

Make that an "Imperial Presidency", por favor. The Impreial Presidency is something altogether different.

[gaius marius]

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.

[Hakluyt]

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.

[joshua corning]

"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.

[Hakluyt]

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]

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.

[Hakluyt]

gaius marius,

...i think healthy aristocratic systems...

There's the rub - healthy aristocratic systems. They don't exist and never have.

[gaius marius]

My perferred form of government is well known.

except to me, it would seem, gg. 🙂 forgive my memory -- what was it again?

[Jason Ligon]

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?

[Hakluyt]

gaius marius,

I'm a Nozickian minarchist of course.

[Rich Ard]

Only here can I expect to see "of course" after "Nozickian minarchist".

[Hakluyt]

Rich Ard,

Ha ha ha. 🙂

You're a brilliant humorist.

[Hakluyt]

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]

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.

[Ruthless]

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]

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.

[Rich Ard]

And for some reason, I can never spell your name correctly. Sorry...

[thoreau]

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.

[joe]

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.

[Pro Libertate]

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.

[Hakluyt]

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.

[joe]

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.

[Pro Libertate]

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?

[downstater]

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]

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]

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.

[Hakluyt]

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?

[Pro Libertate]

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.

[joe]

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."

[joe]

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.

[Pro Libertate]

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]

... 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)